Sitting of 18 February 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been compled with, viz., Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill; Lancashire and

  519
  Yorkshire Railway Bill; Maidstone Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Heaton Moor, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bolton; Christchurch and Bournemouth; Stony Stratford, and Stratford-on-Avon; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade amending The Leek, Caldon Low, and Hartington Light Railways Order, 1898 (Leek, Caldon Low, and Hartington Light Railways (Borrowing and Further Powers Amendment) Order, 1906 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade authorising the construction of Light Railways in the borough of Maidstone and in the rural district of Maidstone an on the boundary of the rural district of Hollingbourne, in the county of Kent (Maidstone Corporation Light Railway (Extensions) Order, 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Warrington and Northwich Light Railways Order, 1903 (Warrington and Northwich Light Railways (Extension of Time) Order, 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the parish of Wembley, in the county of Middlesex, being an extension of the Light Railways authorised by The County of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1903, and the taking of lands for widening roads on which the said Light Railways will be laid in the parishes of Hendon, of Southgate, and of Edmonton, in the said county (County of Middlesex Light Railways (Extension and Lands) Order, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND.
  Abstract Account presented, showing the issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the financial year ended 31st March, 1906, for the Interest and Management of the Debt, for the Civil List, and for all other Issues in the financial year for services charged directly on the said Fund; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 18.]
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Copy presented, of Fifteenth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November, 1906, with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 19.]
  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to the 5th January, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 20.]

  NAVY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Copy presented, of the Appropriation Account of the Navy for 1905–6, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and upon the Store Accounts of the Navy [by Act]; to lie

  521
  upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 21.]

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1887.
  Copies presented, of Treasury Minutes granting a retired allowance to each of the following, viz.: Charles Walter Maies Anderson, late Assistant Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, London; Thomas Davidson Brown, late First Class Engineer, Engineer-in-Chief's Department, Post Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, &c.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 13th February; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 22.]
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence to be at large granted to Jack Dawson, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of The Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Dr. Macnamara]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 23.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3744 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report for the year 1906 by the Director on the Royal Scottish
  522
  Museum, Edinburgh [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 1) Warrant, 1906, dated 20th December, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 24.]
  2. Public Records (Inland Revenue Department). Copy of Second Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents in the Department of the Inland Revenue which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Transfer of Glasgow Telephone Officials to Post Office Service.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General on what terms officials of the municipal telephone service at Glasgow are being transferred to the Post Office service; and whether he will take such steps as will effectually prevent any cases of hardship, collective or individual, to the present members of the Post Office engineering department.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The employees of the corporation telephone service at Glasgow are being transferred to the Post Office service in the first instance on the same terms and conditions as those which applied to their service under the corporation. In any arrangements for their incorporation in the Post Office service I shall endeavour to secure that injustice is not done either to present or future members of that service.

  Sentence on Stoker Moody.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: To ask the Secretary

  523
  to the Admiralty whether it is now proposed to reconsider the sentences passed by courts-martial on Stoker Moody and others at Portsmouth, with a view to their further mitigation or remission.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I must refer my hon. friend to the Answer made by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil on 17th December last,†to which there is at present nothing to add.

  Licensing Act, 1904—Licences Extinguished.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state with respect to The Licensing Act, 1904, how many licences have been extinguished since it came into force, and how many new licences have been sold at the monopoly value under the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The volume entitled "Licensing Statistics, 1905" [Cd. 2961], and published last year, contained full information as to the operation of The Licensing Act, 1904, in the year 1905. In that volume 514 licences are shown as having been refused in 1905 under the Act of 1904, and forty-seven licences as having been granted and confirmed under the new provisions of Section 4 of that Act. A similar volume for 1906 is now in active preparation, and will, I hope, be ready for publication shortly.

  Leith Shop Closing Orders.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet confirmed the closing orders made by the Town Council of Leith under The Shop Hours Act, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. sinclair.) Strong local Objection has been taken to certain of these orders, and a communication has been made to the town council indicating my view in regard to their confirmation. The orders have not yet been confirmed.
  †See (4) Debates, clxvii., 1009.

  Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why Scottish Fishery Board cruisers have recently failed to arrest foreign trawlers which they have observed to be trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the failure on the part of the Scottish Fishery Board cruisers to arrest foreign trawlers observed working in the Moray Firth enables such trawlers to trawl until sufficient fish have been caught to pay any fine which may subsequently be imposed, will he consider the expediency of giving instructions for the gear of such trawlers to be seized immediately they are detected working in the Firth.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) In reply to these Questions I have to inform the hon. Member that the point submitted has been carefully considered. In omitting to arrest foreign trawlers detected trawling in the Moray Firth or to seize the gear, the Fishery Board cruisers have acted under instructions advisedly given. Every detection has been reported to the authorities and in many instances prosecution has followed.

  Scottish Fishery Board and Penalties for Breaches of Fisheries Laws.
  MR. WEIR:To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will introduce, at an early date, a Bill arranging for penalties recovered for breaches of fishery statutes to be placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Supply of Flour to Military Stations.
  LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the quantity of flour used at the various military stations in England where bread is not supplied to the troops by contract; and what is the average price per 280 lbs. sack at each.

  525
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The quantities are as follows:—

  Number of Sacks of 280 lbs. each yearly.

  Aldershot

  22,679

  Chatham

  2,200

  Netley

  4,528

  Portsmouth

  Shorncliffe

  3,089

  Woolwich

  4,857

  Total

  37,353

  The general average contract price per sack for the whole of these stations for the period 1st December, 1906, to 31st May, 1907, is 20s. 2½d. The particular contract price at each station is confidential.

  Trading Licences in Natal.
  MR. REES:To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under Act No. 18 of 1897, the Natal Traders' Licensing Act, a licensing officer appointed by the town council, or other local body, may refuse to grant or continue a trading licence without any appeal except to such town council or other local body; and whether he will take such steps as may under present circumstances be possible, in order to obtaining fair and equal consideration for East Indian British subjects in Natal.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Act provides as stated. Representations have recently been made as to the effect of the Act, and I am in communication with the Governor of Natal on the subject.

  Licences issued to Chinese Coolies.
  MR. TOULMIN:To ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies how many licences for indentured Chinese were issued in the Transvaal and the date of the last issued licences; the amount of wastage through death, repatriation, or any other cause before and since 31st December, 1905; and the number now employed on the mines.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The total number of licences issued was
  526
  63,043 (exclusive of 3,000 for the Randfontein group of mines, which the owners agreed to surrender). The last of these licences was issued on 18th November, 1905. The total amount of wastage from all causes was, up to 31st December, 1905, approximately 3,500, and since that date approximately 3,600. The total number of coolies employed on 31st December, 1906, was 52,917.

  The Suez Canal Company.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the capital of the Suez Canal Company and the number of shares; how many of these shares and how much of this money is invested by the British Government; whether he is aware that the dividend on the Canal shares amounts to 28 per cent., and that as much as £2,000 was paid by one steamer for the privilege of passing through the Canal; whether the correspondence between the Prime Minister of Australia and the British Government on the appeal of Australia to reduce the Suez Canal transit duties, with a view to encourage traffic between the Home Country and the Colonies and India, will be laid upon the Table of the House without delay.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The capital originally consisted of 400,000 shares of 500 francs each. Of these 15,428 shares had been redeemed up to 1st January, 1907. 176,602 shares were purchased by His Majesty's Government at a cost of £3,976,582. I understand that the facts are correctly stated in the third part of the Question. The correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor-General of Australia has already been published in that Continent. Papers will be presented to Parliament here.

  Issue of Volumes of the Rolls Series to Public Libraries.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the cost to the public of editing, indexing, and preparing the various volumes of the Rolls Series, he will arrange that in the future more numbers should be printed, and that

  527
  they should be supplied gratis or at a small charge to such public libraries as may apply for them, seeing that these volumes can, at present, only be consulted, unless purchased, at the British Museum, which greatly curtails their value for purposes of research.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). Considerably more copies used to be printed and the surplus stock distributed, but the practice was altered owing to the extravagance to which it was found to lead. I understand, however, that public libraries receive a special reduction of 25 per cent. in the price of the volumes which they purchase. I do not think it desirable to extend this concession.

  Issue of the Irish Debates and the Statutes of Session 1906.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the reason for the delay in issuing the bound volumes of Irish Debates and the Acts passed in the last session of Parliament.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the usual bound and indexed copy of the Statutes for the Session of 1906 is not yet out; who is responsible for the delay, and when will it be available for Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). I hope that the Irish Debates will be published by the last day of this month. The bound volumes of the Acts passed last Session will, I believe, be ready for delivery to-day. In both cases the delay is due to the prolongation of the session, but with regard to the Acts I may observe that notwithstanding the prolongation of the session a reduction of twelve days has been effected in the interval between the adjournment and the issue of the bound volumes.

  Erection of Fishing Pier at Ballaghalin, County Clare.
  MR. HALPIN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland when the Bill will be introduced to enable the Clare County Council to avail of the
  528
  money allocated to be spent on the fishing pier at Pallaghalin, county Clare.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry). The question of introducing legislation extending the power of local authorities to contribute to works of the nature referred to in the Question is at present under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, but no date can at present be fixed by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose.

  Blackburn Unemployed.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent investigation at Blackburn into the figures of unemployment published by the Board; and whether these statistics class as unemployed persons who have left their work owing to disputes, persons who are under engagements but who cannot work owing to seasonal conditions or to temporary sickness, and persons who are superannuated; and whether he will consider the advisability of analysing representative returns from various districts, and so amending the returns as to give a reliable statement of the number of able-bodied men and women unable to find situations, with a view to devising measures of relief from such a condition.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have seen a newspaper report of a lecture at Blackburn upon this subject, but, so far as I can judge from this report, the investigation was based on an entire misconception as to the method by which the percentages of unemployed published by the Board of Trade are arrived at. Had the investigator addressed an inquiry on this subject to the Board of Trade his error could have been readily pointed out. As regards the specific questions asked by my hon. friend, the Answer in each case is in the negative. The percentage of unemployed, as published in the Labour Gazette, is based upon figures supplied direct to the Department by trade unions paying unemployed benefit, and they relate to members actually out of work, those on strike or lock-out, sick, or superannuation being excluded. I have every reason to believe that the figures are trustworthy for the purpose for which they are intended, viz., to indicate fluctuations in employment.

  Limited Liability Companies—Compulsory Reserve Funds.
  MR. HYDE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the existence of compulsory reserve funds for limited liability companies in foreign countries, especially in France and Belgium; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to showing the countries in which such reserve funds are legally required and the formation and extent of such reserve funds, the investment of the moneys forming such reserve funds, and the purposes to which such reserve funds may be applied.
  (Answered, by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Steps will be taken to obtain some information on the subject from the principal European countries.

  Appointments to Position of Assistant Inspectors of Postmen.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a junior assistant inspector of postmen has been for some time employed in the discharge of confidential and other special duties at Glasgow; whether the class from which this inspector was selected may expect that further selections for like promotion will be made from the senior officers of that class; and, if not, will he say why.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The assistant inspector of postmen in question has not been promoted. He has merely been charged with certain duties in connection with the preparation of a revision of the outdoor staff for which his experience and aptitudes qualify him in a particular degree. He receives no additional pay for performing these duties, and his selection for them involves no injustice to the seniors of his class, one of whom in fact is employed on the same duties as himself.

  Dog Licences—Exemptions.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that, under the new regulations in regard to dog licences whereby exemption from payment for licences for farmers is no longer left to the
  530
  discretion of the Excise officers, but must now be subject to magisterial sanction, notices of objection have been sent to many farmers in Oswaldtwistle Church, Clayton le Moors, and Altham, in Lancashire, by the clerk to the magistrates of the Church petty sessional division, without previously prepaying the postage of such notices of objection, and that in all cases these notices have been surcharged to the recipients, and whether he proposes to take any action by legislation or otherwise in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I understand that the facts are as stated, and I think the notices should have been prepaid. At the same time, I think that if, as seems to be the case, a magistrate's clerk has to pay this postage out of his own pocket, a considerable hardship is involved, and I am communicating this opinion to the
  Board of Agriculture.

  Excessive Hours of Shop Assistants.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the inquest on the 14th instant, at Poplar, on the body of George Watts, a married shop assistant; whether the hours of work of the dead man had been from 8.30 a.m. to 11.30p.m., and to 12.15 a.m. on Saturdays; whether his wages had been 15s. a week, or 2d. an hour; and whether he proposed to take steps to make such excessive hours of labour in shops on starvation wages impossible.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have seen a newspaper report of this case, from which the facts appear to have been substantially as stated in my hon. friend's Question. The death seems to have been due to a combination of ill-health, poverty, and overwork, and the case is a very distressing one. But, as my hon. friend knows, the questions of minimum wage and hours of individual employment involve problems of the greatest importance and complexity. They are receiving and with receive the closest attention I can give them, but I cannot give any promise of legislation at the present time.

  Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions in India.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether any definite conclusion has been arrived at as to the separation of judicial and executive functions in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to-day to a similar Question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham.†

  Administration of Indian Army Family Pension Fund.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction which exists with the present administration of the Indian Army Family Pension Fund; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of publishing periodically the accounts of the fund for the benefit of the subscribers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Central Hull in reply to a similar Question on Thursday last.‡

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of T. Sproulle of Ederney, Co Fermanagh.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lords-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a memorial from Thomas Sproulle, of Ederney, county Fermanagh, an evicted tenant on the Burnside estate; if so, have they made inquiry into his case, and with what result; have the Estates Commissioners acquired, or taken any steps to acquire, any untenanted land in the district of Ederney on which to allot new holdings to evicted tenants; and would Thomas Sproulle be eligible to receive a grant of money to stock a new holding if allotted to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application in question, and have referred it
  †See Col. 538.
  ‡See Col. 296.
  532
  to their inspector for investigation, but his report has not yet been received. The Commissioners have not yet acquired untenanted land in the district, and no proceedings for the acquisition of such land are pending before them. In the event of Sproulle's reinstatement, the Commissioners will consider any application he may make for a grant or loan to stock his farm.

  Arklow Harbour.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government have decided upon the course to be taken with regard to Arklow Harbour.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The provisional scheme which was agreed upon at the recent conference between the Department of Agriculture, the Arklow Harbour Board, and Messrs. Kynoch, has since been submitted to the Irish Government, and is now under consideration. A decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

  Inspection of Colonel Digby's Estate, County Westmeath.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he now can state whether an inspection of Colonel Digby's estate at Ballinacurra, Moyvore, county Westmeath, has taken place by the inspectors of the Irish Estates Commissioners, and with what result; whether the evicted tenants are likely to be restored to their former holdings; and whether the former negotiations for the sale of this estate were blocked by the action of a large grazier who holds these evicted farms on the eleven months system, and who refuses to restore the lands to the former tenants, although offered full compensation for any loss or improvements made on the lands by him.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners understand that this Question relates to the estate of W. R. Digby, county Westmeath. No proceedings for the sale of that estate have been instituted before the Commissioners, and no inspection has therefore taken place. The Commissioners

  533
  have received an application from one evicted tenant for reinstatement on the estate, but the applicant is ineligible under the Act. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the concluding part of the Question.

  Night Schools—Ireland.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of night schools in each province in Ireland for the years 1904, 1905, and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The figures are follows:—

  —

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  Ulster

  353

  254

  167

  Munster

  122

  115

  85

  Leinster

  115

  83

  65

  Connaught

  246

  179

  155

  Working Hours of English and Irish Prison Warders.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the average number of working hours performed weekly by the English prison warders, whose salaries have been increased to £70, £80, and £90 per year from the beginning of the next financial year; if he will state the average number of working hours performed weekly by the Irish prison warders, exclusive of Mountjoy and Maryborough prisons; and whether it is the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of the Irish prison warders from £50 to £60 per year to the same standard as the English prison warders, seeing that the Irish prison warders have to perform as hard and laborious duties as those of the English.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The General Prisons Board for Ireland have no knowledge of the number of hours of duty of English prison warders. The average number of hours of duty of
  534
  warders in Irish local prisons varies according to the circumstances of the different prisons, but generally may be taken to be from sixty-three to sixty-eight hours a week. The salaries quoted in the Question are not properly comparable, those for England being apparently maximum salaries, and those for Ireland the minimum. The question of the salaries of Irish prison warders will shortly come up for consideration.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Retired Naval Officers and the Press.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to public attacks by Admiral C. C. Penrose Fitzgerald and Captain F. W. Lowther, R.N., on Commodore Galloway and Admiral Sir John Fisher; and whether, in the interests of discipline in the Navy, he will state what action he proposes taking with regard to these two retired officers to prevent a repetition of similar conduct on their part.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson,): The Admiralty would deprecate any interference with the free expression by retired naval officers of their opinions on all naval and political questions; but while they regret that retired officers have occasionally shown themselves lacking in the discretion which the responsibility of their position requires, it is not considered that the power of removing an officer's name from the list, with the consequent forfeiture of retired pay, should be exercised in any but the gravest cases.

    H.M.S. "Commonwealth."
    MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information as to the collision between H.M.S. "Albemarle" and H.M.S. "Commonwealth."
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The collision occurred on the night of the 11th instant while the ships were proceeding to Lagos for the manœuvres. The damage to the "Albemarle" was

    535
    slight, and the estimated cost of repairing her is £750. The damage to the "Commonwealth" was more serious, and will cost about £6,000 to repair. No one was injured. Both ships were able to steam to Gibraltar, and the "Albemarle" has now gone to rejoin the fleet at manœuvres at Lagos.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the "Commonwealth" be removed from the firing line for a long period?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No I think not.

    Woolwich Explosion—Compensation.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the extent of the damage and loss caused by the recent explosions at Woolwich; and whether he proposes to offer any compensation to the sufferers by this disaster.
    THE SECRETARY Of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane,): As I explained to the House on Thursday last,†the Government propose to contribute towards the cost of making good the damage done by the recent explosion at Woolwich, and a preliminary sum of £6,000 has been forwarded to meet the more necessitous cases.

    Disbanded Battalions—Position of Transferred Officers.
    MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the recently disbanded battalions are, on transfer, placed as juniors of their rank in the new regiment; and, if so, whether, in view of the loss of seniority incurred by these officers, he will take stops to discriminate between a transfer made in consequence of a reduction of establishment and a transfer made on an officer's own initiative, seeing that in the Indian Army an officer is transferred from one regiment to another without lost of seniority.
    MR. HALDANE: These officers have been so treated in accordance with the provisions of the King's Regulations; but no officer has been so transferred without his consent nor without a knowledge
    †See Col. 299.
    536
    of this condition. Steps will be taken to discriminate between officers transferred on reduction of establishment and those transferred on their own initiative by considering the former for the offer of extra regimental promotion when their length of service appears to justify it, irrespective of their position on the regimental list. In the Indian Army promotion up to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel is regulated by the length of service from date of first permanent commission, irrespective of the regiment, and consequently promotion is unaffected by transfer from one regiment to another. In the British service, where promotion goes regimentally, such a condition does not apply.

    Plain Clothes Regulations at Malta.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the General Officer Commanding, Malta Command, has ordered that plain clothes are not to be worn in his command by non-commissioned officers and men granted pass or furlough; and whether, in view of the second sentence of paragraph 1955, King's Regulations, which empowers commanding officers to give permission to wear plain clothes to non-commissioned officers and men granted pass or furlough, he would give instructions that non-commissioned officers and men in Malta are to be granted the same privileges as regards the wearing of plain clothes when on pass or furlough as obtain in other commands.
    MR HALDANE: The Army Council have received no report from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief as to whether he has found it necessary to issue special instructions relative to paragraph 1955 of the King's Regulations, which local circumstances may demand. Inquiries on this point are being made.

    Death Sentences on Soldiers.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any soldier of His Majesty's forces, serving either at home or abroad, was sentenced to death by the military authorities during the year 1906; and, if so, what were the crimes in each case, where were the crimes committed, and, in the event of

    537
    the capital sentence having been carried out, were the executions held in public.
    MR. HALDANE: No such case has occurred in 1906.

    Army Medical Service Advisory Board.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why no member of a Scottish medical school has been placed on the Army Medical Service Advisory Board.
    MR. HALDANE: When the new Advisory Board was formed it was decided that, in order to ensure prompt consideration of questions of importance, it was essential that all the Members should be in the closest possible touch with the Army Medical Administration, and, therefore, as far as possible, at hand. Experience of the methods of working the former Board shewed that, to be effective, constant personal communication, not only with the Board as a whole, but with individual Members was necessary. This is why so many of those selected are resident in London.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many eminent medical Scotsmen resident in London?
    MR. HALDANE: That may be so. I have to look, however, to the efficiency of the service rather than to any other considerations. I should be the last person not to desire to appoint a Scotsman.
    MR. WEIR: I think it is a slur on the country to suggest that the Scottish medical men in London are not as capable as those belonging to English schools.

    Wireless Telegraphy in India.
    *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether experiments have been made in India as to the possibility of wireless telegraphic communication across mountain ranges; and whether, if the answer be in the affirmative, he will communicate to the House such information as may, with due regard to the public interests, be published.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,):
    538
    I have seen a paragraph in a newspaper, stating that some such experiments have been successfully tried, but I have no other information on the subject. If I receive any Report from the Government of India, I will consider whether the information which it contains can be communicated to the House.

    Indian Legislative Councils.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the special committee of the Executive Council in India which was appointed last summer to inquire into and report on the reorganisation of the Legislative Councils in that country has submitted its Report.
    MR. MORLEY: The Report has been under the consideration of the Executive Council, and I expect a dispatch on the subject in a very short time. Of course the hon. Member will understand that this Report, like the proceedings of a Cabinet Committee here, is entirely confidential.
    EARL PERCY: Is it the intention of the Government to give the House an opportunity of discussing this question before a final decision is arrived at?
    MR. MORLEY: I think so undoubtedly.

    Indian Administration
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to give any information regarding the submission of the Report on the separation of executive and judicial functions in India, called for from the Government of India in 1899 in consequence of a memorial on the subject, which was signed by the late Lord Hobhouse and other distinguished retired Members of the Indian Government.
    MR. MORLEY: I asked the Government of India in June last to let me have their conclusions on this important question as soon as possible. The consideration of the large mass of evidence that has been collected necessarily takes time, but I anticipate that the Government of India will before long be in a position to address me on the subject.
    SIR H. COTTON: Have the Government of India called for a fresh Report on this subject recently?
    MR. MORLEY: I cannot say, but I will inquire.

    St. Paul's School, Darjeeling.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has now any information regarding special grants being given by the Government of Bengal to St. Paul's School, Darjeeling, the nature and extent of such grants, and the reasons for their being given.
    MR. MORLEY: I have not yet received a reply to the inquiry I made on the subject towards the end of December last.

    Sikhs in British Columbia.
    *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Sikhs in British Columbia have been repatriated, or provided with the necessary protection in that country prior to repatriation.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Of the 2,200 Indians who recently arrived in British Columbia, only fifty or sixty are understood to have been out of work at the beginning of this year. No destitution exists among them at present, and neither the municipal authorities nor the Government have been called upon to give support or relief, though several Indians who were allowed to land were supplied by private charity with clothing of which they were in need. No Indians were repatriated from Vancouver after being allowed to land, though about 125 were refused landing on account of disease; but forty-one were repatriated from Victoria, where there are also five Indians in gaol for vagrancy.

    Wireless Telegraphy—German Operations in South West Africa.
    *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has any Report of the use made of the Telefunken wireless telegraphy in the military operations of the Germans in South West Africa; and whether, in that case, such information will be placed before the Committee
    540
    which is to sit to consider the Wireless Telegraphy International Convention.
    MR. CHURCHILL: There are references of the kind in confidential Reports made to the War Office, and the question is being considered whether any of the information will be of use to the Committee.

    British Indian Traders in Natal.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the position of the British Indian trading community of Ladysmith, Natal, several of whom are threatened with ruin by reason of the threatened refusal of the licensing officer to renew their store licences under the powers conferred upon him by the Natal Traders Licensing Act of 1897; and, whether, seeing that the licensing officer is the appointee of the town council, which is largely composed of merchants and storekeepers in competition with British Indian traders, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the agitation against British Indian traders in Natal, and the danger to those British subjects from the power of local town councils to refuse renewal of trading licences according to The Natal Traders Licensing Act, 1897, which the Secretary of State for the Colonies warned the Natal Government would lead to serious steps unless the provisions of the Act were applied moderately and impartially; and whether he will address the Natal Government on the matter.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will answer these Questions together:—A Bill, the effect of which would have been to exclude Asiatics from trading licences, was recently introduced into the Natal Legislature, but leave to introduce it was refused. With regard to the Act of 1897 the Secretary of State is already in communication with the Natal Government. Inquiry will be made as to the case of the particular traders referred to.

    Newfoundland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State

    541
    for the Colonies whether, in view of the protest by the Premier of Newfoundland, in the Colonial Legislature, on Tuesday, against the humiliation of the Colony by the Imperial Government, the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table of the House all the correspondence that passed between the Colonial Government and His Majesty's Government with respect to the modus vivendi with the United States.
    MR. CHURCHILL: All the correspondence with the Government of Newfoundland respecting the modus vivendi with the United States, up to the date of the conclusion of that arrangement, having already been laid before Parliament, I presume that the correspondence which the hon. Member desires to have published is that which has taken place since the conclusion of the modus vivendi. The Government of Newfoundland recently suggested publication of certain parts of this correspondence, but were informed that His Majesty's Government did not think this expedient until the Colonial Government were in possession of the reply of His Majesty's Government to the various objections taken by the Colonial Government to their action, that the preparation of this reply was delayed by the necessity of awaiting the result of the appeal to the Supreme Court of the two fishermen convicted under the Bait Act, since it was not possible to discuss the legal considerations urged by the Colonial Government until that result was known, and that in any case it seemed open to exception to publish papers on a matter still sub judice. I am unable to say when the decision of the Supreme Court will be given, but the hon. Member will no doubt agree that His Majesty's Government can hardly be expected to lay the correspondence while it is still incomplete.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Having regard to the debate in the Newfoundland Legislature cannot Papers be laid?
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is not proposed to lay any further Papers at present, but when the transaction is completed no doubt it will be done.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: When did the modus vivendi of last year lapse?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that.

    Coolie Crime in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Report, recently issued in the Transvaal by the superintendent of foreign labour, showing that the Chinese coolies in the gold mines committed 736 assaults, including twenty-six murders and seven attempts to murder; and whether, in any case, and, if so, in how many cases, the sufferers from these crimes, or their families, have received any compensation from the employers of the criminals or from any other source.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The exact figures are:—

    Common assault

    630

    Assault with intent

    78

    Murder

    26

    Homicide

    2

    Attempted murder

    7

    743

    The majority of these outrages were probably committed on fellow labourers. No official information with regard to compensation has been received, but I will make inquiry.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Then am I to understand that in no case has compensation been given?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I did not say that; I said I have no official information. When I get it I shall be able to inform the hon. Member.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Annual Report of the Foreign Labour Department of the Transvaal for 1905–6, which shows that among 47,600 Chinese coolies working in the Transvaal gold mines during the year to which the Report relates, there were no loss than twenty-six convictions for murder, 210 for housebreaking, 307 for forgery, and eighty-nine for public violence; and whether, seeing that the proportion of crime thus shown is in excess of the

    543
    proportion of the same crimes committed by the 10,000,000 of adult males of England and Wales, he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The figures are correct. The Report shall be laid.

    Transvaal Elections.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he would represent to the Government of the Transvaal the desirability of re-considering its refusal to grant a public holiday at the election shortly to be held, seeing that, owing to the nature of their employment, many miners may be far removed from the divisions in which they are registered.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is not prepared to intervene in the matter. The decision of the Transvaal has no doubt been arrived at after full consideration of the suggestion on its merits.

    Transvaal Upper Chamber.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to nominate the Members of the Upper Chamber in the Transvaal previous to the forthcoming election, or to await the result of that election.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is in communication with the Governor, and cannot yet make a statement.

    The Jamaica Earthquake.
    MR. O. C. PHILIPPS (Pembroke and Haverfordwest): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the wide spread distress caused by the Jamaica earthquake, the Government propose to recommend Parliament to make a free grant to assist the inhabitants towards rebuilding Kingston, Jamaica.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Inquiries are in progress, but the full materials for a decision are not yet to hand.

    Colonial Conference.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to give the House the names of the Colonial statesmen delegated to the Colonial Conference, the date upon which the Conference will assemble, the order of the proceedings and the subjects which will be submitted to the Conference; and if the representatives of the Empire will be received, as on previous occasions, as guests of the nation; and upon what date such official visit will commence and terminate.
    MR. CHURCHILL: the names of the Prime Ministers who will represent the self-governing Colonies at the Colonial Conference are as follows:—Dominion of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier; Newfoundland, Sir R. Bond; Commonwealth of Australia, Mr. Deakin; New Zealand, Sir J. G. Ward; Cape Colony, Mr. L. S. Jameson; Natal, Mr. F. R. Moor. Other Ministers expected to be present in this country in connection with the Conference are: From Canada, Mr. W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance; Mr. W. Patterson, Minister of Customs; Sir F. W. Borden, Minister of Militia and Defence; Mr. L. P. Brodeur, Minister of Marine. From Australia, Sir W. Lyne, Minister of Customs, and from Capo Colony, Dr. Smartt, Commissioner of Works. Papers on the subject of the agenda for the Conference will be laid before the House during the present week. The Colonial representatives present for the Colonial Conference will be guests of the nation. It is too early is yet to state the precise date of the commencement and termination of their official visit; the Conference will open on the 15th April.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say if, and how, India will be represented at the Conference?
    MR. CHURCHILL: India will be represented by the Secretary of State for India, or by some one deputed by him.

    Mr. Bryce's Salary.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the salary of His Majesty's newly-appointed Ambassador to the United States of America, and on what date it commenced to run; and if any installation allowance has been paid to him.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The salary of His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington will in future be fixed at £10,000 a year, and the new Ambassador's salary commenced to run, in accordance with the usual rule, ten days before his departure for his post; i.e., on February 3rd. The usual outfit allowance of £2,000 has been issued.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask if this increase of £2,200 a year is one of the measures of economy of the present Government?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Great Britain and Persia.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the nature of the demands made by the Persian National Assembly to the new Persian monarch; whether these demands have been accepted by the Persian Government; and whether, in view of the present condition of affairs in Persia, any steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to promote greater stability in the Government of Persia and to safeguard the lives and property of British subjects in that country.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: According to the reports which have been received, the Persian National Assembly demanded a formal recognition that the monarchy is limited, and that Ministers are responsible to the Chamber. These demands have, it is understood, been accepted. His Majesty's Government desire to abstain from any interference in the internal affairs of Persia, and any action on their part would be limited to such
    546
    measures as it might be in their power to take to safeguard the lives and property of British subjects, should these be in danger. No particular danger is, however, anticipated for European subjects or agents, and His Majesty's Government do not consider that any unusual steps are desirable at present. The best prospect of averting any interference with foreigners is to make it clear to the Persians that we do not intend to interfere in their internal affairs.

    Estate Duties.
    MR. RADFORD: I bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the case of persons dying between the 31st July, 1894, and the 1st July, 1898, settlement estate duty paid in respect of a contingency which has not arisen and cannot arise is not repayable; and whether he will consider the advisability of so amending the law as to make such settlement estate duty repayable, as it is in the case of persons dying after the 1st July, 1898.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The law is as stated in the first part of the Question. An Amendment of it in the sense desired by my hon. friend would be attended now by considerable practical difficulties in ascertaining the persons entitled to returnable duty and in other ways.

    Cabling of Ministerial Speeches to South Africa.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a speech of the Under-Secretary for the-Colonies of 18th December, 1906, imputing grave misconduct and corruption to a public body in the Transvaal, was cabled at the public cost to Johannesburg; by whose directions was this course taken; what are the expenses incurred thereby; and whether he will in the future discountenance the official dissemination during the conduct of a

    547
    Colonial election of controversial literature at the public cost,
    MR. ASQUITH: I have no direct responsibility in this matter, but I am informed that the Answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question is in the affirmative. The course taken was under the authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies The expense of the telegram amounted to £21 5s. It was not sent during a Colonial election, nor with any view to influencing the course of such election. The telegram was despatched on 18th December. The new Constitution for the Transvaal did not come into force until 12th January, 1907, and the nominations for the elections did not take place till 9th February. The purpose for which the telegram was sent was to secure the full and accurate publication of words used in this House, instead of the condensations which are necessary in private Press telegrams. Such a practice has been found convenient and oven advantageous on various occasions during the last year, and the Secretary of State is of opinion that it is quite possible that further need for its adoption might recur.

    Income Tax.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if ten days notices for the payment of income tax have been issued in London, or in any other town in England, similar to those which have been issued in Scotland; and whether notices threatening legal proceedings if payment is not now made, have been issued in England or in Scotland.
    I beg also to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if notices have been issued in Scotland stating that unless income tax is paid within seven days the matter will be placed in the hands of the sheriff-officer, who will be instructed to recover the amount with costs.
    MR. ASQUITH: The issue of ten day notices in both England and Scotland commenced on 22nd January. Notices
    548
    threatening distraint, if payment be not made within seven days, are now in course of issue in both countries. I should add that I am making careful inquiry into the practice which prevails in the two countries, with the object of securing equality of treatment to the taxpayers in both.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of the date of the issue of the first notice?
    MR. ASQUITH: I have not come to any decision yet. I desire there shall be complete equality between the two countries.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the collection of income tax might not be facilitated if it were collected half-yearly or even quarterly?
    MR. ASQUITHasked for notice.

    Alleged Whisky Fraud.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a discovery of smuggling on a large scale has been made at Tullamore, and that in consequence large quantities of illicitly obtained spirits have been sold throughout London and the provinces which have not paid duty to the Exchequer; whether the parties concerned have been merely fined by the Inland Revenue authorities without publicity and not brought to trial; what was the amount of the fine; what was the nature of the offence committed; and if this procedure is to be taken as a precedent when smuggling on a sufficiently large scale again takes place in this country.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Board of Inland Revenue are in possession of evidence that suggests irregularities on a somewhat extensive scale in connection with dealings in spirits at Tullamore. Proceedings have in consequence been instituted and the whole matter will be investigated in a Court of Law. Meanwhile discussion

    549
    of the subject cannot properly be admitted.

    Revenue from Food and Drink Taxes.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what was the total amount of revenue received during 1906 from taxes, both excise and customs, on food and drink.
    MR. ASQUITH: The total for the calendar year 1906, amounted to £49,475,875.

    Provident Societies Registration Tee.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a fee for registering Provident Societies has recently been instituted, and, if so, for, what reason; and whether, in view of the hindrance that is being thereby caused to the formation of small societies founded to promote valuable rural industries, the Government can see their way to modifying the recent regulations on the subject.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: If by "Provident" Society is meant a Friendly Society registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, the answer is that no fee is payable to the Exchequer. If a Co-operative Society is meant, the answer is that a fee (£5) is now payable on registry. This fee was instituted in order to discourage the registry of societies whose financial position was weak or unsound. As the Chief Registrar has power to modify the fee and an appeal, is in certain cases, allowed to the Treasury, no hardship to any bona-fide small society is likely to be caused. The Regulation in question met with the entire approval of the Co-operative Union, Limited, the Labour Co-partnership Association, the Agricultural Organisation Societies, and all recognised bodies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.
    LORD R. CECIL: Can the hon. Gentle-man say when the regulation was made and to what extent the Registrar is entitled to modify the fee?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give the exact date. If an appeal is made to the Treasury every case is dealt with on its merits. If the noble Lord has any
    550
    particular case he wishes to bring before me I will consider it at once.

    Inspection of Laundries.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to introduce a, Bill during the present session dealing with the inspection of laundries in connection with religious institutions.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Yes, Sir.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will it be introduced at a period of the session when it will have a chance of passing?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly, Sir.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate the date?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I shall repeat the question next week.

    Clubs.
    MR. RAPHAEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant a Return of the number of clubs selling alcoholic liquor registered in each petty sessional division in England and Wales, stating the number of such clubs registered since 1st January, 1905, and the number of such clubs which are owned by individuals and by the members collectively.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The number of clubs selling alcoholic liquor registered in each petty sessional division and borough in England and Wales is given in the volume of "Licensing Statistics," which is now published annually. The total number registered on the 1st January, 1905 was 6,554. The statistics for 1906 are in course of preparation. I have no information showing how many of these clubs are proprietary clubs and how many are owned by the members, and there is no power to require such information to be furnished. It is doubtful whether such a requirement, if enacted, could be properly enforced, but that is a point I will consider.

    New Assistant Factory Inspectors.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now appointed the four additional inspectors promised on the 1st August last for special work in connection with dock inspection; what are their headquarters and districts; and what are their qualifications and experience.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In accordance with the promise to which the hon. Member refers, four Inspectors' Assistants have been added to the staff of the Factory Department. This has enabled me to strengthen the inspection at London, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle by an additional assistant at each place, and each of these four men will, under the new scheme of duties for Inspectors' Assistants, be an assistant of the Higher Grade, and will be required to give special attention to the work of dock inspection. In Glasgow and nine other districts there will also, under the new arrangements, be assistants of the Higher Grade who will be available for dock inspection. All these assistants have had from seven to fourteen years experience in the actual work of inspection, and have been chosen, on account of their capability and experience, for inclusion in the new Higher Grade.

    Duties of Assistant Factory Inspectors.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can lay Papers upon the Table containing a statement of the new and more important duties for assistant factory inspectors which he foreshadowed in answer to a Question on the 28th November last;†and whether he can now state if those duties include that of inspection of factories.
    MR. GLADSTONE: There are no Papers which I can lay upon the Table, but I can state, in a few words, the effect of the new arrangements which have now been approved by me. All Inspectors' Assistants of the Higher Grade will, in addition to their ordinary work of inspecting workshops, be employed on certain more responsible duties which include the inspection of factories for certain purposes, the inspection of docks
    †See (4) Debates, clxvi., 51.
    552
    and the enforcement there of the Home Office regulations, the inspection of outwork with reference especially to the requirement of particulars of work and wages, and other matters. It is not proposed at present to utilise these Assistants in connection with the safeguarding of machinery, mechanical ventilation, and other matters requiring special qualifications; but otherwise they will, acting under the directions of the District and Superintending Inspectors, be called upon to perform such duties as can be most usefully assigned to them, having regard to the particular circumstances of the districts to which they are severally alloted. For example, in the cotton districts, the Assistants will be required to give special attention to time-cribbing; in districts with large docks to the enforcement of the dock regulations, and so on. The arrangements are, of course, provisional, and experience of their working will no doubt suggest developments.

    The Imprisoned Suffragists.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say why certain of the woman-suffragists, tried on Thursday the 14th instant by Mr. Curtis Bennett, were placed in the first, and certain others in the second, division, in view of the fact that all were convicted of similar offences.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have communicated with the magistrate and he tells me that he carefully considered each case on its merits before exercising the discretion given him by the law, to decide whether the prisoner should be in the first, second or third division. None of those placed in the second division will be liable to more than one week's imprisonment in default of paying their fines.

    Poor Prisoners' Defence.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of different Judges and chairmen of quarter sessions, to the effect that the intention of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903, is very largely defeated by the provision that the certificate for legal aid can be given only when the prisoner discloses some sort of defence or another before the committing

    553
    justices, whereas the great majority of prisoners are entirely ignorant of this provision; and whether he will introduce a Bill to amend the Act in the respect indicated, or, in the alternative, would favourably consider such a Bill if introduced by a private Member.
    *MR. GLADSTONE: My attention has not been drawn to any observations of this nature. It was not the intention of the Act that legal aid should be given to prisoners who refused to disclose their defence The Lord Chief Justice in a charge delivered to the Grand Jury at Warwick on July 1904 stated that "by a defence disclosed was meant not only a defence stated by the prisoner at the end of the hearing, but a defence disclosed on cross-examination or by questions the prisoner might ask or by remarks he interposed, or even in some cases such as might appear on the face of the evidence called for the prosecution." A circular was issued to all benches of justices in England and Wales calling their attention to these remarks of the Lord Chief Justice. Steps have been taken by the Home Office to bring the provisions of the Act to the knowledge of all prisoners. Notices explaining in simple language the effect of the Act, and the requirement that a defence must be disclosed before justices, have been affixed in all prison cells in which prisoners are detained on remand, and have been distributed to justices for exhibition at police courts and in police court cells. In the circumstances, I do not think there is any need for amending legislation.

    Assisted Emigration.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the normal increase in the population of England and Wales, through excess of births over deaths, is more than 400,000 a year; whether he is aware that there is a large demand for British workmen and workwomen in Canada, and a growing demand in Australia; and whether he will consider the desirability of making such legislative or administrative changes as may be necessary to enable boards of guardians and distress committees to apply a larger portion of the funds under their control to assisting suitable men, women and children to emigrate from this con-
    554
    gested island to the sparsely-peopled continents included within the Empire.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am aware of the facts mentioned in the Question. I fully realise the importance of the subject to which my hon. friend refers; and am ready to consider any suggestions with regard to it. I may point out that boards of guardians and distress committees have by no means exhausted their existing resources in this matter, and I do not at present contemplate any legislative changes in the direction indicated.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it correct to say, according to the Question, that this is a "congested island"?
    MR. PICKERSGILL: In dealing with this Question will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the declared policy of the Prime Minister to colonise our own country?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    *MR. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman in considering the schemes give attention to the report on the Mrs. Close's Emigration scheme which is said to have been so successful?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot promise particular attention to any particular scheme, but I will consider them all on their merits.

    The Local Government Board.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board has ever met; and, if so, whether he will state the date of the last meeting.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: No, Sir. I understand that there has never been a meeting of the Local Government Board.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to say of whom or of what the Local Government Board consists?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It consists of the President, the Lord President of the

    555
    Council, the five principal Secretaries of State, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentlemen take into consideration the expediency of at once convening a meeting of his Board?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Not if I can possibly avoid it.

    Report of Poor Law Commission.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the interest felt in the question of an Old-Age Pensions Bill and the close connection of that question with the matters under investigation by the Poor Law Commissioners, it is possible to accelerate the Report of that Commission.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have made inquiry on this subject, and I find that, except for brief periods of vacation, the Royal Commission have been sitting week by week since the beginning of last year and are using every effort to expedite their investigation; but I understand that, in view of the wide scope of the reference to them, they have still a considerable amount of ground to cover. They are anxious that their Report should be made without any unnecessary delay, but they are equally anxious to secure that it should not be either incomplete or inadequate.

    Liability of Married Women under the Poor Law.
    MR. HAY MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of King's Bench in the case of the "Pontypool Union v. Buck," to the effect that a married woman with ample separate estate is not liable to contribute towards the maintenance of her parents; and whether, in view of the fact that a son is so liable, he proposes to introduce legislation with a view of removing this distinction between the sexes by which an unfair burden is cast upon the ratepayers.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the decision referred to by my hon. friend. I have taken note of the point,
    556
    but I cannot promise to introduce legislation on the subject at the present time.

    The Elliot Junction Railway Accident.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when George Gourlay, the driver of the ill-fated train at Elliot Junction on 28th December, is to be brought to trial.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Thomas Shaw,): On the 11th March next.

    Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that practically all the so-called foreign trawlers engaged in breaking Scottish laws by illegally trawling in the Moray Firth are British owned; and if he will consider what action it is desirable to take to ensure adequate punishment of the offenders.
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: It is the case that at least many of these trawlers, although registered under a foreign flag, are British-owned. The remainder of the Question will be answered by my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland, along with certain other Questions on the same subject.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Is it not the fact that, although the captain is a Norwegian, many of the men engaged on the boats are British subjects? Cannot the law be put in operation against them?
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: As a question of law I believe such men would be legally liable to prosecution.

    Release of Masters of Grimsby Trawlers.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the reasons why orders have been given for the release of the masters of the Grimsby steam trawlers sailing under the Norwegian flag, who were convicted before the sheriff at Elgin on 31st January, and sentenced to sixty days imprisonment each, failing payment of fines for trawling within the limits forbidden under the Scottish Fishery Board bye-laws and the Fisheries Acts.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As has already been stated publicly, the men referred to by the hon. Member were foreign subjects, and their release was ordered in consequence of a representation from the Foreign Secretary at the instance of the Norwegian Minister.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on 31st January 1907, before the sheriff at Elgin, Hans Christian Andersen, master of the Norwegian trawler "King Eric," Andreas Martinius Andersen, master of the Norwegian trawler "Plover,' and Abraham Osmundso Gjerde, master of the Norwegian trawler" "Stromo," were found guilty of trawling within the limits forbidden by the Scottish Fishery Board by-laws and the Fisheries Acts, and that they were sentenced to sixty days imprisonment, failing payment of fines of £100 each; whether he is aware that, having failed to pay these fines they were imprisoned in Inverness prison, and that, without having paid those fines, they were released from prison on 9th February, when fifty-one days of their sentence were still unexpired; whether they were released by order of the Secretary for Scotland; and what steps the Government purpose to take to enforce the law for the protection of the baiting and fishing grounds on the east coast of Scotland, and to penalise offences by foreigners against it, which jeopardise the calling and means of livelihood of Scottish line fishermen.
    Notice of the following Questions had also been given—
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state whether the masters of trawlers sailing under the Norwegian flag, who were recently imprisoned in Inverness gaol for failing to pay the fines imposed on their conviction for illegal trawling in the Moray Firth, have been released on representations made by the Norwegian Consul or other representative of the Norwegian Government; and will he state whether the Government now propose to give foreign trawlers free access to fish in the Moray Firth outside the three-mile limit, nothwithstanding the decision of the High Court of Justiciary, the losses which
    558
    such trawling occasions the line fisherman, and injury to the fishing grounds in the Firth.
    MR. WILLIAMSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the number of trawlers illegally trawling in the Moray Firth; and what steps he intends to take by legislation or otherwise to prevent this.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I would propose to answer along with this Question the Question addressed by my hon. friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland to the Lord-Advocate, the Questions addressed by my hon. friend the Member for Ross-shire so far as they relate to this matter, and the Question of my hon. friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn. The facts stated are correct. The matter referred to has been under my consideration. It is my intention to introduce a Bill to apply to the rest of the United Kingdom the prohibition now existing in Scotland against landing or selling trawled fish.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Is it intended to prosecute British subjects on those vessels for breaking the law?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That will be done.

    Scottish Police Grant.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the grant for police pay and clothing to counties and boroughs in Scotland, which provided 45·3 per cent. of the total cost in 1900, now only provides 39·5 per cent.; whether the corresponding grant in England is 50 per cent. of the cost; will he explain why the grant in England increases with the number of men employed, whereas it is stationary in Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this inequality of treatment of Scottish ratepayers.
    MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has been called to this matter; the progressive reduction in the rate per cent. of the Government contribution to the cost of the pay and clothing of the police arises from the fact that while England and Scotland are treated with equality in the

    559
    apportionment of the total sums assigned for local purposes to the two countries respectively, there are differences in the method of allocation of these sums. In the case of Scotland the total amount to be distributed in aid of the cost of pay and clothing of police is fixed at £180,000 per annum, and the rate per £ of expenditure which this grant can pay must go down as the aggregate police expenditure rises; the balance available in general relief of rates is not affected. In the case of England, the statutes direct a grant of 10s. per £ to be paid towards police expenditure, but this necessarily involves that as police expenditure goes up there is a smaller residue available for other local services.

    The Chairman of Scottish Prison Commissioners.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will give the reasons for the extension of the appointment of the chairman of the Prison Commissioners for two years beyond the age limit.
    MR. SINCLAIR: On a full examination of the condition of the prisons service I was satisfied that this is a case to which the provisions of the Treasury Minute of 26th July, 1906, dealing with prolongation of service, peculiarly applied.

    Penalties under the Fishery Acts.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, if he will introduce, at an early date, a Bill arranging for penalties recovered for breaches of fishery statutes to be placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board.
    MR. SINCLAIR: the Answer is in the affirmative

    Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state why Scottish Fishery Board cruisers have recently failed to arrest foreign trawlers which they have observed to be trawling in the Moray Firth.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the failure on the part of the Scottish Fishery Board cruisers to arrest foreign trawlers observed working in the
    560
    Moray Firth, enables such trawlers to trawl until sufficient fish have been caught to pay any fine which may subsequently be imposed, will he consider the expediency of giving instructions for the gear of such trawlers to be seized immediately they are detected working in the Firth.
    MR. SINCLAIR: In reply to these Questions I have to inform the hon. Member that the point submitted has been carefully considered. In omitting to arrest foreign trawlers detected trawling in the Moray Firth or to seize the gear the Fishery Board cruisers have acted under instructions advisedly given. Every detection has been reported to the authorities and in many instances prosecution has followed.

    Scottish Education Bill.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to introduce this session any legislation dealing with education in Scotland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir, but not of a comprehensive character.

    Irish Land Commission Clerks.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. W. F. Wilkinson has, since his appointment as clerk in the office of the Irish Land Commission, acted as land agent to a Mr. Kirkpatrick, in county Dublin, and has signed legal documents dated from the office of the Public Trustee in that capacity; and if he proposes to take I any steps to prevent a State official filling these combined offices.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am informed by the Land Commission that since Mr. Wilkinson was appointed to their service he has not acted in any way as land agent to Mr. Kirkpatrick. Some misapprehension appears to have arisen from the fact that one of Mr. Kirkpatrick's tenants served a legal notice on Mr. Wilkinson in mistake for his brother, who is in Mr. Kirkpatrick's employment. Mr. Wilkinson at once took steps to have his name eliminated from the proceedings.

    Land Sales in County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of sales of land under the Land Act of 1903 in county Clare up to date, giving the amount of purchase money and the number of estates and tenants involved.
    MR. BIRRELL: Up to the 9th instant, the Estates Commissioners had received applications for advances from 2,026 tenant purchasers in county Clare, the number of estates concerned being 100, and the total purchase money,£597,779. Of these cases, sales had been completed to 425 purchasers on thirty estates, the purchase money being £110,683.

    Instruction in the Irish Language.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in districts where the Irish language is regularly spoken, managers of schools will be permitted to substitute in the programme the teaching of Irish for any other subject that they may consider unsuitable to the district concerned.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, under their rules, the bilingual programme may be adopted in schools in which the majority of the pupils speak Irish as their home language, provided that the teacher can speak Irish fluently, and that instruction through the medium of English is given to any exclusively English-speaking pupils whose parents so desire. Irish may also be taught as an ordinary subject in other schools, but not so as to interfere with proper instruction in the school curriculum generally.

    Upkeep of Irish National Schools.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, he intends to take in the matter of the proper heating and general upkeep of the national schools of Ireland; and whether, seeing that the responsibility for such general repairs, heating, etc, at present falls on the teacher, he will consider the advisability of allocating a certain grant for the purposes named, viz., the heating
    562
    and keeping in proper repair of the national schools of Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: The obligation to provide for the general upkeep of national schools in Ireland rests, as regards vested schools, upon the Commissioners of National Education or the local trustees as the case may be, and, as regards non-vested schools, upon the patron or manager. The question of the heating of national schools, as well as the whole subject of the construction and maintenance of such schools, is at present engaging my serious attention.

    Irish Land Commissioners.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what number of temporary Commissioners are now on the staff of the Irish Land Commission; how many warrants expire on the 31st of March next; and if he proposes, in view of promises made by his predecessor, to take any steps to inquire into the qualifications of those now engaged in fixing fair rents and inspection work for land purchase.
    MR. BIRRELL: There are twenty-seven temporary lay assistant Commissioners now on the staff of the Land Commission, all of whoso warrants will expire on 31st March next. In view of the statement made by my predecessor on 18th December†, I intend shortly to consider the whole subject of the appointment of these Commissioners.

    Irish Board of Education.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the difference between the Treasury and the Board of National Education in Ireland, in reference to the new plans for schools, has yet been settled.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Communications are still going on between the Treasury and the Irish Government on this subject.
    MR. DILLON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this controversy has lasted ten
    †See (4) Debates, clxvii., 1288.

    563
    years and that meanwhile numbers of Irish schools are falling into ruin?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I know it has been going on a long time. I am entirely new to it. The negotiations are now proceeding with rapidity.
    MR. DILLON: I have received exactly the same Answer from four or five of the hon. Gentlemen's predecessors.

    House of Lords Accommodation.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the inadequate accommodation that the House of Peers affords for the important State ceremonial of the opening of Parliament by the King in person and to the inconvenience and disorder that result from the practice of summoning this House to attend in the House of Peers; and whether he will consider the desirability of employing on future occasions Westminster Hall for this ceremonial and of there providing for the occasion such seating accommodation as will enable the Members of both Houses of Parliament to assemble in an orderly manner to await the arrival of His Majesty.
    MR. ASQUITH (for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): No, Sir, my attention has not been called to this matter and I see no reason at present for considering the suggestion of my hon. friend. The whole question was thoroughly investigated in 1901 by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and they expressed the unanimous opinion that a fair trial should be given to the new arrangements recommended by them. Of course, if experience should show that any serious inconvenience still arises we might have to reconsider the question.

    The Agricultural Holdings Act.
    *MR. MONTAGU: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the assurances given last session by the hon. Member for South Somerset on behalf of the Government in answer to protests against the postponement of the date of operation of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906; whether he has observed the reports of the conduct of Lord Egerton of Tatton and other landowners regarding their agreements with their
    564
    tenants; whether, seeing that it was anticipation of such conduct that led to protests against the suspension of the Act, he will, with the assistance of the President of the Board of Agriculture, inquire into the matter; and whether, if it be found that landowners are acting so as to prevent their tenants benefiting from the Act, the Government will take steps to bring the Act into force on 1st January, 1908.
    Notice had also been given of the following Questions:—
    MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain landlords are taking steps to evade the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906; and whether he will cause the matter to be inquired into, and, if necessary, take immediate action to prevent the will of Parliament being overridden.
    MR. FULLERTON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the action of Earl Egerton in giving notice to quit to the tenant farmers on his Knutsford estate, such notice expiring in June next; and whether the Government will take action to prevent Earl Egerton, or other landowners, from defeating the objects of a measure which the Government intended should benefit tenant farmers.
    MR. ASQUITH: With regard to the notice given by Lord Egerton to his tenants, my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture is in communication with his Lordship with a view, if possible, to obtain information as to the precise object with which the notices have been given and the nature of the new agreements into which the tenants are to be asked to enter. We hope it will be found that the intention is merely to enter into fresh agreements which shall be more in accordance with the law as it now stands. With regard to the question which stands in the name of my hon. friend the Member for the Dartford Division, I would say that my noble friend is watching the operation of the Act very closely; and if it should appear, which I can scarcely believe will be the case, that the intentions of Parliament are being evaded, we shall not hesitate to take prompt action in the matter.

    THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the Motion for the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule, which was down in the name of the Prime Minister, whose absence from illness they all regretted, whether he proposed to sit late that night if that Motion were assented to by the House.
    MR. ASQUITHreplied that they hoped they might bring the debate on the particular Amendment which the noble Lord opposite was going to propose to a conclusion that night, but he trusted it would not be necessary to sit at all late for the purpose.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was impossible for him to forecast the progress of the debate, as he did not know how many Gentlemen desired to take part in it, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there had been no case, so far as he knew, in which, the House meeting on the Tuesday, the Address had been concluded before the Thursday week following. In almost every case it had gone over to the Friday, and in some cases it had entered into the third week.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid that last year they concluded the debate in a single week. The right hon. Gentleman was not present at that time. Easter came very early this year, and it was hoped by the Government to bring the debate to a conclusion on the following night.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that last year was a very exceptional one—exceptional, he meant, from the fact that hon. Gentlemen were then in the full flush of a triumph which had somewhat lost its charm. In 1905 the debate lasted for over a fortnight, in 1904 nearly three weeks, in 1903 up to the Thursday week, in 1902 it went into the third week, and in 1901 and 1900 it lasted up to the Friday.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid he preferred the precedent of 1906. He would have thought that hon. Members who had just come from their constituents would be more anxious to flesh their swords than those who sat in a somewhat jaded Parliament.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEwas understood to inquire if the Government had realised that their proposal would prevent a debate on the unemployed.
    MR. ASQUITH: The whole subject has been most carefully considered.
    SIR H. COTTONpointed out that the closing of the debate on Tuesday night would shut out all discussion on India. For some years there had been an Amendment to the Address on Indian Questions, and if they had none this year it would form a bad precedent and create considerable irritation among our Indian fellow subjects.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid that no Member of the Government underrated the importance of Indian subjects. He had, however, expressed the desire and the hope of the Government that the debate might be brought to a close on the following night, but if—and in this respect they were very anxious to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that should be found to be impossible they would agree to prolong it up to Wednesday. Beyond Wednesday they could not possibly go; the financial exigencies of the year would not allow them to do so.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    SIR ROBERT PULLAR,SIR ROBERT PULLAR, knight, for the Parliamentary Burgh of Perth.
  NEW BILLS.
    JURORS (EXPENSES) BILL.
    "To provide for the payment of the Expenses of Jurors attending assizes and quarter sessions in England and Wales," presented by Mr. Lloyd Morgan; supported by Mr. Abel Thomas, Mr. Hay Morgan, Mr. Mackarness, and Mr. Bertram; to be read a second time upon Friday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (RESTRICTION) BILL.
    "To restrict the Punishment of Whipping to the cases of male offenders under the age of sixteen years," presented by Mr. Lloyd Morgan; supported by Mr.

    567
    Abel Thomas, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Hay Morgan; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

    FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Laws relating to Fisheries in Ireland and the Boards of Conservators thereof," presented by Mr. Mooney; supported by Mr. Joyce, Mr. Boland, Mr. Flavin, Mr. Gwynn, Mr. Hayden, Mr. William Redmond, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Halpin, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Lundon, Mr. O'Dowd and Mr. Field; to be read a second time upon Friday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
    ABSENT VOTERS BILL.
    "To facilitate the recording of Votes at Parliamentary Elections by fishermen, sailors, and other persons liable to habitual absence from their usual residence in pursuit of their calling," presented by Mr. Williamson; supported by Mr. M'Crae, Sir Robert Ropner, Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Havelock Wilson, Mr. Rainy, and Mr. Crombie; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

    FOREIGN TRAWLERS REGULATION BILL.
    "To provide for the better prevention of fishing by Foreign Trawl Vessels within
    areas closed to British Trawl Vessels," presented by Mr. Williamson; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Eugene Wason, Major Anstruther-Gray, Sir Thomas Glen Coats, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Owen Philipps, and Mr. Cathcart Wason; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

    SALE OF WHISKY BILL.
    "To amend the law relating to the Sale of Whisky, and to provide for the marking of casks and other vessels containing whisky," presented by Mr. Williamson; supported by Mr Murray, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Sir Andrew Torrance, and Mr. Billson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (KINGS SPEECH) (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the King's Speech (Motion for an Address), if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Orders (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer)
  The House divided; Ayes, 281, Noes, 82. (Division List, No. 3.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Brace, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Agnew, George William

  Brooke, Stopford

  Delany, William

  Alden, Percy

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dillon, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Donclan, Captain A.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Barker, John

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Elibank, Master of

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Erskine, David C.

  Beale, W. P.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Essex, R. W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bertram, Julius

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Billson, Alfred

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cooper, G. J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, EGrinst'd

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir. Walter

  Blake, Edward

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Boland, John

  Cox, Harold

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Crombie, John William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cullinan, J.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ginnell, L

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Killop, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rowlands, J,

  Gulland, John W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Runciman, Walter

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Russell, T. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard, B.

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Clevelane)

  Halpin, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Walter

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seddon, J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Harwood, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sheehy, David

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Morse, L. L.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murray, James

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hogan, Michael

  Napier, T. B.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  Nicholls, George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Grady, J.

  Thorne, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly James (Roscommon, N.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Toulmin, George

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Partington, Oswald

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Paul, Herbert

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wardle, George J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lambert, George

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Radford, G. H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Reddy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rees, J. D.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Williams, Osmond (Merieneth)

  Mackarness, Frederic, C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williamson, A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson, Sir. G. Scott (Bradf' rd

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  M'Kean, John

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arkwight, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Ashely, W. W.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  570

  571

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. E. dm'ds

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon Victor C. W.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Keswick, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Liddell, Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent., Mid)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fell, Arthur

  Moore, William

  Younger, George.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Percy, Earl

  Viscount Valentia.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (12th February), "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Tomkinson.)
  Question again proposed.
  *EARL PERCYrose to move the following Amendment:—"But humbly regrets that the social legislation declared by your Majesty's Government to be urgent should be postponed for the purpose of effecting revolutionary changes in the powers exercised by Parliament over the affairs of the United Kingdom and in the constitutional relation between the two Houses." He said: The Amendment which stands in my name invites attention to an aspect of the Gracious Speech from the Throne which has already been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and from which he drew an instructive contrast between the action
  572
  when in power of those who occupy the benches opposite and those who sit on this side of the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very fond of denouncing us as the defenders of class privileges, while they claim for themselves a monopoly of interest in and of the advocacy of social reform. But from the moment they obtain that control of the helm, which enables them to steer their course towards the goal of their avowed ambition, their interest in social reform immediately gives place to a desperate anxiety to overhaul and reconstruct the machinery of the vessel. No one will deny that that is an accurate description of the last Liberal Government, which held office from 1892 to 1895, and which will be remembered in history as a Parliament of unpopular aspirations and futile achievements. It succeeded in passing a Parish Councils Bill, which, we were confidently assured, was to keep the people on the land by giving them a greater interest in local affairs, but which, after ten years experience, does not seem to have effected anything in that direction; it failed to pass an Employers Liability Bill, for which by common admission the Unionist Party has since provided a much better substitute; and it devoted two out of three sessions to an attempt to destroy the Constitution and the Church, with the only result that it afforded the House of Lords an opportunity of showing how much more

  573
  representative they were of the people of the country than the Liberal Party, which professed to speak in their name. And now we have a new Liberal Administration; we have, we are told, for the first time a thoroughly democratic Parliament, intensely eager, and burning with anxiety to devote itself to all those social problems which have been too long neglected or postponed. What is the result of all this fuss and swagger? We have had one session mainly devoted to attempts, happily frustrated, to deprive grown-up people of their votes, and children of the religious education which their parents desire them to have. No one I think would include either of those measures in the category of social reforms, nor should I be inclined to include in that category the Trade Disputes Act, which, according to the latest version of its own authors, gave to organised labour no privilege which they had not long enjoyed, and which, according to the earlier version of its authors, took away from unorganised labour the fundamental birthright of Englishmen—viz., equality before the law. So far the Government have but one measure of social reform to their credit, the Workman's Compensation Act, which is merely an extended application of principles already embodied in legislation by their predecessors. This week we start on a new session which, to judge from the King's Speech, so far as social reform is concerned, is likely to be even more barren than the last. I will deal with its contents in a moment, but first let me say a word as to its omissions. There is the question already alluded to by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, viz., that of the unemployed. When Ministers are not engaged in an elaborate panegyric on our existing fiscal system, they always tell us there is no problem more urgent than the increasing number of the unemployed. We were informed that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for South Dublin was extremely inadequate, and that it required to be supplemented and extended in various directions. The President of the Local Government Board has made several speeches hinting or promising that steps were to be taken to deal with the question, but there is no mention of the unemployed in the King's Speech. According to the flamboyant election address of the President of the Local Government Board, the right hon.
  574
  Gentleman had discovered in a legal eight hours day a means of securing "work for all, over-work for none, of reducing the rates, and giving permanent employment where demoralising casual labour now prevails." Well, the Government which has in its power to bestow this great benefit upon the working classes has placed a measure for the regulation of the hours of labour in its programme, but I find with great astonishment that the boon is to be confined to the mining industry. Then there is a question on which there was a general consensus of opinion in favour of fresh legislation. I refer to the provision of medical inspection in elementary schools. There was a clause making such provision in the Government Education Bill of last year, which was approved of by both sides in this House and in the House of Lords, and I am rather surprised that the Government has not embodied that provision in a Bill of their own instead of leaving it to the chances of a private Member's ballot. Again, there is the question of overcrowding, and especially of overcrowding in London. I do not for a moment suggest that that is a question which admits of a single solution; but there is one step which has been unanimously recommended by the Royal Commission, viz. the appointment of a Traffic Board. This is a matter of the greatest importance to the working classes. Why is there no reference to the intentions of the Government in the King's Speech? Have they not made up their minds on the question, or are they waiting to have their minds made up for thorn at the forthcoming County Council elections? Then there is a whole group of questions connected with Poor Law administration. The Postmaster-General, in his election address, stated that that law required overhauling, and those who have watched the enormous increase of poor law expenditure and studied the recent revelations in regard to the proceedings of certain boards of guardians will certainly share his opinion. We require greater strictness and uniformity in Poor Law administration, and a clear and definite policy laid down by Parliament for differentiating between the treatment of the deserving and undeserving poor. Why is there no mention of the subject in the speech? The President of the Local Government Board may say

  575
  that a Royal Commission now sitting taking evidence on the subject, and that therefore it is premature for the Government to make any proposal in regard to it; but I think they are barred from using that plea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has definitely pledged himself to the principle of old-age pensions, the merits of which cannot be discussed except in reference to Poor Law administration as a whole and has even hinted at making some beginning with it this session, although the Minister for War has declared that old-age pensions would have nothing but a pauperising effect. It is also remarkable that there is no mention in the King's Speech of a general reform in the system of rating. Considering how the late Government were denounced for passing the Agricultural Rates Act, and that it was said by the Liberals that it was unjust to the towns to deal with this question piecemeal; considering that they have allowed this Act to remain in force, and that the Government has foreshadowed measures dealing with the valuation of property and the graduation of taxation, which must have an important bearing on the question of the incidence of rates on real and personal property, one would have thought that they might have found room for a passing reference to the question of rating reform in the programme of the present session.
  I pass now from the omissions in the King's Speech, and come to its contents. There are practically only two measures of social reform promised; one dealing with small holdings and the other with the housing of the working classes. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: Licensing reform.] I do not propose to discuss licensing reform, for the Bill is not before us, and to judge from the speeches made in regard to it, it is more likely to be a measure for ruining the trader than for benefiting the consumer. Take the two questions of small holdings and housing of the working classes. No one who knows anything of the country or the slums in our great cities will deny that the problem of urban overcrowding and rural depopulation is one which, whether we regard it from the point of view of national health and morality or of national defence, demands the serious attention of this House, and that any Government which can contri-
  576
  bute, however little, to its solution will have deserved well of the country. I think it will be admitted that the Party to which I have the honour to belong has some claim to show an interest in the matter. I do not say that for the purpose of making a Party score, for I admit that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not had the same opportunities for passing legislation of this kind as we have had, and they gave us their assistance. But every Conservative Administration which held office during the second half of last century left on the Statute-book some definite contribution to the solution of the problems I have referred to. Even the last Administration, with all its difficulties abroad and the complications of war, passed three measures, one enabling the working classes to become owners of their houses, another permitting local authorities to go outside then own areas for the acquisition of building land and a third extending the period for the repayment of loans. The Government propose to deal with urban overcrowding by tackling first the question of rural depopulation. In any attempt to put a thriving population on the soil they will have the heartiest sympathy of the Opposition, though I am not very sanguine of the success of their efforts. Any Government which wishes to solve the problem will frankly recognise that the root cause of the evil is the heavy burdens laid on the agricultural industry and the insecurity of its profits. I do not think that very much is to be expected from a Government whose policy is apparently further to increase the taxation upon land and to rivet upon the country a system of dual ownership which is fatal alike to the security of capital and the facility of transfer and sale. The important point is not whether the Government are likely to succeed, but what belief they show in the urgency of their proposals. They put these two measures at the bottom of their catalogue, in the paragraph of the King's Speech which as we know, from bitter experience, furnishes the majority of victims for the annual massacre of the innocents at the close of the session. I may be told that the order in which there measures are mentioned is no certain indication of the order in which they will be taken, but that is not a sufficient answer. Anyone who knows Parliamentary procedure,

  577
  knows that to place acutely contentious measures in the same list with non-contentious measures is to expose all to equal destruction, and I believe that any Government which was really in earnest in their desire to solve the social problems which confront us, and which had its hands free as this Government has, would be willing to devote at least one session to the consideration of those problems, and to keep as far as they could all contentious measures outside their programme altogether. But what have the Government done? They actually include in their programme this year two measures, one dealing with Ireland and the other with the House of Lords, both of which they must be aware are sure to excite the keenest and most bitter political controversy. If they are in earnest in their statements with regard to these two measures they must know that they are beginning an agitation which will occupy the time of Parliament not for one session alone, but for many sessions. If they are not in earnest they plead guilty to having deliberately postponed legislation of a social character which they know to be urgent in favour of issues on behalf of which no such plea can be raised and of the solution of which they see no early or immediate prospect. I wish to do to His Majesty's Government the credit of assuming that they mean to take these two questions seriously, and I am encouraged to do so, because the Prime Minister devoted more than three-quarters of his speech to the question of Ireland and the question of the House of Lords.
  I come first to the question of Ireland. What is the Irish policy of the Government? That is a direct simple question which ought to be capable of an equally direct and simple answer. We do not ask them to explain or to reveal the details of their measure, but we do ask them to say clearly and straightforwardly what is its intention, and what is its object. Hitherto we have failed to get the smallest information on this subject. The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a speech the other day in which he told us what we knew already, namely, that he and the Prime Minister were Home Rulers still and would not throw any difficulty in the way of Home Rule. We all know that he will not do any thing to make Home
  578
  Rule more difficult, but will he do anything to make the achievement of it more easy? In other words is the Irish legislation contemplated a mere simplification of local administration, or is it to be a measure which will weaken in however small a degree the control of the Imperial Parliament over Irish administration, and place it in the power of hon. Members below the gangway to achieve their avowed object of destroying and repudiating that control altogether? That is a question to which I hope we shall have an answer. I do not wish on the present occasion to discuss what is called the policy of "instalments." It is sufficient for me to refer to the statement of Mr. Gladstone years ago that, whatever might be said in favour of the Repeal of the Union, there was nothing to be said in favour of the policy of giving concessions to Ireland which would not satisfy Irish opinion and wonld only be made the basis for fresh demands which the people of this country were unable or unwilling to grant. But I am not concerned so much with the merits of a policy. I am concerned with the good faith of Ministers. Minister after Minister at the last general election gave pledges of the most clear and explicit character on this subject. The usual form in which that pledge was given was expressed in language so identical as irresistibly to suggest the conclusion that it was the result of careful and collective deliberation. Perhaps I may quote one version. The Foreign Secretary, speaking at Belford, assured his hearers that votes given for free trade would not be used for the purpose of introducing Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe that if a Home Rule Bill were introduced it would pass the House of Commons, and if it did it would be rejected by the House of Lords. That pledge was very general in its character, and Ministers might say that although it debars them from introducing or voting for a measure of Home Rule themselves it does not debar them from introducing or supporting a measure which is intended to load in the direction of Home Rule. But unfortunately for them one Minister either in a moment of forgetfulness or in a moment of confidence engendered by the belief that no reporters were present gave a pledge of a much mores definite character. Let me quote

  579
  the speech of the Secretary of State for War at Preston Pans on 12th January. He said—
  "They were inviting the support of many Unionist free traders, and it would be a breach of faith to use their votes for the purpose of setting up"—
  not an Irish Parliament—but,
  "A system of which those Unionist free traders did not approve."
  I should be very loth even to hint that public life has fallen so low that Ministers of the Crown can be capable of resorting to verbal subterfuge in order to place upon utterances of that kind an interpretation obviously different from that which they were calculated to convey to the minds of those who heard them. If the Government are open to such a suspicion they have only themselves to thank. If what they propose is only an extension of local administration, why all this mystery about it? Why gratuitously prejudice the prospects of co-operation between the two Parties by fostering and encouraging a suspicion which they might so easily remove? There is nobody who might more easily remove it than the Prime Minister, who has given rise to most of it. We all remember his speech at Stirling, in which he advised the Irish Nationalists to accept measures which would lead up to "the larger policy." Lord Rosebery at once described that as the "rehoisting of the Home Rule banner in its most pronounced form" and he declined to serve under it. Then the Foreign Minister, who said he was in the personal confidence of both statesmen, gave the assurance that the Prime Minister did not contemplate anything of which Lord Rosebery would not approve. How can we reconcile that statement with the speech made by the Prime Minister last week, in which he said explicitly that he looked forward to the time when the Irish people will have the same control of their own affairs which the people in the Colonies enjoy, with the sole proviso that if they have that control they shall not at the same time interfere in the affairs of Great Britain? What does that mean, but that the Prime Minister hopes to introduce legislation leading up eventually to the establishment of an Irish Parliament with the control of its own police, its own army, its own judiciary and its own taxes and customs tariff—because that
  580
  is what the Colonies have—and that the Irish Members are either no longer to vote at Westminster or only to vote on Imperial matters? That is Home Rule in a far wider sense than ever entered into the imagination of Mr. Gladstone; and if it is the deliberate view of the Government that they are at liberty to introduce legislation tending, however remotely and at however distant a period, to such a goal, then they hold their present position on false pretences. The attack on the House of Lords turns out to be nothing but an attack on the outworks of the defences of the Union. The Liberal Party pretends to be concerned with the relations between the two Houses; what they are really concerned with is an alteration of the historical relations of Great Britain and Ireland.
  I now pass to the question of the House of Lords. It will not have escaped attention that, although the paragraph referring to the House of Lords occupies the forefront of the gracious Speech from the Throne, and although my Amendment was not put down until last Thursday night, most of the speakers on the Address have scarcely referred to it. Perhaps that is not surprising. The Recess was given up to a kind of dross rehearsal of the battle scene to be shortly performed at Westminster. I must say I think that rehearsal was shockingly badly stage-managed. It was not only that the performers were few in number, because we are accustomed to that in all stage armies, and they made up for it by the frequency of their appearances. It was not that there was any lack of energy in shouting the war whoops which were intended to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy. If they failed in their object it was chiefly duo to the fact that they had scarcely time to sound the note of defiance before the bugle was sounded for a hasty and precipitate retreat. That bugle was sounded by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who stepped at the critical moment into the arena and told his followers that it was no use to shout, because they could not end the House of Lords by shouting; that they must have some rational and practical scheme to put before the country. Thereupon the leaders of the army plunged once more

  581
  into meditation, no doubt greatly assisted by eloquent lectures from the Minister for War, on the value of clear thinking, while the rank and file left off denouncing the criminal, and set themselves to devise some ingenious way to make the punishment fit the crime. Various schemes were propounded with that object. It has been suggested that we might admonish the House of Lords by a Resolution of this House. It has been suggested that the House of Commons should show its respect for Constitutional usage by adopting the frankly unconstitutional procedure of tacking a Bill or Resolution to a measure of Supply. And, lastly, it has been suggested that we might swamp the Peers altogether by a liberal introduction of fresh creations—[An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.]—on the principle, I suppose—I do not know which represents the view of the hon. Gentleman who cheers—either that we cannot have too much of a good thing, or the homœopathic principle that like cures like. According to hon. Gentlemen opposite, the issue is a very simple one; it is whether the people intend to be masters in their own house, or whether they intend to be the wards in Chancery of the Liberal Party; whether they prefer to sign their own cheques, or whether they will place their whole rights and property at the unfettered disposal of the sixteen or seventeen very estimable but not infallible Gentlemen who adorn the Government Bench. If the question is so simple as hon. Gentlemen opposite say, why not put it to the country at once? Why this sudden discovery that there is no hurry at all, and that the democracy can sit down and wait while the Liberal Party once more apply themselves to what they themselves describe as the task of Sisyphus rolling up the boulders of legislation to the summit of the Parliamentary mountain, only to see them plunge again down into the abyss? I can only conclude it is because the Government have not made up their own minds as to what their real grievance against the House of Lords is. The accounts of that grievance have been somewhat inconsistent. At one time we are told that the House of Lords reduces the Liberal Party to impotence. At another the Liberal Party tell us they have passed more legislation than any
  582
  other Government in one session. At one time we are told that the House of Lords is an hereditary assembly dominated by class interests; and at another the complaint is that they passed the Trade Disputes Bill and the Land Tenure Bill, in one of which they had a direct personal interest, while they refused to pass the Plural Voting and the Education Bills—in neither of which had they any interest at all. I fall back on the latest version of the grievance given by the Prime Minister—namely, that the House of Lords is a partisan assembly. If that merely means that the House of Lords contains more Conservatives than Liberals, then, of course, the fact is undeniable. But the fact itself stands in need of some explanation, because the House of Lords is not a purely hereditary assembly, but is constantly recruited by the addition of fresh Peers created by the Crown on the advice of responsible Ministers. During the last half-century there has been a far greater number of Liberal than of Conservative creations. What is the reason therefore why there are now so many more Conservative than Liberal Peers? Is it that Liberal opinions have such a disastrous effect on the longevity of their owners; or is it that Liberals, like other people, grow wiser as they grow older; or is it that when Liberals enter the House of Lords they for the first time find it possible to consider measures on their intrinsic merits, and not solely with reference to their temporary popularity with one or other section of the community? If the complaint is that the Peers are invariably hostile to a Liberal administration it is not historically accurate, for there have been occasions, as in the China War, when the Lords, like the people, supported a Liberal Minister who had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. If the complaint is that the House of Lords throws out more Liberal than Conservative proposals, broadly speaking it is true; but is it necessarily relevant to the issue which Ministers have raised—namely, whether the people are to be masters in their own house? In that case what they ought to ask is not whether the House of Lords is favourable to this or to that Party, but whether it on the whole reflects the deliberate opinion and judgment of the country.

  583
  The answer to that is that while the House of Lords has more than once rejected proposals for great constitutional changes with the unanimous approval of the country, they have never offered a permanent resistance to measures which have been definitely submitted for the approval of the electors and have received their emphatic endorsement. If the grievance is that the House of Lords introduces an element not of permanent obstruction but of regrettable and irritating delay, is not that equally true of any constitutional check that could be suggested? Is it not equally true of the referendum and of every second Chamber that has ever existed? And is that to be regretted in itself? Is not the House of Lords our sole security for stability of policy, the sole guarantee against hasty and violent reversals of legislation? Surely it is grotesque to say we are to alter the fundamental institutions of the country simply to suit the whim of a handful of people whose only conception of progress appears to be that of the motor-car accompanied by an uninterrupted emission of gas and a series of rapid explosions. I readily admit that the check ought not to be one-sided, but ought to operate equally, whichever Party is in power. But obviously the Liberal Party, which is par excellence the Party of innovation, will offer more frequent opportunities for the exercise of that check than will the Conservative Party. But can it be shown, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be able to show, that the House of Lords habitually passes Conservative legislation of a kind which it would have rejected if it had been proposed by a Liberal Government? Can anyone pretend that there is any analogy between the Education Bill which the House of Lords passed four years ago, and the Plural Voting Bill which they rejected last year. The Plural Voting Bill introduced a change into our constitutional system; the Education Bill of 1902 introduced no now constitutional principle. [An HON. MEMBER: Rates for religious education.] Why, for years and years you paid, not merely taxes, but rates, for denominational instruction in every Poor Law and reformatory school. There is another fundamental difference, viz., that the Education Bill could always be repealed, whereas in the nature of things the Plural Voting Bill, if
  584
  carried, would render it impossible ever again to consult the electors whose franchises were taken away. Let us admit for a moment that everything which has been contended is true as to the House of Lords being a partisan Assembly. What is the logical inference? That the Government ought to make themselves responsible for a Bill to strengthen and reform that Assembly so as to make it impartial, so as to infuse into it all the elements of ripe judgment, expert knowledge, and experience which the country can furnish. If that is their policy they will find many supporters and approvers, not only here, but in the House of Lords itself. Is that the Government policy? Not at all. The Prime Minister said that he was not interested in the constitution of the House of Lords; what he is interested in is the relations between the two Houses. You do not want, therefore, a stronger and a more impartial Chamber; you do not want a single Chamber. What, then, do you want? The only hint that I can gather is one given by the Lord Advocate in a speech at Edinburgh some weeks ago. His scheme, as I understand it, was that the House should pass a Resolution—I will assume that the Resolution would be effective—that any measure which twice passes through the Commons should, by what he called an extension of the prerogative of the Crown, pass through the House of Lords pro forma and go forward to receive the Royal Assent. In other words, it is a Resolution limiting the veto. What does it mean? The House of Lords is to be kept for two purposes only—to provide sinecure honours for gentlemen who have no opinions of their own, who are too idle to do any work, or who are such snobs that their whole ambition is to be able to write "Lord" instead of "Mr." in front of their names; and to serve as a decoy to persuade the people of the country that they have still a constitutional check on the Ministry of the day, whereas in point of fact it would only exist to say "ditto" to anything a Radical Government proposed. That is a conception which naturally might commend itself to a Government which habitually lives under servile conditions in the compounds of the various sections of its own supporters. But I am rather inclined to think that they will find it difficult to persuade any Second Chamber

  585
  to accept such a position as that, and they will find it still more difficult to deceive the people of the country by such a plan. It is nothing else than a single Chamber in disguise. I came across, the other day, a speech by a high constitutional authority, whose opinions, I think, will carry weight with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. It was a speech made in the year 1889 on a Motion to abolish the House of Lords—
  "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 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 the country. During the agitation in 1884 there were probably many who thought we ought only to have one Chamber, that the House of Lords should be extinguished; but I believe that feeling has declined, and I believe that generally there in a strong feeling in the country that the House of Commons ought not to have the sole charge of the affairs of the nation. The 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 it is much changed in its inner working and construction. The introduction of the closure, and the way the closure is worked, makes this House a totally different body from what it was before, and renders it necessary to provide safeguards against the dangers of precipitate action which did not exist in 1884."
  That speech was delivered by Mr. Bryce, the present Ambassador at Washington, in 1889, and I believe that it represents not only the truth but the feelings of the great mass of the people of this country. They are not going to entrust themselves to the tender mercies of a single Chamber, certainly not to one which, like the House of Commons, so habitually misrepresents the real balance of opinions in the country, and which, according to its own admission, cannot transact its business without the habitual suppression of the liberty of debate. The last election has apparently inspired Ministers with a most unfortunate belief in their ability to deceive the electors by an adroit use of "terminological inexactitudes." The latest illustration of that belief is their proposal in the name of popular government, and under the plea that they are extending the prerogatives of the Crown, to undermine the whole machinery on which
  586
  popular control really rests, and sooner or later to expose the Crown itself.—[Cries of "Oh, oh," "Withdraw."]
  MR. MOND: On a point of order, Sir. Is the hon. Member in order in accusing Members on this side of the House of disloyalty to the Crown?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No such charge was made that I heard.
  EARL PERCY: The hon. Member must know that the last thing I would do would be to impute disloyalty to any Member of this House. I am dealing with the effects of proposals, not with the intentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I say that this proposal, if ever carried, would inevitably undermine the whole machinery of popular control; and it must, sooner or later, by making the Crown the sole arbiter between the Ministers and the people, expose it to all the artillery of Party criticism and Party attack. Disguise it how you will, this is a veiled attack on popular liberties and on the constitutional foundations of the British Monarchy itself. It will be difficult for the Government, among their many mandates to discover a mandate for any change so revolutionary as that. We make no complaint that this question has been raised. We agree with the Prime Minister, new that it has been raised, that it must go forward to its issue. We think it well that the people of the country have been given this timely warning of the true nature of the path which they are invited to tread. We have no doubt as to their answer. From the study of the social well-being of the nation the Government have turned aside to destroy her Institutions. It will not be the first time that the intoxication of power has lured its possessors to destruction; and that those who have claimed in the name of a popular mandate the right to be the sole and exclusive interpreters of the people's will have demonstrated by their fate the truth of the saying—Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat. I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words 'But humbly regrets that the social legislation declared by Your Majesty's Government to be urgent should be postponed for the purpose of effecting revolutionary changes

  587
  in the powers exercised by Parliament over the affairs of the United Kingdom and in the constitutional relation between the two Houses.' "—Earl Percy.
  Question propose "That those words be there added."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Even if the noble Lord had not made, as he always does, a most able, interesting, and eloquent speech, it would have been necessary as a mere matter of Parliamentary good manners to treat this Amendment with at least an outward show of respect. Is it not the fruit, as far as we know the only fruit, of prolonged and anxious deliberations among the Leaders of the Opposition? Is it not the proposition, and as far as we know, the only proposition, which the corporate wisdom of their united counsels has enabled them to present on their own responsibility? There is, I know, on the notice Paper another Amendment which I understand we are to discuss to-morrow, but though it is ushered into life at the same moment as this one, its parentage is dubious. What mingled strain of blood pulsates in its veins we may, perhaps, tomorrow discover; at any rate no man on that front bench, no hon. or right hon. Gentleman hiss had the courage to make himself answerable either for its features or its fortunes. The noble Lord's Amendment is the only direct issue which the official Opposition challenges us to meet. But if it were not for its respectable origin and sponsorship, I should have thought that among all the Amendments now on the notice Paper it was the least deserving of the serious consideration of the House. What does it mean? The noble Lord asks the House to affirm that the path of social reform is being wantonly blocked by the determination of His Majesty's Government to proceed with two political schemes of a revolutionary character. These two schemes have at this moment this much in common—that there is not a single hon. or right hon. Gentleman on that Bench who has the faintest or dimmest inkling of what shape they will take. We see to what straits the noble Lord has been driven in his speech to night! The noble Lord has indulged in all kinds of ingenious speculations. His imagination has soared to the dizziest heights and dived to the murkiest depths
  588
  of political folly and turpitude, to sketch out the possible proposals of His Majesty's Government in rotation to Ireland. He has been obliged, for the purpose of his argument, knowing absolutely nothing of what the Government will propose, to treat these lurid, but unsubstantial visions as if they were solid, living, and moving realities. Unless you are going to lay down—and I shall be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition commits himself to any such doctrine—that whatever measures are "adumbrated" in the gracious Speech from the Throne it is the duty of Ministers in the debate on the Address to explain, if not in detail, at least in their main outline, I cannot imagine a more preposterous proceeding than to invite the House, as the noble Lord does, to condemn the Government in anticipation of their production for schemes of the real nature and contents of which neither ho, nor anyone outside the Government, has any knowledge whatever. But the noble Lord has said one or two things which I cannot pass without immediate notice. I will not follow him in that long catalogue of unmentioned social reforms which he thinks ought to be added to a list which I thought sufficiently long already to tax all the time and energy even of a new Parliament in a single session. But I will deal with the two main branches into which his indictment has been divided—the question of Ireland and the question of the House of Lords.
  As regards Ireland, the noble Lord, echoing, although somewhat softly, the strident notes of a speech of extraordinary and I must add uncharacteristic violence delivered two or three nights ago outside the House by the Leader of the Opposition, tells us that we are sitting here on false pretences, and that we are contemplating, if, indeed, we are not actually engaged in launching, a scheme which is at once revolutionary in its character and a gross breach of faith to the electors of this country. That is the charge which the noble Lord has made, and which is somewhat feebly cheered behind him.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Hear, hear.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Baronet always has the courage of the convictions of those who sit around him. But the

  589
  Leader of the Opposition, as I gathered from the speech to which I have referred, is shocked almost beyond his power of expression at the spectacle which he witnesses of the men actually responsible for the government of the country sliding slowly, but surely, into a perfect abyss of political dishonesty. True, his reprobation is tempered by some more agreeable emotions. After exhibiting our conduct in the darkest colours the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Have we not here the elements of hope?"
  That, Sir, is patriotism up to date. We have all known, in days gone by, politicians who had enough of the natural man left in them to find a gloomy satisfaction in the follies and ineptitudes of the rivals who had taken their place. But it has been reserved for the right hon. Gentleman, so far as my knowledge of history goes, to find a topic, not only of consolation, but of exultant hope, in the fact that the responsible Government of the day is engaged in the habitual and systematic violation of the moral law. It is difficult to treat these things seriously. But what is it all about? The noble Lord has not the remotest notion, nor has the Leader of the Opposition, of the actual schemes which the Government are about to introduce. All that they have to go upon, or, at any rate, all the recent information they have, is the declaration made in the course of this debate by the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary—declarations in which there was nothing at all novel, declarations that my right hon. friends retained their conviction that the ultimate solution of the Irish problem could only be found in some form of what is called Home Rule, and therefore that they could not be parties to any changes which in their view were inconsistent with further and future developments in that direction. There is nothing new in that. It was said by both my right hon. friends and by many hon. Members on this side both before and during the General Election. But apparently it is not they who are on the eve of committing this great act of political perfidy. Who are the guilty parties? Am I one of them? The noble Lord spared me any quotations from my speeches, for which I am very grateful, although he quoted some of the utterances of my close friends and colleagues. I want to use very plain
  590
  language with regard to this matter, and I will, therefore, say this in face of the House. If, when the scheme of the Government is produced—and I am not going to say anything about it until it is produced—it contains any provision which either in letter or spirit is inconsistent with, or is a violation of, any pledge, assurance, or declaration that I have ever given, either before or during the General Election—if that is the case, and it can be proved, I will at once resign my position in His Majesty's Government. It is quite true that I said, as several of my colleagues and as a great number of Gentlemen behind me said, that we regarded the dominating issue at the last election as the great issue between free trade and protection; and certainly I, amongst others, declared that in my view the introduction or passing of what is called a Home Rule Bill—that is to say, a Bill for creating an Irish Legislature with an Executive dependent on and responsible to it—would not and could not form part of the business of this House of Commons. If I were to be a party to the presentation of any such scheme I agree that I should be guilty of a breach of faith. Nothing could be plainer. But that was not the only pledge I gave to the electors. The hon. Member for Waterford the other night justly reminded us that the whole of us of the Liberal Party, in all its shades and sections, voted as one man with him in the late Houses of Commons in favour of a resolution which condemned, root and branch, the present system of administration in Ireland. I am not going, nor are any of my friends, to recede by one inch from the position which we took up then. I do not like to quote my own speeches. I would rather quote other people's. But since we are deliberately accused, not of a mere ordinary inconsistency, but—and by responsible politicians—of holding our seats here by false pretences, then in face of a slander of that kind, and it is nothing but a slander, the House of Commons will pardon what may seem a display of egotism if I endeavour to overtake it at once, before it has legs enough and wind enough, to carry it on its journey. I go back to the year 1902, a year when, as the historian will record, there were grave differences of opinion, though exaggerated differences as I always thought, within the ranks of the Liberal Party.

  591
  Speaking at a most critical moment in the month of March, during that episode in our history, I expressed the view on this subject which I then entertained and which I entertain now, and which I see no occasion to vary or modify. I pointed out that the difficulty of the Irish problem consisted in two main things, one of a local and the other of an Imperial kind, though interdependent and interlaced one with the other. The local factor is discontent, chronic, persistent, secular, in Ireland. The Imperial factor is the growing congestion in this House of business with which our forms of Procedure are totally unable to deal. As to the first I said—
  "That discontent springs from causes, not the least important of which has been the almost complete dissociation of the Irish people from their own administration and government, both local and central."
  After referring to the rejection of the two Home Rule Bills, those of 1886 and 1893, I said—
  "What does that bring us to? I am a practical man, and I am not ashamed to own it, in politics as elsewhere; and if I find I cannot attain my ends by a particular road, if I find that road is blocked. I try to attain my ends by some other, and I am not going to acknowledge that I have abandoned the object of my journey because, taught by experience, I seek a different way to it, or because that which I hoped to accomplish in a day at one stage I am obliged to accomplish in several stages slowly and indirectly."
  And I went on to say this—
  "I have not abandoned, and I do not know any Liberal who has, the ends of our Irish policy. I want to see Irish discontent, not bribed or dosed into a kind of lethargic and temporary suspension, I want to see it exorcised, extirpated, got rid of, and I am certain that, in the long run, that end cannot be fully attained except by the gradual but ever-increasing association of the people with their own Government, by the stimulus of local knowledge, and by the restraints of local responsibility."
  That was the doctrine which I preached then, the doctrine which I have preached ever since, and the doctrine which, so far as opportunity allows me, I mean to practise today. I will not trouble the House with any further quotation from myself; but I should like to read two or three lines from a speech of one who has always been, and, I am thankful to say, I still is, one of my closest and most intimate political colleagues and friends—the right hon. Baronet who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  592
  Speaking at Newcastle—the noble Lord has already referred to the speech—at the end of November, 1905, I think within a week of the resignation of the late Government, and, therefore, when we were on the threshold of the election, he used this language:—
  "Supposing the victory of free trade over protection had been accomplished, as he believed it would be at the next election, what what was going to be the policy of the Liberal Government with regard to Ireland? He would quote what he thought that policy should be. It was this—large administrative reforms on the lines which have already received, for a moment, the approval of Mr. Balfour, and for a permanency—"
  I am not quite sure that he was right here—
  "—the approval of Mr. Wyndhard and to which Sir Antony MacDonnell has earnestly devoted his time and attention To chat and to the development of local institutions in Ireland the next Liberal Government will be able to devote their energies."
  And he said—I ask the House to notice this—
  "There were certain steps of reform which he thought were ripe to be taken, and should be taken. Not one of these would prevent people going further if they wished it afterwards."
  This is the doctrine of what is called instalments; it is not the doctrine of which the Prime Minister is the sole and exclusive exponent—
  "But the country would reserve its opinion with regard to the further steps until it had seen the result of Sir Antony MacDonnell's policy. In his opinion, when they came to future Parliaments and future years, the country would have to go further still; but he was prepared to take what lie believed to be the settled opinion of the British electors, that they must have one step at a, time."
  I venture to say that if, after declarations of that kind, my right hon. friend and I, or any of us, were, in deference to these clumsy taunts about Home Rule, to recede from the position we then took up, to fold our arms, to try and put the Irish question on the shelf—I can assure the House, from twenty years experience, there is no more difficult operation—we should indeed have sunk to the lowest depths of cowardice and political dishonesty. The noble Lord asked, "Is it going to lead up to Home Rule?" There is no constitutional change, no change of any sort or kind, I venture to say, in the whole sphere of Irish administration which cannot be plausibly represented both by its

  593
  friends and its opponents as leading up to Home Rule. Who are the people who talk about steps loading up to Home Rule? From what quarter, with what kind of authority, I would venture to ask with what cleanness of hands, are these charges put forward? Why, have we forgotten the Local Government Bill? Was that a step towards Home Rule?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  *MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman opposite says "No." Has he forgotten Lord Salisbury's Newport speech in which he declared that that very concession, that very mode of dealing with the Irish question, would be far more dangerous both to the interests of the minority and to Imperial unity than a full-blown scheme of Home Rule itself? I am not going into the curious and interesting, but still obscure chapter of recent history—the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell, an avowed Nationalist, to take the place, as we were told by Lord Lansdowne, and as we were told by the then Chief Secretary, and as the correspondence showed, not of a mere subordinate, not of an ordinary Civil servant, but of a man who was to have a voice in the actual determination and direction of the policy of the country. [An IRISH MEMBER: As a colleague.] Yes, I think the word actually used was "a colleague"—a sort of colleague. I do not want to go into that. It is a painful subject. We have never understood to this moment either why it was that the late Chief Secretary resigned and yet the Prime Minister did not resign, or why it was that, if the Prime Minister felt bound to accept the Chief Secretary's resignation, the services of Sir Antony MacDonnell were retained. I say it is a painful subject. I think in the whole history, mythological and actual, of the human race, at any rate since the day when Iphigenia bared her throat to the knife at Aulis, there has been no more extraordinary, mysterious and inexplicable instance of vicarious sacrifice. My own test—I only offer it for what it is worth—with regard to any proposal for legislation and changes in the administration of Ireland is not whether it leads to or leads away from
  594
  a particular solution which is not for the moment in question, but whether it tends to get you further on the road towards the attainment of our two great purposes—the emancipation of the Imperial Parliament from business which it cannot do and the setting free of its hands for business which it ought to do and does not do, and the growing association, within the limits of Imperial unity, of the Irish people with responsibility for all merely Irish concerns. If only the voice of faction could be stilled, the voice of a faction, a noisy and intolerant, but, as I believe, a dwindling faction—if only the voice of that faction could be stilled, there never was a moment when there was a better prospect of making a substantial advance, with the general consent of reasonable men, on the path which leads to contentment and loyalty. Some, at any rate, of the presuppositions of what I may call old-fashioned Unionism—the notion, for instance, that if you gave the Irish power over their own affairs they would abuse it to oppress the minority and impose unjust burdens, by discrimination of religion and class, on their fellow-countrymen—some of these presuppositions, as I think even the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be glad to acknowledge, have been negatived, and more than negatived, by the experience we have had of the working of local institutions in Ireland. I would ask one further question. Is there anyone in this House or out of it who knows the condition of Ireland, and the temper of the British people—and those are the two important factors with which we have got to deal, both of which have largely altered during the past fifteen years—is there anyone with that knowledge who can doubt that the area of misunderstanding, both between classes in Ireland and between peoples on opposite sides of St. George's Channel, has been steadily narrowed and cut down? The Government, at any rate, wish to approach this task, even if our effort at the moment is not on what is called an heroic scale, not in this atmosphere of suspicion which the noble Lord has sought to engender. We wish to approach it in the spirit of good-fellowship, and in the hope that our efforts may be attended with some share, at any rate, of the blessing which is promised to those who seek peace and ensue it.

  595
  Now I pass for a moment to the other branch of the noble Lord's attack, because, after the clear and full declaration which has been made by the Prime Minister earlier in this debate, no more is needed, if, indeed, anything is needed but two or three sentences. The noble Lord says we have not made up our mind what our grievance against the Lords is. We must be a very slow-witted Party to be in that condition. Does anyone defend, does the noble Lord himself defend, the present system? He does not. What is that system? It is a system in which, it is true, you have got a second Chamber. The noble Lord said something about considering measures on their intrinsic merits. No doubt that is the ideal function of a second Chamber in Plato's Republic or any imaginary polity of that kind; but the second Chamber as we have it in fact and experience, as everyone who is listening to me knows perfectly well, accepts practically without demur everything that a Tory House of Commons sends to it, and rejects or mutilates with as little hesitation, subject, I agree, to the restraining influence of an occasional fit of prudent alarm, the vast proportion, at any rate, of the measures which are sent up to it by a Liberal House of Commons. The noble Lord compared the treatment of the Education Bill of the late Government with that of the Plural Voting Bill of the present Government. You could not have an apter illustration of what I mean. The Education Bill of the late Government was a measure which had not only never been submitted to the electors, but which, I venture to say, not one man in a thousand at the General Election of 1900 ever dreamt of being introduced. The measure was violent, revolutionary, subversive of the system which had prevailed for thirty years, and it was protested against and voted against by us, then a small minority in this House, with a pertinacity which I have rarely seen surpassed, and accepted by the House of Lords without demur. And the noble Lord actually has the courage in defending the title of the House of Lords to be a second Chamber which considers measures on their intrinsic merits, and in view of the degree of acceptance and satisfaction which they have received from the people of this country, to contrast that with the case of the Plural Voting Bill! The principle of the Plural Voting Bill has been before the electors of this
  596
  country for more than twenty years. Go back to the General Election of 1885, and read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and others, and you will find that there was not a Liberal candidate during that time who did not use the old formula "one man, one vote." But the noble Lord tells us, with a strange indifference either to the facts or to the intelligence of this House, that it would have been an irreparable mistake to pass the Plural Voters Bill, because its victims would have been hopelessly disfranchised. He forgets that they would all have been left in possession of a vote. [Opposition cries of "No."] Yes, unless they were stupid and ignorant, and if they took the most ordinary precautions. My right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works and I took hours and weeks in devising safeguards in the interests of the careless and absent-minded plural voter. Moreover, that was a Bill which peculiarly affected the privileges and position of this House. It was heartily approved of at the last general election by the vast bulk of the electors of the country, and I do not hesitate to say that its rejection by the House of Lords was a direct affront to the popular will. The noble Lord, with perhaps unconscious irony, in the framing of this Resolution professes to deplore the postponement of social reform to political change. I will not go through his list of social reforms; but was there ever a clearer case of putting the cart before the horse. Where, I ask, and in what quarter is social reform really blocked? Every proposal of the kind that we make, provided that it interfere—and what social reform worthy of the name does not interfere—with the vested interests of some class—every measure of that kind that we propose—as we know by long and bitter experience—has in the course of its progress, if it is to get on to the Statute Book at all, to be diluted and doctored to suit the palates of an Assembly which regards the safeguarding of vested interests as one of its supreme trusts. The matter was never brought more clearly to a head than it was at the close of last session. What happened then? A minority of this House numerically almost insignificant, fresh from an almost unexampled rebuff at the polls—that minority, by the aid of the agency of the House of Lords, showed

  597
  itself able to control, and even to dictate, the legislation of the country. The noble Lord has very aptly used the metaphor of Sisyphus and reminded us that we live laborious days in painfully pushing a stone up a hill, only when it has reached the top to have it hurled back. If I might change the metaphor I should say that whatever we do we are either checkmated or stalemated; we play under conditions under which we can never win the game. Well, that is the state of the situation; and the position of the reference to this matter in the King's Speech shows the overshadowing importance of this matter over all the rest of the legislative programme, and the deliberate opinion of His Majesty's Government that we are face to face with a caricature and a mockery of representative government. We are determined, with the assent of our follow countrymen, as we believe, to provide for it, as soon as may be, an effectual remedy.
  *MR.CARLILEsaid he rose, with very much diffidence, to support the motion of the noble Lord the Member for Kensington. He was quite sure that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a very large measure justified the claim raised by the noble Lord that the present Government was committed to a policy of Home Rule. If there had been any doubt in their minds before, that doubt had now been removed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained that hon. Members of the Opposition did not know the character of the measure which the present Administration proposed to bring in. They might not have the details before them, but certain particulars they had, and they believed that they were justified in judging of that measure by the forecast which had been vouchsafed to them. They were told that it would be a measure leading up to, and consistent with the larger policy of Home Rule. If the measure did not come up to that description of it, then they were justified in complaining that the Prime Minister had not placed before the House a fair forecast of his principal measure for the session. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assured his constituents at the time of the General Election that no Home Rule Bill would be introduced
  598
  in this Parliament, they had the distinct assurance of the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Government were going to bring in a measure which would lead up to and be consistent with Home Rule. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the temper of the people of England had changed during the last fifteen years. The right hon. Gentleman would, he thought, find that so far as Home Rule was concerned the temper of the people of England had not changed, and that they were as opposed to the granting of Home Rule to Ireland as in 1886 or 1893, or to any measure which would lead up to it. He supported the Amendment of the noble Lord because it condemned the postponement by the Government of social legislation. Social legislation only found a very meagre place at the end of the King's Speech. Was it to be postponed until after the Attorney-General's revolution of which they had heard so much, or until the Chief Secretary for Ireland had succeeded in taking an efficient step towards the disintegration of the Empire? If so, social legislation would be postponed for a very long time. It was proposed that certain revolutionary changes should be made in relation to the powers of Parliament over the affairs of the United Kingdom. Such proposals would be met with consistent opposition by all who believed that the union between this country and Ireland was essential to the well-being and the existence not only of the United Kingdom but of the whole British Empire. The present Administration would find it extremely difficult to carry out what they proposed to do, until, in the words of Lord Rosebery, it undertook "to convert the predominant partner." Mr. Bryce, now British Ambassador to the United States, had told an audience at Newcastle that Ireland was in a state of profound peace. If that right hon. Gentleman were now in the House they might ask him to read the evidence in that day's Times of the existence of boycotting in Ireland, showing that there were many people there suffering from grievous persecution. If the control of the affairs of that island were handed over to the disloyal majority, hundreds, if not thousands, of persons would be subjected to tyranny and persecution which would make their lives intolerable, and in all probability result in their

  599
  having to leave the country. Other changes were referred to in the Amendment of the noble Lord relating to the constitutional relations between the two Houses of Parliament. These justified them in asking if it was true that the House of Lords did reject measures which the country really wanted. He believed that that statement was not warranted. Reference had been made to the Education Bill of last year; but such a measure was referred to the electorate in January last. There was then no proposal laid before the country practically to destroy the denominational schools, and to make it impossible for children to be brought up in the religion of their parents, or for head teachers to impart religious instruction to the children in the schools, however much they might desire to do so. The country gave no mandate for the iniquitous Education Bill of 1906, and little courtesy was shown to the House of Lords for the excellent Amendments they introduced into that measure. As regarded Plural Voting the House of Lords acted as they might be expected to act in regard to such a measure. It was a party measure introduced in a petty party spirit, merely in order to enable the Government, who had been returned on the cry of Chinese slavery, to obtain some cheap popularity. It was a paltry party measure which was rightly and justly thrown out by the House of Lords, and he was sure when the issue was placed before them, the country would back up the House of Lords in regard to their action upon both the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill. They on that side were prepared to go to the country upon this Education question alone. They spent two months in debating it, and notwithstanding the admiration which had been expressed for the conduct of that measure by the new Chief Secretary for Ireland, still the Bill was a bad one and the House of Lords were justified in treating it as they had done. There was no doubt that the only mandate before the electors at the last General Election was that of the alleged Chinese slavery in the Transvaal, and now after fourteen months the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had told them that during the month of January no fewer than 2,121 indentured Chinese labourers were introduced into the country. That was the way in which the only mandate
  600
  which the Government received from the people had been treated, and the present Ministry, who were going to put a stop to the slavery in the Transvaal, were admitting the Chinese as freely as ever. Why should social legislation be deferred in order to give Home Rule to Ireland and to attack the House of Lords? The procedure seemed to be like that of the Chinaman who set fire to his house in order to light his pipe, and this precious Government seemed to wish to destroy the British Constitution in order to carry out their policy of attacking the House of Lords. In consequence of the long frost there had been a large amount of unemployment, but those out of work had meanwhile not received a word of encouragement or any assurance that the difficulties they were encountering would be dealt with. That was the condition of the country at a time when they were told that trade was booming and that the trade returns were going up by leaps and bounds under a system of so-called free trade. They hoped that the time might come when under better auspices and under a better fiscal system they would be able to do away with that system under which the suffering poor now existed, a condition of things which found no word or echo of sympathy in the gracious Speech. In supporting the Amendment he hoped that before long it would be realised by a large majority of this House that by the action of the House of Lords during the past session, and their action in 1886 and 1893 in reference to the Home Rule Bills, they had constituted an efficient barrier between the people of this country and the first steps towards the disintegration of the Empire and of the interests which the present generation had received from those who had gone before them and which they desired to pass on to their successors.
  MR.AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that there were two words in the Amendment which had impressed him very much, viz., the reference to "revolutionary changes." He was not aware that they had in the King's Speech anything which could be called a revolutionary measure, and he was content to wait until he saw the proposals of His Majesty's Government before deciding on the point. He would

  601
  say, however, that he did not think that a revolution was or revolutionary measures were at all likely to come hurriedly in this country, although language of that kind might be used by newspapers or by perfervid orators. In this country, however, revolutions had been extremely rare, although it was quite true that we had sometimes what might be called political violence, but, in the same way as a seismic disturbance might take place at Java or Jamaica and not disturb much the action of the instrument which at Greenwich Observatory registered the movement of the earth, so, although the eyes of every man woman or child might be riveted on a particular constituency, the stability of the British Constitution was not disturbed. We had great cyclones in which feeling was greatly excited, but if the earth did not open public-houses did, and if property was not destroyed tempers were sometimes lost, and although lives were not jeopardised, reputations occasionally suffered. But what did the total of all this mean? The great institutions of the country had scarcely given a susceptible reception to the oscillations of the electorate, and the stability of the British Constitution of which they heard so much was something to strike despair into the heart of the too ardent social reformer. The Resolution expressed regret that social legislation was to be put on one side for the purpose of making changes in the constitutional relation of the two Houses, but he hoped the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and to whose speech they had listened with the greatest pleasure, would forgive him if he said that many of them on that side of the House heard his expressions of regret with considerable reserve. He did not know anything more fascinating, on the historical side of the two Parties, than the question of what they had each of them achieved in regard to social reform. The Loader of the Opposition had challenged the Government to show whether, as a matter of fact, more measures of social reform had not been put upon the Statute-book by Tory Governments than by Liberal Governments. He had no doubt about it. More measures of social reform had been placed upon the Statute-book by Tory than by Liberal Governments, but there was a very easy explanation. In all cases in the history of social reform it had been the mission of the Liberal Party to go into the constitu-
  602
  encies and, as it were, sow the seed of social reform; but when it came to putting measures on the Statute-book, the Liberal Party had failed because they had found that the friction of the constitutional machine was such that they were not able to do anything more than propose, and possibly fail in carrying, their measures of social reform. The next stage of the process was that the Conservatives, who had crippled these measures, and who, by their representatives in the House of Lords, had been able to stop their becoming law, were able to take up the threads of social reform where the Liberals had left them, and, being able to pass them in the House of Lords, were enabled to place them, in an attenuated form, on the Statute-book. He did not, from the other point of view, know why the noble Lord should regret that the social legislation declared by the Liberal Government to be urgent, should be postponed for the purpose of effecting revolutionary changes in the powers exercised by Parliament over the affairs of the United Kingdom and in the constitutional relation between the two Houses. The question of social reform was urgent, and if the Liberal Party were about to play, were forced to play, as they might be, from the necessities of the case, their customary role of endeavouring to overcome the difficulties of the constitutional machine, it was possible, but, he hoped, not probable, that history might repeat itself, and that the Liberal Party might not be able to carry the social measures they now so ardently desired. He hoped the traditional rôle in this case would not be fulfilled. He would venture to draw an analogy. He was told it was the custom of the astute Chinaman to do his fishing by proxy. He did not trouble to fish for himself, but trained a cormorant, who dived into deep, and sometimes muddy, water, and brought up a fish on which he hoped to make a savoury meal.
  MR. JEREMIAH MACVEAGHcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR,: But when the bird endeavoured to swallow its fish it was found it had a gold ring round its neck, which

  603
  made the process of swallowing impossible, and, worse still, that it was compelled to disgorge the fish and see its wily co-adventurer enjoy the fish which it had obtained. Nobody who had seen the way in which the bird had tried to get its meal, and been deprived of the fruits of its labour by the wily Chinaman who got the benefit, could watch it without sympathy. The analogy he wished to draw between the Parties in that House and that story was that it was the Liberal Party which went down into the deep waters and brought up what it thought was essential to the well-being of the community, and it was the Tory Party which, by the political machinery of the country, had been able to profit by the labours of its opponents. The time had come when some change was necessary in the constitution of the relationship of the two Houses. He thought the tendering of a "humble regret" from the other side of the House at the postponement of what must eventually inure to the benefit of the community might, with some decency, be abandoned.
  MR. SWIFTMACNEILLsaid the Amendment now before the House was one of which he was rather jealous. He himself had put down an Amendment in respect of the constitution of the House of Lords, and, at great inconvenience to himself, he had remained in the House to a late hour in order to ensure that his Amendment should be put first on the list. After some three days of incubation, however, there came an Amendment, the words of which might be those of the noble Lord, but which certainly showed the hand of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for London. The Amendment was an exceedingly clever one. It began with the insinuation that the Liberal Party were endeavouring to postpone social legislation in order to carry the country into an agitation in favour of what was called both revolutionary and unconstitutional reform. Those two words, however, meant nothing but an expression of opinion in the mind of the speaker or writer who used them. Then they said that the attempt to alter the constitutional relationship between the two Houses was being made by men who ought to forward the social legislation of the country. As he understood it, it was an attempt to alter the consti-
  604
  tutional relations in order that the measures of social reform proposed by this House should not be obstructed or mutilated in the other. They were attempting to take away the barrier and make social legislation easy of performance. One of the greatest social reformers who ever lived was a Tory Peer, and his name stood most high in the history of this country. If ever there was a great and good man in this world that man was Lord Shaftesbury. What were Lord Shafesbury's views upon this question? When he began public life he forswore everything that would prevent social reform. Lord Shaftesbury, speaking of his own times, said that the measures of social reform sent up by the House of Commons were mutilated and rejected by the House of Lords and, in relation to the Mines Regulation Bill, that he never saw a greater instance of the selfishness of the House of Lords and of their frigidity towards anything like social reform; that the selfishness and insensibility to human sympathy in that assembly was absolutely without parallel. Lord Shaftesbury further said that if the people were alive to their own interests they would see what the House of Lords was. He compared the House of Lords to a rabbit and the people to a boa-constrictor, and said the rabbit was ready in its cage if the boa-constrictor was in earnest. He (Mr. MacNeill) thought the boa-constrictor was in earnest now. If ever there was an instance of the mutilation of a measure of social reform by the House of Lords that instance was the Parish Councils Bill. Mr. Gladstone's last expression from the front bench was that the issue was between the Lords and the people—between those who represented themselves and 70,000,000 of people—as to whether they should have a permanent and predominant voice in regard to their own interests. It was very easy to speak of certain proceedings that they did not like as revolutionary and unconstitutional. Though the Government had not told them their scheme, yet he averred that no scheme, however drastic, or the reform of the House of Lords, could be, historically, either revolutionary or illegal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them what the Government programme was, but they could easily gather what it was from certain expressions used, so far back as March

  605
  1888, by the Secretary of State for India in the debate in this House on the hereditary principle. Speaking as representing the leaders of the Liberal Party, the Secretary for India said that the first measure to take in effecting a reform was to make the people masters in their own House of Parliament—to take care that the hereditary principle was no longer allowed to stand in the way of the wishes of a free self-governing and self-respecting nation. Therefore, they knew that the hereditary principle must be attacked in some form, unless the Government had altered their opinion since 1889. But this was said to be unconstitutional, and that the relations of the House of Lords were constitutional. They were nothing of the kind. In order to be in accordance with the principles of the Constitution and with long practice, the House of Lords and the House of Commons must be two assemblies of harmonious tendencies, and not of contrasted or opposed tendencies. The House of Lords was of contrasted and opposed tendencies. That had been so ever since 1832, and it had become so more and more every day. The House of Commons had been reformed no fewer than three times; the House of Lords had never been reformed in any circumstances whatsoever. There had been no such thing in the course of 750 years as an Act of Parliament for a reform of the House of Lords, however slight, except one, and that Act, passed in 1871, was to preclude bankrupt Peers from getting their writs. In all that regarded the composition of the two Houses in their social caste, and in all the ideas that governed the people at large, the two Houses of Parliament were not co-ordinate, but contrasted and opposing Houses. It was not so before 1832, because the same aristrocratic influences which dominated the House of Lords then dominated the House of Commons. It was not imagination to say that the House of Commons, until 1832, was in the hands of the House of Lords. Of 658 Members of the House of Commons, no fewer than 487 were returned by single individuals, and of these 487 there were 310 returned as the nominees of Peers. The Duke of Norfolk alone nominated no fewer than eleven men to be sent to the House of Commons. The hereditary principle of the House of Lords, as they now knew, was a very modern outcome
  606
  of constitutional development. Would it surprise people to know that until certainly the period of the Revolution, the majority of Members of the House of Lords were not hereditary? They were the Lords spiritual; they were abbots or prelates—prelates of a very different character from the twenty prelates we had now. In the Middle Ages the humblest boy, if he went into the Church, was allowed to rise to the highest position. Until the time of the Revolution, the spiritual Peers always commanded a large majority over the temporal Peers, and of those spiritual Peers at least two-thirds were men who, while surrounded by all the privileges and grandeur of wealth, felt for the people, and, although not selected by the people, yet represented the people in feeling, thought, and tradition, for they were, in many cases, allied to the people from among whom they had sprung. Forty temporal Peers had been created since the commencement of the present reign, and 295 were created in the last reign. After the Wars of the Roses, in the reign of Henry VII., there were only twenty-nine lay Peers, and in the reign of Henry VIII., fifty-nine. With the increase in the number of Peers there was an increase of the number of rotten boroughs. These rotten boroughs were created to overwhelm the popular vote, and with a fresh batch of rotten boroughs there was a fresh batch of Peers. In the Stuart régime there were 193 Peers created, nearly all of them purchased in the reign of James I. and Charles I., and certainly all were bought in the reign of Charles II. In the reign of George III. no fewer than 388 Peers were created, and these men on a whole were not of great distinction; they were large contributors to Party funds, and they utterly altered the tone of the House of Lords, and brought it into still greater contrast with the House of Commons and with popular feeling. Were the temporal Peers hereditary? He would ask the Government, who had a scheme in contemplation, to consider this question very carefully. He affirmed, and he had never been contradicted, that it was perfectly competent for the Minister of the Crown, for the Cabinet, to advise the Sovereign to issue or withhold the writ of summons, by which alone a Peer could attend. Lord Cranborne, speaking in the House of Lords in February, 1856, said that the

  607
  presence of Peers in the House of Lords depended on the writ of summons, which either could be given or withheld. The writ of summons was not an honour, and not a privilege of the Peer. It was an obligation upon him to attend for the performance of most solemn duties, and it was unquestionable that if the Crown did not consider a Peer capable of giving the Crown counsel and advice, it was fully within its purview and power to return his writ, postpone it, or even cancel it. It did not interfere in the slightest degree with his status as a Peer. No lawyer would deny that the prerogative of the Crown could not be taken away, and the exercise of the prerogative in the Stuart time, however arbitrary, was not illegal. Under the Bill of Rights it could be acted upon, not in propria persona, but it could be exercised as acting under the Constitution and on the advice of Ministers. When the present Duke of Devonshire became a Member of the House of Lords he appeared before their Lordships to take the Oath, but as he had omitted to bring with him his writ of summons the administering of the Oath was refused, and he could not take his seat. The Crown could either act or refuse to act in regard to the issue of writs of summons to Peers for attend-dance in Parliament. The issue of a writ of summons was not a matter of privilege, but a question of consultation with the Crown as to whether a person ought or ought not to be invited to take part in the proceedings of the Upper Chamber. It was well known that the late Lord Selborne, a distinguished lawyer who had been Lord Chancellor, held the opinion that a man might be a Peer of the Realm and not a Lord of Parliament, it being entirely in his discretion on succeeding to a peerage whether or not he took out a writ of summons. Accordingly the noble Lord's son, the present Lord Selborne, who as Lord Wolmer was a Member of the House of Commons, attempted to retain his seat in the House after his succession to the peerage, contending that he was not a Lord of Parliament and did not propose to become one; but the authorities decided against him. Let these gentlemen be Peers of the Realm as much as they liked, let them be free to become Members of the House of Commons if they liked; but even if they were as wise as Solon they should not be
  608
  permitted to make laws unless they occupied some sort of elective position. The way he advocated for dealing with the House of Lords involved no dissolution of Parliament, but was a smooth and easy procedure well within the competency of the Crown to exercise on the advice of the Ministers. The House of Lords could be dealt with in the way he had suggested and the Veto Bill could still be gone on with. They ought to be acting in this matter, and they did not want simply to pass a Resolution or have abuse of the House of Lords as a kind of doxology in every Liberal speech. It was quite clear from history that the prerogative of the Crown could not be destroyed by desuetude. They had had some experience on this point during the reign of Edward I. Why could not the same prerogative be used by the Crown to-day? As guardians and trustees for the people with whose interests they were connected and whose interests were very dear to them, could they, as sane men, allow a gentleman simply because he was the son of his father to be a revising agent over their proceedings? The less some of them said about that the better. Many of the peerages were obtained because the first peers were the illegitimate sons of distinguished persons. There was one peerage still in existence which was given to a man because he married the cast-off mistress an English king. In the past many of knighthoods and baronetcies had been bought with large sums of money and some of the peerages had been bought by more considerable sums. He wished to express his gratitude to the hon. Member for having made his proposal the official Amendment of the Opposition Party. With regard to Ireland he had sat in the House of Commons for twenty years and they had had their little quarrels with the House of Lords. The hon. Member for South Tyrone who was always remarkably moderate in his language made a speech twenty years ago in which he said that they in Ireland would make short work of the House of Lords, and that he did not know anyone outside a lunatic asylum who would defend the hereditary principle. His hon. friend in speaking thus was going completely on historical precedent. In 1751 in the Irish Parliament a Dublin crowd invaded the House of Lords and pitched them all out. They

  609
  found an old woman in the street, placed her on the seat of reverence—the woolsack—and put a churchwarden clay pipe in her mouth. He wished that members of this House would take matters more clearly into their own hands and deal with the House of Lords. He was extremely grateful to the senior Member for the City of London for linking together the question of the House of Lords and the Irish question. It was delightful to think that when they went to the country attacking the House of Lords they would also be attacking the hacks of Dublin Castle. They were pretty much in the same boat, and he hoped they would live and die in the same boat. If the man in the street were asked whether the men constituting the House of Lords with such antecedents as he had described should rule over him the answer would be "I do not think so." He himself would say that even if their ancestors had rendered valuable service to the State, that did not confer on their descendants a hereditary right to legislate.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he desired to support the Amendment which his noble friend had proposed in such eloquent terms. The Opposition had a grievance against the Government for introducing into the King's Speech two revolutionary measures. They felt aggrieved because these measures were not put before the country twelve months ago. Whenever Home Rule was mentioned on the platform by Unionist candidates they were told it was a bogey and a scarecrow, and that Home Rule was not going to be introduced during the life of this Parliament. The other question—that of the House of Lords—was never raised at the recent election. As to the question of Home Rule, he reminded the House that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said that if a Home Rule Bill was introduced it would be not only a fraud, but be a breach of faith and an act of dishonesty; while the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said "Home Rule was not an issue, and could not be." But he understood from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he excused himself by saying they were only going to give a measure of devolution—a half-way measure. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the electorate twelve months ago he was going half-way to Home Rule? If he had,
  610
  they all know what the answer would have been. They all knew that the measure was going to lead up to a separate Parliament in Ireland, and ultimately to a separate nation altogether. What did the late Mr. Gladstone say on the question of devolution when it was brought forward? When he introduced his Home Rule Bill in 1886 them was a suggestion that he was going too far, and he said:—
  "It is absurd, in my opinion, to talk of the adoption of such a scheme—that of delegating various branches of Irish affairs to a central elective body—in the face of two obstacles. Firstly, that those whom it is intended to benefit do not want it, do not ask for it, and refuse it."
  He understood that was the position of Irish Members to-day. What was the second obstacle?
  "That all those who are fearful of giving a domestic Legislature to Ireland would naturally and emphatically, and rather justly, say: 'We will not create your Central Board and palter with this question, because we feel certain that it will afford nothing in this world except a stage from which to agitate for further concession—and because we see that by the proposal you make you will not even attain the advantage of settling the question raised.' "
  The settlement which the hon. Member for Waterford sought was plain, because he had said they would be satisfied with nothing less than a Parliament in Dublin, with an Executive responsible to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed a scheme of Devolution which was to lead up to that. He understood the Government admitted that. It was not denied. As to the other revolutionary measure, the Government had no case against the House of Lords, and would have been better advised to have waited until such time when the House of Lords had really rejected a popular measure. In amending the Education Bill, and in throwing out the Plural Voting Bill, the House of Lords had not rejected popular measures. The Government dared not go to the country on this question, because the country was against them. He supported the Amendment.
  MR.MASTERMANsaid he did not want to follow the hon. Member who had just spoken with regard to the Education Bill, and he could not see any particular object in dealing any further with the Irish question, which had been absolutely and

  611
  conclusively dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many hours had been wasted in reading quotations from the prelections of living and dead speakers in regard to the Irish question, although there had been no indication of what the Government proposals were to be. He therefore wished to turn his attention to the brilliant speech of the noble Lord who had introduced this Amendment. There were several minor points of criticism he wished to make. He must express a little surprise that the noble Lord had failed to notice that one object of the Parish Councils Act was to accomplish the regeneration of the rural population of the country, and that the House of Lords had removed from that Act those portions which would have made that regeneration possible. The subject he was most keenly interested in was that of social reform. He rejoiced at the enthusiasm for social reform which had been manifested in the speeches from the benches opposite; and he congratulated the noble Lord and those who acted with him on the sedulous manner in which that enthusiasm had been concealed during the last ten years. He did not want to use the tu quoque argument, but he had the strongest recollection of a time when in common with every young man he looked at both political parties with equal indifference. All through the years at the end of last century, when there were Budget surpluses, they looked to the Government with hope, then with hope deferred, and afterwards with utter despair of any particular problem of social reform being approached by the Government. For ten years there was inscribed on the roll of legislation only one first class measure of social reform, the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1887, and that was brought in and forced through Parliament by the right hon. the Member for West Birmingham, who was described by hon. Gentlemen opposite as an alien in the fold. The last general election was fought mainly on the question of free trade versus protection; but there was a stronger conviction amongst the working classes than even that; and that was that there was no hope of getting any great social reform from the Unionist Government. The result was that at the present moment the word "Imperialism" had no charm for the working classes of the country. A year ago he had no sort of
  612
  feeling of indignation against the House of Lords. If the measure proposed by the Government in the King's Speech had then been proposed he would have been strongly against it; but now, if in his humble fashion he would support an immediate and drastic movement against the House of Lords, it was entirely due to a conviction, which experience had driven home, that in regard to social reform they could look for no better treatment from that Chamber in the future than in the past. The noble Lord had referred to the Plural Voting Bill. That had nothing to do with social reform; but the Education Bill was a great and far-reaching measure of social reform, for it had bound up with it the medical inspection of the children in the schools. Again, for hours and days they had worked in the House of Commons for the passing of the Provision of Meals for Children Bill, and at the last moment a small company in the House of Lords came down and struck out all the provisions which related to Scotland, in spite of the fact that the whole movement arose in Scotland and that the condition of the children in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee in regard to under-feeding was far worse than in most English towns. Then in regard to the Trade Disputes Bill, that was not let through by the House of Lords because they thought it was a just measure, not because they thought that the country was behind it, but because the late First Lord of the Treasury thought that the country was behind it. If the late First Lord of the Treasury had withdrawn his embargo the House of Lords would have had one of the happiest moments of their lives in massacring the measure. If the Leader of the Opposition would give an assurance that the hand of the House of Lords would be carefully lifted from any measure of social reform mentioned in the King's Speech, then, so far as he was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman would take the heart out of the opposition to the House of Lords. He was convinced that the best thing they could do for social reform was to back up the Government in securing that an equal measure of justice should be given to the legislation of a Liberal Government as to that of a Conservative Government. Might he say how much he rejoiced in the fact that the Government in the Speech from

  613
  the Throne had declared their determination to continue the work of social reform concurrently with their campaign against the House of Lords? He referred to the paragraph in the King's Speech concerning the very kind of social reforms that the noble Lord advocated, and which he and those who agreed with him were glad to find would receive the heartiest support of the noble Lord and his colleagues—measures dealing with the housing of the people in the country districts and with small holdings. He hoped that the Bills would be such as would make a beneficial change in the rural condition of the country. If the Government would give an assurance that they intended to promote measures of social reform concurrently with their campaign against the House of Lords, and not unduly to lengthen that campaign, he thought the anxiety of the noble Lord opposite as to postponing social reform would be relieved, and with that assurance perhaps the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment. It would be impertinent on his part to give any advice as to the policy which ought to be pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he respectfully asked them this question: They had lost the support of the working classes of this country. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] They had lost it in the great working-class constituencies of the country, which had returned Liberal and Labour Members by large majorities. Did they think that the conduct of the present Government during the past twelve months had in any appreciable degree induced the working classes to give their support to the Unionist Party? The by-elections offered a very strong contrast to the usual falling away of a majority. He knew a considerable number of Conservative working men, but he had never yet found any working man with any kind of enthusiasm for the House of Lords as at present constituted. He warned the Tory Party that they would never get the working men to demonstrate in Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square in defence of the House of Lords. They heard last week a considerable amount of discussion about old-age pensions and the suggestion that old-age pensions might be taken out of the proceeds of a high protective tariff. He wished the Party opposite would formulate such a system, because he knew that, if they did, it would have a
  614
  disastrous effect upon their fortunes in the country. [Laughter.] But these questions seemed to him to be less subjects for laughter than for tears, and he wished heartily to join in the eloquent appeal made last week by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in connection with the immediate pressing necessity of pressing forward social reforms. If their campaign against the Lords meant the abandonment of that policy, he for one would hesitate before he engaged in it at all. For fifteen years we had not had one single first-class measure of social reform, as he did not think the tiny measures of social reform connected with the housing of the working classes could be claimed within that description, and the country was hoping that this year there would be placed upon the Statute-book some of those measures mentioned in the King's Speech which were vital to the continued welfare of the country. There were the problem of the decaying village, the problem of unemployment, the problem of pauperism and of increasing pauperism, and other matters to be dealt with. But he was thankful to say that the Government in the gracious Speech from the Throne had outlined a programme which filled them with delight, and if they would only pursue the policy there indicated concurrently with the policy of dealing with the House of Lords they would receive such support as few Governments had received.
  *MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for North West Ham into a discussion of what did and what did not, in the opinion of one side of the House or the other, constitute social reform; but so far as he could gather the hon. Gentleman had invited them to enter into a sort of Dutch auction of reforms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had denied that the policy which the Government was pursuing was in any sense a revolutionary one in regard to Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman did not deny that the new Government measures for that country were not intended to help forward Home Rule later on. It was a step in advance, and, although it might only be a little step, that consideration did not meet the objection taken by his noble friend, which had reference, not to the size of the step, but to the taking of any step of that character at all. He

  615
  and his friends objected not only to the big hole for the cat but also to the little hole for the kitten. The Bill which the Government proposed to bring forward would provoke a large struggle and must therefore take up time which ought to be devoted to measures of social reform such as those to which the hon. Member for North West Ham had alluded. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the second part of the charge was that they were going to make great revolutionary changes in the relations between the two Houses, and he admitted that they were going to do so, and said it was a very good thing to do. They on that side had great difficulty in criticising the proposed action of the Government in the matter, because they were entirely in the dark as to the method by which they proposed to achieve that result. He doubted whether the Government were in possession of that information themselves. What was there in the political situation which called for immediate action in this matter? Last spring the Government came into office with what they were fond of calling a blank cheque from the electorate. He was rather sceptical about that, but let it be supposed that they came in with a whole book of blank cheques. They began to fill up those blank cheques and to present them in another place for payment. A very large number were honoured. One, the Aliens Bill, the Government quite accidentally omitted to endorse and it was returned to them. He had not heard that the Government showed any signs of endorsing it, and he thought it would be interesting if they had a statement from the Government on the subject. Two other Bills, the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill, were regarded as making too large a draft upon the confidence of the electors and were returned marked "Refer to drawer." Was there anything unbusiness like about that? On the contrary it was the only businesslike thing to do. Had the Government shown any signs of "Referring to drawer"? If the Government really believed that the country desired these two cheques to be honoured why did they not consult the drawer? The complaint of the hon. Member for North West Ham was that the House of Lords did not throw out the Trade Disputes Bill. The hon. Member said that they ought not to have passed the
  616
  Trade Disputes Bill, because they did not believe in it. That was the gospel of the Second Chamber according to the hon. Member for North West Ham, but it was not a correct statement of that gospel.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid his point was that the reason why the House of Lords passed the Trade Disputes Bill was not that they agreed with it, but that the Leader of the Opposition supported it.
  *MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he would not argue the point further with the hon. Gentleman. The country relied upon this House of Lords to give a check to measures of an objectionable character, and when, as was suggested should be done in this case, the cheques had been referred to drawer, there was not a case in history in which, if the country approved the draft, they had not passed the measure in question. Instead of referring the matter to the country, however, the members of the Government, under the leadership of the President of the Board of Trade, were going about the country blowing "a blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment" of Peers and calling upon the people to make an attack upon what was described recently as "the walls of Jericho." If the walls of Jericho were to go down, the Government had forgotten the necessary preliminaries—they had not been round the walls seven times, they had only been round once, and then they rode most of the way in private Members' chariots. The Government must remember that after all the trumpet blowing the walls of Jericho remained standing, and did not fall down until the people shouted with a great shout. If the Government would call on the people, and if all the people then shouted with a great shout, he did not believe even the lordly citizens of Jericho would regret the ruin of its walls. But if the Government neither went on with their marching nor called upon the people to shout, but merely stood still blowing the trumpet, then they would be open to the bitterest charge that could be brought against any Government, viz, that they preferred the cause of Party to the cause of the people.
  MR. PAULsaid he doubted whether either the noble

  617
  Lord or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been convinced by their own arguments. It must have been present to the minds of both that, whereas a Liberal Government had very great difficulty in getting measures through the House of Lords, that difficulty entirely disappeared when a Conservative Government came into office. He called special attention to the Reform Act of 1867, a purely political measure that had never been before the country, an Act which introduced household suffrage, but, having been introduced by a Conservative Government, it passed into law practically without Amendment. The Leader of the Opposition at the close of the previous session called in the older House to redress the balance of the new. He himself was not prepared to accept the suggestions which had been made, certainly not the referendum which would result in the abolition of the House of Commons instead of the House of Lords, and he certainly was not prepared to agree to any measure for making another place more distinguished and more decorous, and which would be an alagous to substituting the Athenæum for the Carlton. But the question that he wished to ask and answer if he could was, "From whom has the revolutionary change come?"—because he did not deny that there was a revolutionary change. He made bold to say that not within living memory had the Lords claimed to make such bold, fear-reaching, comprehensive changes in the conditions under which public money should be voted and distributed as they made in connection with the Education Bill of last year. The last occasion upon which the Lords throw out a Money Bill was when they so dealt with the measure for the repeal of the paper duty in 1860. Then the House of Commons was invited to pass three Resolutions defining its own powers over public money. For 230 years it had been an elementary part of the Constitution that the right of collecting and distributing public funds belonged to the House of Commons alone, and that right was reaffirmed in 1860. Next year Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a change in the form of the Finance Act by putting all the taxes into a single Bill. He had only one precedent for that, but that was the precedent of no less a man than William
  618
  Pitt. Objection was taken to that procedure by that staunch Conservative Mr. Newdigate, but on the division Mr. Newdigate was left in a very small minority. The change was approved by the House. The majority of Lord Palmerston's Government at that time was fifteen, and on the Third Reading of this Finance Bill it fell to nine. When that financial measure went to the Lords it passed unanimously, the fourteenth Earl Derby, "the Rupert of debate," who had been thrice Prime Minister, refusing to take the responsibility of advising the Peers to stand up against the taxing rights of the House of Commons. What control of the public purse had the House of Commons if the Lords could say, "You may raise the money, but we shall spend it," or rather, "We shall say how public money is to be spent, and you may find out for yourselves how to get it"? That was not real control of the purse; it was only an imperfect and semi-control. It was not the House of Commons, therefore, that had provoked or challenged the constitutional conflict in which they were unhappily engaged.
  *MR. COURTHOPEsaid it was remarkable that all the speakers on the Liberal side of the House had avoided direct reference to the principal question at issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke first, had gone to great pains to justify his own position and that of his colleagues upon the question of Home Rule. But when he came to the question of the House of Lords, and the House thought he was going to deal with the Amendment of his noble friend, he gave them only a few words, it would be untrue to say a few sentences. The right hon. Gentleman practically said, "We are going to deal with the House of Lords, and a good job too," but made no reply whatever to the speech of his noble friend. The next speaker from those benches, the hon. Member for East Toxteth, regaled the House with an interesting account, no doubt true, of how Chinamen caught fish with cormorants; and that was about all he did say. The hon. Member for West Ham had given his own views as to what the policy of social reform ought to be or ought not to be, but had paid very little about the House of Lords. In the course of his speech the

  619
  hon. Member had made one or two rather interesting admissions. He told the House, for one thing, that the Government had no mandate to deal with the Lords. He did not think much of mandates, and therefore would not say much about this point, but it was a great admission to have from a Party which talked a good deal about mandates. The hon. Member went on to say, as far as he understood him, that the blame for what happened at the end of last year rested, not with the House of Lords, whom they thought his Party were attacking so strongly, but with the Leader of the Opposition. They were glad to know that the assault which was adumbrated in the Speech from the Throne was not going to be made against the House of Lords; though why Ministers should put it in that way he failed to understand, if the attack was only going to be made on his right hon. friend. The only attack of any shape or form upon the House of Lords came from the hon. Member for South Donegal, who had given the House a rather remarkable historical speech. He began by regretting that his own child—his own Amendment—was not before the House. His own Amendment was a direct attack upon what he called the accident of birth, otherwise the hereditary principle. He then went on in rather a remarkable manner to talk of the late Lord Shaftesbury's utterances in the House of Lords. He told them of how Lord Shaftesbury had said that the House of Lords was insensible to feeling, and so on. But the notable fact about that was that Lord Shaftesbury made those utterances at a time when for half a century there had been a steady stream of Liberal Peers created, which had flooded the House of Lords. At that time, twenty-five years ago, by far the greater part of the Upper Chamber was composed of the holders of Peerages which had been created by the Liberal Party. The hon. Member had then made an extraordinary statement, saying there had been no collision between the two Houses until the year 1882. He (Mr. Courthope) had always thought there was considerable collision in 1649, when the House of Lords was abolished for a short time, until Cromwell found that government without a House of Lords was an impossibility. At the end of eight years he tried to create
  620
  a popular House of Lords. This popular House of Lords was such a failure that it became the laughing stock of the whole country, and they had to go back to practically the same system as that which obtained to-day. The hon. Member for South Donegal had also told them that a Peer's right to sit in the 17th century depended entirely on the writ of summons. That he believed was quite true; but he went on to destroy his own argument, by explaining that the prerogative had been restricted and hedged about by statutes passed by both Houses. Surely neither he nor anyone else would suggest that the Ministry could restrict the prerogative of the Crown at one moment and extend it again at another to suit their own Party convenience, but that was what it would come to. They were also told by some hon. Gentlemen that the unrestricted prerogative was a power for evil. He only hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer on reading the lengthy memorandum which had been promised on that subject would take notice of this point and bear it in mind when any attack was made. The hon. and learned Member then gave an account of the Irish mob which invaded the Irish House of Lords, turned out the Members, and placed an old hag on the Woolsack, and expressed a wish that the people would behave in the same disgraceful way to-day. These were strange words from a prominent advocate of Home Rule, who wished to be trusted to govern Ireland. He had said a few moments ago that a very large proportion of the House of Lords, up to about twenty-five years since, had been created by Liberal Administrations. The same remark applied to-day, though not quite to the same extent; and they naturally asked themselves why was it that all these Liberal Peers, or at all events the majority of them, so rapidly became Conservative? Did they pay them so poor a compliment as to suggest that, having got into the House of Lords, they wished to keep the veto which that House had over the House of Commons? He did not think that would be suggested for one moment. The flower of the Liberal Party—over 200 of their best men during the last sixty years—had been sent to that House. He did not think it would be suggested that these men were actuated by selfish

  621
  motives in crossing the floor. He honestly believed that, once removed from the noise and turmoil of Party platforms and the excitement of general elections, they were able to look at the intrinsic value of a measure from an unprejudiced point of view, and then they recognised that their policy was to preserve what was good in our system and our institutions, and to reform in a temperate, wise, and statesmanlike manner what was bad. That explained their action, not only in the far past, but also he thought last year. He did not think it would be denied by any serious thinking person that the people of this country really desired that there should be definite religious instruction given to the children, quite apart from the good will of a local education authority, or the teacher, the parent, or the child itself, and that the parents should have a voice in the teaching of their children. The Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill had secured these two points. He believed all impartial people—he would not say hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because they were no doubt disappointed at the failure of a Party measure—but all impartial people would agree that any reform in our Parliamentary system should deal with the whole and not a mere section of our electoral system. And it was because they thought, and he believed rightly, that all that was best in the wishes of the people of this country was behind them, that the House of Lords amended the Education Bill and threw out the Plural Voting Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the work of social reform would not be delayed; but during this debate he had stated that some social reforms could not be undertaken owing to their great cost. He would mention old-age pensions as an instance. These reforms were too costly for our existing basis of taxation. His Majesty's Ministers would employ their time—and they would not have too much time—better in widening the basis of taxation with a view to introducing sound social reforms than in making what he believed would be a useless, fruitless, and discreditable attack on the House of Lords.
  *MR. ADKINSsaid that from the speeches which had been made on the Opposition side of the House there had been a great omission. The Amendment of the noble Lord, which in
  622
  form attacked a paragraph of the gracious Speech from the Throne, was in substance a defence of another place and was directed to the aggressive action adumbrated by His Majesty's Government; yet they had waited in vain to hear from Gentlemen on the other side any suggestion that the recent action of the House of Lords had been in accordance with constitutional precedents, or that there was any action to be compared with it in the history of the last seventy years. His hon. friend the Member for Northampton had pointed out with great force how the House of Lords had been encroaching on the historic powers of the House of Commons with regard to finance. He would respectfully observe that the House of Lords was not only encroaching on the domain of finance, but was inventing new methods of dealing with legislation sent from this House. Those methods were absolutely without precedent. He hoped some Member of the Opposition would state whether there had ever before been a case where a Bill of the first magnitude, passed in the first session of a new Parliament by huge majorities which increased with every stage of the Bill, had been rejected by the other House of Parliament in the way in which the Education Bill was rejected last winter. Hon. Members who were familiar with political history since the great Reform Bill would know that the action of the House of Lords on previous occasions had destroyed or eviscerated Liberal legislation, but that power had invariably been exercised when the majorities in the House of Commons were small, and when they had not been of so important and unusual a character as were the majorities last autumn, or when there had been a long interval between the polling of the constituencies and the introduction of the Bill. In the case of the Education Bill they had a measure supported by a surprising majority both in size and in character. A majority of English, of Scotch, of Welsh, and of Irish Members, a majority of the county representatives and a majority of borough representatives. Therefore it was the expression, to a degree unique in recent history, of the deliberate and overwhelming opinion of a popular House of Commons. That measure, so supported, having been treated as it was last autumn, they who supported the Government in taking steps to alter such a condition of

  623
  things were not revolutionaries; they were maintaining the Constitution in regard to the due proportion of its component parts, and they were opposing such an alteration of those component parts as was indicated by the recent action of the other Chamber. He hoped they might be told by some member of the Opposition, before the debate closed, what precedent there was for allowing the House of Lords to dictate when there should be a dissolution. He was not aware of any instance since the rejection of Fox's India Bill in 1784 where the action of the House of Lords had led to a dissolution; therefore, in supporting the Government they were supporting all that was most conservative in the Constitution of the country, as well as that which was practically necessary if the wishes of the people were to be carried out. They did not under-rate the gravity of the crisis nor the difficulty of the situation. However they might regret being turned aside, for the moment, from that policy of social reform which was often talked about on the other side of the House and which had been begun by the present Government, he thought that this and other debates would show throughout the country, if indeed the country did not know it now, that there was no guarantee for social reform or for those political alterations on which the majority of the country had set their heart until this obstacle was modified, and until that subordination of the other Chamber to the House of Commons, which had existed unbroken for seventy-five years, was restored by action at once conservative and progressive.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he desired at the outset to remind the hon. Member for Middleton that the House of Lords did not reject the Education Bill; practically they only made two Amendments in it. The first Amendment was that religious teaching was to be given every day for a certain time in the school, and the second was that the country districts should be put upon the same footing as the urban districts. Those were the only two Amendments, and he was surprised that the hon. Member opposite should get up and say that the Second Chamber had no right to make two alterations of that kind in a Bill. The hon. Member had also
  624
  said that there was a mandate from the people for the Education Bill, and that they wished the Bill to be passed in the form in which it left the House of Commons. If that was the case why did not the Government appeal to the country? If the country was so anxious to have the Education Bill there was a very simple method by which the Government could have obtained the opinion of the country on the subject. If they had appealed to the country and received a real mandate they would have had some grounds for taking exception to the action of the House of Lords if they attempted to alter the Bill a second time. The hon. Member for Middleton had asked if there was any example of the House of Lords having altered an important measure in the first session of a new Parliament. He would give such an example. In 1903 the House of Lords rejected the Home Rule Bill.
  MR. ADKINSsaid what he asked was whether there was any precedent for the House of Lords rejecting a first-class measure in the first session of a new Parliament when it had been passed by increasing majorities.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he did not know whether the hon. Member opposite considered the Home Rule Bill a measure of first-class importance or not. Personally he should think it was a third-class measure; at any rate the Home Rule Bill was rejected by the Lords in 1893. He would remind the House that the majorities on the Education Bill varied very much, and on one particular occasion there was a very great drop in the majority upon a religious question. The hon. Member was wrong in saying that the majorities on the Education Bill were always increasing. He had the privilege of being a Member of the House of Commons in 1893, when he listened to exactly the same kind of speeches about the House of Lords as those which were being made at the present time. It had been said that it was not for the House of Lords to dictate the time when a dissolution should take place. Nobody had over said it was. What they did say was that if the Government did not believe the decision of the House of Lords to be agreeable to the country, they could go to the country and find out. He had

  625
  listened with much interest to the able speech of the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington in introducing this Amendment, and he wondered at the time how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could possibly answer what seemed to him to be unanswerable arguments. The right hon. Gentleman had devoted his arguments practically to two points only, and the greater part of his speech dealt with the Home Rule question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely angry about what he called the slander cast by his noble friend upon the Government in charging them with obtaining their position by false pretences. He had also said that if a Home Rule Bill was introduced into this Parliament he should resign his position in the Government and vote against it. The right hon. Gentleman had also quoted from a speech of his own to the effect that if they could not get their object by the straight path, they should try to obtain it by some other path; in fact, he had argued that they must get it by a roundabout way. Then the right hon. Gentleman had said equally fervently, "I will not go back from the opinion which I expressed some two or three years ago." He could fancy a Member of the Government going down to an English constituency, and saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that he would resign his seat if a Home Rule Bill was brought in. Did they think the Government was going to bring in a Home Rule Bill after that statement? No, they would declare that Home Rule was dead. On the other hand, hon. Members would go back to Ireland and say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that if he could not get Home Rule by the straight path he would achieve it by a roundabout way. The Irish constituencies would be told not to be discouraged, because all the members of the present Government were in favour of Home Rule which they were going to get by a flank attack. It was not for him to say anything about false pretences, but the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were most extraordinary, and he did not think they would appeal to any fair-minded Englishmen. He thought, under the circumstances, it was quite open to his noble friend to repeat the charge that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were holding their positions by false pretences.
  626
  The hon. Member for North West Ham had said that a dissolution must come soon. No doubt a good many hon. Members would be very glad if that view proved well-founded. All the House of Lords wanted was to ascertain the opinion of the country. The real point at issue was whether or not the House of Lords represented the opinion of the country in the action they had taken. ["Oh, oh!"] Had the House of Lords interfered with the will of the people or had it not? The only way to ascertain was to go to the country. It was not for him to say that the Education Bill did not represent the desires and wishes of the people of this country. As far as he could judge from Conservative electors the Education Bill did not represent those desires. He would quote as his authority upon this point the President of the Board of Trade who, in a speech at Zion Chapel, Llanelly, at the end of September last, said that—
  "The Plural Voting Hill, which put every man on the basis of absolute equality so far us voting power was concerned, had parsed the Second Reading, and they meant to pass the Third Reading and send it up to the House of Lords, and then something would happen."
  Well, something did happen.
  MR.PATRICK WHITEcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the President of the Board of Trade went on to say that he admitted that the Education Bill did not satisfy everybody in the country. What happened to the Education Bill when it went to the House of Lords? The Bill was not rejected, but slight alterations were made in it. With regard to the Plural Voting Bill, the quotation he had made from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade showed what its real object was. That Bill was sent up to the House of Lords it being known they would reject it, so that there might be a cry on which the Radicals could go to the country. He had addressed a few meetings in the last two weeks in the country, and he had never met anybody who cared two-pence for the Plural Voting Bill. ["Oh!"] He did not deny that some Radical Members mentioned the Plural

  627
  Voting Bill during the general election, but to suppose that the country gave a mandate to deprive certain people of their votes—which was all the Bill would have done—was absolutely absurd. The Plural Voting Bill was introduced solely for the purpose of adding to the Ministerial majority. An hon. Member had admitted that it would be very useful at by-elections. Surely a Second Chamber was entitled to throw out a Bill which was described as one which would be useful at by-elections to the Party in power. He did not believe there would be a serious attack on the House of Lords at all. The attack had been made during the recess in order to get up some cry on which eventually the Party opposite could go to the country. They knew it was easy enough to say that the House of Lords ought to be abolished, but they also knew perfectly well that they could not do it except by doing as Cromwell did and having soldiers in. They had got to abolish both Chambers, and the Crown and Constitution, and then proceed to erect another Chamber which, apparently, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, was to give effect to the chance will of the majority. In the last fifteen or sixteen years the constituencies had varied in the most extraordinary manner. In 1892 they returned a liberal majority, in 1895 and 1900 they returned Unionist majorities, and in 1906 they returned a Liberal majority. With such fluctuations in the country there must be a Second Chamber or the Referendum. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had been going about the country speaking about the large crop of legislation last year, and also about the way in which the House of Lords had obstructed legislation. Both statements could not be correct. He personally hoped that at the dissolution, which could not be far distant, the electors would say that they would not stand for a moment the idea that any number of men who happened to sit on the Treasury Bench should revolutionise the Constitution because they had been returned for one, or, it might be, two or three particular objects. If they did assent to that he and his friends must submit, but it would be an evil day for the country.
  MR. SEDDONsaid the noble Lord who moved the
  628
  Amendment had complained that the Government had stayed their hand in regard to social reform. This caused the noble Lord much grief, for, he said, social reform was far more important than either the reform of the House of Lords or the granting of Home Rule. Many Members of the House would welcome the noble Lord as a recruit to the cause of social reform, and they would be glad of his help in regard to measures for the betterment of the condition of the people. Social reform would cost something, and the basis of taxation would have to be broadened. Would the noble Lord support the Government in regard to a graduated income-tax so as to provide a scheme of old-age pensions? Would those who were in favour of tariff reform as a solution of the problem of old-age pensions pay their quota out of the superabundant wealth which they got out of the country at the present time? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember the expressions of good will which had fallen from Members of the Opposition as to social reform. He judged men by their deeds and not by their words. The present Government had given some indication of a desire for social reform. Last session a Bill was introduced to provide for the feeding of school children. That Bill, day after day, was opposed by the Opposition. They admitted that there was an evil in connection with the under-feeding of children, but they could only oppose the measure because it was Socialism. When the Bill went to another place it was mutilated by noble Lords, and yet they were told that their supporters in this House were in favour of social reform. In another place Scotland was omitted from the operation of that Bill. That was done not because there was no need for the Bill in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dundee, but he supposed it was because the measure was Socialism. He did not know whether the same cry would be raised with regard to old-age pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's objection to an old-age pension scheme was that he had not got the money. He did not think the resources of taxation were exhausted, and, having regard to the figures published by the Board of Trade relative to the abounding wealth of the country, he did not think there ever was in our commercial history a more opportune time than the present for initiating such a scheme. He believed that the

  629
  taxation of the enormous incomes which were drawn at the present time would provide more than enough money to give a measure of relief to the veterans who were in the workhouses or starving outside. What was the noble Lord's idea of social reform? He took it that the noble Lord would include old-age pensions, bettor housing of the people, cheaper means of transit. If he accepted that programme he would be welcomed by every social reformer in the House. There were many sources of revenue at present untaxed, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to widen the basis of taxation so that the social reforms which were urgently desired by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches might be carried into effect. But he doubted whether the Gentlemen who mutilated the Provision of Meals Bill would pass an Old-Age Pensions Bill. He looked upon the House of Lords as the most cowardly assembly in this or any other country—cowardly, because of their action in reference to the legislation sent up to them last session. The Trade Disputes Bill was described by the noble Lord who occupied the position of Lord Chancellor in the last Administration as a wicked and vicious Bill which would overthrow justice, and yet the House of Lords accounted the measure. Why? Because the Leader of the Conservative Party in that place said that if there was to be a struggle they must select the ground most favourable to themselves. If that was the function of a revisory Chamber, then they had no regard for the well-being of the industrial classes. The House of Lords had outlived their usefulness, and the sooner they were abolished the better it would be for the people of this country.
  MR. LONSDALEsaid that if they looked at this question from the purely Party point of view hon. Members on the Opposition benches had no reason to complain of the predilection shown by the Government for revolutionary changes. As a Party Unionists stood to gain from their infatuation. One would have thought that the Radical Party would have learned something during their long sojourn in the political wilderness—broken only by a brief interval of fruitless ploughing of the sands. But apparently they had gained
  630
  no wisdom in their wanderings. No sooner had they floated themselves into power, on a flood of misrepresentation, than the old desire for destruction manifested itself strong as ever. Last session it was the Church against which their blows were directed. This year it was the other House of Parliament; and their campaign against the Second Chamber was simply intended to cover an insidious attempt to undermine the Union and destroy the integrity of the United Kingdom. What the Party opposite seemed to be incapable of appreciating was the rooted dislike in the minds of the great majority of the British people of anything which had the appearance of revolution. The electors who were not allied to either of the political Parties were responsible for putting the present Government into office. They were the people who brought about the swing of the pendulum in politics. They had no scruple in toppling over a Government on the principle of "giving the other side a chance." But what the Radical Party had failed to understand was that this indeterminate but influential section of the electorate was as strongly opposed as the highest Tory amongst them to any tinkering with the Constitution. As a representative of an Irish constituency he might be permitted to express regret that the great constitutional issues which the Government were determined to raise would necessarily hinder the work of social amelioration which had been going on steadily in Ireland during the last twenty years of Unionist Government. Although in some respects it could not be denied that Ireland was in a backward state in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom, that could not be properly ascribed to the form of Constitution under which the country was governed. If there were any grounds for that idea they would expect to find that the whole of Ireland was equally unprosperous. It was obvious that that was not the case. The northern province had had no special privilege under the Union. And yet the remarkable development of Ulster was one of the features of the nineteenth century. It was not necessary to go far to seek the explanation of that progress. The prosperity of the north east had been the result of the energy and thrift of the people. And if the rest of the Irish people had placed less reliance on political

  631
  agitators and depended more on their own exertions there could be no doubt that the state of Ireland as a whole would have been vastly better than it was to-day. It was one of the most hopeful signs for the future of Ireland that this fact was becoming recognised. During the last few years there had been an uprising of a new spirit among the Irish people which was certainly a most hopeful augury for the future of Ireland—if only it could be kept free from political disturbance. However this beneficial change had arisen, there could be no question that the progress of the movement was largely due to the great number of remedial measures which had been passed by the Imperial Parliament under the guidance of Unionist statesmen during the past twenty years. The Government had advanced the preposterous claim that their policy of devolution was based upon a Unionist foundation. Nothing could be further from the facts. If they were really anxious to benefit by the experience of their predecessors and desired only the good of the country they would try to help and not to hinder the social and industrial developments which were now proceeding so successfully in Ireland. The constitutional struggle which they seemed determined to bring about was certain to interrupt the progress of land purchase. It would also throw obstacles in the way of agricultural and industrial development. It would hinder any improvement in primary education. Ireland needed, above all things, peaceful co-operation in industrial matters. The Government proposed to introduce political conflict. By legislative changes which they intended to propose they would inevitably swamp all social and industrial progress under a flood of political agitation. Therefore, although he felt that the course taken by the Government was likely to discredit them in the country, as an Irish Member he could not refrain from expressing his regret that the peace and progress of Ireland were to be disturbed and hindered by the grave constitutional issues which were involved in the policy the Government had announced.
  *MR.FENWICKsaid that, holding the opinion which he did respecting the debates on the Address, he ought to apologise
  632
  for intervening at all. He thought that during the twenty-one years he had been in the House he had not spoken six times on the Address. He looked upon the debates, excepting it were a first class vote of censure brought by the Opposition, as a wilful and deliberate waste of time, and during the whole of his Parliamentary experience he had never listened to a debate on the Address which was more of a hollow sham and fraud than this one. No one could find any fault either with the tone or the temper displayed by the noble Lord in introducing the Amendment, but for the life of him he was unable to understand from whence had sprung this new-born zeal for social reform on the part of the noble Lord and his Party. He remembered the election of 1895, which was won by the Conservatives on a programme of wholesale social reforms, but in the succeeding twelve years in which they held office the Unionists made no attempt to give effect to the major portion of that programme. They had no fears for the House of Lords, and the House of Lords had no terrors for them. The House of Lords was always quiescent during the existence of a Tory Ministry. It was like a spent volcano. It was only when a Liberal Ministry came into office that the House of Lords and the Tory Party went in for social reforms. When a noble Lord came down to the House last session to vote against the Education Bill, he was arrested by one of the attendants, and when he explained that he was a Peer he was told he was going into the wrong shop. The noble Lord did not know the way into his own Chamber. It was only when an active Reform Government was in office that they had any knowledge whatever of the existence of a House of Lords. Those who took part in the election of 1895 knew how the Party now in opposition won that election on a programme of wholesale social reform, and not the least taking item in their programme was old-age pensions. Like a message from Mars they sprang that question upon the gullibility of the English elector, and as to talking about the present Government holding their position under false pretences, he would retort that there never was a truer case of holding a position under false pretences than was furnished by the case of the Conservative Government of

  633
  1895, who remained in office for years without doing anything to carry out their pledges. They put forward before the country this question of old-age pensions, and the working men and their wives and families were glad to jump at the idea, although many of them regarded the proposal with some suspicion and thought that perhaps it was a bait to catch their votes. Some of them indeed wrote to Lord Salisbury and asked him whether the social programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had his support, and he replied—
  "I have said again and again that the Member for West Birming am is our spokesman on all such questions."
  What could be more natural that on such a declaration being received from Lord Salisbury, the working men should rally to the Conservative cause, knowing that if they had a majority in this House, Lord Salisbury in another place was monarch of all he surveyed, with a permanent majority, and that they had only to give the Government a majority and then they were sure to have such legislation carried in another place? What followed? The Conservative Government came into office with a majority of 152 behind it, pledged to social reform, and in the first four years they were in office, thanks to the Finance Bill of Sir W. Harcourt they had surpluses amounting in the aggregate to £9,000,000. That was before we entered upon the wicked war in South Africa. With these handsome surpluses extending over four years one would have thought that the Government would have considered that as a splendid sum with which at all events to begin to redeem their pledges as to old age pensions. But no, these surpluses were not given to the industrial classes, but were used to safeguard the position of their own friends. After the cry of old-age pensions had fulfilled its mission of placing the Tory Party in office, it "vanished like the baseless fabric of a dream." He remembered that in 1894 a Royal Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was a member, was sitting on this subject, and before that Commission made its Report that right hon. Gentleman came down to this House and voted for the Second Reading of a Bill introduced by a private Member in regard to old-age pensions. So eager were they
  634
  that they could not wait for the Report of the Royal Commission; but now the question had passed away altogether from their purview. He did not believe that the Constitutional questions which the Government intended to raise between this and the other House would impede the progress of social legislation, but that depended upon the point of view from which hone looked at the question. He was not merely concerned with the legislation foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne. He did not believe that there must be a general election immediately. He did not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted it. General elections cost too much money, and he did not think that they would like to have them forced upon them every six months. The Government had much more social legislation to introduce than that which was foreshadowed in the King's Speech, and it would be just as well in his judgment that they should at the very beginning sharpen and tighten up the machine by which it was to be carried. When he was a coal miner he always thought that he could produce more coal with his tools well sharpened, and he thought the Government would make much more progress if they came to a real understanding of what the relations of this House were to be with the Members of the gilded Chamber. They had measures of far-reaching importance to come before them before this Parliament came to an end. For instance, there was the question of land reform. They could not deal with the questions of providing work for the unemployed, of the housing of the working classes, and many others unless they were given easier access to the land than they had to-day. They might talk until they were black in the face about there reforms, but they would not accomplish anything unless the question of the land was dealt with, because the base of all human activities rested upon the land. The questions of how they were to feed their people, clothe their people, house them, or provide employment for them—all these great social problems carried them back to the land as the bed rock from which they must start before they could make any progress, and if they could have this question of what ought to be the true relationship between this and the other House settled, they would make much greater progress in regard to social reform

  635
  than they were likely to do under present conditions. The fear which had been raised about Home Rule for Ireland had no terrors for him, because he fought his first election in 1885 as a Home Ruler, at a time when the Nationalist vote was diverted by official order from men like himself, the supporters of Home Rule, to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Nationalist circular sent out in 1885, called upon every Nationalist and Irishman to vote against the Liberal and even against the Labour Party, and to vote for the men who had done their best to block the achievement of national aspirations. He said therefore that the Home Rule bogey had no terrors for him, and if it could not be accomplished at one fell swoop he was prepared to take it by easy stages, because he believed that each stage that they took would give them a vantage ground from which they could go on until they had realised the just and legitimate aspirations of the Irish people. He would just say one word more with respect to the constitutional crisis that had arisen between the two Houses of Parliament. He had never been persuaded of the absolute necessity of a second Chamber. That was by the way; but if we were to have a second Chamber he thought it would be universally admitted that it could not continue to exist as at present constituted. The House of Lords, an at present constituted, was simply another wing of the Conservative Party, and he asked any fair-minded right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite whether if their Party were in the place of supporters of the Government, with such an overwhelming majority behind them as the present one, and they found a House of Lords so constituted that there was in it a large majority of their political opponents, they would be satisfied with the position. He was perfectly sure that they would not, and it ought not to be possible for any Leader of the Tory Party, sitting in this House, to dictate to another place and say, "You must accept or reject this measure," as was the case in the Trade Disputes Bill. [Dissent.] Hon. Members need not shake their heads at him. He was present in this House and knew all that took place on the Trade Disputes Bill. He remembered distinctly that the late Prime Minister voted against the four operative clauses of the Bill, and
  636
  on the Third Reading declared that it must be accepted. If, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, the Bill was so bad in all its operative sections, how could the whole he regarded as acceptable? The Bill went to another place and it was described there by the Conservative Party as disgraceful, tyrannical, unjust, and un-English, but it was said that it must be accepted, and they must not amend it or substitute another Bill for it. And why? Because the Leader of the Tory Party in this House had declared that the Bill must be accepted. [Cries of "Oh."] At all events that was his opinion, and it was capable of being defended. No one could pretend that the relationship between the two Houses should be permitted to go on as at present. The will of the people must in some way or another become the law of the land. What was the use of going through the turmoil of a general election to ascertain the will of the people, if that will, when declared, was not to become the law of the land? Why were they put to this great expense and the industry of the country and the channels of commercial intercourse interfered with in order to ascertain the will of the people, if it was not intended that the will of the people when ascertained should prevail? He welcomed this contest between the two Houses, and he could only assure the Government that if they dealt in a thoroughgoing way with the question they would have the support of the country. No greater calamity could befall the Government than that it should show any want of thoroughness or backbone in dealing with social questions as a whole, or with the House of Lords in particular.
  *CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would not presume to attempt to answer any of the questions which the hon. Member who had just sat down had put to the Unionist side of the House. He did not pretend to have any special knowledge of the constitutional relationship between the two Houses, but he could not see in the arguments put by hon. Members opposite any suggestion that social reforms had been retarded by the other House; indeed, two hon. Members had based their attack on the House of Lords on the ground that that House had allowed measures of social

  637
  reform to pass. So far, however, as the fight against the House of Lords was concerned he did not consider it was seriously intended, or that it would ever come before this or the other House in any practical shape. He desired to deal with a matter far more serious—the utterances which had fallen from Ministers since they had come into power. He congratulated the noble Lord on having drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the statements that right hon. Gentleman had made, whether they were welcomed or whether they gave umbrage to any particular section, because they, at all events, made clear the issue before the House with regard to the second great measure of the Government. He alluded to the measure for Home Rule for Ireland or devolution. Those utterances certainly allowed the House to see more clearly what the views of Ministers were on this point. He noticed that the appeals to-day of the right hon. Gentleman were based on speeches he had made during the course of the general election, he presumed to his constituents, and he noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had said that all that the Government desired to do at the present time could be carried out peaceably and easily if it were not for a mere knot of irreconcilables. He (Captain Craig) presumed that among those he must number himself, for the reason that he presumed the right hon. Gentleman referred to those Members who represented Unionist constituencies in Ireland. The Unionist Members for Ireland had all had to fight hard for their seats. The conditions of an election in Ireland were much the same as those in England, where the opponents of the Unionists tried as much as possible to set aside the question of Home Rule, and they quoted right hon. Members opposite as not being in favour of that policy. He believed he was right in saying that among the names mentioned as being of the older school of Liberals were those of the Minister for War, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These men were held up in Ireland as a guarantee that the Ministry then being formed was not a Home Rule or a Devolution Ministry. Yet they had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer declare
  638
  that the Ulster irreconcilables were the only people who stood in his way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed to the Irish Nationalist Benches, and had said in effect, if not in actual words: "Take what you can get, no matter how small, because you have the assurance of the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who are Home Rulers, that whatever is given is a step towards the larger policy of Home Rule." Whatever measure, then, was introduced by the Chief Secretary, they might take as the preamble of a Bill which meant Home Rule in the end. That very invitation to the Members who represented Home Rule constituencies in Ireland was sufficient excuse for Unionists to go back to Ireland and say that their fears were justified, that this was a Home Rule Government or at least a Government prepared to learn the lesson of Home Rule, and to give it to Ireland in the long run. They could go back to their constituencies and say that one of the first actions of the Government was to bring forward a policy which Unionist Members dreaded, not in any personal narrow sense, but because it would set back the progress of Ireland, and interfere with the development proceeding on time laid down by the Unionist Government. Now the cry of Home Rule had been started by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole of the Irish Unionists—who represented public opinion in Ireland, and were not merely nominated by a clerical class—would take up the challenge. He could only say most emphatically that the whole power of the Unionist Party and the Orange organisation would be used to defeat the policy of the Government.
  MR.ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he had listened very attentively both to the speech of the mover of the Amendment, and also to the speech of his seconder. He had noticed with considerable surprise the apparent anxiety of the noble Lord about the cause of social reform. Like his hon. friend the Member for Wansbeck he had begun to wonder where this newfound zeal of the noble Earl had come from. He had been sufficiently long interested in politics to know something of the attitude adopted towards

  639
  social reform by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. During the afternoon his mind had been taken back to 1894, when the Liberal Ministry of the day had a very small and uncertain majority behind them, and when those who occupied the Opposition Benches did not know what a day, what an hour, would bring forth. They were expecting almost every moment that the Government would be defeated, and there would be an appeal to the country. Preparations were made by the Opposition, and they had the memorable social programme which was supposed to have been framed in the library of the Member for West Birmingham. He remembered that social programme very well. In the forefront of it stood a question on which politicians never ceased to speak, and on which electors never failed to hear something at the meetings which they attended—the subject of old-age pensions. He also remembered that the author of that programme, and all his colleagues, came into power in the following year, and remained continually in power until a little over a year ago. How had they kept their programme in mind? There was not only old-age pensions in the forefront of it, but there was another measure in which the miners were distinctly interested, the Miners Eight Hours Bill. He need not go through the items which had been referred to with a certain amount of éclat by Members above the gangway. Among the measures was the Workmen's Compensation Bill. But he might safely say that the promise with regard to even that measure had not been fulfilled. He was working in one of the foundries at the time the question was brought forward for legislation, and he, like others, had looked forward to compensation for all accidents, no matter how those accidents occurred. The short term which was used in those days was "Universal compensation for all accidents." He had taken the trouble to give this brief history in order to show what was the attitude of the Opposition towards social reform—of the Party which was now throwing obstacles in the way of the present Government's carrying out their promises in reference to social reform. Having regard to the lavish promises made
  640
  in 1894, and to the fact that a Unionist Government had been in office continuously ever since, might he ask where the obstacles had come from, and who were they who had prevented the Unionist Party, in office for something like ten or eleven years, from completing every item of the programme with which they captured the country about twelve years ago? The country had a right to ask that pertinent question. They had left the question of old-age pensions, and of the miners' eight hours day in the same position as they were in in 1894. But they could see in a moment, on examination, that the obstacles now set up found their origin in two causes—the determination of the Government to do something for Ireland, and the question of the House of Lords. But assuming for the sake of argument that the present Government were guilty of placing obstacles in the way of social reform, what of the Party who were now complaining? The Unionist Party had also been guilty of putting obstacles in the way of social legislation. What of the agitation voluntarily undertaken in connection with fiscal reform? Were they justified in placing that obstacle in the path of social reform, as they undoubtedly did from May, 1903, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and just immediately before his (Mr. Henderson's) first election? After having themselves blocked the way to social reform, was it for the Unionist representatives, at the beginning of the second session of this Parliament, to challenge the Government who had only been in power one year, as to their policy of social reform, which, he maintained, his Majesty's Government were carrying out? He was not going to say that Labour Members were fully satisfied with everything the Government had done, but they were going to trust his Majesty's Ministers a little longer until it was shown that they were no better than their predecessors in keeping their pledges in favour of social reform, and if they found that they were no better they would be prepared to act towards them as they had acted towards the Unionist Government. The Government were

  641
  doing a little, and they on those benches were prepared to trust them to see whether they would do a little more. The objection of the Opposition was that the Government were also going to do something for Ireland. He thought he was speaking accurately when he said that every member of the Labour Party was a Home Ruler. That being so, they welcomed the indication in the King's Speech, and in the excellent speeches delivered by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman who had recently accepted responsibility for the management of Irish affairs. It might be truly said, as had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that what the Government proposed was not Home Rule. But what they said in reply was that by going in the direction of Home Rule, the Labour Party, so far as he was aware, would be prepared to give the Government the fullest and most earnest support that they had at their command in the endeavour to place the Government measure on the Statute-book. Then there was the objection that the Government had turned aside to deal with the relations between the two Houses. It was only fair to say that the Government had not thought that issue. It had been forced upon them; and he for one would like to say that if the Government at the commencement of the second session of the new Parliament had given no indication of their attitude towards the treatment in another place of Government Bills, and not only of Government Bills, but of Bills for which the Labour Party were responsible, there would have been much disappointment. The noble Lord had referred to the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill, but the Labour Party had to complain about a Bill of their own. They had sent up a little Bill, which was not of very great importance to the majority of Members of this House. It was a Bill to prevent the importation of alien "blacklegs." It was passed unanimously in this House, but was rejected and never discussed in the other House, on the subterfuge that the Government had declined to make themselves responsible for the measure. Personally he did not want to see the Government make themselves responsible for it, but if he and
  642
  those who sat on the benches behind him were never to get a small measure like that through the House of Lords, unless the Government made itself responsible for it, they had better go home. Therefore they had a grudge against the House of Lords in unceremoniously rejecting that little Bill. Then there was the Bill for the feeding of children. It had been urged as a justification for the action of the House of Lords in regard to that measure that there was no evidence from Scotland in favour of the measure. He admitted that they did not have all the evidence from Scotland that they would have liked, but what was strongly before the House of Lords was the fact that every Liberal Member and the two Labour Members representing Scotland voted in favour of the Bill. In regard to this Amendment, what was the position? The Government had not sought this issue; it had been forced upon them. The point he wished to make was that this issue, having been forced upon the House, and the Government having accepted the challenge, the Party for which he was speaking sincerely hoped that the battle, once begun, would be carried right through to a finish. He was in full agreement on this question with what the hon. Member for Wansbeck had said. What was the use of their going to the constituencies, and their great trade organisations being put to the expense of an election, if in the very first session of a new Parliament the House of Lords was to be allowed to pick and choose as to which measures should be rejected, which should be mutilated, and which should be passed? It seemed to him that it reduced representative government to an absolute farce if those who had been elected to voice the wishes of the constituencies were to tolerate the setting aside of their expressed will in this way. They had been told that there was nothing in their objection to the action of the House of Lords, because they passed such a useful crop of legislation last session. It had also been stated that they only passed the Trade Disputes Bill and the Workmen's Compensation Bill because they were plainly told that they must pass them by a certain section of this House. In his opinion that only made

  643
  their case worse, because if they possessed revising responsibilities they had no right to claim that the Trade Disputes Bill would bring ruin upon commerce and industry and then allow it to pass without a division. He hoped that the Government, having set out to bring about a reform of the intolerable position they were now in, would carry the issue right through to a finish. On this question the Labour Party wanted no patchwork. They would never consent to a reform which might leave them with a second Chamber in existence that made the last position worse than the first. That being so, they went in for ending instead of mending the House of Lords.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid there was a well-known saying that in politics there was little gratitude. But he thought the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, before he taunted the Conservative Party with their new-found zeal for social reform, should have remembered that measures which were considered useful by the Labour Party, such as the Factories Acts, Truck Act, Free Education Act, Trade Unions Act, and Workmen's Compensation Act, owed their inception to the Conservative Party. [Ministerial Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Surely what he had stated was well within the knowledge of the whole House.
  MR. FENWICK: Not the Free Education Act.
  MR. F. E. SMITHclaimed that that Act was supported by the Conservative Party.
  MR.FENWICK: The Free Education Act was carried by the Liberal vote being added to the Tory vote. Two nights after the division, in reply to a Question, the late Mr. W. H. Smith admitted that more than half of his own Party voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and that the Bill was only carried by the Liberal vote being added.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that established fully the proposition he made, which was that the measures he enumerated owed their inception to the Conservative Party. He might have added that in their endeavours to place the Truck and Factory
  644
  Acts on the Statute-book they encountered no little opposition from the Liberal Party. He was sure that on reflection the hon. Gentleman would qualify his observations. The primary issue before them, that of the House of Lords, was, he agreed, of supreme seriousness; but to listen to the speeches so lightly made one might wonder whether they were taking part in a tragedy or a comic opera. Did hon. Members know that those who were considering this question ten years ago had also given no slight attention to the practical method of dealing with the House of Lords? He knew no more astute and experienced politician in that House than the leader of the Irish Party. That Party in their view had no more cause to like the House of Lords then than now, yet this was what the hon. and learned Member said at that time—
  "It is positively amusing to read the facile prophecies of early destruction that are hurled at the Lords; you would imagine it was the easiest thing in the world to pull down an institution as old as the English Monarchy, which enjoys the confidence of millions of the English people."
  Those words were as true to-day as they were then, and the difficulty had not grown less. The throats and resolutions and stage alarums that had been bandied about the country were an inspiriting prelude if the Government was going into action; they were singularly unimpressive if the Government was marching out of the line of fire of a general election. The Lords had taken the same line towards the Plural Voting Bill that they took with regard to the franchise dispute in 1884, insisting that the greater anomaly as well as the smaller must be dealt with. As to the Education Bill, the real quarrel of hon. Members opposite with the Lords was not that they destroyed that Bill, but that they did not destroy the Trade Disputes Bill. The Liberal Party had hoped to have the latter Bill as a make-weight in their great Constitutional struggle. None of the really enlightened champions of democracy had since dealt with this issue of the House of Lords without giving vent to their extreme grievance of the passage of the Trade Disputes Bill. One of these hon. Gentlemen, who now sat on the Front Bench, asked, "Why was it the House of Lords passed the

  645
  Trade Disputes Bill? Because the foot of Labour is big." Although the Lords thought it a bad Bill, they passed it because the foot of Labour was big. When there were reasons for thinking the majority in the constituencies in favour of a measure was large, then the House of Lords passed that Bill, irrespective of their own moral judgment. Did any hon. Member suppose that at the time the House of Lords passed the Reform Bill they approved of it?[An Hon. Member: No.] Precisely, that was the position in regard to the Trade Disputes Bill. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laughed did not mark where that admission led to. It led a little beyond the pleasantry of the moment. It led to the conclusion that if once the Lords were convinced the people really wanted a Bill, they would pass that Bill. If he had established that preliminary ground, he asked the House to mark the practical conclusions that flowed from it with reference to the Education Bill. He gathered that the view of hon. Members on the other side was that the House of Lords was a collection of extremely pusillanimous statesmen. What was it in respect of which they were pusillanimous? It was not the House of Commons. It was the country, and when they had reason to believe that popular feeling would flame into violence against them they would pass a particular measure. It was said that the country wag seething with indignation because the Lords did not pass the Education Bill. From what quarter was the indignation to be generated? Was it to come from Bristol, where the Minister before the election promised a Bill with all-round facilities? The Labour Members took no interest in it because it was not frankly secularist. Was it coming from Mr. Hirst Hollowell and the passive resistors, whose sole thought was that the Bill must be stopped somehow? Were the Irish Members or the English Roman Catholics satisfied with the Bill? The strongest possible motive was needed before the Government could deal with the House of Lords, and the Prime Minister had said, "A way must be found." He had always found in his experience that when a man said that a thing must be done he had not the slightest idea of the particular method.
  646
  During the recess the Home Secretary, in a speech at Leeds, after a torrent of criticism of the House of Lords, informed his listeners that he really believed, by the line the House of Lords had taken, that they had brought the secular solution nearer; and then he added,
  "I myself have always been in favour of the secular solution."
  That was the extent of the right hon. Gentleman's quarrel with the House of Lords. It was true that while the right hon. Gentleman sympathised with the secular principle he voted against it. The Home Secretary had avowed himself a supporter of the policy of filling up the cup, but the right hon. Gentleman was too mild and courteous a man to be really at home in this revolutionary galère. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies stepped into the breach at Manchester and pointed out that a great deal could be done by tacking. Nobody knew better than the hon. Gentleman what could be done by tacking. Members of the Party opposite had been invited by the Tribune to state their view as to how the situation should be dealt with, and he found that they had eleven distinct methods of dealing with it, each of which had considerable sections on the benches opposite to support it. The method which had received the largest measure of support was that of restricting the veto so as to enable the House of Lords to throw out only once a Bill passed by this House. Was it not obvious that by committing themselves to such a method of dealing with the House of Lords, whether by Resolution or by Bill, hon. Gentlemen opposite were really making themselves a laughing-stock before the country? What was the whole dispute? The whole dispute was whether the Government or the Opposition represented the people on a particular issue—let them take the case of the Education Bill—andobviously the Government could not be the judge in the issue which they themselves put forward. If that view had prevailed the last Home Rule Bill would have been law to-day, although the country had so speedily rejected it after the House of Lords refused it. The real truth was that historically the efforts of the Liberal Party to deal with the Constitutional question had been vitiated by a complete

  647
  disability to distinguish between the Liberal Party and the people. They were not necessarily constantly the same. They occasionally approximated one to the other more than they did at other times. A most offensive habit which the Liberals had in dealing with this issue was to talk of England as if it were a permanent Radical pocket borough much on the same principle as if a valet were the master's clothes in the servants' hall. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh."] The Liberals had been attempting for 250 years and more, without making substantial progress, to pass resolutions declaring that the House of Lords was useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished. He was sure that the House of Lords was more than satisfied, and the agitation which the Government had in contemplation would perhaps be not more effective. Whenever hon. Members opposite had been in power, they had adopted the same tactics as far as the House of Lords was concerned. He had tried to discover the historical origin of the phrase—the offensive phrase, "the people's House," which was so common in the mouths of a large number of Liberals. [Ministerial cries of "Why?"] Because it was not necessary to insist on a fact with which everybody was familiar, and because it was only stated in order to induce in some way the view that the Liberals were the special and self-appointed guardians of the people. This interesting expression arose at the time when Fox's India Bill in 1784 was carried through the House of Commons by a majority of 100, and thrown out by the House of Lords. The action of the House of Lords provoked protests which were exactly paralleled by the protests being made to-day; but the result of all the protests was that 160 of "Fox's Martyrs" lost their seats. Then coming down to Lord Melbourne's administration from 1835 to 1841, he feared there were not many hon. Members who recollected that period, but they must have read that between these years there was constant friction between the two Houses, and the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill convulsed Ireland to the heart. Led by the threat O'Connell, there was more promise then of a successful agitation against the House of Lords than at any other period,
  648
  and Macaulay said that there would be a final collision between the two Houses soon. There wree four years of bluster, during which the Liberals declared that the people were being betrayed, but, at the general election which followed, those who had said that the people had been betrayed, and had thrown themselves on the bosom of the people were themselves cast away, and the Conservatives were returned by a majority of ninety-one. Again in 1872, there was a bitter agitation against the House of Lords, but two years after the Conservatives were once more returned to power by a majority of two votes. Then there was the case of the Home Rule Bill. He would remind the House of the meetings in Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square, to protest against the action of the House of Lords in throwing out that measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite chose their battleground; they came, they saw, and they were conquered. And that was the end of the great outcry against the House of Lords. The Liberal Party had drawn too many cheques on the people in the last sixty years—cheques which had been returned marked "no assets"—for much attention to be paid to the present pretensions. He would recall the repartee of Charles II., when warned by his brother James that the people meant to assassinate him. Charles replied—
  "They are hardly likely to assassinate me to make you king."
  The people of England were not likely to assassinate the House of Lords to make the Radical Party king. He ventured to think that the people of England were similarly unlikely to assasinate the House of Lords in order to make the House of Commons king. He would only say in conclusion that small numerically as the party was to which he belonged, they would welcome a clear and definite pronouncement that the Government had taken the burden of this great Constitutional question on their shoulders, to add to those which already rested there. They would in that case look forward to the future with even greater hope than they had looked forward to it before the Government embarrassed themselves by attempting to deal with the gravest Constitutional problem with which the country had been brought face to

  649
  face for over a hundred years—a problem of which no less than ten Members opposite had suggested absolutely inconsistent solutions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think everyone who has listened to the brilliant speech of my hon. and learned friend will admit that he has added to his Parliamentary reputation by his clear and acute analysis of some of the fallacies by which the question of the House of Lords has been embarrassed in current Parliament controversy. In my remarks I would venture to remind the House that, while undoubtedly everything connected with the relative positions of the two Houses and everything connected with the fundamental relation of the Imperial Parliament to Ireland is strictly relevant to this debate, nevertheless the point principally raised by the Amendmentis as to whether the Government, if they had been sincere in their desire to carry out great but unspecified social reforms, would have embarrassed their course by launching us into the turbid sea of political dispute over two such gigantic questions as the House of Lords and Home Rule. That is the real question, the main question. I would begin, therefore, by expressing not any view as to the plan of the Government with regard to the House of Lords, because I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that neither I nor any other Member of the House knows what the plan is, and is therefore competent to discuss it. I say "no other Member" advisedly, including in the phrase His Majesty's Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the secret was of a kind that was never broken. I agree. No secret can be revealed which is not known to any one. And my conviction is that His Majesty's Government, overburdened by an autumn session and other onerous duties, have not yet resolved in what form they mean to attack the ancient Constitution of this country. As I do not know, and if they do not know, what line their attack is going to take, it would be folly on my part to attempt to discuss it. But, surely, I am justified in going so far as to say that it is impossible that you should enter upon this great controversy as to the relations of the House of Lords with the House of
  650
  Commons and the people without opening the floodgates of political controversy which will, and must, overwhelm every minor question, every smaller question, every less exciting question of social reform, and will render this House useless for any purpose of carrying out those objects to which the hon. Member for North-West Ham made such interesting references earlier in the evening. When I listened to the debate this afternoon I tried to gather what was the justification of the Government in starting this great debate, which is to last not only over this session, not only over this Parliament, but, as the Attorney-General said, over this Parliament and many of its successors. I listened for that justification, and it seemed to me to be of the thinnest and the most jejune description. One hon. Gentleman mentioned the Reform Bill of 1831 and 1832. But that was seventy-six years ago. Since that time there have been declarations made in the House of Lords by great authorities, and accepted by the House of Lords, which make it perfectly clear that no such crisis as that of 1832 could ever again occur, because it has been laid down by many great statesmen, among others by Lord Salisbury, that when it is perfectly clear, as it was in 1832, that the people of the country were determined upon a particular course, it was no part of the constitutional function of the House of Lords to resist. There is no use, therefore, in quoting 1831 or 1832. These are not only ancient precedents, but musty precedents.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I ask when Lord Salisbury said that? I ask the right hon. Gentleman in all courtesy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree, perfectly courteously, if rather irregularly. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have not come down armed with quotations, but I do not think there is anybody in the House who will say that I have not accurately represented the doctrine, not preached by Lord Salisbury is a solitary prophet, but the accepted doctrine of all those who have had deserved importance in the other House. What were the other cases alleged? The

  651
  hon. Gentleman whose speeches always interest me, the hon. Member for Northampton, quoted the paper duty of 1860. He has the advantage over all of us that he has just written a very interesting work on contemporary history; but, unless my memory entirely fails me, there was no difficulty with the House of Lords. It did, indeed, reject the paper duty in one session, but there was no difficulty found in carrying out that, reform, which, as the hon. Gentleman explained to us, gave us the double blessing of cheap Shakespeares and cheap newspapers. Well, after 1860, what case was produced which would require us to uproot the whole British Constitution? There was a great leap from 1860 or 1861 until the events of last year. The events of last year are, no doubt, fresh in the memory of the House, and especially fresh in the memory of the right hon. Gentleman to whom, to my great misfortune, is entrusted the duty of replying to my observations to-night. I mean the late Minister for Education and the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. I am obliged to my hon. and learned friend who spoke last for a hint he gave me.
  What was the double crime of the House of Lords in the last session? It was that they passed the Trade Disputes Bill and modified the Education Bill—modified and amended the Education Bill. Of the first crime I will say nothing. If I am challenged, I will make this observation. I observed great hilarity just now, when my hon. and learned friend was speaking, because he pointed out that the House of Lords were probably influenced in their action by the consciousness, or the belief rightly or I wrongly entertained, that there was a body of public opinion in this country behind the Trade Disputes Bill which was really of a fixed and unalterable character, and that it was really the view of a great mass of the electorate. I have no doubt that did influence them. I hope that did influence them. I think it ought to have influenced them. That is exactly the kind of argument that ought to influence the House of Lords in its position as the regulative, not the primary or the most important, Assembly in our double Assembly Constitution. Why it should be a matter of either
  652
  hilarity or reproach I confess myself wholly unable to understand. Well, then, I come to the Education Bill. I excited some merriment, I think, in hon. Gentlemen opposite when I said just now that what the House of Lords had done with regard to that Bill was to modify it. It was modified. Hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt thought, and I dare say still think, that the modifications were of such a character as made it impossible for the Government now in power to pass it. Well, I do not dispute that. It is not for me to judge. I venture to say the modifications were not of a character which would have made that Bill unsatisfactory to the great mass even of the Party which support hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am not going, of course, to repeat those ancient debates in detail; but let me remind the House of several points in the great controversy—I will not call it the great education controversy, but the great controversy connected with religious education in this country. That Bill, as modified by the Lords, and as sent down finally to this House and rejected by this House, would have left the appointment of teachers in the great mass of our schools entirely to the local authorities; it would have handed over the management of the great mass of the schools entirely to the local authority; it would have taken away from the present managers of the great mass of our schools the powers they now possess; it would have entirely removed the great blot which we still inherit from the Act of 1870—the blot of the single-school area difficulty; every Nonconformist parent throughout the country would have been able at the public expense to get the religious teaching he liked for his child; and every denominationalist throughout the country who wanted to get the religious education which he liked for his child would have had to pay for it out of his own pocket. You would, therefore, have got rid—if that Bill had passed, modified by the House of Lords—of the passive resister [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]—yes, except as regards Clause 4 schools, invented by the Government—and even in those schools I cannot conceive where the passive resister comes in, because in every school in the country the cost of denominational education was to be paid

  653
  for by the parents or by the denominations. You would have got rid of the passive resister difficulty; you would have got rid of the single-school area difficulty; and you would have handed over the great bulk of your schools absolutely to the control of the local authority. Is any man in this Assembly going to tell me that you will uproot an institution more ancient than this House—an institution which has borne its part, as every historian, including the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, will admit, without discredit or his honour to the great political abilities of our country; whose debates have been adorned by eloquence, by the presence of statesmen, by a fine political instinct as to what was or was not required by the growing institutions of this country; but is any man in this Assembly going to write himself down such an ass as not to recognise how great and how honourable has been the part played by the debates in the House of Lords? Not one will dare to say so.
  Then, if that be so, are we going to destroy an institution of this kind because, forsooth, with regard to one measure brought in by Gentlemen opposite ["Oh, oh.!"]—well, one of the great and beneficent measures brought in by hon. Gentlemen opposite, with regard to education, they amended that Bill or altered that Bill—I will not use any question-begging phrase—they altered that Bill so as to give parents greater control over the education of their children, while remedying all the great grievances which have been alleged against the system which we have inherited from the Act of 1870? Sir, the thing is absurd. It is not upon the supposed delinquencies of the House of Lords in the past that any alteration of our Constitution in the future can possibly be framed. What I notice even more than the jejune character of the elements on which the attack on the House of Lords was based was a total want of comprehension of the extraordinary difficulty and gravity of the problem which any attempt to deal with the House of Lords would necessarily carry with it. In America, where representative institutions and a Second Chamber exist, they have a written Constitution. In this country, as we all know, you have
  654
  no written Constitution. Our Constitution has grown gradually, and there are no safeguards, literally no safeguards, for its preservation from chance attacks by chance majorities. I do not allege that hon. Gentlemen opposite constitute a chance majority. I am only pointing out the extreme difficulty of the problem you are dealing with. Our Constitution has come down to us and has been modified in accordance with out needs. It has been slow modification and slow growth. If you are going, to destroy the power of the House of Lords, to use a majority of the House of Commons which may have been produced in a moment of transitory excitement—["Oh!"]—yes; I do not put it controversially—what substitute are you going to have? The Americans, who I suppose are not undemocratic, have so swathed and bound themselves in the limits of their Constitution that they cannot even put on an income-tax and they cannot alter the Constitution without procedure so cumbrous and so difficult that it would be the despair of any practical statesman who tried to introduce any important modification into it. We are happily blessed with a Constitution far more elastic, far more capable of the necessary modifications which time and change bring with them. But if you are going to have no limits to the power of the House of Commons, you have no security that the Constitution may not be shattered in a moment. I think that is perfect folly. I do not believe any serious political thinker on the other side wishes that insecurity introduced into the very basis of our political life; and surely, while no sane man would trust a single Chamber with so enormous a responsibility with regard to the deposit of centuries of which we are the temporary trustees, that folly would be doubly foolish when we remember the conditions under which the modern House of Commons works, and, I do not deny, has to work. A quotation was read this evening by my noble friend from Mr. Bryce, in which, in 1889, he pointed out the necessity of a Second Chamber, and based his argument largely on the fact that the House of Commons, under a constitution which had been recently changed in 1889, worked under the

  655
  closure rule. Ever since that date closure rules have been getting more and more stringent; full and free debate is getting more and more difficult. Every Government in turn has been responsible for the change. I make it no subject of accusation against hon. Gentlemen opposite at the present time that they have not only used to the full every instrument for curtailing debate left them by their predecessors, but are in the way of inventing new instruments themselves. I do not quarrel with that now; I may quarrel with it on some other occasion. But the fact remains, and nobody was more sensible of it than hon. Gentlemen opposite when they happened to be in Opposition. Are you, then, really going to leave it to a Ministry, who are necessarily the creatures of a majority in this House, to destroy by a stroke of the pen, and without adequate debate, the very foundations of the institutions under which this country has lived and flourished? You have only got to state the problem to see its gigantic character. It is not a question whether the House of Lords did right with the Education Bill and did wrong with the Trade Disputes Bill, whether they did or did not pass the Reform Bill years later than they ought to have passed it; or whether the proposal as to the paper duty should or should not have been resisted in 1860. You are going to the very root of the Constitution; and I only mention that now to prove to every man who listens to me that the Government which gratuitously raises this question is gratuitously raising a problem which must overshadow almost every other which can be dealt with by this House—I said almost every other because I am not sure that it overshadows the other problem raised in this Amendment—I mean the question of Home Rule.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who replied to the most brilliant and eloquent speech of my noble friend to-night, dwelt at considerable length on the subject of Ireland. He was apologetic, explanatory, and I am bound to say, I think defamatory, too, in part of his speech. I felt I admit, rather aggrieved when, without rhyme or reason, or any connection with the Amendment, he chose to quote
  656
  and endorse a statement made by the Foreign Secretary at Newcastle in December which never had a vestige of foundation, which has been elaborately and deliberately contradicted by me more than once, namely, that I ever gave my consent, directly or indirectly, to any form of devolution.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Where are the letters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Neither by letter, nor by conversation, nor by assertion direct or indirect, have I ever under any circumstances, to anybody or in any place, suggested that I was in favour of devolution. The Foreign Secretary ought never to have made the statement, and it ought never to have been repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer dragged me in, and I was obliged to make that brief personal statement. But I am not interested in defending myself to-night, because that is not the question before the House. The question before the House, in connection with Home Rule and the Government, is really as to where the Government stand in this matter, and what is the character of the controversy into which they are going to introduce us. It is the character of that controversy which is eminently relevant to this Amendment, and it is the magnitude of the dispute which will have relation to that social legislation of which we have heard so much in the vague and so little in detail. The right hon. Gentleman did a very unusual thing in my experience. He got up and explained his position with regard to the government of Ireland this session. He repeated certain statements which he had made at the general election, and then he put his hand on his heart and told us that if anything was done by the Government, or proposed by the Government, inconsistent with his election and pre-election pledges, he would then and there resign. Did he speak for all his colleagues? My noble friend read out—I have not verified the quotation, but no doubt it was accurate—a quotation from the Secretary for War in which the Secretary for War, anxious—rightly and naturallv—to collect Unionist votes in the county he represents, explained that

  657
  nothing would be proposed with regard to the government of Ireland in this Parliament which was otherwise than agreeable to gentlemen holding Unionist opinions. ["Oh, oh."] Yes; that was what he said. Is the Secretary for War going to get up in his place and, putting his hand on his heart, assure us that he will resign if anything is proposed that is unpleasant to the Unionist doctors of this country? I think if he did there would be a very serious prospect of the Government losing one of their most brilliant and most efficient Members. But let us consider the matter a little further. The right hon. Gentleman, while protesting in this emphatic manner that nothing in the nature of Home Rule was going to be proposed by himself or his colleagues on pain of his own resignation, told us that in his view the Irish government must be altered root and branch. Take it even upon that level. You do not alter the long-established government of any country, not even of Ireland, without introducing subjects of such magnitude that minor issues must vanish. Even if you are going to confine four attention to the relationship of the Chief Secretary to the various boards in Ireland and to the Under-Secretary in Ireland, even if you are going to carry out changes which may without violence of language be described as merely involving devolution—even then is it not plain that you must raise issues of the utmost difficulty, of the utmost complexity, which will postpone all other questions until they are settled? That is not all, or nearly all. There is a very clear and distinct divergence between the statements of one section of the Cabinet and another section of the Cabinet upon this point. Both sections agree that nothing which is to be done is to be inconsistent with Home Rule. Well, I suppose not. The existing Constitution of Ireland, repulsive as it is to so many gentlemen from Ireland, is not inconsistent with bringing in a Home Rule Bill or carrying it through this House. That has been twice done. Therefore, of course, I am ready to accept the statement that no change of a devolutionary character in the government of Ireland would be inconsistent with Home Rule. But that is not what we want to know.
  658
  What we want to know is whether this is to be a step in the direction of Home Rule, whether it is to be an instalment towards Home Rule. We want to know whether it is framed as a half-way house towards Home Rule; and on that I observe a marked distinction between the carefully chosen language of the Prime Minister and the not less carefully chosen language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Prime Minister is perfectly clear. He wants to get some day, not merely Home Rule in the Gladstonian sense, but Home Rule in the Colonial sense; and he advised his Irish supporters to accept anything which he could induce his colleagues to accept which is of assistance towards that ultimate goal. That is not the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer carefully guards himself. He says, of course, "Anything we may bring in may be represented by partial and prejudiced opponents as being a step to Home Rule, and they may so represent it in debate—the possibilities of debate are great, and that kind of perversion, that kind of representation, of our policy is one very easy to make." The Chief Secretary is also a Home Ruler. I do not know whether he wants a Colonial or only a Home Rule Parliament. They are very different. Of two very pernicious things the Colonial Parliament, being the more extreme form of a Home Rule Parliament is the worse. A Colonial Parliament, being beyond a Home Rule Parliament, is the worse for any part of the United Kingdom. I do not think that can be denied. I think everybody feels that we do not want to break up the United Kingdom, or to revert to what we have done in Australasia. Everybody feels that, of two methods of smashing up, the Colonial principle is the extremer of the two. It is the case of lyddite and of dynamite. But which is the one that the Government mean to adopt? I take it that they must and will be driven to the Prime Minister's view. The leader of the Irish party the other night indicated admirably and forcibly, but not for the first time by many, his view that nothing will settle the Irish question except giving to Ireland a separate Parliament and a Ministry responsible to it. Then consider

  659
  what, from the point of view of this Amendment, is the folly of the procedure of the present Government. Their object being to get over all these difficult constitutional questions and then plunge whole-heartedly into the problems of social reform, they deliberately divide into two controversial halves one controversy—the controversy about Ireland. They deliberately set to work to break up the existing system, knowing that that cannot be the solution of the question. You have the reiterated statement of every member of the Irish Party that whatever you do with your Irish boards, however you manipulate the machinery of Irish government, nothing will settle the Irish question, in their view, until they have a separate Parliament. If your object is to settle the Irish question, and if your view is that it cannot be settled unless you satisfy the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, why do you make two bites of this cherry? My hon. and learned friend who spoke last asked how it was that this body of courageous politicians, the great mass of whom are avowed Home Rulers, have not the courage to tackle Home Rule? I do not ask that question. I ask another—How this body of social reformers, anxious to deal with social reform, deliberately spread out the Irish controversy over two great questions instead of settling it over one? Why are you going to waste a session over manipulating the machinery of Irish government, and other sessions afterwards over the question of giving a separate Parliament, and a separate Administration responsible to the Parliament, to the Irish people? That is a question to which I may receive some answer from the right hon. Gentleman. But, at all events, I think I have shown enough in what I have said, not to demonstrate either the utility or the in-utility of the House of Lords, not to discuss the merits or demerits of Home Rule, but to show conclusively that a Government which insists on dealing with the House of Lords and on raising and dealing with the Irish question in these two separate instalments is not a Government which can be regarded as seriously desirous to carry out social reforms. There was a very interesting speech to-night, delivered unfortunately in a nearly
  660
  empty House, by the hon. Member for North West Ham, who gave us an autobiographical glimpse of his early life. He told us that long after he became a young man he was indifferent to Party issues, but when the Unionist Party came into power in 1895 he watched its career at first with hope—that dwindled—and finally with despair. He told us that the Party catalogue of social reforms was so meagre that, he and multitudes of young men his contemporaries—indeedI think he included the great mass of the working classes of the country—having been favourable to the Imperial ideas of the Unionist Party, turned to their rivals in despair and gave up Imperialism, as it seemed to be bare of social reform. I am sufficiently removed from youth to have the deepest sympathy with its difficulties, its problems, and disappointments; but I confess that while I listened I wondered whether the hon. Member was not acting unconsciously as a great missionary for the Unionist Party in the course he has taken to-night. He told us that he started with indifference as between the two great Parties, but became a Radical because the Unionists were slack in social reform; to-day he has announced himself an adherent of a Government which indefinitely postpones social reforms until they have settled the two great constitutional questions—the House of Lords and Ireland. I think the junior generation to the hon. Gentleman, his juniors by ten years, if they study our debates and proceedings with the attention he has given to them, will draw a moral not dissimilar to his, except that its application will be turned in an exactly opposite direction. They will look at his speech and will say, "Here we have the high water mark of earnest social reform; here is a man of whose honesty in politics there is no doubt, who comes to the House as a social reformer, it might be almost said as nothing but a social reformer, and yet he is caught by the Radical Party and becomes nothing more or less than a Radical wirepuller and politician." I think the effect on the ingenuous youth will be as great and as striking as that of which he has given us an interesting account, to-night; and if there are any still remaining outside the House who ever take seriously the social programme

  661
  as delivered from Radical platforms, those people, if such there be, will hardly doubt that the Radical Party has fallen back into its old course. Though face to face with the real and difficult problems of social life, they have failed to grapple with them with a view to their solution, and have preferred to take instead the old familiar and barren path of political destruction.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): It. is naturally with some perturbation of spirit that I rise, for the first time in my Parliamentary life, to take part in a general debate of a kind which, I think, is sometimes called "full dress." But it is one of those full dress debates the melancholy splendour of which has been much depressed by two, I am sorry to say, unsuccessful attempts to count it out. The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech, and I find some difficulty in following him. It has hitherto been my lot to be followed by him. I remember one great occasion that I was followed by the right hon. Gentleman when, in a speech of somewhat unexpected passion, he called upon his myrmidons in another place to kill the Bill which was our first fruits in the first prolonged session of a new Parliament. I am not surprised to find that he is possessed of the opinion that the other place has a fine political instinct. Where would he be without the other place? Cast our thought back a little more than a year ago. The right hon. Gentleman then was Prime Minister, sitting on this Bench, commanding a great majority in this House and the loyal acquiescence of the other branch of the Legislature. He seemed to have everything on his side. But he committed, as I think he will now probably admit, one error. He sat where he did a little bit too long. The consequence was that when the appeal was made—as necessarily some time or another it has to be made—to the country he underwent a great reverse of fortune in this House. He is now, instead of the leader of a great Party, the leader of a very small one, and I cannot help reminding him—as Canning once reminded a clergyman that, it was possible to be both tedious and brief—that it is possible to be the leader of a small and yet dis-
  662
  united Party. But for all that the right hon. Gentleman still wields a great power, and he was able, by his command of votes in another place, to exercise almost supreme authority over the fortunes of that Education Bill, for which, I am bound to say, he made to-night one of the best speeches in its favour I have ever known him to make. I only wish his new-born zeal for the corpse had been introduced into our debates when it was yet alive. The right hon. Gentleman made an exceedingly good case for that Bill; but last session by his counsels, by his influence, when it came to anything like negotiation, although defeated in this House, although the leader of a small and disunited Party here, he nevertheless was able to control the fortunes of the Bill elsewhere—so much so, indeed, that the House of Lords was really in the position of a pocket, borough of the right hon. Gentleman. In the days of George III., some sixty or seventy Members sat in this House for pocket boroughs belonging to the Crown, and were called the King's friends; they were found exceedingly inconvenient by the Government of the time being if it did not succeed in obtaining their vote. The same sort of thing exists now, for the Tory Party have their pocket boroughs in another place, and whatever may happen at a general election they are able to exercise an enormous control which I do not think fairly belongs to them. Therefore, when hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for the Walton Division, who made, as he always does, a powerful and admirable speech, ask us, "How are you going to get up any steam against the House of Lords?" they mean, "Is Bristol once more to smoke with fires, are the military to be called out to shoot my constituents, are Manchester and Leeds to be in flames, and all the inhabitants of Newcastle to go out on the town moor?" I do not think that is the way the question will arise at all. I think it has come now to this, that the country will regard it as a matter of fair play. It is as a matter of fair play that they will argue the question as to the present relationships between the two Houses. If we found a Second Chamber that was eminently critical, that was, if, I may say so, uniformly disagreeable, if we found a House composed almost

  663
  entirely, let me say, of men like my very dear friend, whom I may mention quite frankly, Lord Courtney, if they were that kind of man, a most invaluable kind of man who approaches the schemes, whether of friend or foe, with the same impartial eye and the same exacting criticism, then I, who, as a follower of truth am rather fond of criticism, should say there was a good deal to be said for a House of Lords of that description, provided its powers were not too great. But everybody knows that the House of Lords has ceased to play the part of an intelligent Second Chamber. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh" and MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] Some, I will not say of the more intelligent, but of the younger men amongst them, have begun to recognise this themselves; they have observed on the extraordinary fact that they are called upon to exercise their critical and disagreeable functions only when a Liberal Government is in power, and that they are asked at the very latest moment, when a Tory Government is in power, to pass all the Tory measures, wholly irrespective of whether they are to their mind or not. In my view, commonplace, perhaps, as it may be, the country is alive to that consideration of the state of the case, and they will honestly and justly require that some arrangement should be made, that some alteration may be effected, which will adjust the powers of this House and the other House a little more fairly, so as to secure, if that be possible, the real value of a critical and revising Assembly. It is not only the Liberal Party that has been guilty of hasty legislation, or of having placed on the Statute-book unintelligible clauses which have necessitated appeals to a Court of law. Everybody agrees—I agree frankly—that there may very likely be ill-considered legislation, and if there is to be a Second Chamber at all, I should like to see one that had some capacity and willingness to exercise purely critical functions. I believe those critical functions would be very usefully employed. And therefore I do not for a moment hold that this question is one that will be treated by the country in a revolutionary spirit; but that it will be treated in a spirit of fair play and common sense. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the
  664
  Liberal Party ought to be quite content with the delightful situation under which they can only secure the passage through Parliament of measure's upon which they have set their hearts and given pledges to their constituents at the point of revolution each time. What does that come to? That when the Liberal Party are in power there are to be annual Parliaments, but when the Tory Party are in power, septennial Parliaments. It is said, for instance, that the House of Lords passed the Trade Disputes Bill because it had been printed. I do not deny for a moment that there were a certain number of constituencies which were made acquainted with that Bill, but there were not very many who were capable of appreciating the legal significance of all its clauses. There were far more people in the country made acquainted with the outlines of what the Liberal Education Bill meant. The Lords' claim is that if you put your Bill in print, get it read in the Commons, then go to the country and say it is approved, that thereupon their right of criticism goes and they are bound to pass that measure, however repugnant to their moral sense. But when another measure, which embodies principles well defined and clearly understood, comes before them they exercise their own sweet will upon it. They passed the one and rejected the other, because they said the one Bill had been in print and had been before the country, whereas the other Bill was not printed and had not been before the country. The Liberal Party could not pass any Bill to which the House of Lords objects unless they had a general election upon it, and thus you would have when the Liberal Party is in office annual Parliaments, and when a Tory Government is in power septennial Parliaments. I repeat that the present system is most unfair to the Liberal Party. Perhaps it may be said that the Liberal Party has no rights; but we think that they have rights. It would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to awake from his slumber, to take our places and form a Government, because he would be able to pass measures which, although not up to our mark, are better, perhaps, than none. He would be able, owing to his control over another place, to do what we have been unable to do. That is an

  665
  argument that has been used by his followers in the constituencies. But it is obviously not a state of things which will recommend itself to our minds or to the mind of the country, which I believe is really desirous to see the scales are held fairly for all parties. The right hon. Gentleman is angry with us because he says we have put off those social reforms, upon which he has notoriously set his heart, in favour of Constitutional questions. Now, for my part, speaking as one connected with Irish administration, I deny altogether that the two Irish measures mentioned in the King's Speech are not social measures. I insist that they are social measure of the first importance. Involving a constitutional dispute as they may do, they are from my point of view root and branch social questions. The local government of Ireland is a social question; and University education is a social question. The Irish people are injured by the existing state of affairs. They are injured in their moral character by being dissociated from the government of their own country. They are injured in their intellectual stature by being deprived of University education. I say, therefore, these measures are social measures just as much as any English measures which await solution. I honestly put these measures in the very forefront; they are a first charge upon Parliamentary time, not as political questions merely, but as social questions, essential to the social regeneration of Ireland. Are we to say that the restoration of the evicted tenants to the land is not a social question? Every one who has any acquaintance with Ireland knows very well that any unsettlement there is in the country is almost entirely to be traced to this cause. Surely these questions are vital to the social well-being of Ireland, and I claim for them the rank of social questions. The noble Lord in his interesting speech referred with some emotion to that part of the Education Bill which dealt with medical inspection of the children in elementary
  666
  schools, and other things of that sort, and he said with perfect truth that that part of the Bill received the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perfectly true, so it did. Very well, all I can say is that I hope my successor in the Education Department will take advantage of the noble Lord's, I am sure, perfectly sincere declaration, and will bring in a Bill incorporating that uncontentious part of the Education Bill, and then we may rely on the assistance of the noble Lord in passing it. I hope my right hon. friend will take an early opportunity of introducing a Bill of that sort, which I think will pass through all its stages without any absorption of Parliamentary time. I say that the King's Speech does contain substantial promise of other measures of social reform which may be put on the Statute-book if the other place will allow it.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition speculated once again on what the contents of the Irish Bill are to be. I really must ask him to wait a little longer—he will know all the detailed provisions as soon as the Bill is placed before him—and to rest assured that it will be in his view a step towards Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has never had anything to do with devolution. But devolution Bills have passed this House, and there are departments and boards in Ireland to-day to which have been devolved in a manner and in some particular character most important functions and duties. Therefore I cannot understand in what sense he says that he has had nothing to do with devolution. I cannot conceive any sensible man in the present congested state of affairs in this Parliament saying that he will have nothing to do with devolution, though I am willing to believe that the right hon. Gentleman, with his dialectical skill, will proclaim our forthcoming measure to be as bad as it can possibly be. What more, then, do you want? I regret as much as any

  667
  man that the Liberal Pary should ever have to be engaged in constitutional disputes. I agree that it would be far better it we lived under a Constitution which would enable us to do full justice to the demands of every question. But I am persuaded that at some time or other it will be absolutely essential for the Liberal Party, for all parties, indeed, who have at heart the welfare of the people, to deal with this subject. The Tory Party do not represent our whole wishes; we cannot all become followers of theirs. We have our own views and our own sections of people; but we and our way of making known in law the mind and the will of the people hopelessly blocked, to be made the subject of periodic revolution and frequent general elections. We should scarcely be ordinary mortals if we did not look to some other way of dealing with these questions.
  That is the view that the most intelligent Radicals take in all parts of the country; and I do not think, therefore, by placing Ireland in the forefront of our measures we are departing from our constitutional obligations or our pledges, or doing anything else but dealing with what we regard as one of the most pressing of social questions. As for what is to happen to my colleagues the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for War when this measure is unfolded—well, well, let us leave that and see. It may be a very exciting Irish night if they both get up and wash their hands of this terrible measure; but I think we may, after all is said, with perfect confidence await the issue.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 374. (Division List No. 4.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Moore, William

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks-

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.

  Nield, Herbert

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Haddock, George R.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Fredrk, Peel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds)

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rutherford W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord E. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Liddell, Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Valentia.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Younger, George

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Halpin, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Agnew, George William

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Alden, Percy

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex E. Grinst'd

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cox, Harold

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crombie, John William

  Harwood, George

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crossley, William J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cullinan, J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barker, John

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Delany, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Beale, W. P.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Becke, A. Cecil

  Dillon, John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bell, Richard

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hodge, John

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bertram, Julius

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Billson, Alfred

  Elibank, Master of

  Hudson, Walter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Black, Arthur W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Boland, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Essex, R. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Brace, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jenkins, J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Branch, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Brigg, John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bright, J. A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Field, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Joyce, Michael

  Brooks, Stopford

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bryec, J. Annan

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fullerton, Hugh

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lambert, George

  Cameron, Robert

  Glover, Thomas

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Carr-Gomm, W. H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Grant, Corrie

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Levy, Maurice

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Lough, Thomas

  Clough, William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lundon, W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lupton, Arnold

  670

  671

  Lynch, H. B.

  O'Mara, James

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Paul, Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

  M'Arthur, William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Crae, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Kean, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Killop, W.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  M'Laren, S. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Reddy, M.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tomkinson, James

  Marks, G. Groydon (Launceston

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Toulmin, George

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Verney, F. W.

  Massie, J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Vivian, Henry

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Meagher, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Walsh, Stephen

  Meehan, Patrick, A.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

  Walters, John, Tudor

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Robinson, S.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morse, L. L.

  Runciman, Walter

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Russell, T. W.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Murnaghan, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Murray, James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Napier, T. B.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wiles, Thomas

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nicholls George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'st'r

  Seddon, J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Nolan, Joseph

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Williamson, A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wodehouse, Lord

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  O'Dowd, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  O'Grady, J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Pease.

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. Hills)—put, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speakeradjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
Galwey's Divorce Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Charles Edward Galwey, a captain in the Royal Irish Regiment, with Annie Louise Galwey, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes—Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in and of the decree of divorce of the King's Bench, Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland delivered (on oath); Bill read 1a; and to be read 2a on Monday, 4th March next. The usual Orders made.
Fitz Gerald's Divorce Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Lida Eleanor Purcell Fitz Gerald with Gerald Purcell Fitz Gerald her present husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes. Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in and of the decree of divorce of the King's Bench, Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland delivered (on oath); Bill read 1a; and to be read 2aon Monday, 4th March next. The usual Orders made.
Baines' Name.—Petition of Raymond Hill Baines, of 54, Cromwell Road, Hove, in the county of Sussex, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to authorise Raymond Hill Baines to assume and bear the Christian names of Henry Rodd in lieu of the Christian names of Raymond Hill; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read and referred to the Examiners.
Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [H.L.]; Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [H.L]; Birmingham Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [H.L.];City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [H.L.]; Coventry Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Devonport Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Harrison's Patent Bill [H.L]; Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]; Kendal
494
Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.];Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Justice Bill [H.L.]; Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; St. Neot's Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Selsey Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Society of Apothecaries of London Bill [H.L.];Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [H.L.]; Tees Conservancy Bill [H.L.]; Tees Valley Water (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]; Tyne Improvement Bill [H.L.];Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bill [H.L.]; United Methodist Church Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.];York and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; York (Micklegate Strays) Bill [H.L.].—Presented, and read la.
Borax Consolidated Bill [H.L.];Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Colne Valley Water Bill [H.L.]; Electric Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [H.L.];Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Ship Canal (Bridgewater Canal) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Ship Canal (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.];Medway Lower Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Midland Railway Bill [H.L.]; Midland Railway (West Riding Lines) Abandonment Bill [H.L.]; National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.];Newquay and District Water Bill [H.L.]; North British Railway Bill [H.L.]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Oxford and District Tramways Bill [H.L.];Portishead District Water Bill [H.L.]; Royal Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]; South Lincolnshire Water Bill [H.L.]; Southend Water Bill [H.L.]; Staveley Coal and Iron Company Bill [H.L.]; West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]; West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.];Weston-super Mare Grand Pier Bill [H.L.]: Wisbech Water Bill [H.L.].—Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROLL OF THE LORDS.
  The Lord Speaker acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table. The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 1.)
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH.
  Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the London County Council Generating Station at Greenwich in its relation to the Royal Observatory.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report for the year 1906 by the Director on the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh.
  "OPTIONS" AND "FUTURES" IN FOOD STUFFS.
  Reports from the Canadian Government and His Majesty's representatives abroad on legislative measures respecting gambling in "Option" and "Future" contracts as regards food-stuffs (in continuance of [Cd. 1756.] of 1904).

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railways Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade:—

  1. (Maidstone Corporation Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1907.) Authorising the construction of light railways in the borough of Maidstone and in the rural district of Maidstone, and on the boundary of the rural district of Hollingbourne, in the county of Kent.

  2. (County of Middlesex Light Railways (Extension and Lands) Order, 1907.) Authorising the construction of a light railway in the parish of Wembley, in the county of Middlesex (being an extension of the light railways authorised by the county of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1903) and the taking of lands for widening roads on which the said light railways will be laid in the parishes of Hendon, of Southgate, and of Edmonton, in the said county.

  3. (Warrington and Northwich Light Railways (Extension of Time) Order,
  496
  1907.) Amending the Warrington and Northwich Light Railways Order, 1903.

  4. (Leek, Caldon, Low, and Hartington Light Railways (Borrowing and Further Powers Amendment) Order, 1906.) Amending the Leek, Caldon, Low, and Hartington Light Railways Order, 1898.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3744. Italy (South Italy).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NEW SOUTH WALES.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1906 (No. 41).
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION (CAPITAL AND INCOME ACCOUNTS, 1905–1906).
  Accounts of the receipt and expenditure of the capital and of the income derived from the lands and other property held for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital, and the Foundation of Samuel Travers, Esquire, for the year ended 31st March, 1906; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT).
  Second Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the department of the Inland Revenue which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.

  POST OFFICE.
  1. (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1906.)
  No. 942. (Money Orders.) The Postal Order (Foreign and Colonial) Amendment (No. 1) Regulations, 1906, dated 21st December, 1906.
  No. 943. (Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post, Sweden.) The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 1) Warrant, 1906, dated 20th December, 1906.
  2. (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1907.)
  No. 31. (Inland Post.) The Inland Post Amendment (No. 9) Warrant, 1907, dated 21st January, 1907.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853–1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Jack Dawson under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853–1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.
  SHOP HOUES ACT, 1904 (METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF BETHNAL GREEN).
  Order made by the council of the metropolitan borough of Bethnal Green, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the borough.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minutes, dated 9th February, 1907, granting retired allowances under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to—

  1. Charles Walter Maies Anderson, late assistant superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, London.

  2. Thomas Davidson Brown, late first class engineer, Engineer-in-Chief's Department, Post Office.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Fifteenth Annual Report of the proceedings of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks, for the year ended 20th November, 1906; with Appendices.

  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account of the gross amount of all moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of "the Fund for Military Savings Banks" from the 19th September, 1845, to the 5th January, 1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I have endeavoured to ascertain what would be likely to be agreeable to the large majority of your Lordships in reference to our sittings, and, as far as I have been
  498
  able to obtain information, it appears to me that your Lordships favour the course which was followed during the Autumn Sittings, and prefer to meet on Wednesdays and not on Fridays. In these circumstances I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
  Moved, "That for the remainder of the session the sittings of this House shall be on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, unless otherwise ordered."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this matter is clearly one which should be decided with a view to the general convenience of the House. We have made inquiries on this side, and the impression which we have derived corresponds with that which has been formed by the noble Marquess opposite.
  On Question, Motion agreed to,

  HOME DEFENCE.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) for the nominal roll of first-class battleships fully manned and in active commission in Home waters on the 13th February, 1907; (2) to state how many battleships had nucleus crews on board at that date; how many had reduced nucleus crews on board at that date; and (3) what number of officers and men constitute a reduced nucleus crew, and how many men were there on board the "Ramillies," etc., on 13th February, 1907.
  THE FIRST LORD Of The ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, my noble friend puts to me three questions which I hope to be able to answer with the greatest frankness. The reply to the first question is, there is one first-class battleship, the "Dominion," which is now in dockyard hands. It will take two or three months to repair. Of our other ships in full commission about sixty are at this moment engaged in the manœuvres at Lagos, and therefore lot more than three days' sail from come waters. The answer to the second question is that there, are twelve ships

  499
  with nucleus crews on board—the "Albion," the "Magnificent," the "Victorious," the "Glory," the "Bulwark," the "Barfleur," the "Centurion," the "Majestic," the "Empress of India," the "Nile," the "Ocean," and the "Revenge." There are eight with reduced nucleus crews—the "Ramillies," the "Repulse," the "Hood," the "Resolution," the "Royal Oak," the "Royal Sovereign," the "Trafalgar," and the "Renown."
  I think, my Lords, it would be well to recall what these ships did when the mobilisation took place on June 14th last. This was the performance of the ships at the Nore. The order to mobilise was received by the commander-in-chief at 2.46 a.m. It was made "general" at 3 a.m. The first ship ready was the "Aboukir" at 5.15 a.m., and the last the "Ramillies" at 8.10 a.m., all with full crews and ready to go to sea. At Portsmouth the order was received by the commander-in-chief at 2.55, and the ships were completed and had sailed for their ports of assembly by 9.30 a.m., except the "Royal Arthur" at 10.29, and the "Barfleur," delayed by the tide till 1.20 p.m. At Devonport the order was received at 3.12 a.m., and the last ship was ready to sail for sea at 9.30 a.m. These ships responded to the test put upon them. There was no necessity for a proclamation, to call out reserves, or anything of that sort. They went to sea with full crews with the extreme rapidity I have indicated. I know there has been a good deal of discussion about the advantage or disadvantage of nucleus crews; but the enormous improvement that has taken place in the Fleet owing to the institution of the nucleus crews is hardly to be exaggerated. It has diminished the number of ships out of repair in the most extraordinary manner, and the Fleet is now in a condition such as it was never in before, thanks largely to the high state of efficiency maintained owing to the nucleus crews on board.
  Three years ago, in the third week of January, 1904, we had sixty battleships on our list. Of these thirty-eight, or 63 per cent., were unavailable for one reason or another. On 21st January of this year out of fifty-one battleships only eight were unavailable, or only 16
  500
  per cent. of the whole number we had. Of the armoured cruisers, of which there were twenty-four on the list in January, 1904, there were eight unavailable, or 33 per cent. Now we have twenty-eight on the list; seven are unavailable, or only 25 per cent. Of unarmoured ships we have now only twenty-one unavailable out of seventy-six; in 1904 forty-four out of eighty-four were unavailable, or 52 per cent. The destroyers were this year 143 on the list; twenty-nine were unavailable, or 20 per cent.; in 1904 there were sixty-one out of 110, or about 56 per cent. Thanks to the admirable changes made by my predecessor, Lord Selborne, for I must give him credit for the initiation of the scheme, the whole of our ships are in much better order.
  As to the third question, it is difficult to state with an accuracy that cannot be disputed the exact number which at any particular time constitute a nucleus crew. At present a full nucleus crew is about two-fifths of the whole crew, and a reduced nucleus crew is about one-fifth of the whole crew. On the "Royal Sovereign" class, the number of men varying from day to day and week to week, the nucleus crew is about seventy-three, but there is an intention of largely increasing the proportion of the nucleus crew. We are going to try to work it up from two-fifths to three-fifths on most ships, and so far as the Home Fleet at the Nore is concerned, we shall have in about six weeks time six battleships and six cruisers to all intents and purposes fully manned. They will have three-fifths nucleus crews, and the other two-fifths will be made up of men who will no doubt be moved from time to time from other ships, but not quicker than in eight months. That is going back to the practice carried out by the Channel Fleet before 1903. This will, I believe, secure that these ships will be always ready to go to sea and will carry on their practice and training in the waters in which they may be called upon to fight.
  LORD LOVAT,who had also given notice "To call the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War to the number of efficient fully manned

  501
  British battleships on active commission in home waters on 13th February, 1907; to ask him, in view of the naval conditions obtaining on that date, whether the possibilities of foreign military invasion of these isles must necessarily be confined to a raid of 10,000 men; and to move that facts and figures be produced and laid on the table of the House to substantiate the contention of the Under-Secretary of State for War on 10th December, 1906, that the supremacy of the fleet guaranteed the British Isles from invasion by any force greater than that of a raiding party of 10,000 men," said: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord who has just sat down for the way in which he has answered my Questions. In his reply the First Lord naturally put the case in the best point of view from the Admiralty side, not distinguishing between ship and ship or excluding those which are used for other purposes than those of a warship. The "Ocean," which is quoted as having a nucleus crew on board, is in dock, and I presume will not go out to sea. I think the "Victorious," the "Dominion," the "Magnificent," and the "Glory" are in similar condition. With regard to the "Renown," that is no longer regarded as a man-of-war, as it has been used for other purposes. As to the remainder, I would point out that there are only four of the efficient ships named which carry 12-inch guns. Of the twenty-one ships in home waters, it would be difficult to produce more than fifteen or sixteen at the outside which would be of any value as fighting ships; and amongst those you have the "Barfleur," the "Centurion," the "Trafalgar," and the "Nile," which I do not think are now reckoned as first-class ships of war.
  But that, however, is not my point. I wish to dwell rather on the question of fact than of Admiralty policy—to test whether it is not a fact that the time might come when we had not the command of the North Sea and were therefore liable to invasion. I, therefore, ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War to reconsider the question whether the theory of the Blue Water school still holds good. I mean by the Blue Water theory the question of the possibility or non-possibility of invasion, We have
  502
  had during the last few years various theories on this subject. The Norfolk Commission were absolutely unable when they sat to find out by what number invasion was possible, but it was assumed, from the number of men we were expected to get ready, that invasion was possible by a force of 100,000 men. After a certain period Mr. Balfour, in perhaps the most regrettable speech ever made in this country from the point of view of the result it has had, stated that 70,000 would be the minimum that could land with a view to successful action, and that 10,000 would be the maximum raiding force which it would be possible to send across the channel. From there we got down to a raiding party of 5,000, and, finally, to Mr. Arnold-Forster's dinghy theory. Then we had the statement by Lord Portsmouth that, even if we had not the command of the Channel, a force of 10,000 was the limit that could come across. I should very much like to have the facts and figures to substantiate that contention. We certainly are not organized on land. Our defensive forces are in course of organisation and unprepared. Moltke said—
  "Initial distribution carries in it the germ of success or failure."
  I wonder if either the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty or the noble Earl who represents the War Office could say of any part of our forces during the past week that the distribution and organisation gave prospect of success. As regards the distribution of the Fleet the question is even more serious, because the nation we have to fear is obviously Germany. Indeed from neither point of view can we regard the situation as satisfactory. The question of speed, moreover, which I understand is a great factor in naval matters, is also absolutely against us; all the oldest ships we possess are in home waters, and those which are not old ships are for the moment hors de combat.
  In considering the possibility of raids it is important to note that on Saturday last there were thirteen liners in German ports, with a tonnage of over 110,000. These liners could be off our shores any morning with a powerful raiding force on board. In Mr. Balfour's figures three tons were calculated as necessary to

  503
  carry one man; but in the Japanese War one ton and a half carried one man, and in the Turkish War the proportion of men was greater than the tonnage. I have seen it stated on authority that 80,000 Germans could be suddenly mobilised in a German port in six hours. Personally I do not think the figure would be so high as that. I think the limit would be 40,000 or 50,000 men, for it would be essential in any surprise invasion that no outside preparation should be shown, otherwise information would be sent across. For a liner raid 150,000 men could be mobilised in German ports in thirty hours, and the tonnage available would be ample at any moment to bring over whatever force was considered necessary for the invasion of these islands. We know very little in this country of the time it takes to embark men and get them off, but the Germans have practical experience and training in the rapid embarking and disembarking of troops. These are facts which ought to be kept in mind. The question of time, too, is all important. The First Lord of the Admiralty gave some interesting figures just now of the results of mobilisation orders on the 14th June, and no doubt mobilisation can begin at once when the order is expected.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It was not known; it was a surprise.
  LORD LOVAT: Were not the Press correspondents down?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No.
  LORD LOVAT: Was it on a Saturday?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I cannot say.
  LORD LOVAT: With regard to the presence of Press correspondents I find I was wrong. I think the result would be very different if "a bolt from the blue" fell on a Saturday night, when men are absent on leave in large numbers. I happened to be standing outside Chatham at 1 o'clock on Saturday, and I saw over 200 blue-jackets taking their tickets till Monday. The ticket collector was a very intelligent young man, and entering into conversation with him I remarked, "There are a great many men going away
  504
  to-day, aren't there?" He replied, "Not nearly so many as a week or two ago." I ascertained that on some occasions as many as 1,200 leave. If, for instance, a surprise took place on a Saturday with the German naval force stronger than ours in the North Sea, I do not see how the Admiralty could be ready before Tuesday, and it would be difficult for the ships to concentrate in face of an active enterprising enemy. As to the time necessary for the mobilisation of the Auxilliary Forces, I sent some telegrams last week to the various headquarters to ascertain what would be the average time, in case mobilisation was sounded at 10 o'clock at night, in which each unit would be able to start preparation. I find that when you wire on a Saturday night to a distant commanding officer the telegram is not received until 8 o'clock on Monday morning. This is another important matter to be borne in mind in this connection. In the circumstances I have mentioned your raiding party could have landed on the Sunday, and by the time our ships were ready for sea a large majority of the 150,000 raiders would be on our shores.
  I do not apprehend that the Germans would in time of peace start "a bolt from the blue" of this nature. But we must bear in mind what history teaches, which is that hostilities usually begin before war is actually declared. In my calculations for a surprise I have not made a single allowance for the 84,000 Germans in this country, for the dropping of a bomb in Chatham Dock, or the sinking of a ship in the narrowest waters of Portsmouth Harbour. I might instance the Dogger Bank affair as showing that we cannot rely on the Navy being near enough to protect these shores from sudden attack. We may be certain that if this surprise comes upon us it will be the best organised surprise, both as to method and thoroughness, that ever was known. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he still considers that the possibilities of foreign military invasion of these islands must necessarily be confined to a raid of 10,000 men.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for facts and

  505
  figures to substantiate the contention. of the Under-Secretary of State for War on December 10th, 1906, that the supremacy of the Fleet guaranteed the British Isles from invasion by any force greater than that of a raiding party of 10,000 men."—(Lord Lovat.)
  *EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord has brought forward a Resolution which is one of such vital importance to the safety of this country that I earnestly trust it will receive most careful attention, not only from both Houses of Parliament, but from every thoughtful and intelligent person in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord has stated certain facts; and it seems to me essential that these facts should be tested from the bottom. If the statements are correct—and, so far as I can judge, having gone carefully into them, they are absolutely correct—they reveal a state of affairs that is most disquieting and it would seem as if we were living in a fool's paradise, and shutting our eyes to a danger that may only be realised when it is too late to guard against it.
  I know there are many people who scout the idea of invasion so long as we possess a powerful Navy. A powerful Navy we must possess—a Navy sufficiently powerful and numerically strong enough to cope, with every chance of success, against the navies of two Powers; but it would be unwise to trust to the Navy alone to defend these islands. My noble friend has clearly proved that in time of peace we cannot rely on the Navy being near enough to prevent these shores from being attacked. It is all very well for people to imagine that this is not likely to happen. But it has happened already, at the time of the Dogger Bank affair; and at this moment the greater part of the Navy is too far off to prevent attack.
  Were we at war with any two Powers, the main body of our Navy, in accordance with the duties defined for it by the Carnarvon Commission in 1881, might be hundreds of miles away seeking for and destroying the fleets of the one Power while the fleets of the other Power would be at liberty to harass our commerce, to interfere with our food supplies, and,
  506
  quite possibly, to land an army in this country. Anyhow, my Lords, as I have already said, it would be very unwise, either in peace or in war, to trust to the Navy alone to defend these shores. We cannot surely suppose that the intending invader would be foolish enough to give us timely warning of what he was about to do. We cannot flatter ourselves that an expeditionary force could not be landed on our territory without war having been previously declared.
  Depend upon it, if this should ever occur—and that such an eventuality will happen I feel morally certain, unless we put our house in order—it will be at a moment when we are least prepared to meet the enemy; that is to say, when we are asleep as we are at present, or when nearly the whole of the Regular Army has been despatched abroad, as in 1900. For surprise is the essence of success in war, and if you will study a very valuable book called "Hostilities without Declaration of War," compiled in 1883 by Lieutenant-Colonel (now Major-General) Sir Frederick Maurice, you will find that, as a rule, hostilities have commenced before the declaration of war. Sir Frederick Maurice tells us that of the 117 wars fought by European nations, or by the United States of America, against civilised Powers, during the 171 years (from 1700 to 1870) only ten are recorded when hostilities were preceded by a declaration of war. He further states—this was in the year 1883—that—
  "In far the greater number of cases recorded the surprise which overtook the assailed country was as complete as would be the effect if to-day, or at any time during this last year and a half, a foreign army had landed on the shores of England."
  If this record had been brought up to date more examples of this fact could have been given, and I think we may rest satisfied that what has happened in the past may happen in the future. Increased facilities of communication have made surprises more frequent during the last two centuries than before. As Sir Frederick Maurice says—
  "When armies moved by the slow stages by which the Roman legions advanced, the whole progress of war was cumbrous, and a solemn announcement of coming war was part of the laboured programme. But in modern times

  507
  the development of roads, railways, and other means of communication, of supplies, food, clothing, and of general wealth, the facility with which physical obstacles can now be overcome, the perfect knowledge of ground furnished by good maps, have made sudden enterprises incomparably more easy than they were in earlier times."
  Assuming the possibility of a hostile force landing upon the eastern part of our country, a possibility which has greatly increased in recent years by the growth of the navies and mercantile marine of our continental neighbours and by the new light that the experience of the Russo-Japanese war has thrown upon the question of the amount of tonnage required to convey a given number of troops, it would be well to consider what amount of resistance we have to offer.
  First we must remember that our arrangements for mobilisation have been hitherto dominated by the requirements of Imperial defence and have been adjusted, partly because it was thought that places like Portsmouth and Plymouth needed to be specially protected, but mainly with a view to getting troops out of the country expeditiously to reinforce any threatened point beyond the seas. The requirements of home defence have hitherto been considered of secondary importance. The possibility of an invasion has never been believed in by our rulers since the days of Wellington and Palmerston, and consequently the people have been taught that if an invasion ever occurred it would be only a mere raid which could be frustrated without difficulty. I myself doubted at one time the feasibility of any large force being landed on our shores, but modern conditions have developed so rapidly that it is impossible now to study the question without realising that, under some such circumstances as the noble Lord has supposed, a large number of troops could be safely and rapidly landed in this country.
  The result, then, my Lords, of our defensive arrangements has been to locate the larger portion of our Regular troops in the south of England, while the mass of our Volunteers is to be found amongst the populous manufacturing districts further north. A landing on the centre of our eastern coast would cut our military forces in two. Panic
  508
  and confusion would prevail everywhere, and the Regular troops at Aldershot and on Salisbury Plain—not more than 30,000 men in all, and very imperfectly prepared, I am sorry to say, for a sudden move, in the important matters of transport and artillery horses, and without a sufficient supply of ammunition available for either guns or men—would have to be hurried up for the defence of London; the task of checking the invaders would therefore be left to the Auxiliary Forces, who, it is generally recognised, are insufficiently trained to meet a Continental army in the field. And even if their patriotic spirit could compensate for their imperfect discipline and training, it certainly could not remedy the want of artillery and cavalry, nor the lack of the administrative services which are necessary for the maintenance of an Army in the field. It is true that after a time the number of our Regulars might be increased by the addition of Reservists, but the long delay before they could join, under the existing very inconvenient arrangements for the mobilisation of Reservists, would be still further increased by the interruption of our communications, caused by the presence of an enemy in the centre of England.
  My Lords, I have not, I believe, got the character of being an alarmist, and I trust I am not yet in that state of dotage which Mr. Cobden attributed to the great Duke of Wellington when his Grace ventured to point out the necessity for suitable arrangements being made to defend Great Britain. But I confess to a feeling of absolute despair when I think of the blindness displayed by the British public which enables them to rest satisfied with our present state of unpreparedness. The responsibility for the remedy of all this lies with you, my Lords, on both sides of this House, and with the leaders on both sides of the other House. So long as the warnings of men who know what war is and who wish to save their country from its horrors are treated with something very like contempt; so long as our rulers refuse to believe that it is possible for a Power with a fleet rapidly approaching our own in strength, and with an army of at least 5,000,000 of thoroughly trained men at its disposal

  509
  to invade this country, so long will the people continue in their ignorance of what may overtake them and in their complaisant satisfaction as to our means of defence.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH):My Lords, I feel in this difficulty with regard to the Question put to me by my noble friend and the point raised by the noble and distinguished Lord who has just addressed us, that in questions of this kind we are dealing with matters of opinion rather than facts and figures. I hope I shall never be so extremely rash as to make a speech guaranteeing this country against invasion. Nothing is so uncertain as war, and even the greatest experts differ profoundly when they venture to prophesy in regard to military or naval matters.
  If I were asked on what facts and figures I rested the contention that we have to look to the Navy to secure us against oversea invasion rather than the Army, I would refer my noble friend to the speech which Mr. Balfour made, with the fullest responsibility, as Prime Minister, and Chairman of the Imperial Defence Committee. With the general tenor and principles of that speech we agree. We feel that these questions should not be treated in any sense as Party matters, and that successive Governments should endeavour to carry out as far as they can some consistent policy, guided by the best advice obtainable, and endeavouring to co-ordinate the two great services in the defence of the Empire. I hope my noble friend will not think that I am lacking in courtesy, but it is impossible for me to lay upon the Table of the House what he is pleased to call the facts and figures on which Mr. Balfour based his speech in May, 1905, because the proceedings of the Imperial Defence Committee are strictly confidential.
  I deny that we ought to act upon what I may call the theory of treachery. If either Germany or France were to act in the way indicated by noble Lords, they would be guilty of the grossest acts of treachery, acts which would be certainly contrary to the whole experience of
  510
  civilisation and to every practice of modern diplomacy. But before I touch upon that I would compare the condition of things prevailing at the end of January—the nearest date I can get to February 13th, with that which obtained when Mr. Balfour made his calculations. He made his calculations on the basis of a French raid—because France was much nearer to us than any other country—he assumed a state of the Army such as existed at the lowest point touched during the South African war, namely, at the end of February, 1900. The figures he quoted were 17,000 infantry and cavalry and twenty-six batteries of artillery, which constituted the whole Regular forces that we had at home in organised units at that date. On the other hand, at the end of January of this year we had in England alone, exclusive of the troops in Ireland, 70,000 infantry and cavalry, twelve batteries of horse artillery, seventy-two batteries of field artillery, and in addition the Departmental Corps such as the garrison artillery and the Army Service and Ordnance Corps. If I were to contrast the state of the Auxiliary Forces in the general comparison on those two dates, it would show a still more favourable result. I have omitted bringing into the comparison the Auxiliary Forces, because it has been admitted by military experts that in case of an invasion the invading country would certainly send their best troops, against whom, if they landed, the Auxiliary Forces would be very little good, and that we should have to rely in that case upon our Regular troops. That, my Lords, puts the case of the Army.
  Now, what is the case that my noble friend brings before you? The whole contention of the noble Lord opposite, who puts the case of the absence of our ships at the manœuvres off Lagos, is based on the theory that our nearest neighbours are practically brigands. That is really what it comes to. The noble Lord who initiated this discussion and also the noble Earl on the cross benches referred to some interesting remarks by Sir Frederick Maurice in regard to warlike hostilities occurring before declarations of war. I do not

  511
  dispute that; but a great deal of water has to run under the bridge between strained relations and the declarations of war. In this connection I would quote the words used by Lord Lansdowne in the Report of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel in 1883, of which he was chairman. The noble Marquess said—
  "We do not take the view that the contingency of a coup de main struck by a Power with whom our relations have been friendly and unstrained is one which we have any right or which experience would justify us in placing amongst the foremost of the probabilities with which we have to deal. It is our impression, on the contrary, that, if such an attack were to be made, it would be preceded by circumstances which would have called for effectual precautions against surprise."
  The noble Marquess went on to say—
  "We observe with pleasure that this view is that apparently entertained by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief (the Duke of Cambridge) and by Sir Lintorn Simmons."
  With the permission of the House I should like to read what the evidence of these two distinguished soldiers was on this question. The Duke of Cambridge was asked—
  "I think your Royal Highness has admitted that although in very many instances acts of war have been committed before war had been formally proclaimed, that has never been the case until after the relations had been strained between the countries?"
  and the answer of His Royal Highness was—
  "Certainly."
  The question put to Sir Lintorn Simmons was as follows—
  "You have spoken of acts of war having preceded declarations of war. Those are notorious cases. We have ourselves taken ships of war before war has been declared, and I daresay cases may be found where we have even attacked small distant fortresses before war was declared. But have you ever known such acts as those taking place until the political relations between the two countries have become very strained?"
  Sir Lintorn Simmons replied—
  "Certainly not; at least I cannot recall any."
  With regard to the position now placed before the House by Lord Lovat, it is perfectly clear that our fleets would never have been away at Lagos unless our relations with our neighbours were perfectly friendly and unstrained.
  512
  The Government do not wish it to be assumed that they accept the view of the extreme Blue Water school. But if we are to suppose that France or Germany, in a time of profound peace, when our Foreign Office tell us they can see not the slightest difference of opinion, would be guilty of an act of treachery of that kind, then we must alter our whole national life. We must alter our procedure at Portsmouth and on the Forth and other places. It would be impossible to carry on our commercial life at all if every night these places were to be fully manned and all the entrances were to be protected as if we expected a raid. In all these matters the Government have to be guided, not by extreme improbabilities, but by reasonable commercial and national risks.
  I can assure the noble Lord that the Committee of National Defence have most carefully considered all these questions. There are schemes prepared for the defence of all defended ports, which it is confidently anticipated will be in a position to resist any sudden attack. These schemes have been drawn up with the full concurrence of the Admiralty, and the two services are in entire accord as to the measures which should be taken for the defence of the country. While I can assure noble Lords that the whole of these questions are receiving the fullest consideration, I do not think it is consistent with common sense, and hardly consistent with good international manners, to assume that nations with whom we are on the best of terms are prepared to act towards us in a manner which, if committed by his own Government, every Englishman would consider most disgraceful.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this discussion but for the reference to myself made by the noble Earl in the concluding part of his speech. The object of my noble friend who introduced this subject, and the object of the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the cross benches, is, I take it, to impress upon this House and the public the necessity of not imagining that the safety of this country can be secured merely by the possession of

  513
  a powerful Navy. At the outset of his speech the noble and gallant Earl said—
  "Do not let us trust to the Navy alone."
  I have yet to discover a public man in any position of responsibility who is prepared to say that tie does trust to the Navy alone. I do not think it is the view of His Majesty's present advisers. We know that the Secretary of State for War has devoted himself to the preparation of a very elaborate scheme for the improvement of our Home Army, the purport of which is likely to be made known to us before long. It certainly was not the view of the late Government. I challenge anyone to find any statement by any member of the late Government to the effect that our naval supremacy was in itelf sufficient to justify us in relaxing our vigilance in military matters.
  My noble friend who spoke first referred to the often-quoted speech made by Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons in May, 1905, and he referred to that speech as one which, in his opinion, was a very regrettable one, because it gave the impression that Mr. Balfour at any rate was content to rely upon the security given to us by a very powerful Navy. But criticisms of that kind—and they have have not been made to-night for the first time—are surely made by people who have not taken the trouble to read Mr. Balfour's speech with the attention which it deserves. I have more than once read that speech, and let me venture to insist again upon this that throughout his closely reasoned and cogent argument Mr. Balfour postulated that we should have a sufficient and powerful Army for home defence. That was the bedrock of his argument. Although it was not possible on that occasion for Mr. Balfour to give facts and figures, any more than it is possible for the noble Earl representing the War Office to do so this evening, Mr. Balfour did give very fully the arguments based upon the facts and figures which had been supplied to the Imperial Defence Committee, over which he presided with so much distinction. And, unless I am very much mistaken, Mr. Balfour, when he mentioned 70,000 as the minimum force with which any foreign Power was likely to attempt the invasion of this country, relied upon the advice of my noble and gallant friend
  514
  upon the cross benches. Mr. Balfour was able to show that even at the time when the South African war had been some time in progress and we were most denuded of troops there was a considerable residuum of regular troops left in the country, besides a large number of Auxiliary Forces. He showed further Mediterranean, the Atlantic, and the Channel Fleets were employed in foreign waters, there could be made ready in a few hours six first-class battleships and six first-class cruisers, while there would be in commission in home waters twelve cruisers besides a number of gun-boats, destroyers, and torpedo-boats, irrespective of a large number of ships in reserve with nucleus crews. He therefore contended that even on the most unfavourable assumption there would yet remain available a very considerable naval force for the purpose of repelling an invasion. If the corresponding figures were to be taken for the time through which we are now passing, they would not be less favourable. I imagine that, even assuming our main fleets were away, we should yet have a very large force of vessels sufficiently powerful to engage with great effect the kind of flotilla that might be employed for the purpose of conveying an invading force across the sea that girds these islands. I hope, therefore, that I may assume that when my noble friend presses his views upon His Majesty's Government he is really preaching to those already converted, and that they have no idea either of diminishing the naval force available for the purpose of resisting invasion, or of neglecting the efficiency and strength of that home army with which an invader would have to reckon if he had effected a landing.
  I wish to say one word as to what fell from the Under-Secretary when he told us that in his view the anticipation of a sudden invasion rested upon a theory of international treachery. The noble Lord quoted the Report of a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, which sat in 1883, and of which I had the honour to be president. Let me say at once—and I am not sorry to have an opportunity of saying it—that I must protest against the assumption that, because twenty-four years ago I committed myself to certain strategical views

  515
  derived from the evidence tendered to us by witnesses, I am to be held bound to the same views in the year through which we are now passing. I say frankly that if I had to sit down and write a Report on the question of the Channel Tunnel to-day, I do not think I should write the same Report that I drafted in 1883.
  The possibility of hostilities without a previous declaration of war is certainly one which I do not regard as having been disposed of be the Report which the noble Earl has quoted, nor does the evidence adduced in the remarkable compilation of Sir Frederick Maurice deserve by any means to be lightly put on one side. I certainly shows that the contingency of sudden surprises is one which ought never to be kept wholly out of mind. It is quite true that we can scarcely contemplate that at a moment when international relations are in no sense strained, when there is no outstanding difficulty between two great civilised Powers, one of those Powers would be at all likely to spring suddenly on the other. But there may, on the other hand, be periods of international tension when complications may supervene with great rapidity and when it is the duty of any Power that values its own safety to leave no precaution neglected. Therefore I am not at all disposed to neglect the possibility of what is sometimes called a bolt from the blue, or to think that ample precautions should not be taken to provide for such a contingency.
  To my mind this debate is the more satisfactory because it has disclosed a certain consensus of opinion on both sides of the House to the effect that in this as in other cases you cannot separate the military from the naval question, and that it is the duty of those who are responsible for the safety of this country to see to it that in neither the one direction nor the other is any precaution neglected which might be necessary to secure the safety of these islands.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords. I agree with the noble Marquess who has just sat down that we ought not, whether we are connected with the Army or with the Navy, to neglect the possibility of a sudden attack, and that we are bound, whether we are connected with the Army
  516
  or the Navy, to take every precaution to secure ourselves against a surprise. I am sorry my noble friend opposite should have become a sort of mouthpiece of the alarmists and scaremongers who are so very prevalent at present. I think that in order to take up that position you must assume a perfect series of hypotheses to be true. In the first place you must assume that the sea is no longer the main defence of this country. Naval history shows that the sea has been our defence in the past, and I hope it will be the same in the future.
  Then it has been assumed that foreign nations are anxious to attack us. At this moment we are in the most supreme agreement with all the great nations of the world. I do not think there is a shadow of difference between ourselves and them—certainly no difference that would be likely to lead us into war. Then my noble friend also has assumed what is certainly not the case now—that the Army is away. I think there is no doubt that at this moment the Regular Army is as able to defend our shores as ever it was. At this moment, if called upon, it would be prepared to pit itself against a raiding force and give a good account of itself. Then it is assumed that our fleets would be away. Certainly they are not away now. I cannot admit my noble friend's statement that the fleet is really at any impossible distance at all. Again my noble friend has entirely forgotten the fact that we have a very large force of destroyers and submarines all along the coast, which would be exceedingly awkward for an attacking fleet, or still more for a force of unarmoured vessels which were attempting to land troops on our shores.
  My noble friend has said that our ships in reserve are not ready to fight and are not equal to those that would be brought against us. I do not quite agree with him. I think the average British ship, even a ship in reserve, would be quite equal to the ships that the Germans could bring against us. Still more will that be the case when the whole of the Home Fleet is organised as it will be in the course of the next six or eight weeks. My noble friend seemed to think that Continental nations had a monopoly of

  517
  information, that they could know exactly what our condition is, whereas our own Intelligence Department was exceedingly bad. I dispute the fact. I maintain that our methods of getting information are as good as those of any foreign country, and that now our means of information are greater than ever, owing to the development of wireless telegraphy and the good system we have adopted of that great new invention.
  I think my noble friend has not established his case. I think he should have proved that the hypotheses he put forward would be realised before he ventured to raise this question. I believe at this moment, at any rate, and, as far as we can see, for some considerable time, we may look our enemies in the face, if we have any—we may look foreign nations in the face and declare that we are only desirous to preserve the peace of the world, and that whilst we are determined always to be in a position to fight, if we are called upon to do so, yet, so far as we can help it, we shall always use our forces in order to keep peace and not to make war.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I regret that the noble Earl is not going to give the information for which I asked. I disclaim any desire for the disclosure of secret documents, but it must be remembered that when Mr. Balfour made his statement he gave certain definite figures. I have shown, however, that the assumption on which Mr. Balfour proceeded as to the proportion between men and tonnage needs revision. This is one of the matters in respect of which official statistics should be given. Mr. Balfour's calculations also had reference to the amount of tonnage in French ports; but the figures which I have given in regard to German ports alter this factor likewise. I must adhere to my statement—that the effect of Mr. Balfour's speech has been regrettable. Those who are interested in recruiting for the Auxiliary Forces have found themselves met with the remark—"Mr. Balfour says the country will not be invaded; why should we serve?" I was unable to follow the answer I received as to the Volunteers, or how it is made out that we are in a better position with regard to Volunteers to-day than formerly. On the question of brigandage,
  518
  we have been the chief brigands. In the list of those who have fought before a declaration of war we come second, with, I think, a total of thirty instances. We secured the fleet of poor harmless Denmark one morning, although we had no quarrel with the nation. The Dogger Bank incident took place when the Channel Fleet was as far of as it is to-day. At a great crisis the Fleet was two and a half days' steam from the East Coast. Our equality with the Germans could only be established by the speech we have heard if the assumption is that one Englishman is equal to two Germans. I am sorry to be included amongst the alarmists. It is my last wish to be an alarmist, but I view with grave anxiety the prospect that our Fleet, hampered by the want of a good Army behind it, will never be able to search out the enemy in the ports should we ever come to a war.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON:I do not rise to continue the debate, but to ask the noble Lord whether the House is to understand that the Motion he has put down is withdrawn.
  LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT assented.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.