Sitting of 25 June 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments,
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, etc.) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Select Committee. "That, in the case of the Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Calico Printers' Association,' the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  Resolution agreed to.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H.)
  Sir JOSEPH LEESE reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, at the meeting of the Committee this day, notice was received from Sir Walter Nugent, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of an urgent public engagement, to attend the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Oldbury, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from Burton-on-Trent and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SPAIN (No. 1, 1907.)
  Copy presented, of Notes exchanged with the Spanish Government respecting the Maintenance of the Territorial "Status Quo" in the Mediterranean and

  1123
  the East Atlantic Ocean, 16th May, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3839 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Newport (Mon.), and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Copy presented, of Draft Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prisons Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to remissions and punishments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 17th June, 1907, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Permanent Secretary to the Welsh Department of the Board of Education, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copies presented, of Reports Nos. 524 (Jamaica, Report for 1905–6) and 525 (Uganda Protectorate, Report for 1905–6) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT, 1903 (BY-LAWS).
  Address for "Return of Local Authorities which have made By-laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, distinguishing those which have made By-laws prohibiting street-trading by girls under sixteen years of age."—(Mr. Tennant.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Paper Transfer of Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General
  1124
  whether he is aware that in a number of post offices there has been a paper transfer of postmen from head to sub-offices, no difference being made in duties, the only alteration being that the men now receive their wages at the sub-office instead of at the head office; and whether he will state if, in the event of the pay at the head office being raised and the pay at the sub-office remaining stationary, this paper transfer will deprive the men of the benefits they would have received otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.)I am not aware of any transfers of the kind described by the hon. Member, but if he will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiry made and will communicate with him further.

  Jury Service.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in certain cases in North London individuals have been summoned annually to serve on juries; and whether he can see his way to take any action, by legislation or otherwise, which would lead to the fairer distribution of this duty amongst different classes and localities.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no knowledge of the particular cases to which my hon. friend refers, but, as I informed him on the 6th March last in answer to a Question on the same subject, the large number of jurors who have to be summoned annually in London makes it impossible altogether to prevent the contingency that the same person may be summoned twice within a short period. I do not see my way at present to propose any legislation on the subject.

  Regulations Governing Exhumation of Bodies.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether exhumation of a body may under any circumstances be effected without a certificate from himself or from the coroner of the locality concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) If my hon. friend has in mind any particular case of the exhumation of a dead body, I should prefer to have the

  1125
  facts for consideration. The general question is a wide and difficult one.

  Working of the Uganda Forests.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the opinion expressed in Cd. 3561 by the Government inspector as to the value of the forests of Kenia, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to undertake the constraction of a railway connecting the forests with the Uganda Railway; if not, whether they will entertain tenders for such construction by private individuals or companies; and whether it is their intention to work the forests as a Government undertaking or to let them out to contractors.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I regret that I am unable at present to make any statement with regard to the matters raised in the first two parts of the hon. Member's Question. With regard to the last part of the Question, the proposal which is now under consideration is to work the forests as a Government undertaking, but to preserve them as Government forests and to let out the right of felling timber in them to private individuals.

  Maundy Money.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state for the last available period the number and value of each of the coins issued by the Mint for Maundy purposes, the total amount realised by the sale or distribution of these coins, the net loss in connection with the issue of this money, and whether such loss is met by payments out of the Consolidated Fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The issues of Maundy coin in 1906 were:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  8,602 fourpences

  143

  7

  4

  8,482 threepences

  106

  0

  6

  9,376 twopences

  78

  2

  8

  10,926 pence

  45

  10

  6

  Total

  373

  1

  0

  There is no loss on the issue of Maundy money, as payment of this coin is made to the Mint, and the profit resulting is in
  1126
  the same ratio as that on the other silver coinage.

  Alterations in Civil Service Examinations.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the new scheme of examination for the Exchequer and Audit Department has boon framed after conference with headmasters representing various types of higher grade schools, he will state what headmasters, other than those of public schools, took part in this conference; and what schools other than public schools have been favoured with special centres for this examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed by the Civil Service Commissioners that, in the course of their deliberations leading up to the change in the scheme of examination for junior appointments in the Admiralty and the Ordnance Factories, second class assistant accountantships in the Army Accounts Department, and examinerships in the Exchequer and Audit Department, they consulted among other persons the headmasters of eighteen schools. A considerable number of these schools rank as grammar schools, but all are public schools in the sense that they are not conducted for private profit. Among them are four of the great London public day schools. The two secretaries of the Incorporated Association of Headmasters were consulted as conversant with the conditions of a large number of smaller public schools whose heads could not be individually asked for their views. Under the old conditions this examination was held together with the competitive examination for Sandhurst and Woolwich, and the schools which were centres for the Army examination were utilised for the convenience of candidates, not for the convenience of the schools. Under the new conditions this will not be possible, and it is not proposed at present to hold examinations elsewhere than in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin.

  Treasury Rules affecting Irish Land Purchase Finance.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the promised Amendments of Treasury Rules affecting Irish land purchase finance are now complete; will he give the text of

  1127
  the amended rules; and will he point out the parts of the amended rules, if any, which he expects to prevent or check exhorbitancy of price or bonus.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Amendments are not yet drafted; but, as I stated in answer to a Question by the hon. Member on the 8th May, they will not deal with the matters referred to in the last paragraph of the present Question.

  Reserve of Heavy Guns.
  MR. NEILD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the question of an adequate reserve of heavy guns has been reconsidered in the light of the experience gained in the Russo-Japanese war; and, if so, whether any, and what, change has been or will be made in the reserve hitherto maintained of one gun in reserve for every four afloat.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it is not considered desirable in the public interest that information regarding reserves of guns should be given.

  Postal Servants—The Efficiency Bar.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General what penalties are inflicted in the case of officers who fail to pass the efficiency bar on first or further trials, but subsequently are able to qualify; whether such penalties are regarded as punishment; and whether the rules which apply in these cases are general to the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.)When an officer fails to pass the efficiency bar his pay does not rise above it until he attains the required qualifications. Thereafter, if his conduct and work continue satisfactory, his pay rises by annual increments until it reaches the maximum of the scale. If an officer cannot pass the efficiency bar his services are not considered to be worth more than the amount at which the bar is fixed, and he does not receive more. There is no question of punishment. All rules relating to the efficiency bar are of uniform application.

  Grants to University Colleges—Report of Treasury Committee.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report of the Permanent Advisory Committee of the Treasury on grants to University Colleges, together with the decisions of the Treasury thereon, will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I hope to be able to lay the Report on the Table in the course of a few days.

  Lord Tweedmouth and Meux and Company.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the number of shares held by Lord Tweedmouth in Meux and Company; and whether he made any declaration of his holding on taking office.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) I am not aware of the number of shares held by Lord Tweedmouth, and it was unnecessary for him to make any declaration on taking office.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Dockyard Employees and the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether a new or amended scheme will be submitted for adoption in lieu of the compensation that will be payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906; and, if so, when such proposed new or amended scheme, to be applicable in respect of the workmen employed in the Royal dockyards, will be put upon the Table; and when an opportunity will be given to the House of discussing it before it is certified by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, and adopted.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): The question is still under consideration.

  Home Fleet—Prize Firing Ammunition.
  CAPTAIN HERVEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the ships of the Nore

  1129
  division of the Home Fleet are allowed the same allowance of ammunition per ship as is allowed for prize firing and all other firings usually carried out by similar ships of the Channel, Mediterranean, and Atlantic Fleets.
  MR. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir.

  Inspection of Admiralty Contract Work
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the construction and ordnance departments of the Admiralty arid the dockyards each have their own representatives for the inspection of contract work; whether any other departments have separate representatives; and what has been the total number of separate individuals engaged during the whole period of building in inspecting work of all kinds, whether hull, engines, guns, or armour in connection with the four sister armoured cruisers "Achilles," "Cochrane," "Natal," and "Black Prince," built by contract.
  MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the construction of any one of the cruisers referred to involves the placing of so large a number of separate orders for the various materials employed that a considerable amount of clerical labour would be necessary even to determine with accuracy the number of persons engaged on their inspection.

  Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether ho is aware that the Selborne Memorandum, 15th March, 1905, laid down that for the future there would be three sets of combined fleet exercises annually in addition to the naval manœuvres in June and July; whether any combined fleet exercises have taken place since the new scheme of distribution was first brought into operation; and whether he can state what combined fleet exercises are to take place annually in addition to the naval manœuvres, in view of the official statement that the new scheme of distribution will increase the fighting efficiency of the Navy.
  MR. LAMBERT: Since the termination of the Lagos manœuvres about
  1130
  four months ago, no combined exercises have taken place. The Board of Admiralty fully realise their responsibility for the fighting efficiency of the Navy, as alluded to in the Question, and accordingly arrange for such exercises of the Fleet as in their discretion they consider most desirable. They are not prepared to make any definite statement as to what exercises will in future be carried out.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Will the exercises be quite as frequent and as extensive as in the past?
  MR. LAMBERT: I can only repeat the last sentence of my Answer.

  Woolwich Arsensal and Trade Union Wages.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when it is the intention of his Department to pay the trade union rates of wages to the carpenters and joiners employed at Woolwich Arsensal; whether he is aware that the conditions of employment prevailing are such as to preclude trade unionists from working therein; and whether he can remove this embargo and make Woolwich a fail house.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): I can only refer my hon. friend to the Answers which I gave to the Questions put to me on this subject by the hon. Member for the West Houghton Division of South-East Lancashire on the 6th March and 13th March last. † The statement I then made has not so far as I am aware been controverted; I am, of course, quite prepared to consider any evidence that the wages and privileges of these workmen are not equal to the current rate of the district.

  Special Reservists.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now announce the calculation showing the number of special Reservists to be enlisted under the new scheme who will be twenty years of age, and consequently available for foreign service, when the plan is in working order.
  † See (4) Debates, clxx., 775: clxxvi., 22
  MR. HALDANE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division on the 3rd instant. †
  MR. GRETTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman no reliable estimate to place before the House?
  MR. HALDANE: I have any quantity of estimates, but I do not like to say anything until I am certain.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers on the subject?
  MR. HALDANE: When the proper time comes I will give the House full information, but I cannot say what form it will take.

  Lala Lajpat Rai.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Lala Lajpat Rai has for many years devoted his time and private means to social and religious reforms, and that during the famine of 1900 he exerted himself to relieve distress; and, if so, whether he can point to anything in this gentleman's antecedents to justify his being regarded as a danger to the State.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): It may be quite true that Lala Lajpat Rai may have done all that my hon. friend says, but I think he will see that he cannot on that account expect immunity from the consequences of actions which, at a later stage, constituted him a danger to the State.
  SIR H. COTTONasked whether Lajpat Rai had made only two political speeches in the Punjab during this year, and that in neither of those speeches was there anything of a seditious character.
  MR. MORLEYasked for notice of the Question.
  MR. LUPTON: Is there not a greater danger to the
  † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 287.
  1132
  State in stopping leaders of the people from expressing the desires of the people by sending them to gaol than in leaving them free to express the views of the people?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  Newfoundland Fishery Question.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed since the Imperial Conference between the Colonial Office and the Prime Minister of Newfoundland concerning the fishery question; and when opportunity will be afforded for arraigning the action of His Majesty's Government therein.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): No further Correspondence on the Newfoundland fishery question can at present be published as negotiations are still proceeding with the United States Government. I shall, however, be prepared to defend any action taken by His Majesty's Government whenever it is arraigned by the hon. and gallant Member, who can, of course, avail himself of any of the ordinary opportunities of debate.

  St. Helena.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the distressed condition of many of the householders in Jamestown, St. Helena, he will grant a suspension of the payments due under the Drainage and Waterworks Ordinances until there is some chance of the inhabitants, who have suffered severely owing to the withdrawal of the garrison, being able to meet their liabilities.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor has been instructed that every possible consideration should be shown to those who were rendered unable by stress of circumstances to pay the sums due, and, although it has not been thought necessary to grant a general suspension of the payments due, each case will be dealt with on its merits.

  Transvaal Loan.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state when it is probable that the Transvaal Loan Bill will be passed through the Legislatures of that Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, not at present.

  British Grants to the Transvaal.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if the Colonial Office has received an audited statement showing the destination and allotment of the various sums of money which have been loaned and granted, since May 1902, by the British Government to the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: An account of the various funds will be found in the Report of the Central Judicial Commission published in Cd. 3028, but, owing to questions having arisen with regard to the disposal of certain balances, the audit is not yet complete.

  Private Enterprise Railways in Ceylon.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office proposes to sanction the construction by private enterprise of railways to Ratnapura, Manaar, and Badullah Passara, in order to meet the requirements of the planters of tea, cocoa, and rubber in Ceylon.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; the lines in question, if and when made, will be, like other railways in Ceylon, made and owned by the Colonial Government.

  Transvaal Finance.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Estimates of revenue and expenditure in the Transvaal Colony for the current year show any surplus out of which the interest on the proposed loan of £5,000,000 can be paid; and, if so, what is the amount available for that purpose.
  MR. CHURCHILL:The Estimates of the Transvaal Government will in due course be laid by Ministers before the
  1134
  Parliament to which they are responsible. In the meantime the hon. Member will have learnt from the Answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that the maximum amount required during the next twelve months is not likely to exceed £1,000,000.
  MR. LYTTELTONasked whether the promise of His Majesty's Government to guarantee the Transvaal loan to the extent of £5,000,000 was unqualified or not, and, if it wore unqualified, whether the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave yesterday, to the effect that £1,000,000 only would be granted, was obtained only within the last two or three days.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government intimated that they were, in principle, prepared to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000, if such a measure should pass the Transvaal Parliament. Of course, the period when that loan should be floated depends upon when the Transvaal Government requires the money. At present only £1,000,000 is required, and upon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the statement yesterday.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Was that fact known when the promise of a guarantee of £ 5,000,000 was given?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes. The actual dates on which specific sums would be required were not known in complete detail. But at a very early stage of the negotiations we were informed by the representatives of the Transvaal Government that they would not want the whole loan at once, but that it would be spread over a period more or less long.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: In view of the debate on this Loan Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of the revenue and expenditure of the Transvaal?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think a full statement of the financial position of the Transvaal should be before the House, and before the loan is made I will take steps to bring that about.

  Incomes.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor

  1135
  of the Exchequer whether he can state what is the estimated aggregate value of all incomes between the limits of £160 to £700 and £700 to £ 2,000; what proportion of the aggregate income between £ 160 and £2,000 is estimated to be earned, as defined in the Finance Bill; and whether any estimate has been formed of the aggregate value of pensions enjoyed by persons with incomes between £160 and£ 2,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): It is possible, from the information obtained through claims for abatement, to estimate with approximate accuracy the aggregate of incomes lying between £160 and £700, and the amount (before deduction of abatements and allowance on life premiums) may be put at about £275,000,000. No similar data are available in respect of incomes between £700 and £2,000, and any estimate of the aggregate amount of such incomes must be exceedingly speculative. The figure of £150,000,000 has been suggested, but this cannot pretend to be anything but a guess. Of the total income between £ 160 and £ 2,000, it has been estimated that rather less than half—say about £ 200,000,000—would come within the definition of "earned" income contained in the Finance Bill. There are no materials for estimating the aggregate value of pensions enjoyed by persons with incomes between £160 and £ 2,000 per annum.

  Income tax Inquiries.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table particulars of the forms, schedules, and rules to be issued to employers respecting the incomes of their employees; and if he can explain what steps are to be taken to meet the difficulty that in many instances wages appearing in the books of an employer as paid to an individual does not represent the individual wages of the employee.
  MR. ASQUITH: I shall be prepared to lay the particulars asked for, when the provisions of the Finance Bill, upon which the forms and rules are dependent, have taken final shape. As regards the second part of the Question, it is not intended that an employee should, as
  1136
  a matter of course, be assessed to income-tax on the amount set opposite his name in the employer's return. Such cases as the hon. Member refers to will become the subject of investigation, and the assessment on the employee will be limited to the amount of his personal profits and gains.

  Cost of Income-tax Collection.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any item has been included in the Estimates for 1907–8 covering the increased cost of collection of the income-tax entailed by the new system which he proposes to employ; and whether he can state what is the estimated increase in the cost of collection on this account.
  MR. ASQUITH: No provision for increased cost of collection due to the changes proposed in this year's Budget was inserted in the Estimates now before Parliament, which were prepared before the Budget was introduced. It is not possible to make a complete estimate of what this increased cost will amount to, until the provisions of the Finance Bill have been finally settled by Parliament; but, when this has boon done, I will have such a statement prepared with as little delay as possible.

  Orange River Colony.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is proposed to guarantee a loan for the Orange River Colony.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it intended to grant a loan to Jamaica?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not see how that arises out of my Answer.

  Precautions Against Industrial Accidents.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of accidents which took place on railways and in the factories and large industrial undertakings of Great Britain during the year 1906; whether he will furnish information to the House with

  1137
  regard to the museums of security already in existence, notably at Charlot-tenberg, Amsterdam, Munich, and Milan; and whether he will arrange for an expert to report as to the advisability, or otherwise, of establishing in England a similar exhibition of life-saving and life-guarding apparatus and machinery.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The number of accidents to persons employed in premises under the Factory Act, reported during 1906, was 111,904. The number of accidents on railways during 1906 to passengers, railway servants, and other persons was 21,690. The suggestion of an exhibition of safety appliances has been under my consideration for some time. Information has been collected as to the exhibitions already in existence in certain foreign countries, and the Chief Inspector of Factories hopes to be able to arrange a visit to some of these exhibitions in the autumn.

  Clerks to Licensing Justices.
  MR. STEPHEN COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action taken by several standing joint committees with regard to Section 8 of the Justices' Clerks Act of 1877; and whether he will prepare a Return giving the names of the clerks to the licensing justices, distinguishing those who are paid by salary and those who are remunerated by fees, and include with the Return a list of the fees paid in licensing matters to such clerks.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure that I understand my hon. friend's Question, but I think he is under a misapprehension. Justices' clerks throughout the country are paid by salary, as is required by the Justices' Clerks Act, 1877, not by fees; and the salaries are fixed with regard to the total amount of work they have to do as justices' clerks. I have no information as to circulars issued by standing joint committees, other than that contained in the memorandum my hon. friend has sent me, and with regard to that memorandum I may say that justices' clerks' salaries are certainly not governed by the number of licences in existence. A Return giving
  1138
  the names and salaries of all magistrates' clerks was prepared in 1904, and can be purchased through the Stationery Office, and I do not think it desirable to go to the trouble and expense of another such Return at the present time. The fees in licensing matters are uniform and statutory, and can be readily ascertained by consulting the Licensing Acts.

  Metropolitan Police Commission.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that statements containing serious allegations against the police had been submitted to the Royal Metropolitan Police Commission but that the Commission was unable to consider them as they did not come within their terms of reference, he will advise His Majesty to widen the terms of reference, in order that the work and Report of the Commission may be made more complete.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. The terms of the reference to this Commission are fixed by statute, and I have no power to alter them. Moreover, the Commission was appointed to deal with a specific subject, and I think it very desirable that their Report should not be delayed.

  Overcrowding on the District Railway.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the assurance given to his Department by the District Railway Company as to providing adequate accommodation for those using their line, except during certain hours of the mornings and evenings many of their trains consist only of three carriages; will the Board of Trade see that the company does what it can to obviate the overcrowding, which is principally caused by the fewness of the carriages composing the trains.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): The railway company inform me that the loading of their trains is constantly under supervision, and that, except during the busy hours of the morning and evening, three or four-car trains arc sufficient, unless there is a sudden or abnormal rush of traffic.
  MR. POWER: I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will draw attention to the shameful overcrowding that takes place.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to this matter? It is the experience of many Members that there is constant overcrowding.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have given the matter my personal attention, and I took the trouble of communicating personally with the railway company. I sent one of the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade there after what I saw myself. I thought it was rather dangerons, I must say. Since then, however, I think there has been considerable improvement.
  MR. POWER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as a rule, there are only three-car trains except morning and evening.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that that is the case during periods of the day which are rather slack, but it is not the case in the evening, when the overcrowding takes place. After all, we do not want to enforce on a railway company the obligation to run empty carriages, especially when, on the whole, the company is not paying. One must take that into consideration.

  Llanfair Talhaiarn School
  LORD R. CECIL: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have determined that the non-provided school at Llanfair Talhaiarn is unnecessary, and if they have sanctioned the enlargement of the provided school in that parish at a cost of £1,650; and, if so, what ground have they for thinking that this is in accordance with the wishes of the parents and conduces to the economy of the rates.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.): The Board sanctioned in December, 1906, the enlargement of the council school and determined that upon the completion of the enlargement the voluntary school would be unnecessary. I cannot say if the noble Lord's estimate of cost is
  1140
  correct. The overcrowding at the council school, to which His Majesty's inspector has called attention for some years past, proved in the opinion of the Board that an enlargement was necessary. The fact that in the school year ending May, 1906, out of the 160 children on the books of the two schools only twenty-one attended the voluntary school must be taken as affording evidence of the wishes of the parents, and I have no doubt that the existence of one school instead of two conduces to the economy of the rates.

  Grants-in-Aid for Hostels
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when ho will be in a position to make a statement as to grants-in-aid of the cost of the provision of hostels.
  MR. LOUGH: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on the 13th June on this subject.†

  Sheep Dipping Order.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that certain local authorities have not received full information for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their duties in regard to the Sheep Dipping Order, 1907; will he say what circulars or instructions have been issued by the Board containing such information other than the order itself; whether he is aware that different local authorities are interpreting the order differently owing to the difficulties of understanding it; and whether ho will give directions for persons interested to be consulted with a view to the amendment of the Order.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): Full information was given to all the local authorities concerned with the administration of the Order to which my hon. friend refers, and I shall be happy to supply him with copies of the Circular and Memorandum which we issued for the purpose. In a few cases local authorities, at the outset, placed an interpretation on the Order which did not accord with our own views, but all
  † (4) Debates, clxxv., 1576.

  1141
  these cases have been satisfactorily disposed of. The Board are at all times glad to receive expressions of opinion as to the practical working of their Orders from those interested.

  Swine Fever.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, can he state whether there has ever been a well authenticated case of swine fever having been imported into Great Britain from Ireland; if so, can he state when the importation took place; whether he is aware that swine fever has been much more successfully dealt with in Ireland than in Great Britain; can he state who is responsible for the passing of the Order restricting the importation of Irish pigs; and what other restrictions, if any, on the movement of animals between Ireland and Great Britain are in force.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We are aware of over 100 cases in which swine fever has been found to exist in pigs which had quite recently been landed from Ireland, and in which the circumstances place it beyond reasonable doubt that the infection was contracted in that country. Since the present restrictions have been in force only one or possibly two such cases have occurred. The number of outbreaks of the disease in Ireland is less that the number in Great Britain, but in the differing circumstances of the two countries no fair comparison can be made. The Board of Agriculture are responsible for the regulations governing the importation of animals into Great Britain, and the Irish Department for those governing importation into Ireland, and I may point out that, while we have only imposed restrictions with regard to pigs, those of the Irish Department extend to all classes of stock, including horses.
  MR. BOLAND: What was the date of the importation?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that Question.
  MR. BOLANDasked who was responsible for the passing of the Order, and whether the law officers of the Board of Agriculture had been consulted before it was put into force.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board of Agriculture, of course, is responsible.
  MR. BOLAND: Was the opinion of the law officers to the Board of Agriculture taken before the Order in Council was issued?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Judicature Acts Committee
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSasked the Attorney-General when the Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the working of the Judicature Acts might be expected to report.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): It is impossible to say definitely when the Committee will report. I understand, however, that an interim Report would be presented shortly. The ultimate Report cannot very well be prepared before the close of the present year.

  Scottish Prisoners' Escorts
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the practice of detailing warders for escort duty from Barlinnie Prison to Perth late in the afternoon still continues; at what hour the escort on 3rd June returned to Barlinnie; and at what hour they went on duty again.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer for him. During the past twelve months three escorts, owing to sudden influx of prisoners, were carried out late in the afternoon. The 3rd June was one of these occasions, and the warders did not return to Barlinnie until 1 a.m. next day. They, however, took duty three hours later than usual on that day, i.e., at 9 a.m. The Prison Commissioners are endeavouring to discontinue these late removals altogether.

  Prosecutions for Agrarian Offences in. Ireland.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland in how many cases during the last three months

  1143
  have prosecutions by his direction been instituted in Ireland in agrarian offences under the provisions of the statute of King Edward III.; and will he state what has been the result in each case of these prosecutions.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): During the past three months summonses requiring persons to show cause why they should not be required to find sureties for the peace or good behaviour have been issued in fifteen cases arising out of the agrarian agitation. In all these cases the proceedings were taken by my express direction or with my sanction. Proceedings of this kind in all cases, agrarian or otherwise, are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, taken under the Commission of Peace and the Statute of Edward III. together. The results of the fifteen cases referred to have been as follows: Orders to find sureties were made in five cases, and were refused in two cases; one case was abandoned; one was adjourned for three months; and in six cases the proceedings are pending.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether it was a fact that in these proceedings the person proceeded against had no power of calling evidence for the defence, and whether that state of things had not been condemned more than once from the Bench by Irish Judges; and also whether proceedings were ever taken under this Statute in England.
  MR. CHERRY: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, as a matter of practice the magistrates do hear witnesses for the defence, but it has been decided by a case in the King's Bench Division that they are not bound to receive that evidence. I understand that proceedings are taken under the same statutory jurisdiction in England. Some of the suffragists wore sent to prison under the same statutory provision.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But have not the prosecutions under this Act in England reference to an entirely different class of case?
  MR. CHERRY: The cases may be different, but the statutory jurisdiction is the same.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Lord Chief Justice had said the exercise of this jurisdiction was an anomaly, but he had no power to change the law.
  MR. CHERRY: It may be an anomaly, but it is an anomaly which prevails in both England and Ireland, and this jurisdiction has been exercised for a great number of years.

  Irish Prosecutions—Divided Benches.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in the cases which, owing to an equal division of the justices, prosecutions in Ireland by summons for agrarian offences have recently proved abortive, it is his intention in these and similar cases in the future to proceed, in accordance with constitutional usage, against the accused by information and warrant, or by indictment before the grand jury at assizes, and thus obviate the scandal and expense of these abortive proceedings.
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot undertake to lay down any general rule as to how I shall proceed in such cases as are mentioned in the Question. Each particular case must be dealt with according to its special circumstances. Hitherto, where the Bench has been equally divided the case has been always adjourned to the next sessions, and in all cases I think a decision one way or the other has been ultimately arrived at. In the future, as in the past, every constitutional means at my disposal will be used to bring to justice persons who are believed to have violated the law.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL:Take a concrete case. In the Roscrea case the Bench has been equally divided on three occasions. Does the right hon. Gentleman now propose to drop further proceedings?
  MR. CHERRY: I must ask for notice of that Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it in accordance with constitutional usage to proceed by information?
  MR. CHERRY: I think it must have been done in recent times.

  Irish Agrarian Outrages.
  MR PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now inform the House of the results of the following cases:—The riot on an evicted farm in September, 1906, when sixteen offenders escaped from justice, some of whom subsequently surrendered; four cases of outrage, or attempted outrage, in which firearms were used, in county Clare, during the month of January; the attack upon a Dowra postboy on 20th February, in connection with which fifteen persons were arrested; the assault and robberies committed against the Bradys in the same month; the wrecking of Mr. Tomb's house at Upperlands, county Derry, on 25th March; the stabbing of Mr. Ryan, a gamekeeper on the Rooney property, on 7th April; the disturbances connected with the cattle driving at Carrick-on-Shannon on 25th April; the wounding of Mr. McAuliffe in Kilbogin district; the dispersal of cattle and wounding of police at Earl's Park, Ballinlawless, and Tullyhill on 29th April; the disturbances in connection with Mr. Russell, of Kilmore, on 5th May; the unlawful assembly at the Lambert Minors estate near Athenry on 9th May; the unlawful assembly at Ballintubber on 10th May; offences arising at the agitation against the grazing system in county Roscommon, referred to by the Chief Secretary on 15th May; the attack upon Lord Kenmare's bailiff near Killarney on 27th May; the unlawful assembly at Shrole referred to by the Chief Secretary in the House on 29th May; and whether he can state in how many cases the accused were dismissed, or sent for trial, or convicted.
  MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member's Question refers to a large number of cases. I will give the results briefly:—(1) Riot at Ballingeary in September, 1906: Three persons were convicted, and two acquitted at assizes; and fourteen are awaiting trial at next assizes. (2) Four outrages in Clare: One person was prosecuted in each case. In one case the magistrates refused information, and in the other three the accused were acquitted at assizes. (3) Attack on Dowra postmen: Fifteen persons proceeded against. Informations refused. (4) Attack on the Bradys: This case occurred in July, 1906. Eight persons
  1146
  were prosecuted at Winter and Spring Assizes, and the jury disagreed on both occasions. The prosecution is still pending. (5) Wrecking Tomb's house: Seven persons have been returned for trial. (6) Stabbing Ryan: Four persons have been returned for trial. (7) Carrick-on-Shannon disturbances. Six persons were summoned to find sureties. The summonses were withdrawn in two cases, and the magistrates refused the application as regards the remaining four persons. (8) Wounding McAuliffe. One person has been returned for trial. (9) Earl Park, Ballinlawless, and Tullyhill cattle drives. Ten persons returned for trial. (10) Disturbance at Kilmore. Eight persons committed to prison in default of finding sureties. (11) Unlawful assembly at Athenry. Twelve persons prosecuted. Informations refused. (12) Unlawful assembly at Ballintubber. Twelve persons prosecuted. Informations refused. The Attorney-General has directed a bill against the accused to be sent up at Assizes. (13) Offences connected with the Roscommon grazing agitation. Of the three cases referred to on 15th May, two are identical with (10) and (12) above mentioned. In the remaining case the magistrates refused an application to require four persons to find sureties. (14) Attack on Lord Kenmare's bailiff. One person prosecuted. Case adjourned for six months. (15) Unlawful assembly at Shrole. Proceedings have been taken against six persons, and the case is pending.

  Crookenden Estate, Cavan.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the sale of parts only of the Crookenden (late Earl of Morley's) estate, county Cavan, and have allowed the vendors to omit a number of tenants who were perfectly willing to purchase on the same terms.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have had this estate inspected with the object of making an offer to purchase it. Before making such an offer, the Commissioners will deal with any question which may arise as to the proposed exclusion of certain tenants from the sale.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report of the inspector has been over two months in the hands of the Estates Commissioners?
  MR. CHEERY: I am not aware of that, but the Estates Commissioners have, I know, an immense amount of work to discharge at the present moment.

  Birr United Irish League.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that two Protestant farmers, namely, John 'rill, of Tinny Cross, Five Alley, Birr, and George Bruce, of Marsfield, Clareen, Birr, were recently notified by the secretary of the local branch of the United Irish League that if they did not surrender certain lands in their respective occupation they would be dealt with by the League; if these tenants were thereby intimidated into surrendering the two farms held by them of which this demand was made; if the police have the actual letters now in their possession; if the Estates Commissioners are now about to make advances for the sale of these lands to carry out the objects of the League; and if the Government propose to take such action as will prevent such intimidation in the district.
  MR. CHERRY: The police have been informed that Messrs. Gill, Bruce, and several others have received letters purporting to have been sent by the local branch of the United Irish League requesting them to surrender their grazing farms. The letters are not in the possession of the police. Both Gill and Bruce have stated their intention of giving up their farms. Twelve persons have been returned for trial at assizes for driving the cattle off Gill's farm. The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the case of these farms as being the subject of purchase proceedings by or before them. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary has repeatedly stated that the police have taken, and will continue to take, all possible measures to protect the holders of grazing farms in the exercise of their legal rights; and whenever sufficient evidence is forthcoming against persons guilty of intimidation, the offenders will be prosecuted.
  MR. MOORE: Will the Estates Commissioners be permitted to deal with the farms which have been surrendered through intimidation?
  MR. CHERRY: I do not know anything to prevent them.
  MR. MOORE: But is not that putting a premium on intimidation?
  *MR. KETTLE: Had the fact that these two men were Protestants anything whatever to do with this case?
  MR. CHERRY: So far as I know nothing whatever.
  MR. MOORE: It made it safer to attack them in this country.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Were the police applied to by those two gentlemen for protection?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot say.

  Irish Magistrates and Agrarian Prosecution.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the result of communications which have passed between the Lord Chancellor and local justices who have adjudicated in agrarian cases outside the petty sessions districts to which they are attached.
  MR. CHERRY: The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has been in communication with six magistrates who had acted at petty sessions outside their proper districts. Three of them have undertaken in writing not to do so again; one has ceased to be a magistrate owing to the expiration of his term of office; another has not yet complied; and the case of the sixth is under consideration. Pending the determination of the last-named case, the magistrate has been required to abstain from sitting on the Bench.
  MR. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the three who have given the undertaking?
  Mr. CHERRY: That is a matter for the Lord Chancellor. In the information given me I have no mention of the names.

  Armagh Land Purchase Agreements.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many agreements have been lodged to the 1st June last under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, for the sale of estates in the county of Armagh; how many tenants are concerned in these agreements; in the case of how many holdings have advances been made; how many cases are still awaiting completion of purchase; and how many evicted tenants have applied for reinstatement in the county.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners' Report for the year ending 31st March last will contain, for each county in Ireland, full information of the character asked for in the Question The Report is in course of preparation and will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible.

  Irish Bank Deposits.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the facts that in December, 1906, there was an increase of deposits and cash balances in the Irish joint stock banks as compared with the corresponding period of 1905, amounting to £2,477,000; that the total of the balances in the Post Office and trustees' savings banks in Ireland is the highest amount of which there is record, and has nearly trebled since 1886; that the number of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland has more than trebled in the course of twenty years; and whether, in view of these evidences of improvement in the condition of the Irish people and the threat of a vigorous and sustained agitation in Ireland during the coming autumn and winter, he will take special measures, if necessary, to uphold the law and maintain order so as to prevent interference with the rights of individuals and the development of trade and industry.
  MR. CHERRY: The Question correctly states the facts as shown by the banking and railway statistics for Ireland recently presented to Parliament. Independently of any question as to the prosperity of Ireland, the Government will in the future, as they have in the past, take all
  1150
  proper measures for upholding the law and maintaining order.

  Arterial Drainage Commission—Secretary s Salary.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what remuneration Mr. Strange received for his services as secretary to the Arterial Drainage Commission, how long he was absent from the Board of Works, what his salary in that Department is, and whether it was paid in full during his absence.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Strange has not yet received any remuneration for his services as secretary to the Arterial Drainage Commission, nor has any such remuneration yet been fixed. He was absent from the Board's Office from 1st September, 1905, to 6th May, 1907. His salary in 1905 was £250, in 1906 £260, in 1907 £270. His salary was paid in full during the period of his absence, according to the regular practice in such cases.

  Irish Board of Works Accountant.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state why the vacancy caused by the death of the late accountant in the Irish Board of Works has not been filled; and whether another non-Catholic will be appointed to this office over the heads of the senior Catholic officials in the accountant's department.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The appointment has not yet been made; it is now under consideration by the Treasury. The Treasury have no knowledge of the religious beliefs of any members of the staff of the Irish Board of Works.

  Viscount Ikerrin.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been drawn to the advertisement of the Norwich Union Insurance Company, in which the name of Viscount Ikerrin figures as a director of the Dublin board of the company; whether Viscount Ikerrin holds the office of inspector for Irish agricultural interests in Great Britain in the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  1151
  (Ireland) at a salary of £600 per annum; whether it is in accordance with the rules of the Department and of the Civil Service that a Civil Servant and an officer of the Department should hold a directorship of a public company; and what explanation, if any, is there for the union of the offices of public company director and inspector of Irish Agricultural interests by this nobleman.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, 8.): On learning the facts, which are substantially us stated in the Question, I communicated with Lord Ikerrin suggesting the resignation of his position as a director of the Norwich Union Insurance Company. He has ceased to hold that office.

  Ireland and the Education Report.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the writer of the recently issued special Report on educational subjects, volume 17, has any acquaintance with educational affairs in Ireland, and in particular with the work of the Gaelic League in promoting the study of the language, history, and poetry of Ireland on the very lines adopted by Bishop Grundtvig in founding the Danish high schools; and, if not, can he say why this writer should have gone out of his way, at page 118 of this Report, to make a wholly unwarranted reflection on Irish educational efforts by stating that if in Ireland some Father Mathew could initiate a high-school crusade with some thing of the Danish enthusiasm, Ireland s day of prosperity would have come indeed.
  MR. LOUGH: My right hon. friend has already stated that the Board must not be taken as necessarily endorsing the opinions of the author referred to in the Question. We have no information with regard to the specific points now raised.
  MR. BOLAND: Will there be any opportunity of correcting this statement in the Report, which is wholly without foundation?
  MR. LOUGH: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Irish Pig Imports into Great Britain
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state what restrictions on the importation of Irish pigs into Great Britain are now in force; with what object are these restrictions kept on; and why were they enforced.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The restrictions now in force are those contained in the Swine Fever (Movement from Ireland) Orders of 1904 and 1906, copies of which I shall be glad to send to the hon. Member. The restrictions were imposed and have been maintained with a view to regulating the movement of swine between Ireland and Great Britain in the same manner as such movement is regulated between district and district in Great Britain with the object of guarding, against the spread of swine fever.

  The County Magistracy.
  MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction prevailing as to the predominance of magistrates attached to one political party on the county benches, he will give an early opportunity of discussing Civil Service Estimate, Class 2, Vote 1 Subhead (A) (Department of the Lord Chancellor).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I cannot pledge myself to giving an opportunity, and I am afraid it would be of no use if such an opportunity could be found, because it has been decided that the Lord Chancellor's salary, which is voted by this House, is only given to him as Chairman of the House of Lords, and can only be discussed with, regard to his conduct in that capacity.

  Parliament and Peers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Lord Cranworth, speaking as Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords on 7th February, 1856, that the right of a Peer to sit in the House of Lords is not derived from the patents but from the writ of summons

  1153
  which he is entitled to receive in consequence of his patent of nobility, and the question whether a person is or is not entitled to such a writ rested with the Crown to decide; whether he is aware that there are cases in which Peers have been summoned for a single Parliament and for a single session, then discontinued, and then summoned again; and whether he, in his proposed modification of the powers of the House of Lords, in acting in opposition to the other estates of Parliament, contemplates that these modifications should be in substitution for, or exclusive of, or ancillary to, the resources furnished by the Constitution for bringing the House of Lords into subjection to the will of the people.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no doubt my hon. friend correctly cites the opinion to which he draws my attention. He is a high constitutional authority, and I would not think of verifying his references or disputing his history. But after my statement of yesterday, I do not think he requires any more instruction on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is a perfectly satisfactory Answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked for the business for Thursday and Friday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN:replied that the first business on Thursday would be the Board of Trade Estimates, About 8.30 that evening the Home Office Vote would be taken for the purpose of a certain discussion which had been promised, and it would after that be withdrawn and brought up again on a later day. On Friday the Bills would be taken in the following order:—British North America Bill, Committee; Telegraph Money Bill, adjourned debate, Second Reading; Australia Constitution Bill, Second Reading; Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill, Second Reading; Criminal Appeal Bill (Expenses), Committee; Companies Bill, Second Reading; Motion for a new Judge. He put in at the end his usual et cetera—" other Bills."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON:reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Leeds (South Parade Chapel) Charity, the Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle, Schoolroom, etc.) Charity, the Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity, and the Board of Education (Huime Trust Estates Educational) Confirmation Bills): Mr. Leicester Harmsworth; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bills): Mr. Dobson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  "To promote and facilitate arbitration in Trade Disputes," presented by Mr. Cleland; supported by Mr. Walters, Mr. Parker, Mr. Whitwell Wilson, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor; to be read a second time upon Friday, 5th July, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL HEATING.
CAPTAIN CRAIG:in asking leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the heating of National Schoolhouses in Ireland, said that he always deprecated legislation for one part of the United Kingdom if it was possible to avoid it. His excuse for asking leave to introduce this Bill was the very peculiar and characteristic circumstances which prevailed in Ireland at present in regard to the heating of schoolhouses. The measure was entirely non-Party and undenominational, and he trusted it would be considered as uncontroversial. The conditions which prevailed in Ireland were very different from those which existed in England. In Ireland no funds were provided by the State for providing lighting, heating, and ventilation of the national school buildings, and the Bill dealt entirely with the poorer classes of national schools throughout Ireland. One special claim he had to make was that owing to the decreased rents which landlords were receiving from their land,

1155
and the fact that large numbers of them had left the country and others were in process of selling their estates, it had become impossible for them to contribute for this object in the same generous measure as they had done in the past, and unfortunately in the remote parts of Ireland there was no other way in which they could approach the subject of heating school premises except by asking the National Board of Education to take the matter up, and with the assistance of the County Councils to provide proper heating for the various class-rooms. In answer to a question last year the late Chief Secretary informed him that the total cost of carrying out the scheme would be something like £24,000, which, divided between the county councils and the National Board, would mean their finding £12,000 each in one year. That was independent of the voluntary agencies which had lent a certain amount of assistance. One of his objects in introducing the Bill under the ten minutes rule was to try and enlist the generous sympathies of all Members of the House, for if the Bill was slipped in in the ordinary way and blocked there would be no chance of its becoming law, and he was anxious, that something should be done for the poor children of Ireland before the bad weather came. The fact that the children were compelled to travel miles in wet weather over mountains and bogs, and on arrival at the school find nothing but white-washed walls, and in many instances not even a piece of burning turf, could not fail to appeal to them. In confirmation of what he had said, he would quote the Report of the North Dublin Inspector, who declared that it was not an extravagant supposition that a large part of the sickness amongst the children in the country was brought on by badly ventilated school-houses, combined with want of due warmth in the cold and wet weather. The Inspector for the Galway District declared that it was painful to see little groups of poorly fed boys and girls, miserably clad, trying to make their way on a winter's morning to the neighbouring schools. In such cases one hoped that the schoolroom when reached would make these poor children warm and comfortable, but unfortunately that was not the case. His experience was that the school in most cases was a cold and cheerless apartment;
1156
some clods of turf had been placed in the hearth and lighted, but they gave out no heat, only smoke. He was examining, this same Inspector continued, in such a cheerless room in January when the children came in and sat down, cold and miserable, while he had to keep his overcoat on, though he had the advantage of walking about. All these reports tended in the same direction. Seeing that the Boards which looked after the welfare of the working classes insisted upon a certain temperature being maintained in rooms where work was carried on, it seemed to him that the State should also insist upon a certain temperature in the school buildings throughout the country. In the large towns where there might be wealthy people prepared to put their hands in their pockets and pay a certain amount per annum towards this laudable object the cases were not so severe as those he had mentioned, but it was neither fair nor humane that the children in the poor districts in the south and west as well as the north of Ireland should be asked to sit in cheerless rooms and receive instruction. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had already stated that he intended to spend his autumn holidays in Ireland studying the great University question, about which many of them held there was no urgent necessity, if any necessity at all. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should begin at the bottom of the ladder instead of at the top, and remedy some of the glaring evils at present existing among the poorer classes, one of the foremost of which was the evil he had been discussing. When the teachers found it was impossible to obtain any heating material, they had often, rather than see the poor children suffer, to put their hands in their pockets and pay for material themselves. He had been asking several questions lately of the heads of the various Education Departments in the United Kingdom in order to ascertain whether Irish teachers were really able to bear this burden, and he contended, from a comparison of the salaries of school teachers in Ireland with those in Scotland and England, that both in the higher and lower grades it was impossible to expect so poorly a remunerated class to carry out the heating of the schools. The Bill, therefore, which he asked leave to introduce, would have the double effect of

1157
saving a little out of the miserable salaries of school teachers and of spreading the cost of this small but important improvement over the whole of Ireland, which was quite able to bear it. He hoped that the Government would give the Bill their support, and so do something for the real welfare of Ireland.
Motion made, and Question—" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the Heating of National School Houses in Ireland"—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Craig, Colonel M'Calmont, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. T. L. Corbett, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Barrie, and Mr. Moore.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS HEATING BILL.
"To provide for the Heating of National School Houses in Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time: to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question ["24th June], "That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail."—(Sir H. Campbell-Banner man.)
Question again proposed.
*Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I have been forced to the conclusion that there are many who are in doubt as to whether or not this Resolution should be treated seriously, and who are inclined to treat it with a levity which I am sure must be depressing to its authors. I am aware that no less an authority than the Prime Minister has described the merriment with which it has been received in some quarters as "mirthless laughter." The right hon. Gentleman might have completed his fanciful picture by saying that it had been received by his own followers with
1158
hollow jubilation. At any rate, if the mirth on our side is forced, and if the gloom on his side is feigned, then the occasion has revealed a wealth of histrionic talent which has lurked hitherto unsuspected in our midst. But I propose to treat the Resolution with all seriousness and with that respect to which its long period of gestation and the responsibility and dignity of its sponsors entitle it. The Resolution itself is of very little consequence, of course, were it not for the legislative proposals which arc to follow it, and we respect it not so much for itself as for the display of physical force which we must assume is marshalled behind it. Until the Bill is introduced the Resolution itself is hardly worth the attention of the House. It is merely in the nature of an I O U issued by the Government in acknowledgment of its debt to its more truculent and impatient supporters, or it may be likened to a lurid and eye-arresting poster, with which the theatrical managers of the Party are placarding the hoardings in order to distract attention from the failure of the piece that is now running, and to excite anticipations of a more successful melodrama in the coming season. The wording of the Resolution is curiously involved: it seems to exhibit what scientists call "irregular crystallisation," a phenomenon which generally results from a state of extreme internal tension. That makes it all the more interesting, and I think, therefore, it is worth while examining it a little carefully. The first two lines, if intended to suggest that the present House of Commons is a true reflection of the will of the people, are singularly misleading. The Prime Minister yesterday quoted Burke, who he said had eulogised the House of Commons as being the "express image of the nation." I hope the Prime Minister does not consider the House of Commons was the express image of the nation in Burke's time, nor is it anything like it to-day. Even immediately after the last election the composition of the House of Commons bore very little relation to the true state of Parties in the country, and it bears even less resemblance to it now. This is no mere expression of opinion on my part, it is a question of arithmetic which may be demonstrated by the contemplation of half-a-dozen figures. Liberal votes (including constituencies in which there were no

1159
contests) showed a majority over Conservative votes, at the general election, of only 13 per cent., but in the House of Commons there is a Liberal majority over Unionists of 60 per cent. There are 387 Liberal Members to 158 Unionist, or a majority of 229, whereas, according to the number of voters, the Liberals are entitled to a majority of only seventy.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you including the plural voters?
*MR. ARTHUR LEE: I am taking the facts as they are according to the present franchise; the hon. Member would surely not wish me to establish a new franchise for the purposes of my own calculation. I say that the present position of the House of Commons was a caricature of the state of political feeling, even at the time of the general election, and it is even more so to-day. The second part of the Resolution is not a very ingenious or honest paraphrase of the Government's intention to introduce single chamber government; no pretences at qualification can possibly make it anything else, and there is, I believe, not the slightest chance of the country being deceived as to the real issue by any of these verbal disguises or by parading the Prime Minister's illusory safeguards for the protection of the people. The Government have had various possible alternatives for dealing with this problem. They might have effected a reform of the constitution of the House of Lords—a course which I myself believe in—but then they would be faced by the fact that the reformed and reconstituted House of Lords would necessarily be a stronger and more influential body than the present House, and would demand and be entitled to a larger share in the Government of the country. It is obvious, therefore, that that line of procedure would not commend itself to them. Then there arc various alternatives which may be generally classed under the head of the "referendum." We listened to a very interesting speech last night from the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, in which he condemned the referendum as impracticable because, he said, the people would be quite unable to understand the legislative proposals of the Government. And yet this is the Government which claims to be interpreting the will of the
1160
people in the measures which it is introducing! But the Prime Minister condemned the general principle of the referendum on quite different grounds, because he said it gave to the Lords a right they should not possess of demanding that any question in dispute should be submitted to the people; he said, in effect, that it amounted to a usurpation of the Royal prerogative. I should like to ask how many times the House of Lords has forced a dissolution, at any rate since the Reform Bill of 1832. As far as I know, no such case has occurred, and at any rate this usurpation of which the Prime Minister complains has not existed in his lifetime or that of most hon. Members of this House. Then the Under-Secretary made considerable play on the argument that it was a strange coincidence that the House of Lords had never rejected any Conservative measure during the last thirty years, and he asked if this was a case of "telepathy." Well, I do not think it necessary to seek any such elaborate explanation as that. I am not in the secret of Cabinets, but I think the natural explanation is that when the Unionist Party is in power it is the habit of the Leaders of the Party in the Commons to consult the Leaders of the Party in the Lords as to their views before introducing Bills. [Ironical cheers.] I am aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite think the other House has no right to have views in regard to legislation brought before Parliament. But that opinion does not prevail on this side of the House, and that is possibly a simple explanation of the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Then the Government had another obvious alternative, and that is the swamping of the Unionist majority in the House of Lords by the creation of a sufficient number of Liberal Peers. That is the policy not of abolishing, but of replenishing the House of Lords. It has been, I believe, the policy of the Liberal Party in the past. Since the Reform Bill successive Liberal Prime Ministers have created 250 fresh peerages, considerably more than the Conservatives. The result has been most disappointing. It has been like pouring water through a sieve. Out of that band of stalwart Liberal Peers fifty or less have remained true to the faith of their creators. The

1161
present Government, however, commenced by renewing this process of creating peers, and up till now the sieve has held water. At the same time the policy of replenishment is not generally popular on the other side of the House, although I believe there is a small, but influential section of the Prime Minister's supporters—gentlemen who have spared no effort or expense to prove their devotion to the cause—who strongly hold the view that it would be a brilliant and artful stratagem to introduce them into the Upper Chamber so that, like the Greek warriors secreted in the horse before the walls of Troy, they might issue forth to harass the enemy from within. It is unfortunate, but a little significant, that this debate has been so timed as to be concluded before the auspicious occasion of Friday next, as before that date it will be impossible for this House or the country to judge whether the urgent advice of these deserving gentlemen has or has not prevailed. Personally I hope it will have, because it is always refreshing to see merit rewarded. At the same time I think that the hesitation of the Prime Minister is only natural, and I understand, for example, he only hesitates to promote the hon. Member for Sutherland to the other House because of his fear that by some subtle process of alchemy his stalwart principles may by his passage into the rarer atmosphere of the House of Lords be transmuted into some vicious form of Toryism tainted with militarism, extravagant finance, and goodness knows what. I do not think the Government is likely to proceed far with this policy of replenishment. The only remaining solution is the abolition of the House of Lords and the establishment of Single Chamber government. That is the course to which the Government have definitely committed themselves. They may pretend that their Resolution does not say this, but it means it, and even though they are proposing to embalm the corpse instead of cremating it, it will none the less be dead, and they will have secured full control of the property of the deceased. What it comes to is this, the House of Commons has only got to say twice or thrice that it wants a certain thing and it is to become law. This is quite a new theory, that because a foolish demand is repeated twice or thrice it thereby becomes endowed with wisdom
1162
and invested with inviolable sanctity. The Prime Minister in his outline of the proposed legislation told us about these periodical conferences which are to take place before a Bill will be re-introduced, but I venture to say that these are not safeguards—they are mere banderillos which the Government propose to stick into the House of Commons Bull, in order to excite it to the requisite pitch of fury before it is let loose in the national china shop. And, moreover, this power increases as Parliament draws near to its latter end, so that the further the House is out of touch with the electorate the more omnipotent it becomes. During its final session a House of Commons would have unfettered power to decide on the spur of the moment, and with an eye to the general election, what shall prevail. Could anything be more dangerous to the Empire or the community than the giving of such a power to the House of Commons when in the throes of dissolution? The Government's proposed remedy is perfectly intolerable, but you say the grievance is real and must be redressed. What is the grievance after all? It is that the House of Commons is not allowed to have its own way in everything. What popularly elected Chamber in the world has its uncontrolled way in any important country? I have heard it stated that in no democratic country would the people tolerate the limitations placed upon the power of the House of Commons by the Upper Chamber. The Prime Minister yesterday dismissed the analogies of Continental Parliaments and said they were not really democratic Parliaments.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I said there were some autocratic Governments in which the autocracy had supplemented itself with an ornamental representative body.
*MR. ARTHUR LEE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can apply that commentary to the case of what is generally looked upon as the greatest democracy in the world, the United States. In the United States the House of Representatives has far less power than the House of Commons under present

1163
conditions, and yet it is far more representative of the people. In the first place, it has to be re-elected every two years. There is an automatic scheme of redistribution consequent upon the increase of population and there is also payment of members, which hon. Members opposite think would be productive in this country of more democratic representation. But is this democratic people's House in America entrusted with unrestrained power? No; its every action is subjected to the revision and approval of the Senate. It has not even the financial independence possessed by this House. It is true that Financial Bills must originate in the House of Representatives, but they can be amended, and are frequently amended, in the Senate, and the Senate itself can initiate Pension Bills and Bills dealing with salaried officials. It may be said that the Senate is a democratic body. It certainly is an elective body, but its political complexion does not necessarily agree with the political complexion of the House of Representatives, and it is not democratic in the ordinary sense.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is Republican.
*MR. ARTHUR LEE: Yes, it has been Republican in its politics for a long time past, but it is a wealthy body and has even been somewhat irreverently styled "the Millionaires' Club." It is elected certainly, but by the State Legislatures, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of a Second Chamber I would like to ask if they would like one elected or nominated by the county councils, for that would be the analogy. In the case of the American Constitution even the two Houses together are not invested with full power, because all their Acts are subject to the approval or the veto of the President. This is no mere form, because this veto has been not infrequently exercised in recent years, and although it may be over-ridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses that expedient has seldom been put into practice. The President's veto, like the veto of the House of Lords, is of a purely negative character. But beyond all this there is a further safeguard in the shape of a check upon rash legislation. Above all, and above Congress and the President is the Constitution, that Magna Charta of
1164
American liberties, under which any individual, or any section of opinion which considers itself aggrieved by the legislative action of Congress, can appeal to the Supreme Court. Even if the action of Congress is unanimous that individual or section of opinion can go to the Supreme Court, and if that Court finds that the Act of Congress is contrary to the Constitution it becomes null and void. Perhaps I may be permitted to tell the House of a somewhat interesting case which occurred in my own personal experience at the instance of a near relative of my own. It occurred some years ago when the United States Congress instituted the income-tax. The right to levy that tax was contested by this relative of mine. He went to the Supreme Court, and that tribunal by means of arguments which I neither appreciate nor understand, decided that the tax was contrary to the Constitution and was therefore null and void. The result was that the American Exchequer was compelled to refund 45,000,000 dollars which it had collected up to that time. Think of any individual citizen in this country having the power to appeal to the Courts against the decision of both Houses of Parliament and getting a tax repealed and the money refunded. It may be said that this too rigid Constitution of the United States can be revised, but in practice it cannot be revised. I remember discussing this question with the celebrated speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. Thomas B. Reed, and he said that although the Constitution of the United States can never be changed it can be stretched. It has been stretched by the Supreme Court when the national interest demanded it. A legal alteration of the American Constitution cannot be made except by the votes of three-fourths of the States in the Union. That is indeed an elaborate safeguard. But the Prime Minister now proposes to remodel our ancient Constitution and give us the embryo of a written one, which he proposes to write himself, and all on a wintry June afternoon. It is the most amazing proposal ever made in the history of the British Parliament. The American Constitution may have been badly designed, but it was at any rate deliberately designed after full consultation and with the advantage of a

1165
clean slate on which to write. If the Single-Chamber Government which the Prime Minister now proposes is so democratic and so desirable in the interests of a free people, why did the founders of that great Constitution so emphatically reject the idea? Why has every other country since also rejected it? The hon. Member for Denbighshire the other day quoted a passage from an American newspaper condemning the House of Lords. I propose to quote a somewhat higher American authority, that of a man who is perhaps the greatest statesman that country has ever produced. I refer to Alexander Hamilton who, when speaking against a single Chamber at the Convention in Philadelphia, said—
"Give all power to the many, and they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few and they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have the power, that each may defend itself against the other. To the want of this check we owe our paper money, instalment laws, etc. To the proper adjustment of it the British owe the excellence of their Constitution. Their House of Lords is a most noble institution."
[Ironical NATIONALIST cheers.] Hon. Members below the gangway may ridicule that, but it was made by a statesman belonging to a country to which they do not hesitate about appealing when they require assistance for their cause. [An HON. MEMBER: What is the date of that speech?] The date is 1783. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh ! "] The Prime Minister yesterday quoted Burke, and if he was justified in falling back upon the opinions of the past I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will not deny me the same privilege. Let us see what Alexander Hamilton's argument is. He says—
"Having nothing to hope for by a change, and a sufficient interest, by means of their property, in being faithful to the national interest, they form a permanent barrier against every pernicious innovation, whether attempted on the part of the Crown or of the Commons. No temporary Senate will have firmness enough to answer that purpose."
If hon. Members opposite think that the wisdom of Hamilton is a little out of date I would appeal to another well-known authority who makes this interesting statement—
"It is an interesting commentary on the tendencies of democratic government that in
1166
America reliance is coming to be placed more and more (in the nation, in the State, and in the city) upon the veto of the executive as a protection to the community against the legislative branch. Weak executives frequently do harm, but a strong executive has rarely abused popular confidence. On the other hand, instances where the executive, by the use of its veto power, has arrested mischiefs due to the action of the legislature are by no means rare. This circumstance leads some Americans to believe that the day is not far distant when in England some sort of veto power or other constitutional safeguard must be interposed to protect the people against a hasty decision of their representatives."
That is not the statement of Alexander Hamilton but a quotation from the work of a democratic statesman who until a few months ago adorned the Front Bench opposite and who is now His Majesty's representative at Washington. The framers of the American Constitution foresaw and provided against the dangers of the popular House grasping at supreme control, and the policy of the framers of that Constitution has been endorsed and strengthened by the spirit of the American people to-day. I do not advocate the copying of the American Constitution in this country. I believe it is much too rigid. I believe it gives insufficient power to the people's House, but if it represents the extreme of caution on the one hand, I am justified in saying that the Prime Minister's proposals represent the extreme of recklessness on the other. In this Resolution and the Bill that is to follow it the Prime Minister is grasping at supreme and uncontrolled power in the State. By virtue of his position he necessarily at present controls the majority of the House of Commons. He is now endeavouring to cancel and destroy all existing checks on the action of that transient majority. He told us yesterday in an eloquent passage that he and his Party needed no shelter from the people. I think that possibly he may later on. But that is not the point. It is the people who need shelter from him. He is endeavouring to deprive the people of their last safeguard against the caprices and depredations of an uncontrolled popular House. This is the naked essence of the Prime Minister's proposal, and when it is understood by the people, as I earnestly trust it will be—[Cheers]—that is a wish which is apparently shared on both sides of the House—when it is understood by the

1167
people I believe they will reject it with an emphasis which will scatter the Liberal Party to the four winds of heaven. We on this side, therefore, will, I think, be the last to complain of this Resolution, or of the reckless enterprise on which the Government is embarking, because I do not believe there is any issue upon which we can appeal to the judgment of the country with so much confidence or greater certainty of success.
*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): The hon. Member who has just sat down in his concluding words spoke the language of prophesy. The Liberal Party are to be scattered to the four winds of heaven, and in some remote future he foresaw a new function for the Party of which he is a member. They are to save the people of this country from a Liberal Government which has been elected to represent them. The Prime Minister is to be prevented by the hon. Member and his friends from acting treacherously towards those who have elected him to office. The hon. Member detained us at some length with a review of the American Constitution. Among all the various checks which the United States have set up against an arbitrary democracy his researches did not lead him to the discovery of any chamber enshrining the hereditary principle. While the hereditary principle remains a dominant factor, or, at all events, a strong, if not a dominant, factor of our Constitution it will be hard for the most ingenious constitutionalist to find any parallel between the written Constitution of the United States and the slowly evolving modern developments of the Constitution of this country. The hon. Member tells us that we ought not to proceed by Resolution.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: I did not say so.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: Well, I gathered that the hon. Member said so. It has been suggested that a Bill should be at once tabled. If the hon. Member does not take that view, it is certainly a criticism which has been made. I know no other constitutional method of proclaiming the constitutional privileges of this House except by Resolution. It
1168
was adopted in 1678 and it was renewed in 1860, and unless you suggest a Bill which either House may throw out, there is no machinery by which we can express our opinions as to the limit of our powers other than that which the Government has now adopted. The hon. Member has revived the suggestion which was made, I think, by some of my hon. friends on these benches that the difficulty might be obviated by a reform and a strengthening of the House of Lords. Let me point out that the language of this Resolution is entirely consistent with any measure which has for its object the strengthening of that House. You may strengthen the House of Lords as much as you please, but you do not, by increasing its power, obviate the danger of friction with this House. You rather increase the tendency to difference of opinion and the obstinacy with which that opinion may be held by the other Chamber, if you give it representative elements or strengthen the way in which it is composed. This Resolution does not propose to introduce any remedy for such a state of things. It contemplates a division between two Members of the Constitution for which there is no other solution proposed for the consideration of this House except that embodied in this Resolution. [Cries of "No.",] Well, I think I shall establish that proposition to the satisfaction of murmuring critics later on. First of all, what is the source of this difficulty? The British Constitution is a compact which has two marked peculiarities. In the first place, the first member has no voice in our legislature until the other two members are agreed, and in the second place there is no arbitration clause by which these other two members can be brought into harmony. You, therefore, have an element of discord with regard to legislation for which there is no solution provided. There is no ground on which they can meet, and from which their united voice can be expressed, before legislation can be obtained. The hon. Member for the Fareham Division has already referred to the various schemes which have been put forward in order either to bring this House to submission, or to enforce acquiescence upon the House of Lords. Either there must be action against us at the instance of

1169
the House of Lords, or there must be action against the House of Lords. It has been said that within the sphere of legality, this House supporting a Minister with the approval of the Crown, might increase the Members of the House of Lords sufficiently to enable the controverted legislation to pass. It has been sail on the same advice that the Crown might refuse to issue writs to the majority of the Peers who would otherwise be entitled to take part in the deliberations of that House. There is still a third and more desperate remedy darkly hinted at by Constitutional writers, namely, that this House might refuse to grant Supply. Well, these methods violate the practice of the Constitution. Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords pointed out that it would be well within the province of the King to call up a troop of His Majesty's Guards and confer a Peerage upon every Member of that body. But he indicated that it would be unconstitutional, because, although strictly within the limits of legal right, it would be entirely against the spirit and practice of our Constitution. The same observation applies with equal force to the other two expedients I have, suggested. Therefore, the remedy of bringing pressure on the House of Lords does not solve the difficulty or remove the friction, because there are constitutional safeguards which prevent that remedy being adopted. A short time ago I was addressing my constituents in Leeds. I indicated those revolutionary methods as a last and desperate resource of a popular body which is being kept in check by the hereditary Chamber. You may have unconstitutional action defended where it is a reprisal against unconstitutional action that has been adopted; and against unconstitutional action of the Lords in regard to the popular House there might be much to be said in defence of conduct equally unconstitutional on the part of the people defending their constitutional rights. I was subjected to newspaper criticism which took the form of sensational headlines, providing attractive posters, and no doubt increasing temporarily the circulation of the organs that resorted to that method of criticism. I take no notice of such criticism, but even the Leader of the
1170
Opposition affected the view that the Liberal Government seriously advocated a revolutionary policy in regard to this question, and he paid me the doubtful compliment of drawing a parallel between myself and one of the most odious and sanguinary of the statesmen of the French Terror. It may be that his estimate of myself was just. If I am a fit agent for revolution, I think he is an ideal instrument for putting one down. If he contemplates with satisfaction my officiating at the guillotine in Palace Yard, acting against the aristocracy which is warring against popular rights, I can contemplate with equal certainty the right hon. Gentleman turning the artillery against the people at the barricades who are seeking to assert their rights against the House of Lords. Our view in regard to this matter is that the true line to adopt is not the line of menace or of violence, but the line of constitutional action. In the long struggle between a privileged House and a popular Assembly there has been a series of victories which, step by step, have involved concessions by the aristocracy to the people which have slowly made us the freest democracy in the world. I have pointed out one solution, a solution involving the straining of the constitution in order to bring pressure to bear upon the House of Lords. What is the alternative solution? If the Lords mutilate the Bills of the Commons, or cast them out without consideration, if they allow themselves to be actuated by Party feeling, then their action is unconstitutional. What is the basis upon which the House of Lords rests on the constitutional theory? Is it that they possess an inherent legislative wisdom? Is it that there, is a kind of hereditary transmission, a kind of aristocratic faculty for legislation? If that is not the true view, what is the true view? Lord Coke tells us that when the King issues his writ to a Commoner and that writ gives him a right to sit in the House of Lords his blood becomes ennobled. But if he were ennobled for life only, he had no right to sit in the House of Lords and therefore did not get legislative endowment. Historically, as the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University said, the House of Lords is representative. He said it was representative now, but the only reason

1171
he gave for that opinion was that it was a body of rich men who had seen something of life. But in earlier days in our history the House of Lords was truly representative. It was then an Assembly of the great feudatory lieges of the Crown; when you had Earls who were not mere Peers, but who held great offices of State, with wide powers of territorial administration; when you had Barons who were charged with the defence of the realm; when you had Bishops and Abbots possessing wide jurisdiction, and in that way acting on behalf of large sections of the population; when the burdens of the community were cast directly upon those great feudatories and indirectly upon the large classes under them; then the House of Lords had something more than the mere blood-ennobled theory to justify their exercise of legislative rights. They acted in a high sense as a representative body. But where is that title now? The hon. Member for Salford made an amusing speech in order to establish that the present House of Lords to a large extent consisted of the recipients of rewards for political services or of the favours of a Minister and of their descendants. The peerage was hereditary because the descent of land was hereditary. Even the offices in State and Court in those days were hereditary. The King's cup-bearer, steward, butler, and even the scullions in the Royal kitchen were hereditary posts. We only hear of these hereditary offices on such occasions as a Coronation. The House of Lords has entirely changed its character in recent years, and one looks about in vain to find any solid justification in reason or in constitutional theory for the position which, by some process of survival, they still hold in our Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London told us that the House of Lords has no absolute veto, acting in their own wisdom, upon the legislation of this House, but a sort of judicial function to step in between the representatives of the people and the people who sent them to ascertain what really is the popular will. I should like to know where is the constitutional authority for such a doctrine. We say that the people's wishes are what we interpret them to be. "No," said the right hon. Gentleman, "nothing of the sort. The House of Lords is entitled to step in and
1172
decide whether what you do or do not do expresses the wishes of the people." I say again, that there is no such constitutional doctrine. How can the right be defended to interpose between the people who send us here and ourselves some alien authority? Who made the House of Lords a judge and a ruler over us? The right hon. Gentleman said that what the House of Lords has to discover is not the popular will at any particular moment of time, because the popular will changes. He told us that we represented the interests of generations unborn. We are the heirs of the ages and the fathers of time. Then said the right hon. Gentleman, every elector whose will they wished to ascertain must act and speak, not only for himself and the interests of his time, but apparently in the interests of posterity, for whom he is a trustee. That creates a sort of political entail with a life estate subject to the most amazing restrictions ever yet known in conveyancing law. Curiously enough, the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who is a constitutional lawyer of considerable repute, and has written works of high authority on the Constitution, adds to the difficulty of estimating the period during which the popular will must be gauged, because he told us that it changed every three weeks, and that this House does not represent the constituencies for more than three weeks after a general election. Well, it is impossible to resist the comment that, if that is true, there must have been a long era of misrepresentation before the last general election. What I want to know is, by what alchemy are the Lords to find out what the popular will is? What are the arts, what the necromancy, that they are to use? My right hon. friend the Prime Minister hinted at the difficulty. In the first place, there is no authority for the proposition; in the second place we are not enlightened as to the method by which that inquiry is to be pursued; and in the third place the House of Lords is conspicuously lacking in those qualifications which one would look for in an Assembly charged with a duty of that kind. Is this function to be intelligently performed? If so the House of Lords will have to approach it in a judicial spirit. Justice is represented blindfold. Does anybody suppose that the House of Lords are not very wide awake to the interests of their own

1173
friends? Justice holds the scale; but, with the Tory Party in one scale and Liberal legislation in the other, what chance has Liberal legislation? I can imagine the tribunal which would have to settle that question and decide the issue aye or no. Do the people want this Bill? I can imagine their mooting in one of the committee-rooms of the House of Lords known as the Moses Chamber because it is associated with the name of a great lawgiver. There they would have Lord Lansdowne, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and probably the principal Conservative Whip, whose moderate expressions on politics entertain us, and whose stimulating Whips add to the gaiety of politics. That admirable judicial tribunal will solemnly meet together to decide the issue, aye or no. Do the people want this Liberal Bill? Is there any doubt about the result? Why, it would be a tribunal for the massacre of Liberal legislation under the forms of justice and law. I can think of no parallel except a committee of some secret society. It can be demonstrated that the action of the House of Lords in regard to that issue has been, must be, and would be influenced by Party considerations; and Party feeling is a dangerous solvent of the judicial faculty, We are asked to entrust to the House of Lords the decision of a question which ought to be solved in a spirit of strict impartiality, with a wish to be guided by true wisdom and justice, although the history of last session and the principles of human nature satisfy us, that, instead of those fine qualities being present in such an inquiry, the issue will appeal to all the weaknesses of human nature, and be determined by the inclination to assist the political interests of the majority of their body. We were told that the House of Lords in passing the Trade Disputes Bill and rejecting the Plural Voting Bill showed that they were above Party spirit. There is a Member of the House of Lords for whom I have the profoundest respect. He is the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, and I had the pleasure of listening to a speech of a very vehement character by the noble Lord, in which he denounced the Trade Disputes Bill. In his peroration he told us that the Bill would enthrone tyranny and strangle liberty. But he concluded by saying that he would not vote against it. Why?
1174
Was it because he thought the people wanted it, or because it was a useful measure? No. It was because if he voted against the Bill he would separate from and cease to be acting with his own political friends who had not divided against the measure when it was in the Commons. The House of Lords is acting in precisely the same way. It is Party spirit which has invaded them. They are within the organisations of Party, and the effect of placing in their hands judicial functions of this kind can only lead to injustice and produce results which will be resented by the people of the country. What is the scheme of this projected Bill? We are told that the result of it will be to create one Chamber only. I strongly quarrel with that construction of it. I say that the result of it will be simply to declare the true Constitution of this country, and the true constitutional position of the House of Lords. Look at what the great writers on the Constitution say upon this subject. Great writers on our Constitution, in defining the true sphere of the Upper Chamber, have said that it has the power to amend, the power to check, the power to correct, the power to delay, and the power to secure that there shall be full consideration and deliberation before a proposed measure passes into law, and there the definition ends. This Resolution provides ample scope for the exercise of those functions, and so it simply defines what is the true constitutional practice. Twice the House of Lords will have a Bill before them three times they will have a conference. During that period we shall all be in touch with our constituents and the newspaper Press, in so far as nowadays it is intelligent and impartial, will be discussing the question whether or not the Government are justified in forcing this measure after its rejection, and whether or not there is a strong popular feeling in its favour. The position of a Bill after it is once rejected will be very different from that of a Bill when it is first introduced. The question for the Ministry of the day will be whether they are justified in pressing the Bill upon the House of Lords after they have expressed a strong opinion against it, and their decision will be taken after they have ascertained what is the real trend of popular opinion on the subject. I submit that the machinery of

1175
this Resolution provides ample opportunity for such steps to be taken as will enable the representatives of the people to come to a conclusion whether or not they will be straining their mandate in forcing a Bill through; and if they face that responsibility there ought to be no power in the Constitution to control their giving effect to that conviction. If they act wrongly they can be called to account, and if the period of the life of a Parliament is reduced to five years they will have to give an account of their stewardship within a shorter time than at present. This provision shows that in bringing this Resolution forward it is our sincere and anxious wish to provide a practical solution for this question. There is precedent after precedent which shows surrender of power by the House of Lords and the acquisition of power by the popular Chamber. Throughout history the tide has ebbed from the House of Lords and has set towards the House of Commons. The House of Lords can no longer make or unmake Ministries. No statesman when he accepts service under the Crown pauses to consider whether he will have the confidence of the House of Lords or not. No Ministry thinks of resigning because the Upper House has censured its action. While the House of Lords are heaping compliments upon Lord Milner and are approving his policy, the House of Commons are giving a Constitution to the Transvaal and beginning the repatriation of the Chinese. The House of Lords cannot preserve a single tax, however necessary they may think it. They struggled hard to keep control over the Press by means of the paper duty, and the Press to-day are subservient enough to support them in this struggle against the popular Chamber. The House of Lords cannot resist a tax which may reduce their resources enormously—almost to penury. They have already lost control over financial legislation. We are told by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University that they have given up the right to initiate legislation of first importance. It is only one step further to ask them to give up the right to veto it. This Resolution has been introduced in no unfriendly spirit towards the House of Lords. It does not seek to destroy the Upper Chamber or its position in the Constitution—it seeks to define its sphere in a way that will tend to its preservation. It seeks to
1176
indicate the lines upon which it may long exist and may long discharge useful and legitimate functions as a Chamber of review. But if the Resolution is not approached in the spirit in which it is proposed, those who attack it must face the responsibility. If they flout it, if they disparage the motives of those who have introduced it, if they turn contempt upon the representatives of those in whose name the Government are acting, then the future of the House of Lords will far more probably be indicated by the Amendment which is to be moved below the gangway than by this Resolution. I and I believe my colleagues are anxious that the House of Lords shall retain a position in which it can exercise its functions usefully and pay proper respect to the behests of the popular will. If this view actuates the more sober and prudent counsels of that body then this Resolution will tend to harmony and will put an end to friction. But if it is not treated in that spirit, then history may read in the language of this Resolution the handwriting on the wall of the Upper Chamber, and the handwriting will be that of the House of Lords itself.
LORD R. CECIL: I recognise in the speech to which we have just listened a strong family likeness to that in which the Resolution was introduced last night by the Prime Minister. They both began with malevolent condemnation of the House of Lords and denunciation of the hereditary principle, and concluded with the assertion that the speakers are in no sense hostile to that Assembly, but merely desire to define its position in the Constitution. The Attorney-General referred to his speech at Leeds and he seemed to feel a little sore because there had been quoted against him a phrase to the effect that the House of Lords cannot be dealt with without a revolution. I cannot think the Attorney-General is wise in rejecting that interpretation of his Leeds speech, because revolutions are not necessarily made with rifles and bayonets. A revolution means a complete change in the Constitution of the country, and I have no doubt that the Resolution submitted to the House by the Prime Minister involves a revolution in the Constitution of the country. The Attorney-General introduces into this

1177
question of revolution the connotation that it must be accompanied by menace or threats of violence, but that is not so. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a great attack on the House of Lords because he said, it was completely different now from what it was originally, and he indulged in a very eloquent defence of the feudal system. He said that so long as the Lords were the persons who provided for the defence of the country—
SIR JOHN WALTON: And paid the taxes.
LORD R. CECIL: They did not pay the taxes wholly. He makes a great mistake if he thinks they did. He said that so long as the Earls who exercised a kind of military jurisdiction, and the abbots and bishops who had an ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole country, attended for those considerations, they were all light and nothing could be said against so admirable a body. It was only when the hereditary principle was introduced that they became indefensible. But that was introduced, I think, in the reign of Edward I., so that they became indefensible some little time ago.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I did not say that.
LORD R. CECIL: I do not wish to disagree with the Attorney-General more than I can help, and I agree with him in this, that the House of Lords were originally distinguished because they rendered great public services, Imperial and local, to the country, and it was largely on account of those great services they retained the confidence of the country. Very largely that is true at the present day. [Laughter.] I am glad to hear that laughter, because it shows that hon. Members are attacking men of whose character they are ignorant. No one who knows anything of the country life of this country will doubt that, taking them as a body, the House of Lords have discharged important public duties, discharged them gratuitously, and set an example, in my judgment, to the whole of the civilised world, of gratuitous services rendered because they regarded it as part of the duty they owe to their country. For my part I entirely assent to the proposition of the Attorney-General that those who are prepared
1178
to render gratuitous services to their country are entitled, at any rate, to the respect of the country. The Resolution before the House contains a major premise, a minor premise, and proceeds to a conclusion. Its major promise is that the will of the people shall prevail. I do not quarrel with that except to the extent that I do not think the truth is very happily expressed. The "will of the people" is one of those phrases which are very useful on the platform, but one which is, I think, not often used with a very definite idea of its meaning. Because after all the "will of the people," in the sense of the whole people, does not exist. Nobody pretends that the will of the people of this country, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, coincides on every question. It is a mere abstraction, a mere confusion, to talk of the will of the people. But it does imply a real moaning, and the real moaning is the will of the majority of the electorate, which is a very different thing from the will of the people. Hon. Members from Ireland will assent to that proposition, because in Ireland no one pretends that the will of the people prevails. You must limit it in that way, and in that way I assent to the proposition that it is desirable that the will of the people shall prevail. Then I come to the minor premise—and here I think I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman—that the will of the people as expressed by the decision of this House shall prevail. It seems to me to be so astonishing a proposition that I have difficulty in believing it. The will of the people is not expressed by a decision of this House. No one believes for a moment that it is. [Cries of "Oh."] Does any hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that any of the opinions of this House express the will of the people I Nothing of the kind. It is the merest legal fiction. How often does it happen that the decision of a Committee of the Whole House is reversed on Report? Do both those opinions represent the will of the people? Of course not. How about the late Parliament? Did that represent the will of the people? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at the end of it."] When did it cease to represent the will of the people? I remember reading night after night in that brilliant organ of the Liberal Party, the Westminster Gazette, references to what was called a "Khaki election."
MR. J. WARD: Hear, hear.
LORD R. CECIL: That is cheered by the hon. Member for Stoke. What did that mean? It meant that the Parliament had been elected upon a single issue, and did not represent the will of the people on any other issue. Then what nonsense it is to talk of the will of the people being expressed by the decision of this House. I am prepared to go further. I am prepared to maintain that the decisions of this House do not represent the opinion of this House, and I do not believe anybody thinks they do. Look at the decisions we come to under the guillotine. It is notorious that Ministers congratulate themselves on the fact that they have not to face certain Amendments, that they will not be discussed, that they will fall under the guillotine, and thus the Government will escape a great danger. That is only one instance. The real truth is that in the House as it exists and is at present constituted the decisions do not represent the opinion of the House, but the opinion of the Cabinet. The truth is—and I wish the Secretary of State for India were in his place, because he would be the first to recognise the truth of what I say—that in other days when Members were sent as envoys from their constituents to do the best they could for their constituents they were not bound to surrender their own view to the constituency. And this is why I wish the Secretary of State for India was in his place, because in a well-known passage in his Life of Burke he quotes a statement of Burke that he would never surrender his opinion and judgment to his constituency.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But he lost his seat.
LORD R. CECIL: True, even in those days he lost his seat. What is the state of things now? We are now told that the sole duty of a Member is to vote with his Party. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members do not agree with that, neither do I, but it is clearly laid down.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): Where?
LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Patronage Secretary? That is the truth; let us face it, and recognise what the whole truth is.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: You can consult your brother.
LORD R. CECIL: I admit there are exceptions and I hope there always will be. I ask the House seriously to consider the working of this principle. The Cabinet comes down and presents a Bill to the House. That Bill is not passed because the majority agree to it, but because the majority must not, politically, vote against it. Everybody knows that on every Government measure every point is passed by the pressure of the Government on its supporters in the lobbies. Therefore, when you say that in future the will of the majority of the electorate shall prevail, it is really carrying (I do not wish to use a hard phrase) British self-deception too far to say that these decisions represent the will of the people or of this House or of anybody but the Cabinet.
We all agree that the great object of statesmanship is that the will of the people should prevail in the sense I have described. I believe that has been the object of statesmen for many years, long before this Government came into office; and they have devised from time to time different plans for securing that the will of the people should prevail. The plan now in existence is this. You have your House of Commons elected for a certain term in order to give stability to the Government, and you have the Second Chamber, whose object and duty it is, if they think the measure is one not approved by the country, to refuse to accept that measure until an opportunity has been given to the country to express its opinion. That is the working of the present Constitution, and that is and must be the working of any Second Chamber. It is, in other words, a kind of power of referring a matter to the country. I do not deny myself that it is open to criticism as it at present works. In the first place, it is no doubt a clumsy method—that of appealing to the country. The only way you can do it is by dissolving the House of Commons, and requiring every Member to seek re-election. I myself

1181
think that a very clumsy way of ascertaining the opinion of the country on a particular question; I admit that fully. But there is a more serious charge brought against the system. It is said that it operates one-sidedly, and that under the existing Constitution, if the Party to which I have the honour to belong produced some great constructive measure, as to which there was a real doubt whether the country approved, there would be no security that the House of Lords would require the opinion of the country to be taken upon it. But may I remind hon. Members that the Party on this side of the House is or ought to be essentially a Conservative Party. In my judgment it ought not to embark on great legislative experiments. I do not think that is its true function in the State. I know there have been distinguished statesmen who have taken a wholly different view of its functions; but I think if this Party became a rival of the Liberal Party, by a great constructive policy of its own, it would be very difficult to defend the Second Chamber which was prepared to accept one side's constructive measures and not the other's. The defence of the House of Lords must be that it is a conservative body. I agree in that fully. I think that the case is made out to some extent for securing that if the House is misled by its political opinions into passing a great constructive measure, some plan ought to be devised whereby the country should have a right to call upon the Legislature to consult it before that great constructive measure becomes law. What is the device that we recommend and which would accomplish all these objects? It is a device which was sneered at by the Prime Minister as a foreign device—the referendum. Just see how it works. It gets rid of the clumsiness at once, though I do not say it is absolutely simple; it gets rid of the clumsiness to a large extent. A measure is sent by the House to the other House, and after a discussion, or a conference if you like, the House of Lords is unable to accept it. The House of Commons settles the final form which in its view the measure should receive. And if the House of Lords is unable to accept that, then the country is asked to say aye or no, whether the
1182
measure in that form should become law. That is the skeleton scheme. That is the way it would work here and in the country, and I believe it is substantially the way it is worked in other countries. That would dispose to a very large extent of the clumsiness. Then as to the contingency that the House of Lords would check great constructive measures. I think that there ought to be for a certain body of electors, say one-fourth of the electorate, power to petition in such a case that the measure should not be passed until it had been referred to the people. That also is a foreign device. In that way I believe you would secure to a very large extent that legislation should be in accordance with the will of the people. For my part I should be very glad to see some such proposal as that carried into law. I observe that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in his interesting speech yesterday objected to this proposal, because he said it would give undue power to the wealthy, who would be able to organise in such a way that they would be able to reject every measure submitted. What a commentary is that on the will of the people! Still, I admit that there is something in the objection, and I would have any change of the kind I suggest strengthened by a far-reaching Corrupt Practices Act. The other objection raised is that the issue would be so very difficult to the electors, but I really have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by that. What is the issue submitted to the country at the general election? Why, it is an issue as to the merits of half-a-dozen Bills, complicated by every kind of personal question, and every kind of personal abuse. It would be far simpler to submit, aye or no, do you want the Plural Voting Bill or the Education Bill, than to put before the electors an issue as to half-a-dozen measures embracing the policy of the Conservative Party on the one side or of the Liberal Party on the other. The solitary criticism that I have heard on this proposal is that of the Prime Minister, who says it is a foreign device. I do not think that a very powerful criticism, with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister. Certainly we know that the proposal of the Prime Minister

1183
is quite free from that objection. I venture to say that the proposal to pass a Bill after repeated conferences is one that has never been made in any other civilised country of the world. May I call the attention of the House to the working of the Prime Minister's proposal? He suggests that first the Bill should be passed in the ordinary way, that is to say, under the guillotine. Then it is to be sent up to the House of Lords, who, it is assumed, will disagree; whereupon a conference is to take place. Four Members of this House are to go up the Lobby, and four Members of the House of Lords are to come down the Lobby, and they are to meet in some intervening space. What is the purpose of the conference? It is, as far as I can understand, to enable the four Members of this House, in a brief interview, to convince the four Members of the other House of their grievous sin, because it is quite plain that four Members of the House of Lords could have no chance whatever. Just conceive the Liberal Party submitting to the dictation of the House of Lords. Of course, they would never be able to face their constituents or even their obedient Party if they did such a thing. They would be called upon in every tone and by every newspaper to stand fast by the decision of the Commons. The conference would be a mere futility. What happens next? Back comes the Bill to the House of Commons, and either in that form or some other, it is passed by a somewhat accelerated procedure, I do not quite make out how much faster, but a little faster. There is another conference. Again the four Members of the House of Lords and the four Members of the House of Commons meet; there is a private conference, but this time it is abundantly clear that the House of Lords has nothing to expect, because whatever happens no further change is to be made in the Bill, if I rightly understand the Prime Minister's proposal. Therefore, this conference is absolutely confined to convincing the Members of the House of Lords of their wickedness in opposing the House of Commons. Then the Bill comes back here once again, and this time is passed with lightning rapidity; no discussion, no debate; through it goes; why, I cannot conceive; through
1184
the legislative machine it goes once again, and then these four devoted Members of the House of Commons make one last effort to convince the four devoted Members of the House of Lords. Really, is it worth while submitting a proposal of that kind? That is what I believe the Attorney-General describes as an arbitration clause. The Attorney-General has great skill, but I must say I should immensely enjoy having such an arbitration clause in any contract to which I was a party—to have the arbitration three times.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I did not say arbitration clause; I said conciliation clause.
LORD R. CECIL: No doubt that is what the Attorney-General meant. One of two things must inevitably happen. Either the passing and re-passing of the Bill, which had already been fully discussed presumably, is to have some effect, or it is not. If it has some effect it will be immediately denounced by the Prime Minister and by the Attorney-General as an encroachment on the supremacy of the House of Commons; the Prime Minister would not have to alter a single word or sound of the whole of the earlier part of his speech; he would be enabled to denounce the then condition of affairs in exactly the same way as he denounces the present condition of affairs. And so would the Attorney-General. The hereditary principle would be untouched, and all that elaborate talk about people being born with a talent for legislation would be just as good then as it is now. Why, such a guarantee as that would not stand a fresh breeze, much less a storm. They would all be swept away instantly. For my part I would rather have no guarantees than guarantees of that description. Though it is a very old metaphor to say that a rotten fence is much worse than no fence at all, yet it is a true one. It is far better that the people of the country should know the worst, that they should know exactly what they are doing, that they should know that they are electing a Single Chamber with no checks upon its decisions, than that we should have those miserable safeguards which the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General

1185
have sketched. I should very much prefer the clear issue suggested by the Labour Party. It is far better, if that is the real opinion of the House, that they should say it boldly, and submit the issue to the country that they are in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. Let that be the clear issue. Remember that from this time to the next general election this is the only question in which the country will take an interest. You may produce, if you like to trifle with your character for sincerity, your Licensing Bill or your Education Bill, or any other Bills; but if you believe that the country want this great and revolutionary change in the Constitution, the country will think that you are merely trifling with their ideas if you proceed on the humdrum round of ordinary legislation. Let the issue with regard to the House of Lords be submitted clearly to the country. Let it not be confused with the misleading verbiage and empty ceremonial suggested by the Prime Minister. Let them ask the country boldly and clearly—" Are you in favour of the abolition of the Second Chamber altogether?"
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am not a believer in the hereditary principle. But as I listened to the great speech of the Member for East Marylebone, I had to admit that the mantle of his great historic ancestors has descended brilliantly upon my noble friend. I may also add that the speech of ray noble friend also suggests to me an Oxford don of the 13th or 14th century arguing 20th century questions. I have intervened at this stage because I do not represent any section of opinion which has yet been voiced in this House upon this question. This is, in the opinion of British Members of Parliament, a very great Party debate. To me it is something far more. I belong to no British Party, but on this issue I am here speaking not as a Party man but as an Irishman, and as a representative of the feelings of the Irish people. There was an expression used yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London to which, after twenty years experience in this House, I take absolute exception. He said, "We all must admit that politics is a game." There are a number of men in this House to whom politics is not a game, but a
1186
great religion, and to whom the advancement of the liberty of their fellow subjects is everything. If politics is a game then, in Heaven's name, what are the stakes? Are the stakes human lives, human liberty, and human justice? I wish to say just one word in defence of an absent man, Mr. Bryce. Every time during the life of this Parliament when the question of the House of Lords has come up for discussion Mr. Bryce has been trotted out as a supporter of the House of Lords, and as a great Radical who is a Second Chamber man. His views were referred to yesterday by the late Prime Minister and by the hon. Baronet the late Secretary to the Board of Education, and to-day Mr. Bryce has again been quoted by the hon. Gentleman who opened the do bate in a very interesting and well-digested speech. This is what Mr. Bryce said for himself on the 17th of May, 1879—
"We think that any hereditary House must be a weak one, and we would rather have no Second Chamber at all than a weak one. We say that to have a stick which breaks in your hand when you lean on it is worse than having no stick at all, and if I had to select between the present House of Lords and one Chamber I should prefer one Chamber.
It is to declare the opinion of the Irish Party that I venture to intervene in the debate. The first person to raise in the House of Commons the question of the reform of the House was Daniel O'Connell, but his was only a voice crying in the wilderness. We have got in Ireland a body called the United Irish League, and the executive of that body on Tuesday last passed a Resolution on this subject in which they affirm that they recognise in the House of Lords a body of irresponsible legislators invested only through the accident of birth with power which they have invariably used in a way which has shown them to be the implacable enemies of Irish rights and liberties. They further declare that the Lords have always treated every measure of conciliation and justice towards the Irish people with contumely and contempt, and that—
"While holding ourselves independent of all British Parties, and acting solely in the interests of Ireland and the advancement of the principles of liberty, we welcome measures for the reduction of the subordination of the will of the people to the House of Lords."
With regard to the Resolution which the Prime Minister has moved, the hon. Member who opened the debate to-day spoke of

1187
it as savouring of the ludicrous, but it is nothing of the kind. A Resolution of this kind if it never is embodied in an Act of Parliament, or even if its substance is never placed on the Statute Book, will still have an immense effect, because it is the first Resolution of its kind in the whole history of Parliament. Resolutions have been passed before on the motion of unofficial Members of the House of Commons with reference to curtailing the privileges of the House of Lords, and it is surprising how this matter has grown and magnified during the last two years; but this is the first time in the history of Parliament that the Executive Government have moved a serious Resolution which if carried into operation will mean practically the abolition of the veto of the House of Lords. If it is simply passed and goes no further it will still remain on the Journals of the House, a bright example to others in the future, and I doubt whether, in the case of a change of Government, anyone will have the temerity to move that it should be expunged. Therefore any measure you may introduce to bring the House of Lords into accord with the House of Commons will have the hearty sympathy and support of all who wish that the will of this House should prevail in legislation which the people of the country desire. It is not consistent with the dignity, the manhood, and the intellect of hon. Members that they should be treated like schoolboys. We come here and slave day after day, moulding measures into the form desired by those whom we represent, and then when our Bills are sent to another place they are so amended as to be greatly impaired or they are kicked out altogether. The wonder is that you have borne this so long. I should have expected you to be quick to resent treatment of this kind, but I am afraid you are not half so nimble-witted as you ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London challenged the Prime Minister yesterday to mention any Bill of first-class importance which the House of Lords had thrown out in late years with the exception of Home Rule Bills. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to meet that challenge, but I can meet it easily. I will simply state what Ireland has to complain of. First of all, there was the Catholic Emancipation Bill, a measure of
1188
importance not only to Irish Catholics but to English Catholics and English Nonconformists. That measure was passed by this House and twice rejected by the House of Lords. Pitt made the great promise that England and Ireland should be governed by equal laws. In the agitation against the Union from the time of O'Connell down to the present day the Irish people have always asked for the equalisation of the laws of England and Ireland. First of all, they asked for the equalisation of the franchise between England and Ireland. Although Ireland is a poor country and England a rich country, the Irish franchise for fifty years was higher than the English franchise. On three occasions the House of Commons passed a measure to remedy that inequality and the House of Lords rejected it. The municipal franchise in the Irish cities was very much higher than the English municipal franchise. No fewer than five times were Bills passed in this House with the sanction of the Government in regard to that matter, and on each occasion they were rejected by the House of Lords. These were all measures of first class-importance. When my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was about to bring forward the Evicted Tenants Bill, I asked whether it would be like the Evicted Tenants Bill of 1894, and he replied that it would be ejusdem generis. It was reported in the Press that it would be just and generous. The Bill of 1894 was passed through the House of Commons, its provisions being in accordance with the advice given by a Commission headed by one of the most illustrious lawyers of his day, Mr. Justice Mathew. That Bill was thrown out in the House of Lords, and yet there are some people who look upon the House of Lords as a wonderful place where detached beings, utterly exempt from human prejudices, arrest the unwise measures submitted to them by this House. They seem to be regarded as so many angels sent down for our good. It is said that Bills are sometimes passed through this House in a rush, and that hon. Members are subject to the fits and gusts of passion, and that it is valuable to have such a Chamber as the House of Lords to deal with such measures. The Criminal Law Procedure Act of 1887 was one in which the English

1189
Liberal Party took the greatest interest. They took an interest in it out of kindness to Ireland, and also from the instinct of self-preservation, for they knew pretty well that if things of this kind could be done in Ireland they might also be done in England. That measure is known to the Irish representatives as the Jubilee Perpetual Coercion Act. The Bill was brought forward in the second session of a new Parliament in which there was a Tory majority. It is no exaggeration to say that at the election not a word about coercion for Ireland was heard on any platform. The Government of the day had no mandate whatever. They had a mandate the other way. They were elected to grant equal laws for Ireland, and not to impose coercion. When the Bill was passing through Committee Lord Weymouth, now the Marquess of Bath, took a yellow poster out of his pocket and read out the words: "Vote for Weymouth and no coercion." That was the appeal which had been made to his constituents at the election. One of the most curious things of all was that, on the day of the Second Reading of the Bill, the Piggott forged letter appeared in The Times. It afterwards appeared from the evidence given at the Parnell Commission that the letter was printed in order to affect the vote on the Second Reading. When Mr. Parnell stood up to deny the authenticity of the letter the then Chief Secretary who was addressing the House refused to give way, and Mr. Parnell's denial did not appear in its integrity in the English Press. When that Bill was passing through this House free use was made of the guillotine. I remember Sir Charles Russell stood at the Table protesting that a promise had been given which had never been fulfilled, and it has not been fulfilled from that day to this. The Bill was bitterly contested, and the proceedings in this House lasted five or six weeks. Having been forced through the House with the aid of the guillotine, it was sent to the House of Lords. If the Lords had exercised their function as the guardians of the interests of future generations, they would have taken care that a measure which was to coerce not only the present generation, but future generations, was fair and equitable. That Bill by which jury trial was abolished, and by which new offences
1190
were created, was not subjected by the hereditary House to the revision it ought to have received. Tribunals were set up under the Act in which the magistrates were merely the creatures of the Crown. One man who had been dismissed for fraud was appointed a resident magistrate. The Bill received First, Second, and Third Reading in a few hours at one sitting of the House of Lords. What is to be said for a Second Chamber which performs its work in that way? What becomes of the hereditary wisdom in such a case as that? The fact is that there is no revision in the House of Lords when a Tory Government is concerned. Certainly there is none when Irish legislation is concerned, if it is proposed by a Tory Government. I am sorry that the late Prime Minister is not here, because although he is not a gentleman of a very ardent temperament, I should like to say something which might appeal even to him. There was another Tory once Prime Minister who knew how to manage the House of Lords. I refer to the Duke of Wellington. He has left a document which is familiar to every student of constitutional history, showing how he managed the House of Lords. He was a Tory of the best kind. When Catholic emancipation was proposed, he opposed that reform, but when he found that Irish soldiers cheered O'Connell the Liberator, he quickly altered that opinion. The Catholic Emancipation Bill, which the Duke of Wellington had bitterly opposed, was passed by the House of Lords. The Duke was an old strategist, and he did his best to save the Lords from themselves. In a letter written in April, 1844, he gave advice to Lord Stanley as to how he was to proceed in connection with the repeal of the Corn Laws. He said—
"Although I disagree with the Government measures, knowing what the House of Lords in now, knowing that it no longer reflects the will of the people, I have done my best with a considerable amount of management to bring them into line with popular opinion in order to preserve them."
The late Prime Minister did not take the advice of his godfather, the Duke of Wellington, but in language which could not be misinterpreted told the House that although the Liberal Ministry were supported by a general majority of 350 over his followers, he would go to another place and defeat the decision of the

1191
House of Commons; and by doing that he lured the other place to destruction. The late Prime Minister attributed the preservation of Ireland to the rejection of the Home Rule Bill of 1893 by the House of Lords. If Mr. Gladstone had had his will on that rejection there would have been an appeal to the country, but, by the dilly-dallying of certain gentlemen, that was prevented, and the result is that we are only at the stage we were thirteen years ago, when Mr. Gladstone was overborne in regard to what he wished for as to how the House of Lords should be dealt with. The English Radicals have some representatives in the House of Lords; but there is not a single representative of the Nationalists in that Chamber.
AN HON. MEMBER: There is Lord Dunraven.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He is not a Nationalist and he does not want to be in the House of Lords. The Irish Tories have twenty-eight representative Peers in the House of Lords—all of whom are Irish landlords of the Clanricarde type. It is a very remarkable fact that not one hon. Member has ventured to say that the House of Lords have a right to dictate your legislation here, to throw your measures out, to treat them with contempt, while Tory measures are passed automatically, or to erect barriers against Liberal measures, because they are the sons of their fathers. We do not view the ludicrousness of this, because we have got accustomed to it. It has been said by some hon. Members that Englishmen dearly love the House of Lords. I will examine in a general way as to the origin of some of these Peers. If I said all that I know in regard to them outside this House I might be subjected to prosecution by the Society for the Discouragement of Vice. I can consider nothing more cowardly or unmanly than to throw in anyone's teeth his antecedents. It is our glory here that every man stands on his own merits and that, however humble his origin, if he has ability he can rise to the highest honours. But when you come to this, that we are told that the Peers must revise the laws passed by this House, that they are the guardian angels of the people, that they are the trustees of
1192
posterity because they are the sons of their fathers, then we may inquire who their ancestors were. To begin with the Dukes. There are four of them whose ancestors must have been very precocious, because one was created a Duke when he was three years of age, and another when he was twelve years of age; and they rose to that position by the merits or demerits of Charles II. of blessed memory. Do you think it right that the descendants of these gentlemen should legislate for you and thwart your legislation because they are the spurious representatives of the divine right of royalty that was kicked out of the country? Another branch of the Dukes owed their position to the robbery of all the abbeys and the priories of the Catholic Church. I do not say whether that was right or wrong, but it should not have been used to give a hereditary right to sit in the House of Lords. There was another branch of the Peers who owed their position to royal favouritism or to honest purchase. Then William III. of glorious, pious, and immortal memory conferred a dukedom on a man named Bentinck, but before it could be conferred a special Act of Parliament had to be passed in order to naturalise him in this country, and the descendant of this noble Duke, who was of Dutch origin, the Duke of Portland, was the most bitter anti-Boer in this country in the recent war. Edmund Burke described the Duke of Bedford of his day as the great leviathan of pluralities. I come down to the time of the Georges. George III., who lost us America, created 388 Peers, who were described by Lecky as respectable nonentities, for their support of the policy of the Crown. Next come the peerages of our own day. What about the brewers who have got peerages, men who have brewed as much ale and porter as would float ten ships of war. They had no great ability about them except that of flatulent pockets; but no sooner do they get into the peerage than you find them with an ancestry that would take all the shine out of the blood of the Howards. I will say nothing about the military Peers; but as to the political Peers, Lord Clive, like Lord Curzon, obtained an Irish peerage because he had purchased seven seats in the House of Commons; and he was disappointed

1193
because he did not get an English peerage. During the Chinese debates it was pointed out, that in China they did not ennoble a man for special service but his ancestors! A great many men who are made Peers to-day are the shunted twaddlers of politics; the wall-flowers of the political ball-room who are obliged to retire gracefully. My recollection of twenty years in this House is that the Lords are the shunted dowagers of politics and the wall-flowers in the political bowl. [Laughter.] All these things create laughter, but although they are very ridiculous they are infinitely mischievous. But if they are ludicrous they are also true. This is the very best House of Commons that has ever been elected in the whole history of Parliament, and I do not include in that description only those hon. Gentlemen who agree with me and the Labour Party and the Irish Members, because I see there are yet elements of earnestness in the younger Tory Members. But how are you to begin to reform? How are the leaders in the Executive Government of this country, under whom some of us will not flinch, to deal with this situation? Are you going to think of the constituencies and those who come after you? If you are going to do a man's work to put down this indignity and make the world better than you found it, why not rise to the height of your strength and brush away all impediments of a gingerbread character! Let us all direct our attention to this urgent matter and say we will not allow any man merely through the accident of birth to thwart our wishes and stand between us and the desires of the people. Speaking with some little knowledge of Cabinet dissensions, and I daresay there have been dissensions in the present Cabinet, I believe that if we support them we shall bring this glorious campaign to a triumphant conclusion.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I rise to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name which runs, "The Upper House, being an irresponsible part of the legislature, and of necessity representative only of interests opposed to the general well-being, is a hindrance to national progress and ought to be
1194
abolished." The first observation I have to make is that the longer we listen to the debates the more convinced we must become that the position of the House of Lords as it is to-day is absolutely indefensible. If there was any doubt in our minds upon that point before, I think after the excellent review of the House of Lords to which we have just listened all doubt ought to be removed. We can congratulate ourselves, therefore, that we have had the opportunity of listening to the speech of the hon. Member for West Donegal, as he has refreshed our memory in regard to the position of our hereditary Peers. All this explanation makes it very much easier for me to put the proposition contained in the Amendment, but before proceeding to state my case I should like to make a very brief reference to the plan of the Government as unfolded to us in the able speech of the Prime Minister yesterday. I have examined the plan which he submitted as carefully as I can in the very short time at my disposal, and having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, I have been compelled to come to the conclusion that it is altogether too cautious, too moderate, and far too considerate for those against whom the Prime Minister made out such an excellent case. Applying the right hon. gentleman's scheme to the circumstances of last session, I may point out that it was the first session of a new Parliament, and happily the driving power of the new Parliament was such as to produce an output of legislation not only in quantity but in quality that, I believe I am right in saying, exceeds anything which has taken place in any session of Parliament in the lifetime of any single Member of this House. Supposing that this excellent plan of the Government had been in operation last session, I should like to ask what would have been the result. Let me take for instance the three measures in which many of us were most keenly interested the Trade Disputes Bill, the Amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill. I know that every one of those three measures would have been a subject of conference had the system now proposed been then in operation. I do not doubt

1195
that if this machinery gets into working it may facilitate the passage of some simple uncontroversial Bills, but I have the strongest conviction that it will be the means of hindering the passing of progressive legislation in general. I know I may be told that had this scheme been in operation a Bill very closely associated with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Government Bench might have been after all his tremendous efforts passed into law. I may be told that if there had been this machinery the Government plan in regard to education would ultimately have been successful. Yes, but what I want to ask is this: Supposing the right hon. Gentleman had been successful, and I think he himself would make this admission, he would only have been successful in getting a Bill passed on to the Statute-book which would be far out of harmony with the pledges which the Government had given to the country and with that which the supporters of the Government were entitled to expect. [An HON. GENTLEMAN: You would not have got a stronger Bill.] All I can say is that if we did not get a stronger Bill there would have been more compromises than there were before the Bill left this House, and if we are going to have more compromises in regard to our Bills as the result of the conference, its establishment will not be the least concession. I say that is a fatal argument to my mind against our too readily adopting the scheme which is put before us by the Government. It has been suggested that after a little time the House of Lords will tire of this method of proceeding, that after a session or two they will hesitate to put the provision in force, and that the necessary Bill referred to yesterday when it becomes law will enable the Government to put on the Statute-book any Bill they wish. That to my mind is a delusion and a snare. I do not think the recent history of the other House justifies our concluding that after a year or two they will cease to resist legislation, and I am strengthened in that opinion by the character of the legislation which we hope this Government may be able to send to the Upper House before it again goes to the country. There never were such demands as there are to-day for advanc-
1196
ing social and economic legislation. We are recognising that social problems must be dealt with and are realising that economically and industrially there is much that the worker should receive at the hands of the Government. There is nothing that leads me to suppose that when we get these advanced measures the House of Lords will be more anxious to let those measures pass than they have been to pass other measures that have been sent up to them from this House in days gone by. For these not altogether unimportant reasons we look with some suspicion on the scheme unfolded by the Prime Minister in his speech of yesterday. Now I want before passing away from the scheme to urge the Government to reconsider the position, and see whether it is not possible to reduce the amount of time that may pass between the first disagreement between the two Houses and the final passage of the measure into law. That in my opinion is essential if we are to pass through both Houses legislation that is commensurate with the present needs of the people. Let us try to look at this scheme from a practical standpoint. Suppose in the first three sessions of a new great radical democratic Parliament we are engaged as we were last session with important controversial measures. Take the Trade Disputes Bill, the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and the Provision of Meals Bill and the Scottish Land Bill. Suppose the House of Lords seeks to avail itself of the right you are able to confer upon it by this scheme to put the conference machinery into operation on all those four Bills, how far are we going to be from the end of the third session of the new Parliament before those measures pass on to the Statute-book? But that is not all. What about the next two years? I hope hon. Members, and especially those who like ourselves came flushed with our promises of industrial and social reform, will ponder carefully over this. What about the last two years of the quinquennial Parliament? To what can we turn our attention during those two years? We cannot turn our attention to great controversial measures, because if we send up such measures in the fourth session of the Parliament there will not be time for

1197
them to run to the final period when the command will go forth that if the House of Lords opposes the Bill again it will pass without them. I allow therefore if we are going to have this scheme of a quinquennial Parliament, and I hope we shall have it—I should be prepared to go further and vote for a triennial Parliament, especially if we do not have a House of Lords—let us be very careful that we are not establishing a scheme that will restrict the activity of Parliament to three years of the quinquenial period. That is one of the most serious issues involved in the scheme, and I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister is the last man to view such a situation with feelings of satisfaction. Having made this not unfair criticism on the Government scheme, I desire to bring to the notice of the House the alternative scheme contained in our Amendment. I have said that the Government scheme is cautious and moderate. I am afraid I cannot claim that for the scheme I am about to try to justify. But there is this about it—it is understandable, it is definite, and it is radical. It seeks by the plainest, the most complete and logical method to make the will of the House of Commons supreme. There is an almost unanimous opinion that the hereditary principle that obtains to-day ought to be ended, but we want to go further. We want to put an end, not only to the hereditary principle, but to the life of any Chamber which is irresponsible, which is not responsible to the nation. It may be asked why do we, representing labour, take the responsibility of moving this Amendment. We do so because organised labour has its own definite and ever-increasing indictment against the House of Lords. The record of the other House so far as organised labour is concerned is altogether bad. Organised labour remembers that the Upper House resisted a Bill for the protection of the lives of our women and children in the mines from 1842 to 1872. We recognise the attitude taken up by the other House towards the principle of compensation. We remember their making the principle of picketing an offence in 1872. Organised labour remembers the record of the Upper House on the Load Line and
1198
Merchant Shipping Act which was destined to do something for the sea-men. We remember their mutilation of the Employers' Liability Bill in 1893–4, and their practical rejection of the Railway Servants Bill in 1893. But let me come a little nearer the present Parliament. Can we forget their treatment of what we know was a measure for the prevention of the importation of alien labourers during the progress of a trade dispute? Their policy on that occasion is the more difficult to understand when we remember that in the last session or the last but one of the old Parliament the Government of the Party for whom the House of Lords is so pleased to act passed an Aliens Bill which they claimed they passed in the interests of the working man. But how inconsistent is the claim when we remember that at the very time organised labour asked for assistance for British labour the House of Lords refused it, and threw out the Aliens Prevention Bill! The reason given by Lord Londonderry was as follows—
"There might perhaps, in the future, be a strike in some great industry with which was associated the welfare of the whole people, and in such a case would it be wise to forbid the introduction of men into the country who were to keep the industry going?"
At the time when the workmen needed protection the noble Lord thought of the rights of capital and forgot the wrongs of labour. Then we do not forget their treatment of the Provision of Meals Bill, a Bill for which we were responsible, and which was so successful that it went through this House with almost unanimous consent. The Amendment which caused its mutilation in the other House was the exclusion of Scotland. We had the satisfaction that when the same Amendment was moved by an hon. Member above the gangway, the force in favour of the Amendment was so small that Mr. Speaker asked those in favour of the deletion of Scotland to stand up, and the number that responded to his invitation was ten. The principle was laid down that Scotland should be included in the Bill, and rightly so. How could it be otherwise in face of the testimony of the Medical Officer for the City of Edinburgh that half the children of the

1199
slums were being compelled to attend school in an underfed condition? The Bill went to the other House, and the Amendment so unanimously rejected by the Commons was accepted by the Lords. No; it is scarcely correct to say it was accepted by the Lords, because the vote was twenty-nine to nineteen. Twenty-nine against nineteen had the power to take over this Bill, supported by the unanimous voice of the House of Commons, which on this point we claim to be directly representing the people before whom we have so recently been, and to leave out Scotland from the scope of its provisions. That is part, at any rate, of the great indictment preferred by the Labour Party against the House of Lords; and with such a history as it possesses we have no hesitation in accepting the following definition of its position—
"During the past 100 years the House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular liberty or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the commonweal. During that time it has protected every abuse and sheltered every privilege; it has denied justice and delayed reform; it is irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judgment, and arrogant without knowledge."
It is some time ago, I admit, since those words were uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, but they very correctly describe our opinion to-day. With such a House as is in those words accurately described, what is the method proposed by the Labour Party for dealing with it drastically? We are proposing a method that has long been settled and adopted by the organised labour of this country; whether it has spoken through the Trades Congress or through labour demonstrations, the voice of organised labour has been emphatically in the direction of this Amendment. After the rejection or the mutilation of the Employers Liability Bill there was held a great demonstration, admitted by The Times newspaper, I believe, to have been one of the greatest labour demonstrations ever held in Hyde Park, at which the following resolution was carried—
"That this meeting, representing the organised industries of the United Kingdom, condemns the action of the House of Lords in stultifying the decision of a majority of the
1200
directly-elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons upon the Employers Liability Bill. This meeting also calls upon the Government to reintroduce the measure at once to test the ultimate decision of the House of Lords, and to take steps for the entire abolition of the House of Lords, and thereby to deprive the Peers of the power of opposing the national will."
The Trades Union Congress in the following year, 1895, carried the following—
"That this Congress is of opinion that the representative character of the House of Commons is impaired, and its decisions rendered nugatory by the power of the House of Lords, and with a view of maintaining inviolate the supremacy of Parliament, this Congress calls for the speedy abolition of the Second Chamber."
This was seconded by my hon. friend the Member for South-East Derbyshine. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Congress took this matter up very seriously at that time, and, if the House will bear with me, I will read a brief extract from the manifesto of that Committee, which was sown broadcast on that occasion. In that manifesto, which was issued in February, 1904, they say—
"What use to you is the right to vote? What does it avail you that a majority of the elected representatives of the people decide in your favour, whilst a privileged class are permitted to make a mockery of the most extended franchise and all representative authority? It is now necessary for you to decide whether you will tamely submit to this contemptuous treatment or will determine to teach the House of Lords that they cannot oppose your will with impunity."
I need hardly say that this manifesto was signed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, by the hon. Member for Wansbeck, and the hon. Member for Finsbury. Not only is this the policy of organised labour, but there are others who have made themselves responsible for suggesting a similar course of action. I will just trouble the House with this quotation before I conclude. One right hon. Gentleman who happens to adorn the front Opposition bench at the present time is responsible for having said the following—
"He saw on some banners the words they must ' Mend or end the House of Lords.' There were some institutions not worth mending. They were radically bad; they were founded on wrong principle. It was easy, however, to say, 'end them,' but how were they to do it? He believed one way was to stop their wages. A week ago, when there was

1201
a Vote of £41,000 towards the maintenance of the House of Lords, twenty-three of them went into the Lobby against the proposal."
The same Gentleman said on another date—
"For his part he was no reformer of the House of Lords. He demanded its total abolition as a legislative assembly."
These opinions are the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham. I feel I ought to apologise for having detained the House so long, but I would say, in conclusion, that we feel very strongly that everything which the Government has advanced against the Lords is true. We have endeavoured to supplement the opposition to the Upper House because of the treatment which the organised workers have received at its hands. What we have to ask ourselves is this: Against a House such as the House of Lords, with such a history, meting out as it has done such treatment to the working classes, can we justify the scheme of the Government, which, as I am afraid it will do, may place the House of Lords in a stronger position than they are in to-day? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in a speech recently deplored the fact that the Cabinet had always to keep in their minds the possibility of how their Bills would be treated by the House of Lords. But surely, if you put this scheme by Bill upon the Statute Book, you invite the House of Lords to interfere with every Bill. We feel that, if this scheme is sanctioned by the House, it is an invitation to the House of Lords, if they care to do so, to put the machinery which you propose into operation against every Bill. What is going to be the result? First of all, the character of a Bill must be altered, or legislation must be made more moderate in order to meet with their approbation. In the second place, during the whole of the proposed process, we are delaying legislation, whereas the country has endeavoured, by sending a great Government with a great majority to this House, to secure legislation of a social and industrial character in greater quantities than we have hitherto received. Instead of that being done, I am afraid that this very machinery will prevent the passing of the legislation we desire.
1202
Therefore, we are compelled to the conclusion that there is a much better way, a much more effective way, a way which will operate with greater speed for making the will of the House of Commons supreme, and through the House of Commons the will of the people, and that is not by tinkering and mending, but, as we state by our Amendment, ending the House of Lords. I beg to move the Amendment.
MR. MACPHERSON: I feel that the House will extend to me that indulgence which it always gives to a Member who addresses it for the first time. I rise to second the Amendment moved by my hon. friend, and to all intents and purposes it would be wearying the House to labour the point much further. I have listened carefully to what my hon. friend has said, and I realise that he has stated from our point of view practically everything that can be said in relation to the matter. He has built up our indictment, and therefore I propose for a few moments to turn to some other aspects of the case. The Amendment is clear, it is definite. It puts on record, in the concluding words of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, that "this House shall rule." We listened to the Prime Minister's speech, as we have listened to the speeches made from that side of the House to-day and yesterday, and almost every speech could be used to build up our case for the total abolition of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister yesterday demonstrated beyond all doubt that if the House of Lords ever did possess any power as a revising Chamber that power has now passed away, and we ourselves had witnessed it, for we have seen Toryism carried so far as to kill any legislation proposed from the Ministerial side of the House. As a representative of the working classes I say there are plenty of things before us which demand legislation. I know that any Bills presented to this House, unless there has been a direct agitation for those Bills in the country, have little chance of passing the House of Lords. I know there is the case of the Trade Disputes Bill, and probably the Labour Members ought to criticise the Lords more kindly because we are the only Party of which they

1203
have shown any fear. Nevertheless we Labour Members realise that the House of Lords have always been our enemies, and are our enemies to-day. We know that in whatever path we desire to strike out for freedom there they stand blocking the way, and it is time the people of this country took the matter into their own hands and politely put them out of the way of the path of progress. The taunt was made yesterday that the present Government are not sincere in this effort to deal with the Lords. May I remind the Ministerial Party that we are only a small Party in this House—there are only some thirty of us, but we represent with candidates defeated under our auspices nearly 500,000 voters, all of them independent voters? I desire to draw attention to the fact that this 500,000 workers are contributing their money to our upkeep, and they are keeping an eye upon the legislation of the country. As has been forcibly demonstrated by my hon. friend, wherever trade unionists have gathered together any Resolution dealing with the House of Lords has always been passed with absolute unanimity. Therefore, I think I can reasonably claim that the 500,000 voters which we represent are watching the Government, and they will judge whether they are sincere or not. If they go back to the country without something accomplished in this direction they will be slaughtered in the same way as the Tory Party was slaughtered in 1906. I will not detain the House further. I wish formally to second the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend, and I thank the House for the courtesy it has shown in listening to my remarks.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 1, to leave out all the words after the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Upper House, being an irresponsible part of the Legislature, and of necessity representative only of interests opposed to the general well-being, is a hindrance to national progress and ought to be abolished.' "—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yesterday I listened
1204
to the Prime Minister with the greatest interest, and there was no portion of his speech which interested me more than that in which he said that in moving his Resolution he spoke under a sense of the greatest responsibility. I am sure there are no hon. Members sitting on this side of the House who would in any way underrate the responsibility which is laid upon the right hon. Gentleman and upon his Party for the course they have chosen to take in regard to this question. It is a curious commentary on the sequence of events that in the year 1884 and 1888 Motions should have been made of a similar character suggested by Lord Rosebery with the universal approval of the Liberal Party of that day, and that to-day the Liberal Party should be found actually opposing the institution of an inquiry into the necessity for a reform of the other place, and that in spite of their opposition this inquiry should be actually at this moment going on under the guidance of the ex-Prime Minister of the Liberal Party himself. That is a somewhat curious instance of the irony of events. Now what is the ostensible reason for which this Resolution is being moved? What is the charge against the Second Chamber? We are told that the House of Lords oppressed the people, and that is the sum and substance of the charge. Hon. Members below the gangway declare that it is no wonder the House of Lords oppresses the country, because it is an irresponsible body founded upon an absurd hereditary principle. I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister that it is hardly relevant upon this Resolution to discuss at length the composition of the House of Lords, because what we are really inquiring into is the conduct of the House of Lords in discharging its functions. The House of Lords, however, is not built up upon hereditary principles, but upon history. There is a large portion of the Second Chamber—and I do not mean the Lords Spiritual—who are Peers in the first creation and who owe their position in no sense of the word to the application of the hereditary principle. If you take the House of Lords at almost any period of its history during the past fifty years, you will find that there was always a large proportion who did not hold their

1205
positions owing to the accident of birth. We have been told that the House of Lords is not a representative body. I am afraid the word "representative" is a somewhat difficult word to define. I think, however, that I could point out that our Second Chamber to-day fulfils one condition of a representative assembly which is not fulfilled by this House. So great an authority as Sir Erskine May laid down that it was an essential thing in the case of a representative assembly that the record of its debates should be accessible to all and that every word spoken should be spoken to the city and the world. I think his actual words were that—
"Owing to the publicity of its debates there is present, as it were, the entire people to assist in the deliberations of Parliament.
I put it to the House, not in any controversial spirit, with regard to the representative character of the House of Lords whether, judged by this test, as it is at present constituted, it is not more representative than those Committees which have been constituted in this House under the new régime. The Prime Minister quoted in his speech the words of Burke, and I would like to give the opinion of the same authority in a passage following that quoted by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the representative character of the House of Lords. Burke said—
"For it is not the derivation of the power of that House from the people which makes it in a distinct sense their representative. The King is the representative of the people, so are the Lords, and so are the Judges. They are all trustees of the people as well as the Commons, because no power is given for the sole sake of the holder, and although Government certainly is an institution of divine authority, yet its forms and the persons who administer it all originate from the people. A popular origin cannot, therefore, be the characteristical distinction of a popular representative. This belongs equally to all parts of Government and to all its forms."
After all the real charge laid against the Second Chamber is that in exercising its functions it is oppressing the people. That is a matter which it is obviously appropriate that should receive serious and careful consideration. I want first of all to say frankly that there is nothing impossible in that charge, because it has repeatedly happened in the history, not merely of this country, but of other countries, that the Second Chamber has
1206
oppressed the people, and that one estate in the Constitution has sought to aggrandize itself at the expense of the others. The optimates of Venice and the Whig Peers in the first half of the eighteenth century combined against the people to set up the tyranny of an oligarchy. The nobles of France and the Holy Roman Empire combined against the Crown with resulting disintegration of these Empires. That, however, to-day is not the question we have to consider, and it would be no argument to say that because King John oppressed the people the monarchy should be abolished, or that, because this House in the time of the Great Rebellion and the Interregnum oppressed the people, its abolition is desirable. The question to be decided is whether the Second Chamber now is oppressive. Let us see what that accusation means. It is not pretended that they are in any way copying the nobles of France and the Holy Roman Empire. It is not contended that they are lacking in national or Imperial spirit. It is not contended that they desire to do anything to disintegrate the Empire. Such a contention would not hold water for a moment. Even hon. Members opposite will admit that whatever the House of Lords lacks it does not lack broad and Imperial views in matters of Imperial policy. Even Liberal Imperialism, that plant of tender growth, flourishes and blossoms in that serene atmosphere. Nor is it pretended that the Second Chamber, like the Venetian nobles and the Whig Peers of 1719, are trying to make themselves a close corporation. On the contrary, it has already been pointed out as a charge against the Second Chamber, not that it is too much of a close corporation, but that it is too easy of access, and by a curious process of argument those hon. Members who make that charge would prefer, if oppressed, that it should be by some one with the blood of Vere de Vere than by one who, rising by his own merits, has succeeded in reaching high office in the State. I do not profess to follow that argument. What is the real charge that is laid at the door of the Second Chamber? It is that it oppresses the people because it resists their will as expressed by their elected representatives when those representatives happen to be Liberals.

1207
In other words, it is resisting what the Liberal Party believe to be the will of the people. That was the charge made at Plymouth at the outset of the campaign by the Prime Minister. He said it is Liberalism that is at stake—not the people that is at stake. In short, this reform of the Constitution is being proposed not for the safety of the people, but confessedly nakedly, unashamedly, in order to strengthen the position of the Liberal Party. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday raising his voice in lamentation over his innocents that have been slaughtered by the Lords—though indeed he seemed to weep more sorely for the step-child that survived—I expected him to conclude with a paraphrase of that finest of all funeral orations that was delivered at Gettysburg. Let us here highly resolve that these dead "shall not have died in vain," and that government of the Liberals by the Liberals for the Liberals "shall not perish from the earth." What we have to inquire into, after all, is whether it is absolutely certain that the will of the elected representatives is the will of the people. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite generally accept that doctrine. If they do, it is a somewhat curious commentary on their own conduct in connection with their proposed land legislation, because it is part of their machinery to send down Commissioners to dragoon the popularly elected representatives of the people on the county councils into compliance with the views of the Government of the day. If they do hold that doctrine, it would be well to consider whether it should not be applied in more ways than one. If it is to be held that after an election the majority of the Members of this House give a true representation of the will of the people, then something will have to be done to devise a remedy for the curious anomaly by which everyone who sits on these benches represents something over 16,000, and everyone who sits in other parts of the House represents about 7,000 electors. There are, no doubt, occasions when a special mandate on a special subject is given by the country to Parliament. The people say to Commons and Lords, "This is our will, execute it." On no occasion has a special
1208
mandate of that character been permanently resisted by the Second Chamber. The Lord Advocate admitted as much at Plymouth when he said that the House of Lords had never resisted a popular measure nor insisted on an unpopular one. In truth the Second Chamber is being attacked, as all Second Chambers, whether nominated, elected or hereditary, in other countries are always attacked, on the ground that it retards legislation. Of course it retards legislation, for that is its proper function. If a Second Chamber is not to act as a check upon the first it has no raison d'être, and it is of no use. I do not say that in a Party spirit. It is a constitutional commonplace. As far as I can make out, the real complaint about the action of the Second Chamber is that it has arrogated to itself, to use the Prime Minister's words, the right to force an appeal to the people. The right hon. Gentleman said that was an entirely unconstitutional doctrine—I think he said it was a doctrine not known to the Constitution. He did not cite any constitutional authority for his proposition; but I make so bold as to say that the doctrine is neither novel nor unconstitutional. It was insisted upon forty years ago in the debates on the Irish Church Bill. I cite the authority of Mr. Bonamy Price, a constitutional writer, who during the Irish land law debates was commended to the attention of the House and the country because of the peculiarly detached character of his opinions. This is what he says in regard to the functions of the House of Lords—
"To balance and regulate the political movement of the nation—to test by temporary resistance the sincerity and strength of the will which demands a change; to make legislation take its stand as the good sense and ultimate judgment instead of the momentary desire of the country, and to give continuity and stability to the general policy of the nation."
I have done more in respect to this doctrine than the Prime Minister, for I have brought up one constitutional authority, impeccable and impartial, to testify that this conception of the functions of the House of Lords is neither novel nor unconstitutional. After all, what does it all come down to? We are actually told by the Party opposite that their proposition is that the Party which, by hook or by crook, manages to secure a majority in this Chamber on a measure

1209
on which ex hypothesi the people have the very strongest convictions should hesitate to take the risk of confronting the electors at the polls. I do not necessarily mean that there should be a general election. I mean testing the opinion of the people by election or referendum. I understand that both of these methods are rejected by the Party opposite. What is the consequence? Suppose you eliminate the right of the House of Lords to challenge the decisions of the House of Commons, the House of Commons becomes absolute. Moreover, if this Resolution were translated into a Bill the power of the Second Chamber would be confined to the limits of a Parliament, and these limits are of course at the discretion of the Government of the day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite contend that Parliament towards the end becomes more or less unrepresentative. If that is the case, the curious anomaly would arise of the House of Commons having complete control of legislation, not at the beginning of its career, not in its youthful manhood, because then by the circumambulatory process which has been proposed, its powers are curtailed, but when it has begun to be unrepresentative. The new Commons are fettered. The dying Commons are supreme and their will is to prevail instantly. That is a perfectly logical and reasonable deduction from the proposition which has been made. The second deduction is this. If this Resolution is passed why have a Second Chamber at all? If I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite, their view is that if the Second Chamber agrees with this House it is unnecessary, and if it differs it is mischievous. Sir Henry Maine, discussing that point of view, said it reminded him of what happened on an historical occasion when the question of burning or not burning the Alexandrian library was under consideration. The Caliph Omar settled the matter by stating that if the books contained in the library agreed with the Koran they were unnecessary, and if they disagreed they were impious and ought to be burned. So the Second Chamber is regarded by some hon. Members as either superfluous or impertinent. I ask why is it that in all constitutional countries a Second Chamber has been found
1210
necessary—in the federal Kingdom of Germany, in the federal republic of the United States, in the unitarian Kingdom of Italy and the unitarian republic of France. And yet in none of these countries is their constitution so elastic as in this country. I have tried, at all events, to argue this question, although I do not suppose that I have convinced many Members opposite. I suppose that many hon. Members opposite will still say that the Lords ought to be mended or ended; but the question is, which is to prevail—the writing on the wall of the hon. Gentleman below the gangway or the writing on the slate of the Government. That will solve itself when we go into the division lobby. The action of the Government lays them open to a certain amount of suspicion. They say that it is impossible for them to go on legislating so long as the Second Chamber reject or mutilate their measures; but they still go on with their legislation, and therefore ex hypothesi go on wasting time, before they proceed with their open attack against the House of Lords. I am bound to say that in the light of recent events in Lincolnshire and elsewhere, there may be something in the proverb that a burnt child dreads the fire. I do not wonder that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite rather shrink from the fiery furnace of a general election, but if they hesitate they can hardly hope to escape the suspicion that they are bringing forward this Resolution at the present time for the purpose of masking the heat test. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is doing a disservice to his Party, because he is taking a course which has not the support of all the Members who sit behind him, as the Amendments to his Resolution on the Paper show; and it is a course which did not commend itself to the leaders of Liberalism in the past. In the crisis of 1860 Lord Palmerston said—and this is the last quotation I will make—
"I do not think we should have raised ourselves in public estimation, I do not think we should have done anything towards maintaining effectively those rights and functions which belong to us, if we had thrown into these Resolutions anything likely to prove the commencement of hostilities with the other branch of the Legislature."
*CAPTAIN KINCAID-SMITH: No one can complain that the Amendment proposed by the Labour Party is in any way indefinite; they regret anything in the way of the reform of the House of Lords and want to go in for the abolition of the House of Lords, lock, stock, and barrel. But anyone would imagine from the first part of the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney-General that he was in favour of the Amendment, but in the second part of his speech he was at great pains to point out what were the responsible functions which would still remain to the House of Lords. When the Prime Minister put down his Resolution a great many Members did not know what it meant; but I do not see that there is any real difference between the plan proposed by the Government and that outlined in the Amendment. If you vote for the Resolution you in fact practically vote for the Amendment which is proposed from the Labour Benches, because you say that the House of Lords as a revising body shall cease to exist. But the House of Lords must essentially be a body of opportunists whose duty it is to give any legislative proposal sent up to them consideration in accordance with what they consider to be the wishes of the country and not in accordance with their own private opinion. The Resolution does not deal with the constitution of the House of Lords; it only deals with the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. I know that some hon. Members would not reform the House of Lords. Some would wish the referendum. Some would wish for an elected Second Chamber. Personally I believe that the House of Lords are quite sagacious enough to reform themselves so as to give themselves the maximum of moral weight and authority in the country. The Prime Minister and other Members on this side of the House spoke often of the will of the people, and that the will of the people must prevail. I cannot conceive anyone getting up to deny that the will of the people must prevail. But the point is, does the will of the people always coincide with the legislative proposals of the Cabinet? Has the Cabinet always interpreted the wishes
1212
of the people in any particular legislation they propose? The Prime Minister's Resolution means that when a conflict arises between the two Houses under no circumstances shall there be given to the electorate an opportunity of saying whether the Cabinet have in their legislative proposals correctly interpreted their wishes. I am only a new Member of the House, but it seems to me that it is useless for anyone to say that the Government of the day, even when supported by a large majority, must always be right in their interpretation of the will of the people and that the House of Lords must always be wrong, and that the electorate should never have an opportunity of saying which is right and which is wrong. It is the duty of the House of Lords to revise or reject measures which they think are not in accordance with the prevailing opinion of the people. If they make a mistake they will have to bear the penalty. [An HON. MEMBER: What penalty?] Abolition, of course. Prove that they are wrong, and then bring in a Bill to abolish them. But unless you prove that they are wrong I do not believe that the country will allow this scheme to be carried through. Take the Education Bill. No one will contest that the vast majority desire that all clerical control of the schools shall cease; but I do not think that there is much hostility among the people to Church denominational teaching, and I am convinced that the wishes of the people were not correctly interpreted in the Government's Education Bill as originally introduced. The Leader of the Opposition reminded the House of the great powers which this House has, uncontrolled and unchecked by the House of Lords, in regard to naval and military and other expenditure and in regard to administration. Take another power which this House possesses of carrying into effect its will in such matters as the granting of Constitutions to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. There are many Members on this side of the House who would have liked to have seen it possible for the House of Lords to intervene, and who would have welcomed the interference of the House of Lords in regard to those Constitutions with a view of making them more favourable to the

1213
British subject and bringing them into accordance with the wishes of the British people of that country. My chief reason for opposing this Resolution is that I can quite conceive that Labour Members opposite may in the future adopt a different attitude on Imperial questions from that which they had taken up in the past. I cannot help thinking that they may get tired of being looked upon as the natural allies of small sections on the Liberal side who have peculiar and advanced opinions on various subjects, who when trouble arises in our native dependencies invariably seem to think that British administrators are always at fault and always in the wrong; these I am convinced are not the views of those who send Labour Members to this House. I am not the least afraid of their socialistic programme, but combined with a more rational attitude on Imperial questions, with a strong and steady support of Imperial interests. I dread the support their predatory and socialistic programme may receive in the country. We cannot calmly look forward to a Cabinet reflecting the views of those who hold such opinions. There are hon. Members who wished to see the Education Bill, the Plural Voters Bill, and the Scottish Land Bill amended by the House of Lords. Surely they are not going to support this Resolution, by which they will practically acquiesce in the abolition of the. House of Lords. I regard the Government Resolution as practically the same as the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division, and I am opposed to both of them. I think hon. Members who vote for this Resolution will give a vote which they will profoundly regret in a comparatively short period of time and no matter how many quotations you may make from the speeches of the Prime Minister, no matter how much dialectical skill you may bring to bear on the matter, you cannot rid yourselves of the accusation that you have voted for one Chamber. If the Prime Minister knew how many of his followers at one time or another have said "Thank God, we have a House of Lords," he would not have brought forward this Resolution with the confidence he professed yesterday. I am told that many of those who vote against this Resolution and legisla-
1214
tion of this sort will lose their seats. That time will show, but personally if seats are to be retained by voting for a Resolution which one thinks is against the best interests of the country I for one shall decline to pay the price.
*MR. FENWICK: I am not surprised, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, that we hear accusations on the platform that the Liberal Party are no more progressive in their tendencies and aspirations than the Party opposite. A more reactionary speech coming from a Member who professes to support His Majesty's Government I never listened to. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark argued in his speech that because the House of Lords had never set itself permanently against the will of the people, therefore we had no ground of complaint against them. You might just as well say that if a ruffian meets me on my way home to-night and assaults me and breaks my arm, but does not permanently incapacitate me, I have no ground for complaint against him, as say that we have no ground of complaint against the Lords for delaying the legislation which is justly demanded by the nation. The hon. Member says that if the House of Lords does wrong you can punish them. You can penalise them. In what way? Have they not again and again been convicted of wrongdoing? On their own admission they have stood against legislation which the country demanded until we have been brought almost to the verge of social revolution. What opportunity have we had for bringing them to trial up to now? This is the first time in which we have had a responsible Government bringing forward legislation to help us to deal with the block which confronts us in another place. I think that nobody can deny the importance of the Resolution, and, I would certainly be the last to deny the importance of the issue. But I sincerely hope that now we have put our hand to the plough we shall go forward. Nothing gave me greater satisfaction and pleasure in listening to the admirable speech of the Prime Minister yesterday than when he said that whatever might be the attitude of the House of Lords

1215
to this Resolution, whether they took it lying down or otherwise, the Motion, so far as the Government is concerned, is to be translated into a project of law. It is no use to take off your coat in a matter of this sort if after a short scrimmage you make matters up again. I hope in this case it is to be a fight to a finish. No self-respecting Government and no Government claiming to be a democratic Government, it seems to me, can do anything but accept the challenge they have had thrown down to come to close grips with the House of Lords when it resists the will of the people. If we are to admit their claim in the slightest degree then there is an end to representative Government. The House of Lords strikes directly at the House of Commons as a representative institution, therefore their claim is not to be tolerated for a moment. The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech yesterday, spoke of a school of Radicals who put social legislation in their speeches, but never anywhere else. I thought that was a rather dangerous observation to come from anyone in the position of the late Prime Minister, and I could not help wondering whether he had in his mind what occurred in 1895. The whole programme of his Party and of himself in particular was based on the policy of social legislation. One of the prominent pieces of legislation shown in that programme was old age pensions. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1895 were not unwilling to trade on the misfortunes of the poor by offering if they received their votes to provide them with old age pensions. What happened? Those who sat in this House at that time will remember that when we pressed the right hon. Gentleman on that subject his reply was—
"If a promise is given to a person who does not seek for its fulfilment I do not see why it need be fulfilled."
That was not a social reform in the programme of the Radicals. There was no such declaration made on their part at that election; and here I should like to say that if a Radical Government gives pledges which they are not able to fulfil it is because of the standing block and menace over the way. You talk of the House of Lords as a Court of Revision;
1216
it is nothing of the kind. The House of Lords as a Court of Revision does not exist during the time a Tory Government is in office. It is only when you have a reforming Ministry in office that the House of Lords becomes an active interferer in the country. One hon. Member reminded us of the fact that every legislative assembly in Europe—I am not sure that he did not say in the world—had a Second Chamber. I dare say that is true, but it has often been said that this is the mother of Parliaments, and if that is true I can only say of other countries which have followed our pernicious example that they have followed our bad example, but that there the members of the Second Chamber have had the good sense not to throw themselves across the will of the Representative Chamber. The hon. Member for the Eccles all Division twitted the Party on this side of the House with the fact that since the year 1830 we had created 286 Peers, while the Party opposite had created only 181. But is not the parent to be allowed, to correct its own child? If we have created such a number of Peers, surely we are not to be denied the power of parental restraint and correction. That is all we propose to do by the terms of this Resolution. It is suggested that the Prime Minister's Resolution is practically a declaration for a single legislative Chamber. In my opinion that is not so; I wish it were. I have never concealed my views upon this subject. I am now, and always have been, ever since I entered public life, an advocate for a Single Chamber; and my hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle is quite right when he quoted my name as being one of the signatures to the trade union manifesto for the abolition of the House of Lords. But I do not, and, cannot, exclude from my mind all that is involved in a Single Chamber. With a Single Chamber, legislation would certainly not be so rapid in its passage through the House as my hon. friend seemed to think it would be. If you have no Second Chamber to revise and examine the legislation sent up from this House you are bound to give greater time and facilities for debate in this House. Those who took part in the deliberations of this House when the late Sir William Harcourt was carrying through his great project of national finance will remember

1217
the time that had to be given to the discussion of that project, which was carried through without a single application of the closure. Why was that? It was because we all realised that the project was great in its incidence; that it could not be amended by the other House, and that therefore, it was bound to have the fullest consideration that this House could give it. If you have a Single Chamber—and I shall vote for the Amendment—although the Amendment does not involve a Single Chamber arrangement, it will abolish the hereditary arrangement—if we are to have a Single Chamber arrangement, I ask hon. Members to consider whether we shall not be bound to give more time to the discussion of legislative projects in this House. The hon. Member for Aston Manor last night said that this House was becoming less and less efficient to pass and discuss first-class legislation. I have had the honour of sitting in six Parliaments, and I do not know any one that was more efficient than this. Instead of being less competent it is more competent. What we are deficient in is time for the proper consideration of legislative projects. That involves consideration of a question which I think the hon. Member would not be able to agree upon. It involves the consideration of a scheme of devolution, which he and the Party opposite are not prepared to concede. I most cordially support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and will vote with him, but I shall do so in no hostile spirit towards the Resolution of the Government. I think the time has come when the claim of the House of Lords should be seriously considered by the House and the country. We have limited their interference in every direction with finance, foreign policy and treaties of peace, and the question of war. The only sphere of operations in which we have not been able to limit their action is in domestic affairs, and affairs which affect the well-being and happiness of the people of this country. That is the sphere in which they were still permitted to interfere and in which they are the least qualified to interfere. What measures do they ever take to make themselves acquainted with the wishes and desires of the people? How often do they
1218
come into contact with the people? Yet we are compelled time after time to go to the country and spend considerable sums on elections in order to find out what are the wishes and desires of the people. But what matters it after all the spending of all this money, or whether the present Prime Minister sits on the right or left of Mr. Speaker, so long as the Leader of the other Party can call in that section of the Carlton Club that sits over the way, and command it to do his bidding? I appeal to the Government strongly to go forward with this project which they have now put before the House and country. I do not urge them to do it at once. There is time enough yet. There are a good many things which I think this House can do before we go again to the country.
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [LORDS]
(BY ORDER).
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at a quarter past Eight of the clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment on Question [24th June], "That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out from the word 'that,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'the Upper House, being an irresponsible part of the Legislature, and of necessity representative only of interests opposed to the general well-being is a hindrance to national progress and ought to be abolished '—(Mr. Arthur Henderson)—instead thereof "—resumed.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*MR. FENWICK, resuming, said: I am sorry that I had not an opportunity of uttering another sentence, and I should have concluded. Let me say that I do not personally put any pressure on His Majesty's Government to proceed immediately with this project. I conceive that there is much useful legislation that they can do, and which in all probability the House of Lords may not be disposed to interfere with, but by all means, having put our hands to the plough, do not let us draw back at all until we have made a complete settlement of the true and proper relation which ought to exist between this House and the other House of Parliament.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I wish to say a few words on this subject which of course interests me as much as it does other Members of the House. I greatly rejoice that we have had the interposition of the two hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who put before us a clear, fair, and what the late Mr. John Bright called a "square," issue. The question before the House is whether we are to have a Constitution of one Chamber or one of two Chambers. I was greatly surprised to hear so high a constitutional authority as the Attorney-General refer to the action of the House of Lords on the paper duty. He must have forgotten that in addressing the House of Commons he was not addressing a jury, because he endeavoured to raise a prejudice against the other Chamber on the ground that they had opposed the paper duty for social reasons. The fact of the case is that in the House of Lords the duty was retained for a year because at that time, in the estimation of great financial authorities, the income of the State would not bear the loss of £1,000,000. This estimate was confirmed by experience; but in the following year the resources of the country were more abundant, the £1,000,000 could be afforded, and the House of Lords without any he station whatever repealed the duty. Coming to more recent times, I might refer to what occurred last session, reference to which has been made. No one can complain with any reason or
1220
justice of the action of the House of Lords with reference to compensation to workmen or with reference to the Trade Disputes Bill. I greatly regretted the action of the House of Lords in regard to the Bill for the provision of meals for children in schools. I supported that Bill, and I hope that I did something towards carrying it through this House. But I cannot forget that the House of Lords were supported in their action by the almost unanimous vote of nearly all the school boards in Scotland, those school boards being representative bodies. I think it is rather hard on the House of Lords that they should be blamed for following the lead of the great representative education authorities of Scotland. I will not endeavour to go back on the long story of the supposed misdoings of the House of Lords. I hope that I may be allowed to say, with every respect to what is the opinion of the Labour Party, that they are hardly entitled to expect the House of Commons and the House of Lords to bow before them, and accept all their wishes without debate or controversy, or without delay. I hope that I may be allowed to make that observation, because hon. Members below the gangway know that I have assisted them on former occasions, and I may be able to render them the like service in the years to come. We have to deal now with the question of a single Chamber. This old country has a long history and an infinite variety of interests, and when it is proposed to have a single Chamber, I challenge anyone to show a single instance in civilisation where a single Chamber has continued during any length of time worth reckoning, or where it has given satisfaction or commanded confidence. I believe that no such instance exists. But this I do say, that before a Bill of this kind is brought before the House, such cases, if there are any, ought to be cited in its support. This old country is not like a new colony, where you take a desert island and fertilise it. This is not a country where you may try any experiment you please, changing and modifying, and waiting the results. Here our institutions are so deeply seated, they are so fixed in the affections of the people, that it is both rash, and, I think, foolish, to endeavour to create in this country an institution so

1221
novel to civilisation as a single Chamber. I confess I was somewhat surprised to hear the citation by the Prime Minister yesterday of the Resolution passed in the republican times of this country. I think that the right hon. Gentleman fixed his eyes too much on one Resolution of the Commonwealth period, and he did not consider what was the result of that Resolution. There was one instrument which we see in this Chamber every day, namely, the mace. The result of that Resolution was that the mace for a time had an ill fate, for it was sent off in the most unceremonious manner by Oliver Cromwell, not to reappear until the House of Lords reappeared. We know well enough, without going into details, the history and the troubles of those times after the passing of that Resolution. The country then had to deal not with one Parliament after another chosen in the same fashion according to our modern usage, but with Parliament after Parliament, each more strange than the last; and the Long Parliament of Oliver Cromwell was sent to the country in the manner which I have described, and which caused the mace to be sent out of the House too. I do not wish to dwell on the Constitution of the United States, but having given some time to the study of the subject I would beseech hon. Members, if I may say so, to devote their time and industry to a study of that most interesting Constitution. Each State in America has its own legislature, but the Constitution limits the powers of the State legislature to a very remarkable degree and extent. The effect of it is that any drastic change made by the State legislature cannot be carried out without an amendment of the Constitution, which amendment can only be accomplished with some difficulty and with full discussion. I do not wish to-night to make any remarks of a theoretical kind upon democracies. We know that a monarchy requires checks. An aristocracy requires a check. That which a wise country will do is to devise some check which will save the democracy form its own excesses, give them time for consideration, and prevent those rash proceedings which certainly do occur in every Assembly, whatever its constitution may be. There is another considera-
1222
tion which has occurred to me. I do not know how far I carry the sympathies of the House with me, but I confess that I do view with very great dread indeed the limitation of debate. I believe that limitation is a great danger to this country and is going to bring forth issues of serious moment. What system we shall have if the Lords are abolished it is not for me to say. There is, however, one method, that of proportionate re presentation, which I am perfectly sure will, in the next few years, undergo a discussion of a most practical character. I am very much inclined to think that we can only be secured from this violent oscillation of public opinion by some system of proportionate representation. I will not pursue that subject to-night, but in the future those who are working in favour of this new system must give the most careful consideration to this part of the case. There is another method to which reference was made by the Prime Minister yesterday, and that is the referendum. We already have that system in Switzerland. I will not dwell upon this system now, but I should like to read one extract from a text-book which I think is worthy of the attention of the House. It is from Adam and Cunningham's "Switzerland"—
"Extreme measures, whether radical or reactionary, have no chance whatever of being accepted by the people, who, while in a manner fulfilling the functions of a Second Chamber, have infinitely more weight than such a body usually possesses, even if it be thoroughly representative and chosen by universal suffrage."
That is a most remarkable comment upon the system of referendum. There are two remarks more which I desire to make. These are the British Isles, but the British Isles are not alone concerned. We have Colonies, and we must cast our eye, when we change our system of government, upon the Colonies, and we must be quite sure that any instability or want of firmness in our institutions here may not do much to weaken the confidence of the Colonies in the Mother Country. We have also to remember that we are not solitary as regards the Colonies, and we are still less solitary as regards the continent of Europe, the shores of which are within sight of our own. If we have an uncertain Government here which changes from one extreme to the other the confidence in the

1223
Government of the country will be greatly impaired, and we shall fall, as no patriot desires we should fall, in the confidence and respect of other nations. I am glad to have had this opportunity of making these few simple observations, because I believe that the problem which has been introduced into this House is one of a most gigantic character. I sometimes think that those of us who have been engaged in legislative work for a long time, and have had our thoughts deeply engaged on the subjects which have come before us, do not always sufficiently consider the result of our own action. The question which is now before us is one respecting which we must look forward to the most distant future. It is an occasion when we must look around to foreign countries and across distant seas, and it is not until we have considered all these relations as well as our own concerns at home that we shall be able to arrive at a conclusion worthy of this country, and worthy of the great difficulties with which this and every constitutional problem must necessarily be intermixed.
*MR. AGNEW: As this is my maiden speech, I must ask the kind indulgence of the House in the few words I am about to say. I feel that we have had no defence from the Opposition side of the House of the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves in regard to our relationship with the House of Lords when a Liberal Government happens to be in power. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday claimed that the House of Lords always did its duty. He justified their position by the rejection of the Home Rule Bill which was brought in by the Government of 1892, and claimed that upon that occasion the Lords represented the will of the people. It ought to have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the first place, the Parliament of 1892 was returned by a very narrow majority, and the divisions which took place in this House also had very narrow majorities. Therefore, much as the Liberal Party regretted the rejection of the Home Rule Bill they accepted it as part of their destiny. Compare that state, of things with the position in 1906, when the Liberal Party was returned to power with an unprecedented majority,
1224
when two Bills, about which there had been so much discussion, were rejected by the Lords, notwithstanding the large majorities by which they were passed through this House. I do not think that there is any analogy at all between the two cases. Surely it cannot be contended by the Opposition that the Education Bill of last year was not thoroughly discussed and digested in the country, because the country had the four years which intervened prior to the passing of that Bill to form their opinions as to the wisdom of that measure. [OPPOSITION Cries of "No."] The Education Act now in force was passed in 1902, and the general election took place in 1906, and therefore, the country had ample time to consider the working of that measure. In my county, at any rate, I know that this was the great question before the electors, until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham entered upon his fiscal expeditions. Up to that period it was the Education Bill, and that only, which excited the people. My hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe said yesterday that even with a single Chamber there would be no tendency to hasty legislation. If my hon. friend was referring to projects started by the Liberal Party and the Labour Party I can thoroughly agree with him. I do not think, however, that it can be contended that that should be accepted as a universal proposition by the House. I remember that the 1900 Parliament passed a measure which was hasty and ill-considered, and I cannot understand why the House of Lords in its wisdom did not, at any rate, send that Bill back again to be reconsidered by the. House of Commons. The Bill I am alluding to is the Licensing Bill. I was under the impression that the Bill was really brought forward in consequence of certain elections which had taken place just about that time, and which brought a certain amount of fear to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who was then Prime Minister. Certainly no explanation has yet come from the Opposition as to why the House of Lords, acting as a revising Chamber, did not then exercise its powers, whilst on the two occasions last year they did. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone was quite can did in

1225
his speech, for he admitted that the House of Lords was a Conservative body, and he said that if the Conservative Party in this House adopted a constructive policy we Liberals should have reason to complain of the Lords' unfair treatment. Now the late Conservative Government certainly promoted legislation of a kind, but the Education and Licensing Acts are regarded by the people as being of a destructive, rather than a constructive character, and yet were accepted at once by the House of Lords. I think it must be generally admitted that the House of Lords has long ago ceased to be impartial. Probably it was impartial in the old days of Whigs and Tories, but those days have gone by, and at the present moment the House of Lords is out of touch with the great masses of the people. How the Upper Chamber can claim, in any sense whatever, to understand what the will of the people is I am utterly at a loss to understand. I know that there are honourable exceptions, but there are a large number of Peers who not only do not know what the desires and aspirations of the people are, but who take no interest whatever in public affairs. And yet when a wicked Liberal Government brings forward some measure distasteful to the Tory Party, all those gentlemen come up from the country, absolutely regardless of the public interest, to vote with their leader against Liberal measures, just as the clergy rush up in flocks to outvote the tutors at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University said yesterday that the Prime Minister desired the supersession of the House of Lords as a legislative Chamber. I do not think that we on this side of the House need to be very much frightened about that. Personally, I am not frightened. We have already restricted the House of Lords very much in its power of legislation, and I desire to go a great deal further. I cannot say that I agree entirely with the view taken by the Labour Party on this question. I am still a Second Chamber man. but I do not want a legislative. Second Chamber. The hon. Member said it was equivalent to voting for abolition of the House of Lords. I think the same argument might have been employed 250 years ago when the
1226
question of finance was entirely removed from the purview of the other Chamber. I have no fear whatever on that score, and if it is a matter of going on as we are doing now, or resolving to have one Chamber, I would prefer the latter course. I think it is quite possible that legislation will enable us to have a Second Chamber with only a limited veto. I should like to see noble Lords elegible for seats in this House. That has been the wish of some of them, and I am sure that those whose opinions are worth having would be welcomed here. At any rate, after a contested election, I should say that they would know something of the desires of the people, and that is a claim which they cannot make at the present moment. If any noble Lord would go to my constituency, he would get a very clear and definite idea of what the people want on this great question. I am not talking now of unreasoning and unthinking people, but of working men who have reasoned out the question for themselves, not in consequence of the events of last year, but during the last twenty years. One of the first questions which I was asked when I presented myself as a candidate for the district I have the honour to represent was: "What is your opinion on the question of the veto of the House of Lords?" I am perfectly sure if I had not stated that I was opposed to the present veto, and in favour of only a very limited veto, I would not have been accepted as a candidate, notwithstanding my views in regard to free trade, education, and Chinese labour. The question of the reform of the House of Lords was handed on to us by that great constitutionalist, Mr. Gladstone, eighteen years ago, and I look upon the bringing forward of this Resolution as the commencement of the duty laid upon us by him. I am not afraid of the outcome. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan, for whose opinion on many points I have the greatest respect, seemed to think that we were going to have no Second Chamber if we adopted this Resolution. I think that opinion can be attributed to the usual fear entertained by the Conservative Party when any change is proposed in the Constitution of the country. The hon. Member for Cambridge University said the Lords always gave way when it could be shown that the House of Commons

1227
represented the deliberate judgment of the people. It has been asked—Who is to decide what the deliberate judgment of the people is? I can conceive of no other means of discovering that fact except a general election. You probably do not discover it at a by-election, but surely at a general election you get at the desires and the will of the people. At the last election the people sent a majority of Liberal and Labour Members here in order to achieve certain things, one being a change in the constitution of the House of Lords. We are just as much within our rights in saying that the veto of the House of Lords should be restricted now as our ancestors were in taking away financial questions from the consideration of that House. It must be admitted that as times change our Constitution must change with them, otherwise it would be all the worse for the Constitution. I think we must admit that the House of Lords must become a diminishing power in the Constitution. It is bound to be so in the natural order of events. I say that we the Liberal Party who support the Resolution of the Prime Minister are the true Conservatives in the highest sense of the word. I am entirely opposed to a man having the power to legislate merely because he is the son of his father. I recognise, however, that that is not a question which falls under this Resolution. I can only trust that noble Lords will themselves come to the decision that the hereditary principle must for once and all be stopped in regard to the other House. I shall vote for the Resolution with the greatest possible pleasure without any fear of any untoward event happening in our old country. I thank the Prime Minister for bringing forward the Resolution, and I trust that it will be followed by legislation at no distant date.
*SIR HENRY KIMBER: We have before us two remedies for a supposed malady of a constitutional character. The diagnosis of the two doctors is agreed upon, but the remedies are very different. The remedy prescribed by the Prime Minister is to treat the patient as one who has no reason, or who has been bereft of reason, and to put him in confinement so that he may thereby be prevented from taking any deliberative action in the affairs of the State.
1228
The remedy proposed by the other is of a more Draconian character, and that is his immediate extinction without a hearing, without trial, and without mercy. There is this in common between the two proposals. They base their propositions on the will of the people. In those days the people are supposed to have control of their own affairs. It is recognised that they have the right to control their own affairs, but they do not actually possess the power. I would ask the Prime Minister if he were here whether, in the terms of his Resolution, he does not require to assume as a postulate that the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives in this House. In effect, it says, Let it be assumed that the will of the people is expressed by the representatives of the people sent to this House. The Amendment of which I gave notice, but which on account of the order of the proceedings it will not be possible for me to move, propounds two propositions. One is that the present Parliament, expressed by a simple majority in this House, does not necessarily represent the will of the people. [Laughter.] Well, we shall see, and I am going to quote very high Liberal authority in the argument I am going to put before you. The Leaders of the Liberal Party in this House legitimately boast of having 512 supporters. The opposite Party have the remainder. But by what votes in the country were they elected? About 6,000,000 out of the 7,500,000 electors of the country voted at the last general election. The 512 representatives who are supposed to form the Liberal Party were elected by 3,400,000—I am stating round numbers for convenience, but I have the exact figures here—which gives an average to each Member of 6,629. The 158 members of the Unionist Party were elected by rather over 2,500,000, which gives an average of over 16,000 voters to each. It will be seen if that number of votes had been equally distributed among the Unionists and the Government Party, instead of the Government Party having the majority of 354 of which they boast, they would just have a majority of ninety-four. I am endeavouring to be fair. What is the effect of that upon the majorities of the Government? The Government claim that they do represent the majority

1229
of the voters in the country, but they represent different majorities from that which they are entitled to represent in divisions. It will be seen that the difference between 354 and ninety-four is 260. Therefore, it is an unreasonable argument to put forward that in every division in which the Government can boast of a majority they represent the will of the people as distinguished from the will of the House. If you deduct 260 from 354, you may have a chance of having an approximate idea of the will of the people outside. I have taken the trouble to analyse all the divisions in which the Government have obtained a majority since 24th May. There have been sixty-seven divisions, in none of which the Government attained a majority of 260, and in thirteen they only obtained a majority of 200 or more. I think I am entitled to say that that is not an expression of the will of the people, for they were really in a minority. I do not say this as a mere Party argument. An anolagous thing happened at the general election in 1886, when the advantage was on our side; and so it has happened at every general election for the last forty years. Therefore the least I can say is, that the will of the people is not certainly expressed either by the method of representation in the House, or by the divisions taken in the House. It is easy to make your conclusions right by framing your premises as you please, but is this the way in which the will of the people can be represented in this House, and on which a vast change should be made in our Constitution which has existed for many centuries to the great advantage to the State? I am convinced that if there was a proposition submitted to the country that the House of Lords should be abolished an immense majority would be found against it. But secondly, it is not only in this Parliament, but in any Parliament elected with our present conditions of representation that the will of the people cannot be really represented. Let me give a few facts which are incontrovertible, and which have been placed by me before the country in a variety of ways. There is great disparity in the constituencies in the country. For instance, there are three
1230
constituencies which send only three Members to this House, while there are thirty-five constituencies which have rather a less number of electors than the three constituencies I have mentioned but which send thirty-five representatives to this House. Is that represention of the people? Is it fair that one constituency with 47,000 electors should send the same number of representatives to this House as another constituency which had only 1,500 electors? Can the result of that be said in any fashion to represent the will of the people? Take the broad facts. Under our present representation one-half of the electors in the country are only allowed to send 225 representatives, while the other half send no less than 445 Members to the House of Commons. It is quite true that the political questions which divide Parties do not divide constituencies in precisely the same way. How can it be said that there is any proportion between the divisions in this House under any circumstances which corresponds with the proportion of the people outside? One other fact. There are 670 Members in this House. One-half, 335, represent 5,100,000 electors, the other half represent 2,300,000 electors. How can it be said that these represent the will of the people? I submit that it can be said with certainty that this House does not represent the will of the people, and that the Prime Minister's proposition based on that postulate vanishes into thin air. I contend that our present representative system in this House ought to be reformed; and that that reform ought to precede any attempt to tinker with the ancient Constitution of this old country. It is admitted on the other side that the House of Lords is useful for the assistance it gives in legislation; it has been attacked because it has not done what it was constitute I to do. It cannot be asserted for a moment that the House of Lords has violated any part of its duties in amending or rejecting any Bills we send up to them. The raison d'etre of a second House is that it may differ from the lower House. If always bound to agree, why is it wanted to examine questions at all? This outcry against the House of Lords is merely vindictive. There are many unworthy Members in the House of Lords, just as

1231
there may be unworthy Members in this House, and in all other classes of society; but if the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Lords are looked at, we cannot detect any signs of interference by unworthy Members in our legislation as a whole. I believe that the country has never had any reason to complain on that score. At all events, the question contained in the Prime Minister's proposition should not be decided until the House of Lords itself takes into consideration whether it can reform itself, or until the representation in this House is reformed.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Many Members on the Liberal Benches would agree with the hon. Member for Wandsworth as to the necessity for a measure for redistribution; but that is no argument against the pressing and more important needs of a measure for muzzling the House of Lords. All measures of reform cannot be carried together; one thing must be done at a time. When one hears arguments like that one recalls the phrase uttered by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone that if in a few years hence we discuss this question of the abolition of the House of Lords we shall be trifling with our character for sincerity. The question is whether the other side have any character for sincerity left to trifle with. I think there is a great deal to be said for the referendum, but I think the Prime Minister has in view a different kind of referendum from that cherished by the noble Lord Possibly he would have a referendum with the House of Lords left in its present position, so that the referendum would never be employed against a Conservative Government.
LORD R. CECIL: If the hon. Member had done me the honour to listen to me he would remember that I said that the subject he is now dealing with should be provided for.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: If the noble Lord means that the referendum should be applicable to every measure I retract what I said, but so long as the House of Lords subsists in its present form the referendum would be very unsatisfactory. The Amendment proposed by my hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle
1232
has our greatest sympathy. But suppose we declare that the House of Lords should be abolished, how much nearer are we to abolishing it? The hon. Member seems to think that by sounding his trumpet outside the walls of Jericho he will cause them to fall down. But they will not do so, and the practical advantage, therefore, seems to be on the side of the Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister. We must take into account the warning which the Prime Minister uttered, and I hope the hon. Member will take it to heart. If, then, I support the Resolution it is from no lack of hostility to the institution which the hon. Member wishes to get rid of. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone has expressed a preference for the Amendment, doubtless because he thinks that the tentative, gradual, and conciliatory method proposed by the Prime Minister will lead to effective action, whereas a declaration that the House of Lords should be abolished would leave us where we are. In a discussion which has ranged over all the aspects of the case one is bound to come to the question of the purpose for which a Second Chamber should exist and the justification for a Second Chamber. The Leader of the Opposition, with a good deal of cynicism or a good deal of candour, declared that the will of the people of this country could never be known. The question raised by "the swing of the pendulum" only doubles the difficulty. Supposing there is the swing of the pendulum, it is impossible for us to get the benefit of the return of the pendulum, because the other side of the House by means of the Lords prevent us from doing so. The Leader of the Opposition claims that the House of Lords opposes destructive measures; but the impeachment is that it is always ready to pass any measure, constructive or destructive, sent up by one Party, and that the Conservative. But in spite of this claim that it opposes destructive legislation, by its aid one of the most flourishing of the country's democratic institutions—the school board—has been destroyed without notice. Therefore, we say that the Upper Chamber does not represent either of the two mediums between the extremes of the swing of the pendulum. It is perfectly true that a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the will of the people. There is,

1233
in one sense, no such thing as the will of the people, but there is such a thing as a balance of the will of the people, and the only way in which you can get that balance is by providing the best machinery, but quite a different machinery from that provided by the House of Lords. It has been said by the hon. Baronet that the House of Lords did represent the will of the people in rejecting the Home Rule Bill; but if he had carried his investigations further he would know that it is not possible to find out the will of the people so long as you have the system of plural voting which the House of Lords seeks to conserve. The plural votes at the 1895 election more than wiped out the majority by virtue of which it is claimed that the rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords was in accordance with the will of the country. If you really reckon by votes there is no reason to doubt that the majority of the people of this country have always been in favour of Home Rule, and if the rejection of the Home Rule Bill is the only justification which hon. Members can offer for the House of Lords that justification disappears altogether. I grant that the hon. Member for Lanarkshire had a case when he sought to set up proportional representation. Other hon. Members have Amendments on the Paper to the same effect, and I think the Party opposite would be well advised if, instead of defending the indefensible, they were to argue seriously for a system of proportional representation. The idea of a Second Chamber depends upon feudalism, and I should like to say a word upon the question of whether we should have a Second Chamber at all. New Brunswick has abolished its Second Chamber without injury, and I think Ontario and British Columbia never had one. The institution of a Second Chamber in most cases is a pure superstition, based upon the practice of our Legislature, where its survival is purely fortuitous. It is practically a device to thwart democracy. The British Constitution in time of European turmoil presented a stable quality, and as other States were unstable they assumed that it was because they had not a Second Chamber. The Second Chamber is, however, in most double-chambered States a superfluity. There is one absurdity inherent in the idea of a Second Chamber that it is not
1234
democratic. This was pointed out by John Stuart Mill, who, came to the conclusion that the true check upon a Chamber representing the power of the people must lie in the Chamber itself. If there is proportional representation so much the more easy is it to get a proper representation. I know that I am arguing in advance of opinion. But surely if the democratic Chamber is made the sole chamber, the sense of responsibility, not only in the Member himself, but in his constituency, will be raised, and the consequence will be to secure, on the one hand, a more careful choice of representatives, and, on the other hand, a more careful deliberation among Members sent to this House. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division said that if you have a single Chamber you must leave more time for deliberation, but if you have a single Chamber you will have more time to deliberate, because the Opposition of the other House will be destroyed and the time saved.
MR. LYTTELTON: In the able speech to which we have just listened the centre of this subject was struck when the hon. Member denounces the necessity of the Second Chamber at all. I must admit that the particular instances the hon. Member gave us, which are against the entire experience of the civilised world, namely, the instances of the Legislative Assemblies of New Brunswick and British Columbia, were not very convincing when considered in relation to the very wide experience which we have received from the past in this matter. They do not at any rate convince me when I put them alongside the remarkable admission made by the Attorney-General that this country is at present the freest democracy in the world. Are you prepared to interfere with the security of the present constitution in this drastic way in order to give still greater freedom to this democracy? The moment for proposing this very serious change is singularly inopportune. The House of Lords have shown themselves not opposed to wise changes, and a Committee of the Lords, with Lord Rosebery in the chair, is now sitting to consider the improvements which might be made. The Government proposal is a most extraordinary one, having regard to the state

1235
of affairs. The Government proposes to leave the House of Lords with all the anomalies, which undoubtedly exist, and to tear away from them the responsibility which is the guarantee of their character. As to the sacred character of these conferences, that is a strange way of dealing with these questions. When once issue is joined the struggle ought to take place, if at all, in the light of day and not in the dark. But, further than that, surely once the issue is joined between the two Houses, effective criticism is quite useless if all power to enforce that criticism or to bring it to a test is taken away. Under the guise of moderation the Prime Minister's proposal is intended to hoodwink the public into the belief that no serious and drastic change is before them. These methods were attempted in the Irish Bill, but they deceived nobody, certainly not the Irish. I trust the present methods of bringing this great constitutional change before the country will not deceive anyone here. Everybody agrees that our Constitution is all-powerful so far as it has power to reflect the truest, soundest, and most permanent aspirations of the democracy when they are found in the verdict given in the various elections. But the fluctuations of public opinion as shown in general elections are of the most extraordinary kind. On every occasion the electorate is rent by contending motives and conflicting interests, and the only thing certain is that the electorate will not, as a whole, go very long the same way. These fluctuations are inevitable. They are within the experience of every man in the House. They will always continue, and I do not think it will be possible for anybody to say that an opinion that may be held for one period of five years will be held by the electorate during a subsequent period of five years. But these fluctuations should if possible be excluded from the State. If these violent fluctuations and oscillations of opinion took place in the State no one would deny that they would destroy its credit, impair its influence abroad and in the Colonies, and weaken its authority at home. In fact, if the liberty which the people have of expressing their opinions at general elections was really to influence the whole policy
1236
of the State it would justly be called in the words of a great philosopher—
"Not true liberty, but the desolate freedom of the wild ass."
The House of Lords, as everyone must recognise, has its faults, but there is a note of stability and continuity in it. I think everybody will say that we ought to have some institution in this country, some portion of the Constitution, which should be effective to carry into the future some, at any rate, of the traditions of the past, traditions that we do not wish to part with. We ought to have some institution which should be the custodian of our traditions and customs, that ought to be kept clear from the strife and aims of the hour; and if the House will reflect for a moment they will see that at present we have no other resource than the House of Lords. Surely it is vital that hon. Members should have something alternative to suggest in view of the circumstances. I think that we ought to remember that the nation is composite in its constitution, and its great interest is to enlist, not one, but all classes, in its service. The best strength is to be obtained by drawing the best qualities of all classes of the country into its service. I say that it is an excellent thing, which ought to be borne in mind in considering this large constitutional question, that much of our progress is derived from the varied services which are rendered by the different classes. The United States, though they have succeeded in many things, have lamentably failed in enlisting the assistance of the leisured and cultured classes, the most educated classes, not to say the richer classes, in their service. British institutions have been singularly successful in that particular matter. There are dangers which were pointed out by the hon. Member for Salford, and I freely admit that there are dangers in the very great ascendancy of wealth even in this country. Those dangers have exhibited themselves in the most lamentable manner in the United States.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs)was understood to dissent from the observation that the cultured and educated

1237
classes did not take part in public life in the United States.
MR. LYTTELTON: I do not say that there is a want of culture among those who take part in public life in America; it would be very impertinent of me to do so; but I say that as a general rule—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India is in agreement with me, but I am entitled to make the statement without, at any rate, interruption—as a broad rule the United States have not been successful in enlisting in the Senate and in Congress the best educated and most efficient men belonging to the nation. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentle-man does not share that view, but I think, speaking with due deference to him, that what I have stated is very generally admitted. ["No."] Of course, I do not for a moment deny that there are many excellent and great exceptions to the general rule. It is easy, perfectly easy, to deride primogeniture, heredity, and title. Any of those things are easily made to look absurd by those who argue that we could do as well without them. But I submit that though logic may be on your side in that matter, we have on our side all the history. Whatever may be said on the subject of primogeniture and heredity, historically it has been a very practical device to get the best use you can out of the upper classes. In the United Kingdom money and titles and position have always been regarded as carrying with them, and it is so today, the obligation of public service. In the United States I venture to say that that is not the rule; whereas it is the tradition of old English families to serve the State, the traditions of the best of American families is commercial ascendancy pushed to a very far extent. Public service in America takes the form of the gift of large sums of money—cheques, no doubt, very handsomely and very freely given. But I think that the nation which depends on gifts of money for service has no security that such service will continue to be rendered, whereas the State which relies on the recognition of the obligation to render loyal public service is in a sounder and better position. The Attorney-General derided the existence of a permanent opinion in the country separate and distinct from that which is promulgated at general elections, and he
1238
said, moreover, that the Lords were not in the least qualified to judge of that opinion even if it existed. First, I would say, though I admit that it is a difficult thing to get at, that this separate opinion does exist. I say that there are certain great principles which are settled in this country, which have passed into general acceptance, and are quite different from those fluctuating and oscillating opinions which are evident at the time of general elections. There are certain questions which, no doubt, the public think deeply upon, and which they think permanently upon, and the real function of a Second Chamber is to judge rightly when the public are really possessed of one of those strong and permanent opinions, and to give effect to it if it is in consonance with the decisions given by this House. Nobody can question that this is an extremely difficult thing at which to arrive, but I am perfectly certain that any such Second Chamber must be judged according as it arrives at the solution of that question generally. It has been observed on several occasions in this debate that the Lords are absolutely incompetent, by reason of their position, to give any true opinion on the permanent and settled convictions of the country. I do not think that such an argument can stand the test of facts. In the first place those who have had long experience of public life and of the work connected with the Government of the country know that there is hereditary skill in dealing with political questions. It is therefore a delusion to suppose that the House of Lords in great matters is not at any rate well qualified by reason of the occupations of its various members to judge of the position in these matters. Take for instance the number of Peers who have served in this House. In the House of Lords there are 166 men who have served in the House of Commons, 172 who have served in various offices of the State, nearly 200 who have served in the Navy or Army, twenty-six Judges and eminent lawyers, twenty-nine Colonial Governors and Ministers, and 140 mayors and county councillors. Of course, a proper allowance must be made for duplication; what the figures show are the numbers of different qualifications of the Members of the Home of Lords, and after you make the necessary deductions, there still remain a large number who have not only large experience in public

1239
affairs but have been selected because of their services in this House, and because of their knowledge, as mayors and county councillors, of local government, to take their place in the House of Lords. I venture to think that that body, constituted as it is, must be regarded as well qualified to judge of the permanent opinion of the country—indeed as well qualified as any body which could well be conceived. I admit the difficulty of the task, but how often have the House of Lords gone wrong in discharging it? Extremely seldom. If the last twenty or thirty years be taken, I think it will be found that there are only three important cases that can be referred to. It is rather soon to judge whether last year they were right or not in amending the Education Bill. I have my own firm opinion on that matter; but if you test public opinion by the declarations of public meetings held in regard to the matter, I think you will say that the Lords were in the right. If I may use Oliver Cromwell's expression—
"There was a great hubbub in this House, but not a dog barked outside."
But I will turn away from the Education Bill and the action of the Lords with regard to it as one that I have no right to dogmatise upon, because it is not yet finally concluded. If we turn from that question to the subject referred to by the hon. Member who preceded me, namely, the question of Home Rule, I think he was wrong in saying that the decision of the country was not conclusively in favour of the judgment exercised by the Lords. The hon. Gentleman certainly cannot be a consistent supporter of the right hon. Gentleman if he says so, because not merely was their decision affirmed in the election of 1895, but the question of Home Rule was wrecked by the action of the Liberal Party, who went to the country in January, 1906, and did not dare to place Home Rule before the electors as a part of their programme. We, therefore, do not merely think the decision of the House of Lords has been acquiesced in for nearly seventeen years, but we have the great representatives of Liberalism who sit opposite to me not venturing to go to the country and explain what some of them say was their own true opinion. The country had not accepted Home Rule, and they did not dare to put
1240
forward as a substantive part of their policy that which the House of Lords had rejected and which rejection the country endorsed. There is only one other matter which. I need to mention. It is said that there is no penalty upon the House of Lords if they make a mistake. My own strong opinion is that if the House of Lords were to go wrong on several occasions their position could not be satisfactorily maintained or justified in this House. If the House of Lords was constantly making mistakes in pronouncing upon those highly conjectural problems nobody could say that they would be a satisfactory Assembly. My submission is that the past has shown that the Lords have generally been right in deciding upon those problems.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): A fatality seems to associate me with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Whether I have had occasion to address the House on the subject of South Africa or Newfoundland, it has almost always been in reply to a speech of his. Even when we discuss the distant New Hebrides, outside the authority of the British Empire altogether, there is the right hon. Gentleman. And now, when the Under-Secretary for the Colonies is permitted to return to the congenial atmosphere of domestic affairs, the right hon. Gentleman again presents himself. I do not think, however, that I have any reason to complain, because the House will admit that when the right hon. Gentleman intervenes in our debates he always speaks with moderation, and addresses himself to the real arguments which underlie the ordinary commonplaces of Party controversy. The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech devoted to the great constitutional issues which are raised by the Resolution and the Amendment before the House. I will not venture at any length to follow him or my hon. friend the Member for Tyne-side who preceded him into an abstract constitutional discussion, because, after all, we have an extremely practical issue before us, and I would like to say a few words from the rule-of-thumb point of view. It seems to me that this great constitutional question must be looked at from

1241
three points of view. First of all, there is the issue between the two Houses; there is the issue between the two political Parties; and then there is the national issue. The quarrel which is now open between the House of Lords and the House of Commons arises from two events—the general election of 1906, and the rejection of the measures of the new Liberal Government, culminating in the destruction of the Education Bill by the House of Lords at the end of that year. Either of these events is memorable in itself, but placed in juxtaposition and considered together they have a multiplied significance. The general election of 1906 was the most vehement expression of public opinion which this generation has known; and that expression of public will was countered in the December of the same year by the most arbitrary and uncompromising assertion of aristocratic privilege upon record. Let the House think of it. The process of the election of Members of Parliament is extremely elaborate. The candidates go about the country for two or three weeks saying all they have to say for themselves in the different constituencies which they are contesting; at the end of that most exhaustive discussion there is an elaborate process of voting; the returns are counted with the most scrupulous care; and as the result 670 Members, representing 6,000,000 of voters and many more who take a deep interest in public affairs but have no votes, are returned to the House of Commons in the name of the people of Great Britain and Ireland. The new Parliament assembles. Scarcely any question at the election was more a test question, so far as the supporters of the Government are concerned, than the question of the amendment of the education system of the country. A Bill dealing with education is brought forward as the principal measure of the first session of the now Parliament. Weeks are occupied in its discussion. It represents the fulfilment of the election pledges of every hon. Gentleman who supported it. The Bill is supported by perhaps the largest majority that ever sent a Bill from this House to another place; it was not a revolutionary Bill, to turn the world upside down and inside out; on the contrary, it was a Bill which, if vitiated in any respect, was vitiated by the element of compromise. Immense
1242
concessions were made in it, and rightly, I think, to conscientious and agitated minorities. It was a Bill which so moderate and consistent a statesman as the Duke of Devonshire, of whoso ill-health the House learns with grave concern, urged the House of Lords to pass into law. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition told us the other day that it was the habit of His Majesty's Government to introduce Bills which they did not mean to pass. No one—not even the right hon. Gentleman himself—can say that the Government have not earnestly desired to pass the Education Bill. Every concession that could be conceived was made, but to what purpose? After the House of Commons had humbled itself before the House of Lords, after we had gone to the extreme limit of concession which self respect, which a proper sense of the dignity of this House, and a due observance of the pledges of the Liberal Party permitted, the House of Lords curtly, bluntly, uncharitably, and harshly flung the Bill out in our faces, mutilated and destroyed. I do not wish to import an element of heat into this discussion, but I respectfully submit to the Conservative Party that that act on the part of the House of Lords places them in a new position—a new position in the sense that never before had their old position been taken up so nakedly, so brazenly, and so uncompromisingly. It is true that we have this excuse put before us with much suavity of language in these debates—we are told that the House of Lords seeks to interpret the will of the people, and it is explained that by the will of the people what is meant is the persistent, sub-conscious, and permanent will of the people, as opposed to any articulate expression of that will. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition told us that what he meant by the persistent will was the will of the people expressed continuously over a period of thirty years. That is what he called "democracy properly understood." From the House of Commons point of view, having regard to that part of the question which concerns the issue between the two Houses, we repudiate emphatically the claim of the other House to what the French call faire l'ange—to "play the angel," to know better than the people themselves what the people want, to have a greater authority to

1243
speak in the name of the people than their representatives sent to Parliament by the elaborate process I have described. I say that to dispute the authority of a newly-elected Parliament is something very like an incitement to violence on the part of the other House. [A laugh.] The noble Lord laughs, but we are anxious to convince him and his friends that we are in earnest. We go through all the processes which the Constitution prescribes, we produce an enormous majority, and we express the opinion of that majority, but still the noble Lord and other noble Lords less intelligent, but more remote, tell us that they are not convinced. What steps do they suggest that we should take in order to bring home to them the earnestness of our plea? What steps do they suggest that the people should take in order to assert their wishes? I hold entirely by what I said that to dispute the authority of an elected body fresh from its constituents is a deliberate incitement to the adoption of lawless and unconstitutional methods. I say that the assertion which the House of Lords made at the end of last year is an intolerable assertion, and on the whole I believe the country is altogether unprepared for it. I confess, if I may hazard a personal opinion, that I wonder it was thought worth while to risk an institution which has lasted so many centuries in the very skirmish line of Party warfare. I am aware there is a special reason for the temerity of the House of Lords. It is not a very complimentary reason to the Members or the leaders of the late Government, but their position is that the Conservative Party cannot be worse than they are. No matter what they do, nor how they are hated or reprobated by the country, they cannot possibly occupy a more humiliating and unpleasant position than they did after the last two years of the last Administration. Consequently having reached the low water mark of political fortune they think they can afford to be a little reckless, and that at the very worst they will be returned in their present numerical proportions. That is a very natural explanation of their action; but if we for our part were to accept the assertion lately made by the House of Lords—an assertion which is the furthest point to which aristocratic privilege has attained in modern times—that assertion itself would
1244
become only the starting point for a whole new series of precedents and of constitutional retrogressions; and worse than that, if by any chance, having raised this issue, we were to be defeated upon it, if having placed this Resolution on the records of the House we were to fail to give effect to it, and we were to suffer an electoral reverse as the conclusion of it, then I say goodbye to the power of the House of Commons. All that long process of advance in democratic institutions which has accompanied the growth of the power of the House of Commons, and which has also been attended by an expansion of the circles of comfort and culture among the people of this country—all that long process which has gone steadily onward for 200 years, and which has almost exclusively occupied the politics of the nineteenth century—will have reached its culmination. It will have come in contact with that barrier of which we have heard so much in this debate. The tide will have turned, and in the recoil of the waters they will gradually leave exposed again, altered no doubt by the conditions of the age, all the old assertions of aristocratic and plutocratic domination which we had fondly hoped had been engulfed for ever in the flowing waters.
The hon. Member for Fareham to-day made an interesting speech in which he included a valuable disquisition on the American Constitution. I noticed that the hon. Member rebuked some of those with whom he acts for having received this debate with something like a flavour of levity, and he was quite right. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would be well advised to treat this Resolution seriously. This Parliament is still young, but there are some things at which they have laughed which have already become accomplished facts. I could not have during the past eighteen months listened to their taunts about the permanence of Chinese labour without reflecting now with satisfaction that Chinese labour is going. Yes, and other people may follow. Let me say this in reference to the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and which was seconded in a brief and powerful speech by the hon. Member for Preston. We are only at the beginning of this struggle. We are not necessarily committed to every detail of the proposal; we are

1245
opening the first lines for a great siege, we have to sap up to the advanced parallels, to establish our batteries, and at no distant date open our bombardment. It may be many months before we shall be able to discern where there is a practicable breach, but the assault will come in due time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said he welcomed this contest with great confidence. I wonder if hon. Members opposite realise, to use an expressive vulgarism, what they are "letting themselves in for" when this question comes to be fought out on every platform in every constituency in the country? They will not have to defend an ideal Second Chamber; they will not be able to confine themselves to airy generalities about a bicameral system and its advantages; they will have to defend this Second Chamber as it is—one-sided, hereditary, unpurged, unrepresentative, irresponsible, absentee. They will have to defend it with all its anomalies, all its absurdities, and all its personal bias; they will have to defend it with all its achievements that have darkened the pages of the history of England. And let me say that considerable constitutional authorities have not considered that the policy on which we have embarked in moving this Resolution is unreasonable. Mr. Bagehot says of the House of Lords:—
"It may lose its veto as the Crown has lost its veto. If most of its members neglect their duties, if all its members continue to be of one class, and that not quite the best; if its doors arc shut against genius that cannot found a family, and ability which has not £5,000 a year, its power will be less year by year, and at last be gone, as so much kingly power is gone—no one knows how."
One of the speakers on the other side—I think it was the Leader of the Opposition—suggested that we are guilty of insincerity in bringing forward this Resolution. But what is the position of the Conservative Party when they attempt to defend the House of Lords? They are always telling us to imitate the Colonies; they are always telling us that we ought to adopt the fiscal systems and other methods employed in the self-governing Colonies;
1246
but what is their view of the relations which are held between the two Chambers under the bicameral system in the Colonies, and as established by their own Australian Commonwealth Act in the last Parliament. By that Act they have given power to the Lower Chamber to over-ride the Upper Chamber under certain circumstances. Imitating them and following in their footsteps we have adopted the plan in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony Constitutions. The Commonwealth Act says that when the Chambers differ they shall meet together, and that the majority shall decide, measures being taken, however, that the numbers of the Upper Chamber shall not be such as to swamp the opinion of the Lower Chamber. The Leader of the Opposition asked a Question yesterday as to whether the people are not often wrong, and he proceeded very characteristically to suggest that he always considered them wrong when they voted against him. I am not prepared to take such a rough and ready test of the opinion and of the mental processes of the British democracy as all that. I should hesitate to say that when people pronounce against a particular measure or Party they have not pretty good reasons for doing so. I am not at all convinced that in 1900 the people were wholly wrong in saying that the war should be finished— by those who made it. Even in the last election I could, I daresay, find some few reasons to justify the decision which the people then took; and I say that if we should be so unfortunate in the future as to lose that measure of public confidence so abundantly given to us, then I shall not be too sure that it will not be our own fault. Certain am I that we could not take any step more likely to forfeit the confidence of the people of England than to continue in office after we have lost the power to pass effective legislation. I will retort the Question of the Leader of the Opposition by another Question. Has the House of Lords ever been right?
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: What about Home Rule?
*MR. CHURCHILL: Has it ever been right in any of the great settled controversies which are now beyond the reach of Party argument? Was it right in delaying Catholic emancipation, and the removal of Jewish disabilities? Was it right in driving this country to the verge of revolution in the effort to secure the passage of reform? Was it right in resisting the Ballot Bill? Was it right in the almost innumerable efforts it made to prevent this House dealing with the purity of its own electoral machinery? Was in right in endeavouring to prevent the abolition of purchase in the Army? Was it right in 1880, when it rejected the Compensation for Disturbance Bill? I defy the Party opposite to produce a single instance of a settled controversy in which the House of Lords was right.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: What about Home Rule?
*MR. CHURCHILL: I expected that interruption. That is not a settled controversy. It is a matter which lies in the future. The cases I have mentioned are cases where we have carried the law into effect and have seen the results, and found that they have been good. Let me remind the House that, but for a lucky accident, but for the fact that Letters Patent can be issued by the Crown and do not require the assent of Parliament, it would very likely have been impossible for this Government to have made the constitutional settlement in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony, because probably, upon the instigation of some noble Lord, like Lord Milner [Cries of "Oh"]—it surely is not insulting to Lord Milner to mention his name ["Hear, hear,"]—upon the instigation of some noble Lord, the Constitutions would have been mutilated or cast out by
1248
the House of Lords, and the Executive Government would have found itself responsible for carrying out the government of Colonies on lines of which it wholly disapproved, and after their own policy had been rejected. But there is one other feature in the House of Lords which the Conservative Party will have to exercise their ingenuity in defending in the next few years—I allude to the presence in that body of those interesting Lords Spiritual. By what violation of all ideas of religious equality the leaders of one denomination only should be represented I do not pause to inquire; but no doubt when such very delicate and ticklish questions as Chinese labour and the prevalence of intemperance, and great questions of war and the treatment of native races beyond the seas come up, it is a very convenient thing to have the Bishops in the House of Lords in order to make quite sure that official Christianity shall be on the side of the upper classes.
I proceed to inquire on what principle the House of Lords deals with Liberal measures. The right, hon. Member for Dover says they occupy the position of the umpire. Are they even a sieve, a strainer, to stop legislation if it should reveal an undue or undesirable degree of Radicalism or Socialism? Are they the complementary critic—the critic who sees all the things which the ordinary man does not see? I say that the attitude which the House of Lords adopts towards Liberal measures is purely tactical. When they returned to their "gilded Chamber" after the general election they found on the Woolsack and on the Treasury Bench a Lord Chancellor and a Government with which they were not familiar. When their eyes fell upon those objects there was a light in them which meant one thing—murder; murder tempered, no doubt, by those prudential considerations which always restrain persons from acts which are contrary to the general feeling of the society in which they live.

1249
But their attitude towards the present Government has from the beginning been to select the best and most convenient opportunity of humiliating and discrediting them, and finally of banishing them from power. Their treatment of the Trade Disputes Bill constitutes the gravamen of the Government's charge against the House of Lords. Lord Halsbury described that Bill as outrageous and tyrannous, and said it contained a section more disgraceful than any that appeared in any English Statute. On what principle did they pass that Bill if it was not the principle of political opportunism and partisanship? What safeguard will such a Second Chamber be to the commercial interests of this country? Is it not clear that they are prepared to sacrifice, if necessary, what they consider to be the true interests of the country in order to secure an advantage for the political Party whose obedient henchmen they are? The Trade Disputes Bill was a very inconvenient measure for the Conservative Party to leave open, because so long as it was left open a great mass of democratic opinion was directed against them. And so it was passed. On the other hand, the Education Bill was very inconvenient for the Liberal Party to leave open, because they are supported by Catholics and Nonconformists, and to bring in an Education Bill to satisfy those two extremes is not to solve a problem, but to solve a double acrostic. That Bill was not passed. Upon a measure which it would be inconvenient to the Liberal Party to leave open the House of Lords rejected all compromise. That I suppose is what the Leader of the Opposition called an averaging machinery, I press these points in order to justify me in making this statement, that the House of Lords as it at present exists and acts is not a national institution, but a Party dodge, an apparatus and instrument at the disposal of one political faction; and it is used in the most unscrupulous manner to injure and humiliate the opposite faction. When hon. Gentlemen
1250
opposite go about the country defending a Second Chamber, let them remember that this is the kind of Second Chamber they have to defend, and when they defend the veto let them remember that it is a veto used, not for national purposes, but for the grossest and basest purposes of unscrupulous political partisanship,
I have dealt with the issues between Houses, and I come to that between Parties. Great changes in a community are very often unperceived; the focus of reality moves from one institution in the State to another, and almost imperceptibly. Sometimes the forms of institutions remain almost the same in all ceremonial aspects, and yet there will be one institution which under pretentious forms is only the husk of reality, and another which under a humble name is is in fact the operative pivot of the social system. Constitutional writers have much to say about the estates of the realm, and a great deal to say about their relation to each other, and to the Sovereign. All that is found to be treated upon at length. But they say very little about the Party system. And after all the Party system is the dominant fact in our experience. Nothing is more striking in the last twenty-five years than the growth and expansion of Party organisation, and the way in which millions of people and their votes have been woven into its scope. There are two great characteristics about the Party institutions of this country: the equipoise between them, and their almost incredible durability. We have only to look at the general elections of 1900 and 1906. I do not suppose any circumstances could be more depressing for a political Party than the circumstances in which the Liberal Party fought the election in 1900, except the circumstances in which the Conservative Party fought the election of 1906. At those two elections, what was the salient fact? The great mass of the voters of each political Party stood firm by the standard of their Party, and although there was

1251
an immense movement of public opinion, that movement was actually effected by a comparatively small number of votes. I do not wish to push the fair-play argument too far, because I fully admit the justice of what the Prime Minister has said that politics must not be approached with an air of levity, but in dealing with this case in the country I should be sorry to cut myself off altogether from the rough and ready sense of fair play which is so pronounced among all classes of our fellow countrymen. When Parties are thus evenly balanced, to place such a weapon as the House of Lords in the hands of one of the Parties is to doom the other to destruction. I do not speak only from the Party point of view, although it explains the earnestness with which we approach this question. It is a matter of life and death to Liberalism and Radicalism. It is a question of our life or the abolition of the veto of the House of Lords. But look at it from a national point of view. Think of its injury to the smooth working of a Liberal Government. At the present time a Liberal Government, however powerful, cannot look far ahead, cannot impart design into its operations, because it knows that if at any moment its vigour falls below a certain point another body, over which it has no control, is ready to strike it a blow to its most serious injury. It comes to this, that no matter how great the majority by which a Liberal Government is supported, it is unable to pass any legislation unless it can procure the agreement of its political opponents. Observe the position in which the present Executive Government is consequently placed. Take only the question of the passive resistance. The action of the House of Lords at the present time forces the Executive Government to lock up in prison men with whose action they entirely sympathise and whose grievance they have faithfully promised to redress. Such a position is intolerable. Indeed, I am sure that if the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would only utilise that valuable gift of putting themselves in imagination
1252
in the position of others, they would see that no honourable men could continue to occupy such a position except with the one single object of putting an end to it for ever. Much might be said for and against the two-Party system. But no one can doubt that it adds to the stability and cohesion of the State. The alternation of Parties in power, like the rotation of crops, has beneficial results. Each of the two Parties have something to give and services to render in the development of the national life, and the succession of new and different points of view is a great and real benefit to the country. The advantage of such a system cannot be denied. Would not the ending of such a system involve a much greater disturbance than to amend the functions of the House of Lords? Is there not a much greater cataclysm involved in the breakdown of the constitutional organisation, of democracy, for that is the issue which is placed before us, than would be involved in the mere curtailment of the legislative veto which has been given to another place? I ask the House what does such a safeguard as the House of Lords mean? Is it a safeguard at all? I allude here to the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. He professed to deplore this agitation because he thought the House of Lords ought to remain, weak as it is; and he was afraid that our agitation might do something to awake the slumbering giant, and awake him in a stronger and more effective form than at present. It is quite true that great powers are already possessed by the House of Commons. It has finance under its control, it has the Executive Government; the control of foreign affairs, and the great patronage of the State are all in the power of the House of Commons at the present time. And let me say that if you are to proceed on the basis that the people of this country will elect a mad House of Commons, and that the mad House of Commons will be represented by a mad executive, the House of Lords is no guarantee against any excesses which such a House of Commons

1253
or such an Executive might have in contemplation. Whatever you may wish or desire, you will be forced to trust the people in all those vital and fundamental elements of government which in every State have always been held to involve the social stability of the community. Is the House of Lords even a security for property? Why the greatest weapon which a democracy possesses against property is the power of taxation, and the power of taxation is wholly under the control of this House. If this House chooses, for instance, to suspend payment to the Sinking Fund and to utilise the money for any public purpose or for any social purpose, the House of Lords could not interfere. If the House of Commons chose to double taxation on the wealthy classes, the House of Lords could not interfere in any respect. Understand I am not necessarily advocating these measures; what I am endeavouring to show to the House is that there is no real safeguard in the House of Lords oven in regard to a movement against property. But surely there are other securities upon which the stability of society depends. In the ever-increasing complexities of social problems, in the restrictions which are imposed from day to day with increasing force on the action of individuals, above all in the dissemination of property among many classes of the population, are the real elements of stability on which our modern society depends. There are to-day, unlike in former ages, actually millions of people who possess not merely inert property, but who possess rent-earning, profit-bearing property; and the danger with which we are confronted now is not at all whether we shall go too fast; no, the danger is that about three-fourths of the people of this country should move on in a comfortable manner into an easy life, which, with all its ups and downs, is not uncheered by fortune, while the remainder of the people shall be left to rot and fester in the slums of our cities, or in the deserted and abandoned hamlets of our rural districts. That is the danger with which
1254
we are confronted at the present moment, and it invests with a deep and real significance the issue which is drawn between the two Parties to-night. It is quite true that there are rich Members of the Liberal Party, and there are poor men who are Members of the Conservative Party, but in the main the lines of difference between the two Parties are social and economic—in the main the lines of difference are increasingly becoming the lines of cleavage between the rich and the poor. Let that animate and inspire us in the great struggle which we are now undertaking, and in which we shall without rest press forward, confident of this, that, if we persevere we shall wrest from the hands of privilege and wealth the evil and ugly and sinister weapon of the Peers' veto, which they have used so ill so long.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Campbell)—put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
SIR F BANBURYsaid that on the previous evening the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had taken upon himself to say that the conduct of a Gentleman on that side of the House was disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman was evidently under the impression that he and his Party could dragoon hon. Members in Committee by closure and in the House by denouncing their conduct in such terms. If the Government hoped to frighten Members into taking their measures after

1255
eleven o'clock by talking about the disgraceful conduct of those Members who did not give them all their own way, they were mistaken.
Mr. CHURCHILL:rose to reply, but it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress.
MR. FORSTERasked whether it would not be in order to resume Committee after Eleven o'clock. He hoped his hon. friend would allow the Bill to pass unopposed.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he knew of no reason why they should not go into Committee again.
Resolved, That the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.—(Mr Churchill.)
Bill again considered in Committee—
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had to express his regret that he was led last night by the vexation of the moment into using an unnecessarily severe expression with regard to what was, no doubt, the right of every private Member to oppose this Bill. If this Bill did not pass by 1st July, there was not a single provincial Budget in Canada which would not have to be revised. In the circumstances
1256
he thanked the hon. Baronet for not opposing the Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the incident would be a valuable illustration for the Colonies of the tone and temper exhibited by the Minister in charge of the Bill in that Assembly. Therefore, in order that they might have another opportunity of discussing the Bill in Government time, he moved "That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again."
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Motion, as they ought not, in regard to a Bill like this, to show temper on either side.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: I shall not withdraw.
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
Not amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey) gave notice of the suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule for to-morrow night.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Barry Railway; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (Additional Capital, etc.); Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and and Railway (General Powers).
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Rawtenstall Corporation Bill; Alton Military Hospital Bill [H.L.]; South Wales Mineral Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Order S Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; g Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments, and committed to Committee of the House to-morrow.
North Staffordshire Railway Bill.— Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Harrison's Patent Bill [H.L.]; Murphy Grimshaw's Divorce (Validation) Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.
St. Neots Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill; City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [H.L.]; Kingston-upon-Hull Corpora-
An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a speech indicates revision by the member.
1014
tion Bill; Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Oriel (V. Massereene); read, and agreed to.
Portobello and Musselburgh Tramways (Levenhall Extension) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Portobello and Musselburgh Tramways (Levenhall Extension): Was presented by the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell(pursuant to the Private Legissation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 82.)
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.].—House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order).
Killery's Divorce Bill [H.L.]—House in Committee (according to order). Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 525. Uganda Protectorate (Report for 1905–1906).
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3839. Persia (Trade of Kerman).

  SPAIN, NO. 1 (1907).
  Notes exchanged with the Spanish Government respecting the maintenance of the territorial "status quo" in the Mediterranean and the East Atlantic Ocean. 16th May, 1907.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prison Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to remissions and punishments.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order made by the Council of the Borough of Newport (Monmouthshire), 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 minute, dated 17th June, 1907, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Permanent Secretary to the Welsh Department of the Board of Education, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service are required.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee, and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 81.)

  THE WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.
  EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can give your Lordships any information with respect to the sittings of the Royal Commission on the Welsh Church, especially with regard to the probability of the Chairman, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, being able shortly to resume his place.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl I have to say that the only reason why Lord Justice Vaughan Williams is not sitting on the Welsh Church Commission is that he considers it necessary that the Court of Appeal
  1016
  should sit, and his presence at the present time is indispensable for that purpose. There may be an opportunity for another Judge sitting in his place next week, and if so he proposes to give some days next week to the Welsh Commission. The learned Lord Justice has been good enough to communicate with me on the subject, and I entirely agree with the view which he has taken.

  PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL PRACTICE BY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  LORD HYLTON, who had an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 1 (Companies not to practice or act as physicians, surgeons, or medical practitioners) to delete the words "knowingly and wilfully," explained that as the result of a conversation he had had with the noble Earl the Lord President he would defer the Amendment.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, perhaps I might just explain to the House that so far as the substance of the Amendment is concerned we have no great objection to it. I suggested to the noble Lord that it might be well to consider carefully whether the precise wording he proposes is the right one, and he and I will take the opportunity of talking over the subject between this and the Report stage. In consequence of that I understand he withdraws his Amendment.
  Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday, the 3rd of July next.

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, if anyone were to look at this

  1017
  Bill in a superficial or casual way he might suppose that in form and title we are dealing only with the reorganisation of the Auxiliary Forces. But in reality we are dealing vitally with the military problem as a whole. I am sure that I shall only be accurately interpreting the facts of the case and the wishes of your Lordships if I place in the forefront of our Government proposals the effect which they are likely to have upon the position and power of the Regular Forces of the Crown. Amid a mass of detail, it is difficult to concentrate attention upon any one. single point, but if there is a single, point to be considered first and foremost in importance it is the effect of our proposals upon the Regular Army as an effective fighting force and an effective instrument for the purposes for which it is demanded by the special and peculiar conditions of the British Empire. The British Empire has been built up by the operation of natural forces rather than by national policy, and in this respect it presents a totally different aspect from any other empire of the day, or from the empires of history. The great empire of ancient history—the Roman Empire—was military in its essence, deliberately so planned and so systematically constructed. Other empires, like the empire of Napoleon, have been the short-lived creations of a genius for war, while the German Empire of today is based upon military pre-eminence, round which scattered fragments of German-speaking peoples have been able to group themselves. Our Empire is, again, in its natural features so different from any other that what would suit a country prepared mainly for a war in which their troops would enter into a campaign by passing a border-stone on a common road is not suitable to a country like ours, which is only the centre of a scattered Empire united by the sea alone. Nothing but national pressure under very hard conditions of necessity, from which we are happily free, would make our people impose upon their shoulders the intolerable military burden which has to be accepted by the Germans. Fortunately for us there is no analogy between our position and that of any great military Power on the Continent. Our Navy must of necessity be our first and foremost means both of offence and
  1018
  defence. I remember my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth expressing a sentiment which I entirely endorse, and which I believe is generally and strongly held by the people of this country. Referring to the present position of the Navy and its unquestioned command of the sea, my noble friend, speaking on the 17th April last, said—
  "This axiom will be accepted by everyone—namely, that our country must at all events keep the command of the sea without having any regard to the cost at which that may be done."
  I feel bound to emphasise this, because in considering Army proposals in a practical way we are compelled to realise the fact that the country is not prepared, in addition to our vast naval expenditure, to pile up the enormous bill for the Army which other countries do.
  We cannot overlook the fact that our total combined expenditure for the Army and Navy exceeds that of France or Germany, for instance, by at least £20,000,000. History has repeatedly shown us that if you are to spend money on your Army to provide against, not all reasonable, but all possible risks, the nation will with the other hand curtail its expenditure upon the Navy, which is admitted by the highest experts to be our most important arm, both for offence and defence. If it is argued in regard to this matter or that, that you are not providing for some possible contingency, my answer is that you are necessarily restricted by the national conditions which make conscription unsuitable, and by the expenditure which is the inherent difficulty of voluntary service in an industrial and prosperous community like ours. When we were expending large sums as part of Lord Palmerston's policy on useless fortifications our average naval expenditure was (say, between 1861–71) £10,300,000 only, as compared with nearly £32,000,000 to-day, and actually less than that of the Army, which averaged £15,000,000. I dwell upon this because I do not consider that any criticism which overlooks any financial considerations is either reasonable or practical. Taking it for granted, then, that our military expenditure is not to be excessive, we have endeavoured in our proposals to create what experience tells

  1019
  us is most important, namely, an effective Expeditionary Force.
  Under Part III. of the Bill, we have endeavoured to obtain the fullest value for our money by employing, where the military authorities tell us we can safely do so, for duties of a less important character a class of service on a Militia or non-Regular basis which is less costly, and as regards certain services, such as medical, specially efficient in the latest and up-to-date methods. This is, it may be said, a novel principle, but in reality it is only placing on systematic lines a practice to which the Militia have been subjected in a haphazard fashion for the last 100 years. Let me, to exemplify this, give the figures respecting the Expeditionary Force. This force is to be composed as follows:—six divisions of infantry, of about 21,500 men each, and four brigades of cavalry, of about 1,800 men each, which, with the necessary Army troops, give a total of 61,000 serving soldiers of the various services and subsidiary services, 85,000 Regular Reservists and 14,500 men on a non-Regular basis. All these men will be of an age and physique suitable for foreign service, and will be ready to join the fighting force on mobilisation. At present, in case of war, we could only provide out of Regular troops with their Reserves, at the outside, four divisions of infantry amounting to about 86,000 men, with four cavalry brigades and the necessary Army and lines of communication troops. This gives us a total of not more than 118,500 men. As regards the Expeditionary Force in time of war, our present scheme provides a force, complete in all its units and in every detail, of 160,000 men, compared with the 118,5000 men now available. Of course, you need not require the immediate departure of the whole of the Expeditionary Force, and any part not so wanted is available for Home defence and would be a possible help to bridge over the six months during which the Territorial Army will be receiving their continuous training. The figures quoted by The Times correspondent in his very able article in the issue of 21st June, vary somewhat from mine. The discrepancy is only apparent, as his 166,000 for the field
  1020
  force includes 5,635 officers, whereas I was only speaking of non-commissioned officers and men. The figures I have given your Lordships are practically identical, leaving the officers out of the question—viz.: —61,000 serving soldiers, 85,000 Regular Reservists, 14,500 on non-Regular basis; total, 160,500 men. Of this 160,000 the effective combatants number about 86,000 cavalry and infantry, and 31,000 artillery, leaving the balance of 43,000 to be composed of Royal Engineers, Army Service and Ordnance Corps, Medical and Veterinary Services. To make quite clear what I mean in regard to the subsidiary services, there would be in these services, in the first place, Regular subsidiary service men, whose work would be skilled; in the second place, men from the Regular Reserve for the same purpose; and, thirdly, men whose work would be under the supervision of the more skilled men to do the work of ammunition columns or the like, which would not itself require any great degree of skill. These would be drawn from the non-Regular Reservists, whom, as I have indicated, we get partly from the special contingent of non-Regular Reservists and partly from the special service section of the Territorial Army.
  Nor are these Army proposals either revolutionary or purely speculative. In our proposals we have reverted, as far as practicable, to the principles laid down by Mr. Cardwell. I feel sure my noble friend Lord Midleton knows that I have on more than one occasion, and with the experience I have had of the great difficulties besetting War Office administration, appreciated the interest and the ability which he and others have in the past devoted to the interests of the Army. I desire to avoid the slightest semblance of Party recrimination; but experience has shown that for the demand which is made by India upon our Regular Army for drafts—an obligation which is peculiar to the British Army—the period of twelve years (seven years with the colours and five in the Reserve), is on the whole most suitable. To this period for recruiting we have reverted. But in reverting to the Card-well terms of enlistment we do not solve the problem of a sufficient Reserve to

  1021
  meet the demands of the Regular Army in time of war. The periods of seven years with the colours and five with the Reserve only give us a Reserve which is practically used up in the actual mobilisation of the field force. To supply the drafts necessitated by the wastage of war, we propose to establish a Reserve on a non-Regular basis under the powers given in Part III. of the present Bill. There we lay down the conditions regulating the employment outside the United Kingdom of individuals who, though belonging to the non-Regular portion of His Majesty's forces, voluntarily accept the additional liability to service abroad on the specified conditions.
  Seeing the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne in his place, I feel that I should be acting with scant courtesy if I did not make some allusion to the proposals which he made at the time when he was Secretary of State for War. The noble Marquess provided an additional Reserve for wastage in war by raising the rank and file of the battalions from 720 to 800 men, and providing that 100 out of the 800 should be three-years men with the colours and nine with the Reserve, instead of all seven and five. Then came the War, and all the three-years men were kept and the experiment had not a chance. Then, in 1902, my noble friend Lord Midleton established for all arms a term of enlistment of three and nine years, which, of course, destroyed any chance of testing the value of Lord Lansdowne's proposal. This proposal of Lord Midleton, which was speedily killed by the failure to provide drafts for the Colonies and India, also killed Lord Lansdowne's proposal, which did provide for drafts, inasmuch as under Lord Lansdowne's proposal only one-eighth of each battalion would be short-service and seven-eighths long-service men in the infantry.
  The theory underlying the whole of Lord Cardwell's system, and upon which he constructed his policy, was that a territorialised Regular unit, i.e, a county regiment, was to be raised in its territorial district, and the depot to be located in some prominent town of the county. The unit was to bear the county name, and to derive its strength thence in peace and in war. One or more units of each
  1022
  arm of the service—infantry, cavalry, or artillery—raised in a given area was to be quartered in peace in the United Kingdom, a certain number of similar units from the same area being in garrison over-seas. The units serving at home were in peace to find and train the drafts required for the units abroad, and on mobilisation were themselves to be completed to war strength by means of Reservists who had passed their colour service in the ranks of the Army.
  The Report of the Localisation Committee of 1872 shows clearly that the Cardwell scheme contemplated the systematic use of the Militia as the Reserve for the Regular Army. The Militia had always been regarded as the main Reserve for the Regular Army. Their organisation was purely local and territorial, and in order to combine Militia regiments with the Regular Army it was necessary to localise the Regular infantry. The British Isles, were, therefore, divided into districts coinciding as far as possible with counties, as the county was the territorial unit upon which the Militia was based. Before Mr. Cardwell the Regular infantry had no territorial connection or even designation. They were merely the 38th, 39th, or 40th Foot.
  Now, my Lords, we have not only, as I have said, reverted to Mr. Cardwell's terms of service, but we have also constructed our proposals upon his territorial system. For instance, we propose to create for every two Line battalions a third battalion for drafting purposes, whose centre is to be the county depot, and who, while providing a reserve of officers and drafts for wastage for the two field battalions, in addition to the Regular Reserve, will also, as far as possible, by their depot being in the county, maintain their county connection. Weintend to organise similar machinery to meet the needs of the artillery. The thirty-three batteries surplus to the number required for the Expeditionary Force will be organised as training batteries. These batteries will train recruits for the non-Regular Reserve of artillery in the duties they will be expected to perform in the field. The training of these batteries will be on a non-Regular basis, but the men to train them will be a permanent Regular staff,
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Earl this question: Are the Regular Artillerymen to be reduced who now form those batteries?
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I cannot answer that Question off-hand. Another point in the territorial connection which bears a close analogy to Mr. Cardwell's principles is that it is proposed to utilise the services of the permanent staffs at these depots to help in every possible way the instruction and training of the officers and men of the Territorial Forces. I am afraid that many of the difficulties in which we have been placed have arisen from a departure from these principles of Mr. Cardwell to which we propose to revert. One overwhelming difficulty confronted the Regular Army since the Militia Reserve, which was established by Mr. Cardwell, was abolished in 1901. Your Lordships will remember that that Militia Reserve was composed of men who for an annual bounty of £1 accepted an individual liability to join the Regular Army in the event of war. On the outbreak of the South African War they gave us a Reserve of29,000 Militiamen. My noble friend Lord Midleton abolished it. I do not say that he had not very good reasons on the side of abolition, for while it provided a most valuable force for the Reserve of the Regular Army, it certainly emasculated the Militia. But be that as it may, we have been confronted with the difficulty of having to make good the men from the Reserve which we got in this way. For the Expeditionary Force we take sixty-six of the seventy-one battalions at home. After taking the best advice we could, and plating the value of the Army as a fighting force as supreme, we have made all our proposals subservient to creating and maintaining in efficient condition our Expeditionary Force. To aim at this under Part III. of the Bill we have made provision for the employment of special Reservists.
  If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to put before you the main outline of the changes which this Bill proposes to make in our military system. We divide our military system into two main sections. The first is our Regular Army, organised in six Infantry divisions
  1024
  and four Cavalry brigades as an Expeditionary Force, composed of the proper proportions of the various arms—Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery, etc.; this, of course, includes the main body of the Regular Army in the United Kingdom. Then, as adjuncts to the Expeditionary Army we have the non-Regular Reservists, and what are called "special service" men of the Territorial Army who join the Expeditionary Force on mobilisation, and, if necessary, replace wastage just like the special contingent. The non-Regular Reservists will be provided by the Militia.
  LORD SALTOUN: In the numbers he has given of Infantry and Cavalry, has the noble Earl included the Artillery in the number of Infantry?
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I gave the Artillery in the number of the Expeditionary Force. I now turn to what is perhaps the most debatable question connected with the present Bill; it is certainly a question of the greatest interest to very many of your Lordships—I refer to the future of the Militia in our re-organisation proposals. I have already indicated that one of our chief difficulties is to provide a Reserve capable of maintaining the Expeditionary Force in the field and replacing its wastage in war. I have already said that the Militia have in the past been invariably asked to fulfil this difficult and most important task in a haphazard, unsystematic fashion, unsatisfactory to the military authorities, and, if I may say so, unjust to the Militia force itself. Apart from the Militia Reserve, which was on a special footing, ordinary members of the force were only asked to volunteer for foreign service when war was actually imminent or in progress. Such a practice could not but be unsatisfactory. The Militia, I am glad to say, always did respond to the call, but they went to the front labouring under all the disadvantages which naturally attended a force which was asked to do in war time something for which it had never been prepared in peace time. It was, as we are constantly being reminded by ray noble friend Lord Wemyss, ostensibly a force

  1025
  for Home defence, but it was almost invariably utilised for service abroad. For this haphazard, unsystematic procedure His Majesty's Government propose to substitute an organisation whereby the Militia will be asked to undertake certain liabilities in connection with service overseas, and at the same time will be afforded the preparation which will enable them to undertake these liabilities with success.
  There are at present in the United Kingdom 124 Militia Infantry battalions, with a strength of about 73,000, compared with an establishment of 102,000. I may, in passing, call your Lordships' attention to this large discrepancy of 29,000 between the establishment and strength as a most eloquent illustration of decadence of the force and the consequent need for remedial measures. As I have said, there are 124 Militia Infantry battalions in the United Kingdom. Of these we require sixty-six in Great Britain and eight in Ireland to become the third battalions to supply our Regular Infantry with drafts. The men in these battalions will have to accept liability to service abroad, and their primary function will be drafting to supply the demands of the Regular Army in the field. We have never relaxed our sense of the paramount necessity for drafts. The wastage in modern war has been computed for six months to be about 40 per cent. In the late Russo-Japanese war, lasting about a year, the Japanese Infantry regiments, on an average, completely renewed their personnel once. This appalling and terrible fact demands a Reserve above and beyond the Regular Reserve; and to make the financial burden tolerable, it necessitates a Reserve which is less costly than the Regular Reservists of the Regular Infantry of the Line, even if we could get sufficient recruits to produce the Reservists required.
  Many of your Lordships who are students of military history are doubtless familiar with that most interesting book, the Autobiography of General Sherman, one of the greatest of those military figures who emerged from that conflict in which America was moved as a nation to vindicate its own authority. Speak-
  1026
  ing of the military lessons of the war he says—
  "The greatest mistake made in our civil war was in the mode of recruitment and promotion. When a regiment became reduced by the necessary wear and tear of service, instead of being filled up at the bottom, and the vacancies among the officers filled from the best non-commissioned officers and men, the habit was to raise now regiments, with now colonels, captains and men, leaving the old and experienced battalions to dwindle away into mere skeleton organisations. I believe with the Volunteers this matter was left to the States exclusively, and I remember that Wisconsin kept her regiments filled with recruits, whereas other States generally filled their quotas by new regiments, and the result was that we estimated a Wisconsin regiment equal to an ordinary brigade. I believe that 500 new men added to an old and experienced regiment wore more valuable than 1,000 men in the form of a new regiment; for the former by association with good, experienced captains, lieutenants, and non-commissioned officers, soon became veterans, whereas the latter were generally unavailable for a year."
  My Lords, to face modern warfare we feel bound to obtain drafts, and cannot waive our rights in that respect. These third battalions, whose main function is drafting, account for seventy-four of the 124 battalions. Excluding the permanent staff, they will be maintained at a strength of 500 non-commissioned officers and men. They will receive six months training on enlistment, and fifteen days annual training in addition to musketry instruction. This annual training may be objected to on the ground of its brevity as compared with the twenty-seven days the present Militia receives. But it must be remembered that under the new system the preliminary training will be six months as compared with six weeks. The thorough grounding which this six months training gives to the recruit enables us to reduce the amount of annual training. The shorter annual training, moreover, suits the conditions of labour in this country much better, as many employers can easily give their men fourteen days leave in the year, when twenty-eight would be out of the question.
  I would also remind your Lordships that the experiment which the Army Council have tried—similar in principle to the one started by the public spirit of Colonel Pollock, and of the Spectator newspaper, on Hounslow Heath—during the past winter of subjecting twenty

  1027
  battalions to six months initial training has been an unqualified success, both as regards efficiency and the number of recruits attracted by the scheme. I cannot at present commit the War Office as to whether that training will be battalion training or not.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will it be company training, then?
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The whole of this matter is under consideration. To return to the distribution of the present Militia under our proposals, I have already said that seventy-four of the 124 Infantry battalions will be required, sixty-six in Great Britain, and eight in Ireland, as third battalions for the Regular Army. This leaves fifty battalions. Of these fifty battalions we propose to ask twenty-seven (fifteen in Great Britain and twelve in Ireland) to accept as fourth or fifth battalions similar liabilities to the seventy-four already accounted for. Both the third and fourth or fifth battalions will be liable for foreign service, and both will also be liable for drafting; but as far as is possible and practicable they will be used as units. Their officers and men will be asked to accept service under Part III. of the Bill, but every effort will be made to maintain their corporate existence as units and to preserve their special traditions, names, bands, and colours. They will thus be fourth or fifth battalions to certain Territorial Regular Regiments, and will be liable for drafting or available for lines of communication and relief duties. The strength of these twenty-seven battalions we propose to be 800 noncommissioned officers and men, exclusive of permanent staff.
  We have now accounted for seventy-four and twenty-seven of the Infantry battalions—i.e, 101 out of the 124. What is to become of the remaining twenty-three 1 I fear that, as units, they are superfluous to our scheme for the special contingent. The individuals composing them may elect to accept the new conditions of service and join the; selected battalions of the special contingent; or they may remain with their present unit when it becomes part of the Territorial Army. Failing these two
  1028
  alternatives they will complete their period of service in their present regiments and not be called up for training. The Royal Garrison Artillery (Militia) will be asked to join the special contingent and to take the liability of being trained as Field Artillery in peace and also to go abroad in time of war. They will be used in war to form a proportion of the personnel of the ammunition columns.
  I apologise to your Lordships for having been compelled to give so many facts and figures. I must now make reference to some of the main features affecting the Territorial Army. The idea in our minds in establishing the County Associations originated in the conviction that the Army and the people should be brought into closer touch than had hitherto been the case, in other words, that the Army should have its roots more closely than now in the people. The Lord-Lieutenant was formerly the representative of the Crown for military purposes, and he did a great deal both for the support and the expansion of the Army, and we ask ourselves, Cannot he be brought back again into military life? Cannot he do more for the raising and administration of the Territorial Army than could be done by a centralised War Office? For years the Volunteers have complained of their mismanagement by the War Office. Advisory Boards have sat at the War Office, assistant directors have helped the Director of Auxiliary Forces, but still complaints have been urgent and constant. It seemed, therefore, to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State very desirable that we should attempt to establish a system whereby the Territorial Army should do as much as possible of its own administrative business through County Associations, a large part of which, I would remind your Lordships, we propose shall be composed of commanding officers of the force itself. Many questions, such as recruiting, rifle ranges, drill halls, and the proportions of the various arms to suit the requirements of the Army Council in the territorial districts—these we consider are matters infinitely more capable of adjustment by people on the spot than by any centralised or bureaucratic system at the War Office.

  1029
  All training and discipline will be in the hands of general officers commanding in-chief acting through divisional and brigade commanders. We do not propose to ask the Territorial Army to give up time for training which we know it would be impracticable to expect of men whose primary conditions of life art those of the civilian. The drills of recruits and their subsequent trainings are provided for in the Bill on as elastic a scale as possible. We deprecate placing in the Bill stereotyped regulations which experience has shown we cannot practically enforce. The late Government introduced an annual compulsory camp. It was a regulation admirable in principle, but in practice we have never been able to carry it out. On the other hand, we feel, with a great deal of reason, that we may rely not only upon the public spirit of the Yeomanry and Volunteers who will now compose the Territorial Army, but upon the fact that these men will come from an especially educated and capable class of citizens to whom training will come, we hope, with peculiar ease and quickness.
  LORD NEWTON: Why?
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I should like to take this opportunity of expressing, on behalf of the War Office, our very sincere appreciation of the services which have been rendered by the Committee on the Territorial Forces, better known to your Lordships as the "Duma," over which my noble friend Lord Esher has presided with his usual geniality, tact, and ability. The advice of that Committee has been most serviceable to us on the subject of County Associations. The Committee gave us the practical experience of men of influence and of knowledge throughout the country, and without that experience we could not possibly have obtained the information necessary to work out the proposals contained in this Bill.
  A considerable amount of interest and also of misunderstanding has arisen in regard to the question of embodiment. The Territorial Force may be embodied on the issue of a Proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out, and we consider that the instruction then obtained would be of far more value than
  1030
  it would be in the case of men put through a long course of drill at a time of no national emergency.
  LORD NEWTON: Why?
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My noble friend asks why. I should have thought the men would feel themselves inspired by the common danger. Hitherto the Army Reserve, the Militia, the Yeomanry and Volunteers have had separate Proclamations to call them out. Under Clause 16 of this Bill one Proclamation is to be sufficient. Six thousand men comprising Section A of the Reserve, and special Reservists to the number of 4,000—that is, 10,000 men in all—can be called out under Clause 31 of the Bill without any Proclamation at all. Firstly, when the Government of the day issues the Proclamation in circumstances of imminent national danger or great emergency the Proclamation is general in character, applying to the whole of the Army Reserve. The Army Council then, by Order in Council, can give directions for the whole or part of the Reserve to be embodied as circumstances demand. Though the Proclamation is general, subsequent directions may be partial, as happened in 1885 and in 1899. Secondly, the actual issue of the Proclamation relative to the Reserve comes under Clause 16 of the Bill, which gives the Army Council power, by Order in Council, to direct the embodiment of all or part of the Territorial Army, so that the Bill gives power to embody the Territorial Forces the moment the Reservists are called out by Proclamation. When, however, the directions under the Proclamation are applied to the whole of the first-class Army Reserve, the Army Council are automatically compelled, under the Bill, to embody the whole of the Territorial Forces.
  Then I wish to call the attention of your Lordships and the country to the fact that there exists the following safeguards and limitations. Parliament on the Proclamation being issued must be summoned within ten days, and the Army Order issued by the Army Council specifies the regiments or corps whose Reservists are required. The Territorial

  1031
  Army must be embodied if the whole of the Reserve is called out, but furlough can be given. If only part of the Reserve is called up the Army Council may, but are not obliged to, embody the Territorial Army. It is proposed to increase section A of first-class Army Reserve. To the 5,000 men who have already engaged to accept liability to return to the colours without mobilisation 1,000 are added; and we have also increased the engagement in future from the first year of service in the Reserve to the first two years in regard to any of the 6,000 who are prepared, to accept.
  Our proposals have been more than once subjected to the criticism that they are speculative, that we have no guarantee we shall get the number of men we estimate for in the various sections. That is a question of opinion, and applies not only to our present proposals but to every voluntary system. It is a problem inseparable from the voluntary system, and it constitutes a difficulty which will always require careful consideration. [LORD NEWTON: Hear, hear.] I (am reminded by that cheer from Lord Newton that certain influential Members of your Lordships' House are ready to offer a remedy in the shape of compulsory military training for the youth of the country. As a fair example of such an alternative, we may take the proposals of that important body the National Service League. But I would venture to point out that great as are the difficulties besetting our or any other voluntary system, they are comparatively insignificant when contrasted with those attending any form of compulsory training or conscription. The chief military problem in our case is not defence of the United Kingdom, so much as defence of the Empire, and a compulsory system will not help us much in this. No appeal to the country on the grounds that we require more men than are available under the present system for the practical requirements of our Empire is likely to elicit much support. The necessity for a compulsory system for the purpose of resisting invasion of these islands will alone serve as a justifition for the adoption of so radical a change in our military organisation. The difficulty experienced by certain
  1032
  continental nations in obtaining sufficient men for oversea service is notorious.
  But, my Lords, this is not the only difficulty confronting the advocates of compulsion. Limitation of the numbers raised by conscription in this country would be absolutely necessary, because in no circumstances would we require the services of the total numbers (amounting to about 400,000) reaching the age of military service in each year; and I need hardly add that the more you limit the numbers the greater the hardship will appear to those on whom the burden of service falls. The next difficulty is the system of registration necessitated by a compulsory system with its attendant evil of police espionage, the very name of which conflicts with all the civic traditions of this country. When we talk of a compulsory system I do not think we quite appreciate the strong feeling that would be aroused in this country with its industrial, and to a large extent its nomad, population, if we were to alter almost all the habits and the ways of freedom the people have hitherto enjoyed, and submit them, as you would have to do, to a most careful system of police espionage.
  Another difficulty on which I need not dwell is the difficulty of harmonising such a system with the upkeep of an Army for service abroad which Imperial necessities demand. But waiving all these objections for the sake of argument, let us look at the system from what, after all, is the essential standpoint— I mean the financial effect. The exponents of such a system say that it is desirable to give six months' training as a preliminary to the quota of youths who arrive every year at the prescribed age—say the age of twenty. In calculating the cost we will assume that: (a) the Regular Army remains as at present; (b) the National Army, which would take the place of our Territorial Force and Special Contingent, receives six months preliminary training and a fortnight's training in the six ensuing years, instead of the six months training on embodiment, which has been so much criticised in the case of our proposed Territorial Army; (c) the recruits for the Regular Army numbering each year

  1033
  35,000 men, which is roughly the present annual intake of the Regular Army, are taken from the National Army after they have had their six months training; (d) that a Reserve of 500,000 men in the National Army will suffice for our military needs.
  In order to obtain this Reserve of 500,000 men it will be necessary to provide, annually for the six months preliminary training of 135,000 men; i.e., 100,000 for the National Army and 35,000 for the Regular Army. We must have depots and training batteries for these and a permanent staff to train them, which must be put down as at least 13,500 men. There must, of course, be added to these the various Departmental Services, such as the Army Service and Ordnance Corps, Medical and Veterinary Corps. Our armed forces in the United Kingdom would thus consist of 170,000 Regulars (taking the figure in the current Army Estimates), 115,000 Army Reserve, 13,500 training staff, 135,000 Recruits undergoing training, and, finally, the National Reserve who have already done their initial six months' training, numbering say 500,000. If we were to make sure of a supply of drafts for our Regular Army for service abroad in war time we should pay a special retaining fee to a portion of this National Reserve for undertaking this additional liability. The financial result of maintaining these forces would be 170,000 Regular Army as in present Estimates, £24,300,000; 13,500 training staff of National Army, £1,200,000; 135,000 recruits undergoing preliminary training, £29 per head, £4,000,000; 500,000 National Reserve undergoing annual training, £5,100,000; retaining fee for the foreign service contingent of the National Reserve, say, £500,000; total, £35,100,000. Such a system, therefore, involves at the very lowest estimate an annual expenditure of over £35,000,000 without including any charges for barracks and general accommodation, arms, warlike stores, tents, ammunition and equipment, horses for the mounted services, etc.
  Both on financial as well as political grounds I would respectfully urge upon my noble and most distinguished friend Lord Roberts that, whatever may be said, in theory, for compulsion for home
  1034
  defence, it does not offer us any present or practical alternative to the proposals contained in this Bill. I venture to express the hope, the confident hope, that this measure will not be treated in any Party spirit. I see in the House distinguished soldiers of great knowledge, authority, and special experience, and I appeal to them for their generous assistance and co-operation. I beg to offer the Bill not in any spirit of boastfulness. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War does not propose it in any spirit of what I may call "cocksureness." But we do offer the Bill to the House, not as an ideal proposal, in an ideal world, under ideal conditions, but as one which, having regard to the inherent difficulties of the case that confronted us on all sides is an earnest and honest attempt on the part of the Secretary of State and his advisers to make the Army more efficient for service abroad and, by associating it more closely than we have ever attempted to do in the past with the representatives and leaders of civil life throughout the country, to increase its power, its popularity, and its influence at home.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, in rising to follow the clear and comprehensive speech of the noble Earl I know I shall not appeal in vain to your Lordships for the indulgence which is always shown to a Member of this House rising for the first time. And, my Lords, I need that indulgence in a very special measure to-night, because even though the noble Lord has been clear there is still great doubt in my mind as to the effect of many of the provisions of this Bill. I could not help contrasting the studied precision of the noble Earl's statement at the conclusion of his speech with regard to the possible effects of a measure of conscription and the figures which he brought before your Lordships showing how far beyond the compass of this nation it was, in his opinion, to establish such a system, and, at the same time, I fear I must say the studied vagueness of his references to figures with regard to matters which are within the Bill and

  1035
  within the scheme which lies before the House to-night.
  There is another point on which I hope we shall have better assurances than we have yet had before the close of this debate. At the beginning of his speech the noble Earl said that all the proposals of the Government were subservient to maintaining the efficiency of the Expeditionary Force. I welcomed that statement, and I welcomed it all the more because it was in contrast with some ominous words that fell from the Secretary of State last year. In July the right hon. Gentleman made this remarkable statement—
  "The principle of the Government plan is to ascertain, by way of commencement, what number of regular troops it is necessary to retain at home in peace for the purpose of finding drafts for the forces of the Crown over sea, and then to organise out of them, well within the margin, as complete an Expeditionary Force as possible."
  That is an organisation of troops which are necessary in peace for the purpose of war so far as they will go, and such an organisation, I venture to say, would be to return to the dark ages of War Office administration.
  What we have endeavoured to do, what has been the attempt of successive Governments for the last twenty years to do, has been to estimate the Expeditionary Force necessary and to organise the Army so that it will give us that force. I confess that in this and other respects, the House of Commons and the country have been to some extent under the glamour of the Secretary of State's speeches; for the ambiguous colouring which the right hon. Gentleman has given to these proposals has had a soothing effect on all classes of his hearers. The noble Earl spoke of conscription. There are many men in this country who believe that the failure of this scheme must be followed by conscription. The Secretary of State has persuaded the anti-military party that this scheme is the only bulwark against conscription. I may say that I desire to see this scheme made effective, and if I make any criticisms they only arise from my desire to see it succeed.
  Mr. Haldane has told the Army that by a reduction of 30,000 in the strength
  1036
  of the Regulars he is adding 50 per cent. to our military efficiency. I shall have a word to say on that in a moment. He has endeavoured to persuade the Militia that by continuing on Militia rates of pay and on Militia training, but under the title of Regulars, and without any privilege of going abroad as units under their own officers, they will at the same time preserve the distinctive character and prestige of their force. I do not think he has quite persuaded the Yeomanry that by abandoning the rates of pay which they have enjoyed ever since that force was first established and by being banded with the Territorial Army, they can maintain the efficiency which is at present one of the very few unchallenged facts of the whole of our military system.
  Now, my Lords, I wish the word "scheme" had not formed, necessarily, so large a part of the noble Earl's speech. Mr. Haldane told us that the Army was always without a scheme or there was a scheme without an Army. When I think of the present state of our military forces, and that for eighteen months proposals have been going to and fro and the sole result of them up to the present moment has been the disbandment of ten of the best regiments of the Line and of one battalion of Guards, and also I fear, after the words which fell from the noble Earl, a considerable diminution of Artillery, I cannot help wishing that he had enjoyed a little less scheme and a little more Army, I am not going to say a word with regard to these proposals in comparison with schemes which have passed away or are not now before us; but I am one of those who feel that this is a military question, a sheer military question, how you organise the forces for war. Whether you have large divisions, as are favoured by the present general staff, or whether you have those larger units which were established when the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the cross benches was Commander-in-Chief, seems to me less a matter of concern in this House than whether you have the men, the stores, and the guns ready to be sent abroad. To find the reason for the recent establishment of the Army it is necessary to go back to the year 1895, when the noble Marquess behind me first took

  1037
  charge of the War Office. Lord Lansdowne then found the force available practically the same as it was twenty years before. You had, as Lord Rosebery reminded us at the time, added 2,600,000 square miles to the Empire without adding a single man for the further defence of the Empire. You had laid down certain troops who were to go abroad, and, though I know I had some share of the responsibility in a very humble way in earlier service at the War Office, I say that the provision which the military authorities had asked for had been often refused by successive Governments for years before 1895.
  My noble friend Lord Lansdowne added 30,000 men to the Army before the outbreak of war, with the necessary stores; he added several battalions of foot and several batteries of Artillery, and, as the noble Earl mentioned, he raised all battalions at home from 700 to 800. Without that we could not have provided the drafts in time of peace, and without it we could not have maintained the force we had to send to South Africa during the war. We were in 1895 acting under a scheme which required 70,000 men for sending abroad and 35,000 Regulars for home service. In the first nine months of the war a demand fell upon the War Office which was unprecedented in extent and which could never have been met but for the foresight of the Government before 1899. We did not send 70,000 men or 105,000 men; but we sent 170,000 Regular troops between 1st October and 1st July of the following year. But, my Lords, did that satisfy the country? I am in the recollection of every noble Lord here when I say that there was hardly a man outside the Minister who had a good word to say for the War Office after they had mobilised and sent that exceptional number of Regular troops to the front; and I will go further and say that my noble friend was almost overwhelmed by a storm of popular indignation, because after sending these troops we had to apply for auxiliaries.
  The whole of the troops raised between 1895 and 1898 have been swept away by the Secretary of State in the course
  1038
  of the first few months of office, and I wish to know whether the ominous reference, of the noble Earl to-night to the Artillery is to be taken as an indication of the continuance of a scheme which, we had understood, had been abandoned. Our Artillery was the weakest, as compared with our Infantry and our Cavalry, of any Army in Europe. Over sixty batteries were raised before and during the war. Of these batteries the noble Earl tells us that thirty-seven are to be placed on a lower establishment, and are to be worked by a non-Regular force. Would the noble Earl be kind enough, if it is in his power, to tell me whether it is proposed to reduce the Regular Artillery, or are the numbers to be maintained? That is a vital point, and I apologise for pressing it. I am sure the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the cross benches will bear me out when I say that no more important point could be brought forward for consideration in connection with military organisation.
  I ask myself, How are we to justify these reductions? They certainly cannot be justified by the experience after the first year of the war, because in the second year of the war and in the third year we sent out every Regular soldier we could train and we sent out 85,000 additional men. Are the reductions justified by the proceedings of the Defence Committee? The late Prime Minister made a remarkable speech as to our position in regard to invasion, and assured the country that, provided we kept up the strength of our Navy, we might absolve ourselves from the necessity of providing against any organised invasion. Raids of 5,000 or 10,000 men might be possible, but not an organised invasion which would demand an armed nation. I understand that that view is held by the present Government and by the present Defence Committee. If that be so, does it not follow that our strength and money and organisation ought to be put first into the Expeditionary Force? I deeply regret to have to say so, but I believe I shall be able before Is it down to prove that the exact reverse will be the result of this scheme, and that the strength and money of the nation are to be put into the Territorial Army, which

  1039
  cannot be sent abroad except by volunteering, and that the Regular Army and the Expeditionary Force have been starved to a point which is dangerous to the country. We have not only fewer Regulars, but the Reserve has been depleted.
  A very heated controversy on this point has arisen between Mr. Arnold-Forster and the military correspondent of The Times; and I am not going to be so foolish as to place myself in the line of fire between these doughty combatants. But I find it very difficult to resist Mr. Arnold-Forster's conclusion that if the infantry of 1905, 146,500 in number, only produced 55,600 men for the Reserve, the infantry of 1908, whose period of Reserve service will be shorter and who will number 132,600, cannot produce a Reserve 8,000 stronger. I know very well that this is an actuarial calculation. I know also that in Parliamentary debate we have only to breathe the word "actuary" and your opponents are supposed to retire routed in confusion. I have had a great deal to do with these calculations in the past, and I am firmly convinced that the Army Reserve placed at 115,000 has been over-estimated; that the Government have been misled by calculations based on the assumption that the ranks will always be full. As a matter of fact, they are never, or rarely, full. And the expectation that 25,000 men will re-engage voluntarily in the Reserve after service is one which I fear will not be realised. But, be that as it may, it is obvious that if you reduce the Regulars largely you must to that extent reduce, the Reserve.
  May I make an appeal to the noble Earl to consider the composition of the battalions that are to go abroad, according to the Paper which has been placed before Parliament. It has always been considered that a battalion going abroad should, if possible, have 500 men serving and not more than 500 Reservists. The expeditionary force, owing to the depletion of those men who were added to each battalion by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, is to consist of 28,000 serving soldiers and 48,000 Reservists with the infantry—not 500 to 500, but 380 serving soldiers to 620 Reservists, a preponderance which, I think, on
  1040
  military grounds, is altogether undue. The first 100,000 men who went out to the war in 1899 consisted of 43,000 Reservists and 57,000 serving soldiers. There is almost a change, therefore, of 100 per cent. in the proportions under the expeditionary force which the Government find it possible to send out with the reduced cadre which unfortunately they have adopted in the Regular Army. The noble Earl stated that, on mobilisation, they would use up nearly the whole of the Army Reserve. That is a point on which politicians and military men have been labouring for the last twenty years in the belief that by shorter service we should have a larger Reserve. But, if that be so, does it not follow that by far the most important question we have to deal with is, how are we going to follow up these depleted Regular troops and Reserves by those who are to come out as the first draft and be placed in action within two months of the outbreak of hostilities?
  Then the noble Earl spoke about the Militia. He spoke most feelingly of what had happened to them in the past. The members of the present Army Reserve cost you £9 a year, and they are the cheapest men you have ever had. The noble Earl spoke of men who would be less costly; he said nothing about more training. I do not think there is any force which has a greater claim on the sympathies of your Lordships. The patriotic manner in which the Militia responded to the call in 1899 was one of the most remarkable things in our history. The Militia had been treated for thirty or forty years as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the Army. I do not say that is an ignoble position, but it is one which is very difficult for men who officer good battalions to understand. They had every year sent to the Army between 10,000 and 12,000 recruits. They had been liable in the Militia Reserve to send 30,000 men on the outbreak of war; but a Parliamentary pledge was given, which I myself heard in the House of Commons, that, if they had to lose the Militia Reserve to the Line, they would not then be called upon to go out as units depleted by their best men. But in 1899 the call on the Militia was unexpected, They had to send their

  1041
  best men out, and after that they were asked to volunteer, with the result that sixty-eight battalions of Militia did go abroad, saying nothing about pledges which had been broken and entirely ignoring the depletion of their cadre. I think, therefore, that we owe some consideration to the very difficult circumstances in which the Militia now find themselves. There are two points of view from which we may look at this question. The first is, what can the Militia colonels induce their regiments to do? I think there has been some misunderstanding of their attitude. As I understand, they have been accused of having said that, although they were willing to go on foreign service, they would not send drafts. I do not understand that to have been the attitude of the Militia colonels. I understand them to have said that, notwithstanding the improvements that had been made in the position of the Militia and the fact; that they no longer had to send 30,000 men to the Militia Reserve, that their pay had been raised, and that their officers had been given better opportunities of training, they had not been able to raise their numbers; and they are apprehensive that, if, at the present rates of pay, and with the present inducements, they are asked to tell their men that they must not only enlist for foreign service when needed, but must go abroad in drafts without their officers, to be attached to regiments which they do not know, and to be deprived of all the advantages gained by comradeship and esprit de corps, the men will not accept that liability. I think they are bound to put that difficulty before the War Office. It is a sentimental view, though it is a practical one.
  Has the noble Earl considered what the position is he is asking the Militia to take up from a military standpoint? Has he considered that you are going to pit against the best soldiers of a foreign army men who in all will have had only eight months training? Foreign soldiers are taken at twenty; you take the Militiaman at seventeen. The foreign soldier is trained for two years; you are going to train the Militiaman six months on enlistment and half the time every year. That Militiaman is to be
  1042
  asked to go out and join another regiment and face the picked troops of a foreign Power two months after the outbreak of war. The noble Earl referred to the experiment carried out by Colonel Pollock, and he spoke highly of those men; but I am very much mistaken if I did not read a speech by Colonel Pollock at the conclusion of the training of his men, wherein he said that, after six months training under the most favourable conditions, he would be very sorry to lead those men against a foreign army. May I ask the Government before this debate comes to a close to reassure us on this point? May I ask them to tell us whether it is the opinion of the Army Council—not only the opinion of the Secretary of State, whose opinion I speak of with all possible respect, but whether it is the opinion of the Army Council—that men with such little training and who join the ranks so young can really be relied upon to fill the first gaps in our Army. I should like an answer, aye or no. I have always regretted for Parliamentary purposes the disappearance of the opinion and authority of the Commander-in-Chief. Does any one of your Lordships suppose that we could ever have heard the late Duke of Cambridge or the noble and gallant Field-marshal on the cross benches, who, I hope, we shall hear in the course of the debate this evening, get up and declare that we could disband ten battalions of foot, one of guards, and a number of artillery? The authority of the Army Council has been vouched for that change, just as the authority of the Army Council was vouched by Mr. Arnold-Forster for different changes a few years ago. On an important subject like this we have the right to ask for guidance, and I press it the more because I know it is the genuine opinion of the Secretary of State that he has improved the efficiency of the fighting force.
  The fighting period of a man's life in our rank and file has been taken as lying between the ages of twenty and thirty-five. Nearly half of the present Militia are either under twenty or over thirty-five, and if you take the proportion who are therefore of fighting value for tropical service, you will find, even if the Militia take up the whole liability which it is

  1043
  sought to impose upon them, that you will have very few more Militia to fill gaps in the Line than you would have had in the Line soldiers and Reservists whom you have disbanded; and if you are going to replace thoroughly-trained troops by partially-trained troops, to substitute for men who know their officers those who do not know their officers, then I say that the man who, knowing all that, says that he is thereby increasing the fighting efficiency of the Army by 50 per cent. is like the Mr. Gladstone of old, of whom it was said that—
  "His tongue could persuade every man of everything and himself of anything."
  The terms offered to the Militia require me to call attention for a few moments to the financial provisions of the Bill. No one has any doubt as to the mandate which the Government conceive themselves to have to reduce the expenses of the Army and Navy. The Secretary of State for War early expressed his belief that considerable economies could be made at home, and somewhat later, in a scathing passage, he described the Army as extravagant, costly, and ill-organised. Plain figures are dull, but I would like to be allowed to say a word or two on the figures. I was myself in charge of the finance of the Army from 1886 to 1892, when the Estimates were £10,000,000 less than they are now; and for the years between 1895 and 1903 I was responsible as Under-Secretary, and then as Secretary of State, for proposing much larger Estimates to the House of Commons; and I ventured again and again to tell the House of Commons that, if they wanted to reduce the Army Estimates—and nobody desires that so much as I do, and no man has ever worked harder for economy than I have done—I was convinced that it could only be done in one way—namely, by reducing our strength. I do not mean to say that some economies here and there are not possible, but if you are to secure a really large economy, an economy which will bring your Estimates down from £28,000,000, say, to £25,000,000, you must reduce considerably your military strength.
  Well, with all these changes, and all these losses, what has been the effect? What are the Estimates of cost if the
  1044
  territorial scheme is carried out? That is an important question. As no Member of the Government has yet faced the question where we are going to stand in the end, I have done the best I can to make out a balance sheet, and it is at the service of any Member of the House, who cares to examine it. The last Estimates for which Mr. Arnold-Forster was responsible amounted to £28,830,000. That was the first year—1904–5—which was free of war charges. The Estimates at the present time are £27,760,000. If you add to those Estimates the extra cost, as shown in this statement, of the Territorial Army, and if you deduct the saving on Regulars who have been already reduced, but the full saving of which has not yet taken effect, what is the cost to be? The cost goes up to £28,021,000, showing that, after all that has been j done to the Army, and all that has been; said, the only reduction in the Estimates is from close on £29,000,000 to a little over £28,000,000.
  But that is not the whole story. You have taken off £1,500,000 from the cost of the Regular Army, you are going to spend something less on your special contingent than you spent on the old Militia, but you are preparing by the concessions made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons—the Supplementary Estimates bear me out—you are preparing out of that £1,500,000 to devote nearly half to the Territorial Army. So that you have not gained in money that which you have lost in strength. You have abolished 23,400 Regulars, and you are providing something like 25,000 more Volunteers for the Territorial Army. I do not pause to press this home. I will not labour whether or not this economy of £800,000 justifies either the vehement language used at the last election or the very strong statements of the Secretary of State. I do not grudge for a moment what is being done for the Territorial Army. We tried to train for fifteen days some battalions and the Secretary of State intends to try and train all battalions for fifteen days. I look upon that as a laudable effort. I look upon the 25,000 additional men as a laudable addition to our strength, but it is done at the cost of an extra £1,000,000 filched from the Regular Army.

  1045
  I can assure the Government, from past experience, that they will find their scheme exceedingly costly. Every suggestion about the more generous treatment that the Volunteers will meet with from the County Associations means profuse expenditure. You cannot establish sixty or seventy War Offices throughout the country without an enormous increase of cost; and do you suppose that any Lord-Lieutenant or any man of authority in his county is going to undertake to spend so much money among Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers without a proper staff of accountants and clerks, and all the appanage which we dread in Pall Mall, but which I dread all the more if distributed over sixty or seventy centres throughout the country? We have heard a great deal about drill halls and rifle ranges, and other things which have hitherto come out of the pockets of the country gentleman, but for which the Secretary of State has made the nation responsible in the future; and I very much fear that little will remain of the £800,000 saving when once the ball has been set rolling in this direction. I do feel, when it is proposed to deny money to the Line and to ask the Militia to take on a double liability on the old terms, that we ought to consider them before we do so much for the Territorial Army.
  There is one other point. The Government are going back on the whole policy which has obtained with regard to the Auxiliary Forces since the days of Lord Card well. The whole policy of every Government and every military administration has been to try and draw the Auxiliary Forces closer to the Line; you are now going to introduce the chasm of separate administration. There are great gaps in the scheme to fill up; in training there is much to be done, in the economy of the scheme there is disappointment, if not waste; and I would earnestly appeal to the Government even now to reconsider the blots on the scheme.
  I do not propose, to make any Motion on the Second Reading, because I would not do anything in the world to check any portion of the scheme which may be made efficient. I especially desire to see some finality about Army organisa-
  1046
  tion. I desire to see an end of the discussions that have been going on for the last ten or twelve years about the Army, and which can hardly raise the prestige of the Army in the minds of Continental Powers, or be satisfactory either from the point of view of the discipline of the Army or the spirit of the Auxiliary Forces. But I hope the Government will listen to the earnest appeal made to them to purge the scheme of some of those blots in most important particulars which have been placed before them, against which every man in either House of Parliament who has had experience of military organisation in the past has protested, and the dangers of which to the Empire they clearly foresee.
  *EARL ROBERTS:My Lords, I venture, to intervene in the debate this afternoon with no intention of wearying your Lordships by any detailed criticism of the Army Bill which is now before this House, or of the general scheme of Army reorganisation of which it forms so important a part. There are many features indeed of the scheme which, to my mind, are, to say the least, of very doubtful advantage. But I am quite sure that in framing his scheme Mr. Haldane has enjoyed the full concurrence and support of his professional advisers who, I should think, cannot have failed to realise from the first the objections which now occur to me, and who, no doubt, have had good reasons for disregarding them; and I am only too glad to acknowledge here, as I have acknowledged elsewhere, the very real merit of the present proposals considered as a whole. They undoubtedly constitute in many respects a great advance upon anything that we have had hitherto. Mr. Haldane has, it is true, felt himself obliged to effect serious—in my opinion regrettable—reductions in the number of our Regular battalions. But he can fairly claim that, by carefully considered organisation, by the skilful utilisation of less perfectly seasoned but cheaper material for those parts of the military framework which are not required to stand the greatest strain, he will be able to put a larger organised force into the field than any we had had before, and keep it in the field for some months.

  1047
  As regards the Auxiliary Forces I think, my Lords, we are all agreed in applauding Mr. Haldane's decision to reconsider the proposed abolition of the historic and often proved stand-by of the Regular Army, the Militia. His deference to criticism has, I fear, been less happily inspired on another issue; I refer, of course, to the encouragement of drill and military training in our national schools. The awakening amongst our youths of a patriotic military spirit must, I should have thought, have been regarded by Mr. Haldane as an essential feature in a scheme which aimed at creating a great national force on the basis of voluntary patriotism. That he should have abandoned that essential feature in order to meet the views of a section which loses no opportunity of proclaiming their dislike to the idea of national defence in any shape or form, seems to be a deliberate stultification of his whole policy. I regret this concession all the more because I so gladly recognise that Mr. Haldane is, through the present Bill, endeavouring to create some kind of organisation for the Auxiliary Forces, to give them at least the semblance and shape of an Army—even if he cannot give them anything approaching reality; and, above all, to set before the people of this country the great ideal of a "Nation in Arms," even if he refuses to adopt the only principle under which that ideal can be realised.
  Frankly, my Lords, I do not see how a much better scheme could have been devised, if we are to accept, as final and fundamental facts and principles, the limitation of our military expenditure by the figures of Mr. Haldane's last Budget, the maintenance of the present conditions of service and of drafting in the Regular Army, and the theory that for no purpose whatever and to no degree, however limited, are we ever to improve upon the existing system of voluntary and haphazard enlistment for home defence. But, my Lords, I cannot accept them. The only facts that seem to me fundamental are the facts of the world outside, the military dangers which threaten the prosperity and the very existence of this Empire. The only final and true principle I know is the principle which has commended itself by experience to almost
  1048
  every other civilised nation, as the most consistent alike with efficiency, with economy, and with social justice—the principle of citizen service.
  It is because Mr. Haldane in his scheme deliberately and avowedly disregards the facts that are of the greatest consequence, and because he refuses to recognise the only principle upon which we can deal satisfactorily with those facts, that those of us—members of the National Service League—who are seriously concerned about our national and Imperial security, cannot accept his scheme as a practical solution of our difficulties, or as anything but yet one more of the patchwork and provisional schemes of which we have heard so much and from which we have seen so little result in recent years. I do not in any way wish to disparage Mr. Haldane's efforts. I am quite conscious of the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman has to contend with and the limitations under which, he must work. I do not even suggest that he could have done all, or any considerable part, of what I would have wished him to do; but I should be failing in my duty to your Lordships' House and to the country if I did not endeavour to make clear, to the best of my ability, why this scheme is inadequate to meet the great responsibilities our position as an Empire has laid upon us.
  Let us deal first with the fundamental fact that ought to govern any scheme of organisation for war. I mean our strategical requirements. Does the right hon. Gentleman's scheme provide adequately for these requirements? Is it even likely to do so, considering that it has been framed quite independently of those requirements? The strength of the Regular Expeditionary Force, the only force we shall have available for any purpose for some six or seven months after the outbreak of war, is, as Mr. Haldane has pointed out, determined simply and solely by the number of battalions which happen to be abroad. Every battalion abroad requires, under the system which originated with the late Lord Cardwell nearly forty years ago, a battalion at home to provide it with drafts, and itself

  1049
  secretes a certain number of Reservists with whose help the home battalions can be mobilised.
  And so we get our Army. But why should the size of the Army which we require for one purpose, namely, the defence of our frontiers or the fulfilment of our Treaty obligations, be fixed by the number of men required for quite different purposes, such as the garrisoning of naval stations or the internal policing of the Empire? Is the frontier of India made more secure if we withdraw troops from South Africa or Egypt? The very contrary, I imagine; yet the logical conclusion of the proposed system is that, if those troops can be conveniently withdrawn, we should not only disband them, but should promptly reduce by an equivalent number the force available in this country for the support of the Indian. Army. That conclusion, indeed, has been triumphantly singled out by one of Mr. Haldane's colleagues as a meritorious feature of the scheme. Mr. Churchill said in the House of Commons that—
  "If the numbers necessary to maintain the troops abroad can be reduced, then a reduction will be made in the size of the Expeditionary Force, and the scheme of the Secretary of State for War will not lose in its harmony and efficiency."
  Surely, my Lords, the only harmony in our military arrangements which concerns us is their harmony with our requirements; the only efficiency we look to is the efficiency which will enable us to win in war. Are these preserved if we reduce the forces required to deal with our greatest needs, just because some lesser and wholly disconnected and temporary need may have ceased to make a call upon us? Can you imagine the German military authorities determining the forces they mean to put in the field against a really formidable Power by some fixed multiple of the number required to chase the Hottentot rebels in South-West Africa, or a German statesman suggesting that the reduction of the garrison of Kiao-Chau would justify the disbandment of the Army Corps stationed at Metz? Yet that is precisely the strategical principle upon which the proposed scheme is based.
  It would be a different matter, of course, if our real source of strength for great
  1050
  Imperial wars were to be provided by the Territorial Army, and if the numbers and training of that Army were to be determined by the strategical requirements of those wars. But what has, as a matter of fact, determined the strength of the Territorial Army in the proposed scheme? From the remarkable similarity between the total figures of the present year's Estimates and those of the estimated cost of Mr. Haldane's scheme, I fear that our military needs have been arrived at by a mere process of simple subtraction. The various ingredients which are to compose the Expeditionary Force cost so much; the balance of £3,000,000 must apparently do for "The Nation in Arms." I know Mr. Haldane has since been compelled to revise that figure, and I shall not be surprised if it be revised at frequent intervals, when the attempt is made to put the scheme into force. But that does not affect my contention, which is that the strength of the Territorial Army has been fixed by considerations which have had nothing to do with our strategical requirements.
  But, my Lords, why should we trouble to infer the want of any adequate consideration of our strategical requirements in the scheme when Mr. Haldane has himself openly confessed that he has not made a study of those requirements, and that they have not entered into his plans? Surely, that is an extraordinary confession to come from a responsible Minister, speaking on behalf of a Government which is directly responsible for the security of the British Empire? I know that our responsibilities and interests all over the world are so vast and varied that the proper consideration of all of them would require the study of a life-time. But the main features of the situation stand out clearly enough for anyone to grasp; the most serious emergencies which we may have to face can almost be reckoned on the fingers of one hand, and provision for them will naturally cover all lesser emergencies.
  When we consider what should be the strength of our Navy, we base all our plans on our strategical requirements, and not on some fixed proportion between our fighting fleet and the coast guard and police services, or upon a rigid Budget. It is on strategical grounds

  1051
  and on those grounds only that recent reductions in the Navy Estimates have been defended. There, too, the problem is immensely complicated in its details, though its main points, thanks to the exertions of patriotic writers and speakers twenty years ago, are perfectly clear even to the man in the street. What really differentiates the military problem in this respect? I am afraid, my Lords, the real difference is that those responsible for the safety and existence of the Empire have not had the courage to face even the most salient and elementary facts of the Imperial situation, because to do so might force upon them conclusions which they will not, or dare not, translate into action.
  What, my Lords, are those elementary facts? What are the practical conclusions to which they lead, and how do those conclusions harmonise with the proposals now before us? Let me try and state them as simply as I can. In the first place ours is an oceanic Empire. Its component parts are divided, or I might say more correctly, united by the sea. Naval supremacy is consequently the indispensable foundation of our strategical security, not so much, however, to furnish the defence of any particular portion of the Empire, as to maintain free communication between the different parts upon which depends the life of the whole.
  But our Empire is also a Continental Empire. It covers the largest area of any Empire in the world, and it has by far the longest total land frontier. On three portions at least of that frontier it is in touch with, or in close proximity to, powerful States. Of the existence of one of those frontiers, that of Egypt, we only became aware the other day. Of the existence of the Indian frontier we have been aware long enough. To the existence of another frontier, the longest and most exposed of all, where for 4,000 miles of absolutely open front we border upon the mighty Republic which is, potentially, the greatest military power on earth, we have as a rule deliberately closed our eyes. Vast regions of the Empire are inhabited by alien, and half-civilised or wholly-savage races. There has been an enormous extension of those territories and of the responsibilities
  1052
  involved in their possession during the last twenty years. Their successful occupation has been achieved by the merest handful of Englishmen, aided by small bodies of native mercenaries. But does that prove that we can maintain them for all time on so slight a basis of military power? India, too, I would remind your Lordships, was won on very easy terms. But the Mutiny proved that something more was required if India was to remain part of the Empire. These are facts of the situation with which a navy cannot possibly deal, which can be dealt with by military power alone. Yet, my Lords, they involve the very existence of the Empire.
  There is a school of thought, I know, which, while admitting that the Navy is essential to our existence, looks upon all military forces as a pure luxury. A necessary, natural, and indeed inevitable corollary to that view is that the British Empire is an unnecessary luxury, and that we need only trouble ourselves about the British Isles. That is not my view. I do not believe that it is the view held by your Lordships' House or by the great body of the people of Great Britain. It is certainly not the view that any of us would like to express openly at this moment, when the Prime Ministers of the Empire have so recently assembled to consult over our common destinies. But if so why should we imply that view in our action? If Canada, India, and Australia are integral and essential portions of the Empire, then surely the possibility of having to help to defend them becomes hardly less vital a question than that of having to defend these islands, and the consideration of the means by which they can be defended is one that the Imperial Government cannot be allowed to shirk.
  The contingency of internal trouble in the Empire I need not discuss, for however serious it might be, it is the least serious of the contingencies we may have to face. Moreover, it is one with which, I should hope, Mr. Haldane's Expeditionary Force would be able to cope. Of the external problems, the least difficult, perhaps, is that of the defence of Egypt. It might, of course, involve us in further complications, but so far as the problem

  1053
  itself is concerned I am inclined to think that, with the advantages of our naval position, and possibly with the, assistance of troops from India, the Expeditionary Force would be able to defend Egypt.
  But, my Lords, when we come to the defence of India, we come to a very different problem. It is true that no very immediate danger may threaten the frontier of India, but in dealing with military schemes which may take ten or fifteen years even to bear fruit, it is the future and not the immediate moment that we must consider. What would the defence of the Indian frontier involve? To begin with, as soon as the danger became at all real, we should require to reinforce our Indian Army to the strength necessary to make good our preliminary dispositions. But that requirement would at once bring us face to face with one of the inherent defects of Mr. Haldane's scheme, for it would be impossible to secure that reinforcement without recourse either to a general mobilisation, which for diplomatic or domestic reasons we might wish to avoid, or else to the special mobilisation made possible by the use of Section A of the Reserve, a device which Mr. Haldane's scheme proposes to extend, but which inevitably involves the disorganisation of the arrangements for the general mobilisation which might be expected at any moment. The difficulty would be precisely the same as the one with which we were confronted in South Africa in the summer of 1899, with what unfortunate results your Lordships are well aware. That element of strategic flexibility so essential for so widely scattered an Empire as ours, can only be provided by a force, not necessarily large, which does not require mobilisation, or the mobilisation of which, at any rate, does not interfere with the arrangements for mobilising the main field force. But even it that difficulty could be got over, what would be the position at the outbreak of war? Counting the Expeditionary Force and the Indian Field Force as one army we should have 300,000 men at the front, and for the first few months that might be sufficient. But I do not understand that any provision has been made for the simultaneous supply of drafts to the 50,000 or more British soldiers in the
  1054
  Indian Field Force, upon whom the brunt of the opening weeks of the campaign would fall; and if the Special Contingent is to supply their needs as well, then the six months allowed by Mr. Haldane for training must be reduced to four and a half months or even less; after that time our Army of 300,000 would rapidly begin to shrink.
  But what would our opponents be doing? Can anyone who has followed the course of the Manchurian Campaign doubt that it would be perfectly possible for Russia to bring 500,000 or 600,000 men against us on the Indian frontier within the first year of the war, and keep them in the field almost indefinitely? How should we meet that army with a diminishing force of barely half the strength? Mr. Haldane speaks optimistically of his Territorial Army as of a great reservoir of power—a potential source of expansion—from which voluntary patriotism might inspire not only individuals but whole brigades and even divisions to volunteer for Imperial Service. My Lords, in the first place, the reservoir will not be ready to supply any drafts whatever at the front for at least six or seven months after the arrival of the Expeditionary Force; in other words, for some two months after the Army in the field has begun to waste. Consequently by the time the reservoir is ready, 40,000 or 50,000 drafts may be wanted simply in order to bring that Army back to its original strength of 300,000, while 20,000 a month or more would be required to maintain it at that strength. Is it possible, my Lords, that a Territorial Army of 300,000 men could do that, and then go and furnish a sufficient number of organised units to expand the Field Army up to the strength of the 500,000 or 600,000 men required to deal with the forces we should have to encounter?
  In considering the liabilities of the Empire as a Continental Empire, we cannot leave out of account the most extensive and most open of all our frontiers—the frontier of Canada. It may be said that any danger in that quarter is excluded by the friendly relations which exist—and, as I rejoice to think, tend to grow more and more cordial — with the United States of

  1055
  America. But in considering the problem of national existence we have to take account of every possibility, however unpleasant and however seemingly remote. Every other nation does it. We do it ourselves where the Navy is concerned. Is there any one who would venture to suggest that in estimating our Naval requirements we should take no account of the Navy of the United States, or avoid all reference to the subject as offensive to a kindred and friendly nation? But I will go even further. If we are continually comparing our resources, quite openly and unreservedly, with those of other Powers, however friendly, when it is a question of such vital importance to us as the defence of these islands by sea, or the defence of India by land, can we be silent about the defence of Canada without inevitably conveying to Canadians the impression that we do not consider the defence of Canada a matter of vital importance? Will they not construe our silence as implying that we do not really regard Canada as an essential and indispensable portion of the Empire, and that we do not mean to throw our whole heart and our whole strength into her defence if the need should arise? Surely, my Lords, if there are any nations to whom we cannot afford to give ground for offence, they are the nations within the Empire. But how could we offend them more deeply than by refusing even to discuss questions that are matters of life and death to them just as the Naval question is a matter of life and death to us?
  I hope, my Lords, in what I have said I have not conveyed the impression that this country, alone and unaided, is to undertake the whole task of the defence of the Imperial frontiers. Let me assure your Lordships that this is very far from being my view. If the Empire is to be defended at all the co-operation of the Colonies and of India in that task is indispensable. No one has better occasion to know the value of that co-operation than I have. I have counted upon it in the field and it has not failed me. I confidently count upon it as an essential element in maintaining the peace and security of the Empire in the future. But as long as the whole political control of the destinies of the Empire
  1056
  is in the hands of the people of this country, I feel we are in a position of peculiar responsibility for the defence of the Empire as a whole. The task may be beyond our powers. But let us at any rate face it frankly with a full sense of our great responsibility, and with a determination to do our utmost as far as our strength allows us. If we approach the problem in that spirit, I believe it will be met by an equal spirit on the part of the Colonies. For it is to the whole national strength of the Colonies that I look in a great Imperial struggle, not to small contingents ear-marked for our use, in return for our holding a corresponding though far larger Expeditionary Force available to help them. War cannot be waged on limited liability principles. We must all be ready to give our whole national strength, if the need should arise. But it is for this country to set the example by the establishment of the only principle of military organisation which makes possible the full expansion of that strength in time of war.
  I have purposely, up to this point, dwelt upon the danger to the outlying Continental portions of the Empire, and left out of account the danger of trouble nearer home. That is not because I have forgotten the security of Great Britain in considering the security of Greater Britain. It is because I believe that the danger to this country, the blow to the heart, is most likely to come at a time when we are already engaged in some other part of the world. Let us suppose the existence of the Empire threatened in India or in Canada. Would there, could there, be any holding back in this country? Would not Mr. Haldane's Expeditionary Force be hurried off as fast as transports could be provided? Would not the Navy be fully occupied dealing with hostile fleets, covering the passage of our transports to the seat of war, and protecting our commerce and our national food supply? What more likely moment than this for an enemy to choose for striking a mortal blow by an invasion of these islands? And to what should we look at such a moment for our protection? To the Territorial Army? Would men who may have had only three or four weeks training be capable of holding their own

  1057
  against men who have been for two or three years consecutively with the colours? Are we to send amateur artillerists, equipped with obsolete guns, into action against highly trained experts provided with the deadliest modern weapons? Whatever else we may think we can improvise in the hour of danger or begin to train after the crisis has arisen, artillery cannot be improvised. Artillerymen must be trained before the crisis and not after, and given a very different training from the annual week or fortnight, which is all the proposed scheme provides. Inadequate as Mr. Haldane's scheme is in this respect, and in many others, for the defence of the British Dominions across the seas, it is even more inadequate for the defence of these islands in the one contingency under which serious invasion is likely to be successfully attempted.
  I hope I may be forgiven, my Lords, if I have wandered so far into contingencies that may seem to many of you highly problematical. They are, I contend, by no means so problematical but that they ought to be kept in view in any military scheme we may frame, though I admit they have never been kept in view in any scheme that has been framed. They are contingencies no more problematical than those which other countries are continually considering; no more problematical than those which we consider as a matter of course when dealing with the Navy, which, though essential to the safety of the Empire, cannot be all-sufficient. What adequate provision is there to meet these contingencies in the proposed scheme? It makes no provision for the strategical reinforcement of our distant frontiers on the eve of a crisis. The Expeditionary Force which it can provide on mobilisation is not large enough to deal with the forces it may have to meet in the opening year of a campaign. It can only be des-patched, as I have said, at the risk of leaving the military defence of this country to a force that is absolutely unfit and unready to face trained troops; and if the crisis has not already terminated in disaster, we shall have, for the double task of defending this country and providing a boundless reservoir for the voluntary expansion of the armies
  1058
  on our distant frontiers, a total force of 300,000 untrained men.
  I feel sure I shall be asked, Is there the slightest possibility of dealing with these contingencies under any scheme whatever? I contend that there is, but only if we realise the extent of those contingencies, and adopt the one principle which alone can provide that great reserve of trained strength which Mr. Haldane dwells upon so eloquently, but which his Territorial Army under his proprosed conditions could not provide. I am inclined to think that a serious study of those contingencies would in the first place lead to a re-organisation of our existing forces, so as to admit of the free despatch of moderate reinforcements before mobilisation, and to allow of the subsequent mobilisation of a considerably larger force than the proposed Expeditionary Force. Such a force can only be provided by a really short service Territorial Army wholly severed from the non strategical duties of furnishing drafts for the foreign battalions. That short service Army can, I believe, be most conveniently evolved out of the Militia; and it is for that reason that I feel especially grateful to Mr. Haldane for his reconsideration of the Militia question. If only I could have considered Mr. Haldane's scheme a final solution of our military problem I should have acquiesced, though with regret, in the extinction of the Militia. It is because I do not consider it a final solution that I rejoice most heartily that the Militia with its historical traditions, its strong corporate feeling, and its great possibilities, has at any rate been kept alive,—kept alive, I venture to hope, so that at some future date it may take a larger and more important part in Imperial defence than any to which it has hitherto aspired.
  But, above all, my Lords, the consideration of these problems ought, I think, to convince any dispassionate student that they can be solved on no other principle than on that of the "Nation in Arms," the Nation trained in readiness for war. The Territorial Army, great improvement as it is on all that has gone before, is yet neither in size nor in character what is denoted by these

  1059
  terms. It is not the nation, but only a small portion of it. It cannot be thoroughly representative, for whole classes and industries are almost certain to be excluded by the conditions of service. It is not trained to arms, but only pledged to be trained, and that under conditions which cannot but be unfair to those who have been induced to pledge themselves. There is very grave doubt whether under these conditions even the 300,000 men will be found. What will Mr. Haldane or his successor do if he finds that to get the men he must either waive all the conditions both as to service and as to the due proportion of arms, and so make a farce of the whole proposed reforms, or else that he must resort to the holding out of increased financial inducements, and turn his "Nation in Arms" into a paid force as costly as it will be inefficient?
  Mr. Haldane has told us that he regards his proposal as the strongest intrenchment that could be devised against the advocates of universal military training. My Lords, whatever apprehension I may entertain with regard to Mr. Haldane's scheme, I confess I do not dread it as a serious obstacle to the progress of the great national movement to the furtherance of which I have devoted myself. I can see Mr. Haldane's intrenchment plain as the print and pages in which it is laid out. But I fail to see where the men are coming from who are to hold it; nor do I believe that the men trained under the conditions of the present Bill will be capable of holding it. I, too, have my conception of an intrenchment, an intrenchment not directed against the advocates of any particular policy in this country, but against every external danger that may threaten the country or the Empire. It will be an intrenchment held by the whole able-bodied manhood of our nation, and of the kindred nations of the Empire, duly trained to the task, and trained in due time before, not after, the approach of J danger. They will be men of every trade and of every class, trained side by side under conditions of absolute equality, not under conditions which allow the wealthy, selfish, the indolent and the unpatriotic to escape all the burden and
  1060
  to enjoy all the benefit of the efforts of others. The burden, indeed, is only one of their own imagining—it is a burden that strengthens and braces up, physically and morally, those who have to bear it. The benefit is a delusion, for it can only exist where there is national security and that security they destroy by their own actions. For my part, I am convinced that, though there may be opposition, particularly by those who view with dislike the Imperial idea, the principle which alone can give security, consistent with economy and efficiency, and which alone is based on the recognition of social justice and equality of duty, will, in the end, be victorious.
  *THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, the Bill before the House is remarkable for the indirect manner in which it deals with most important questions. This Bill, as it now stands, by implication repeals the Militia Act of 1882 and consequently abolishes the Militia system of service. But no mention of that is made in the Bill. Another feature of the Bill is the very wide powers conferred on the Army Council. For instance, by the very first clause the Army Council is empowered to raise a Volunteer force in Ireland to be administered by local associations.
  His Majesty's Government claim that their scheme for the reorganisation of the military forces holds the field. That is no doubt true. But I can indicate in a few sentences a course which, had His Majesty's Government thought it well to follow, would have been just as acceptable to the Auxiliary Forces as their present scheme is the reverse. After the South African War the Norfolk Commission was appointed to inquire into the condition of the Auxiliary Forces. That Commission reported that neither the Militia nor the Volunteers were fit to take the field, and made, after a careful and extensive inquiry, most important recommendations for making those forces efficient. I regret that His Majesty's Government have decided to produce the scheme at present before your Lordships' House instead of following the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission, and making the Auxiliary Forces efficient in the form in which they are now organised.

  1061
  The principle of reorganisation adopted in this Bill is to divide our military forces into two instead of three lines. Three years ago the late Secretary of State for War, with the entire approval of his Army Council, created a short service Army, into which the Militia was destined to be absorbed. One year ago the present Secretary of State for War, with the entire approval of the same Army Council, destroyed the short service Army of his predecessor and foreshadowed measures of re-organisation for the Militia. To-day the present Secretary of State for War, with the entire approval of the same Army Council, establishes a short service Army into which the Militia is to be absorbed.
  Under this Bill the name of the Volunteers is changed into that of the Territorial Army. The Volunteers were reported by the Norfolk Commission as unfit to take the field for active service with their present amount of training. No effort is made to increase their efficiency by any additional training, I presume because the Volunteers now become the second line, and we are told that the duty of the second line is "to slumber in time of peace." They are to awake, I hope, early in the morning of the declaration of war, and to commence their military training. Here the Government appear to go beyond the region of originality and to enter into the domain of eccentricity, because to organise for war on the plan of beginning to train for the field after the commencement of hostilities is at any rate at first sight contrary to common sense.
  The Volunteers are to be administered in future by County Associations. I am not hopeful of the success of this proposal, because nobody wants the County Associations. The Volunteers and, I believe, the Yeomanry also dislike passing under the control of these Associations. No counties that I have heard of are the least anxious to form these Associations, and the representatives of labour view them with disfavour. The Bill puts the Volunteers under the name of Territorial Force in the second line in place of the Militia abolished. The Volunteers are to discharge the duties of second line troops and must be prepared to accept
  1062
  embodied service in place of the defunct Militia. Now, are His Majesty's Government of opinion that the Volunteers can accept embodiment? Can they carry out this essential duty of a force of the second line?
  Let me remind you of what happened in the year 1900. The country was then in rather a tight place, and the Volunteers were asked to give two months of consecutive service. They replied with one accord that it was perfectly impossible for them to do so, and that two weeks of consecutive service was all they could give. Under these conditions no regiment was asked to give more than a fortnight of consecutive service. But the situation was so critical and the crisis so urgent that Royal Reserve regiments were created at a cost of millions to the country, because the Volunteers could not carry out embodied service. Your Lord-ships must remember that in 1900 there were 124 battalions, of Militia embodied, but, in spite of that, the creation of Royal Reserve battalions was demanded by the state of public feeling—in other words, by panic.
  I beg to ask His Majesty's Government why they consider that the Volunteers in 1907 can do that which they could not do in 1900. Possibly there is no intention of ever embodying the Territorial Army. If that is the case, what in the name of common sense is the use of a Territorial Army for the purpose of a second line of defence? I am doubtful if the Government have sufficiently considered if the changed conditions of service which they propose can possibly be accepted by the Yeoman, the Militiaman, and the Volunteer. It must be remembered that under voluntary enlistment the conditions of service must be a compromise between what the War Office demands and what the men are willing to accept, except for the unfortunate class who may be described as the conscripts of hunger. We do not want that class. We want men who are in a position to join or not as they choose. This class can afford to be, and is, largely influenced by sentiment. The Government appear to me to have absolutely ignored the fact that in dealing with the existing Auxiliary Forces they must have due regard for the

  1063
  principles of voluntary enlistment complicated as they are by sentiment, unless their scheme is to be a failure for lack of men.
  On this most important point of voluntary enlistment, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to explain as briefly as I can exactly what took place between certain Militia commanding officers and the War Office last July. I know it has been repeatedly stated that Militia commanding officers refused to supply drafts to the Line. That is a misrepresentation of what actually occurred. In the first place, by the existing Militia Act of 1882 no Militiaman may be transferred, except by his own consent, from the regiment into which he first enlists. It is, therefore, certain that the War Office could not ask any officers to do that which was contrary to the Act of Parliament under which they served. The question submitted to the conference of Militia commanding officers was whether it was possible to alter the existing Militia Act in two very important respects, and at the same time to obtain a sufficient supply of men. The first alteration required was to enlist the Militia for foreign service on embodiment; the second, to make the Militiaman liable to be drafted away from his original Militia Regiment into the Line. The Militia commanding officers consulted numbered, as far as I can remember, about twenty. They came from every part of the United Kingdom. We were unanimous in saying that the men in the Militia would accept foreign service enlistment on embodiment, provided always that the clauses in the Act of 1882 forbidding the transfer of the Militiaman without his consent remained unaltered. We were then informed that if we adhered to that opinion, which obviously we could not change, seeing that we believed it to be true, the War Office had no further use for the Militia, and that the force would be abolished, as proposed by this Bill. You will therefore perceive that what really happened was that the Militia commanding officers were asked to give their opinion as to what the effect would be from a recruiting point of view of altering certain clauses in the Militia Act. They were unanimous in saying that if the clause as to drafting was
  1064
  altered in the way proposed by the War Office you would not get the men to accept foreign service enlistment on embodiment. That is the opinion of the vast majority of Militia commanding officers at the present moment. But that is a very different story from refusing to supply drafts to the Line in time of war.
  The absorption of the Militia into the short service Army is, I believe, to be effected as follows. The whole Militia Force passes under the Army Act, and the Militia Act of 1882. on becoming obsolete, will be repealed by a Statute Law Revision Act. From the existing 124 Militia regiments of the United Kingdom seventy-four short service battalions of the Regular Army are to be formed for the purpose of supplying drafts, but these seventy-four battalions will never take the field as battalions. At first these drafting battalions will be commanded by Militia officers who are now serving; but, as soon as it is decently possible to get rid of the senior Militia officers, they will be replaced by officers from the Line. The junior officers, who by the way will never get promotion, will belong to the reserve of officers. Then, in addition, there are to be twelve battalions in Ireland and fifteen in Great Britain of the short service Army, which may be employed as battalions, but of course the men will be enlisted under just the same liability for drafting as in the purely drafting battalions. On this point of drafting, a man must either enlist under the liability to be drafted or with an immunity from drafting. The suggestion that a man should enlist in a certain regiment on the unwritten understanding that as far as possible he should not be transferred against his will is perfectly absurd, because you cannot put the words "as far as possible" in any Act of Parliament or in any form of enlistment. For instance, how would it be possible to say to a future recruit—"Mr. Secretary of State Haldane said in the House of Commons in the year 1907 that as far as possible you will not be drafted away from this battalion, but by Act of Parliament you can be so drafted?" In Clause 6, sub-section 4, your Lordships will see clauses protecting

  1065
  the Territorial soldier of the future from drafting. These clauses are practically taken out of the Militia Act of 1882. I see no advantage in pretending to differentiate between battalions of the short service Army. Apparently all Militia officers of over thirty-five years of age are to be got rid of as soon as possible; therefore, I presume that these twenty-seven battalions will be commanded by Line officers.
  The problem to be solved is how to get sufficient recruits to supply the Regular Army and at the same time to maintain the establishment of the Militia, and, more than that, to pass on men to the Army in time of war and yet leave un-depleted Militia battalions available as units for the purpose of second line troops. You will see at once that the whole question is one of recruiting. Militia commanding officers are of opinion, if the War Office would only give them that control of their own recruiting, which has been absolutely refused for many years past, that then they could find sufficient recruits for both Line and Militia. I cannot go into the recruiting question at present, but I have done so before in your Lordships' House. The present methods of recruiting are futile and feeble beyond belief.
  The next point is the transfer of men from the Militia to the Army in time of war. All Militia Acts have forbidden the transfer of men from the Militia to the Army except by their own consent, and that voluntary principle of transfer has always acted perfectly well in the past. Take the most recent instance, that of the South African War. At that time in the Militia there were about 25,000 men who had accepted a bounty of £1 a year to serve with the Army Reserve when that Reserve was called out, but 40,000 men, who had always refused to tie their hands in peace time by accepting this annual bounty of £1, transferred to the Army during the war. That shows that the principle of voluntary transfer in time of war from the Militia to the Army can be relied upon. Now, if the Militia is to send on men in batches transferring of their own free will to the Army in time of war, they must be somehow or other replaced in the Militia to avoid the depletion of the Militia Force. That, we
  1066
  are of opinion, can easily be done by creating a Reserve for the Militia, which could be obtained at an annual cost of £1 per man.
  To sum up. It is not reasonable to find fault with a man for not succeeding in doing that which you will not allow him to attempt. The Militia is reproached with its deficient numbers, but the Militia is not allowed to manage its own recruiting. Give us complete control of our own recruiting system, and the Militia are ready to find men for both Militia and Line; to give foreign service enlistment on embodiment and increased recruit training, indeed, to give a far greater amount of recruit training than the Government is prepared to pay for; and to pass men by voluntary transfer to the Line in time of war. That is an offer of service such as no Auxiliary Force has ever made to any Government before and, my Lords, it is an offer which, let me ask you to remember, aims at increasing the efficiency of the Line, just as much as the efficiency of the Militia. It is an offer which I hope your Lordships will carefully consider before it is finally rejected, and before the system which enables us to make it is finally and irretrievably destroyed.
  *EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I shall not venture to inflict upon you my views with regard to the Bill generally, but I should like to say that I do not share the aspirations expressed by the noble and gallant Field Marshal who spoke earlier in the debate, and I recognise that if you are to depend upon voluntary enlistment you must make the length of training suit the convenience of your recruits. I hope that in developing their system the Government will bear in mind that all the teaching of recent history is that the less trained the troops the more highly trained the officers ought to be. The records of the British Army are full of the great achievements of levies hastily raised, of every race and colour under the sun, in the hands of firsts-class men who knew their business. But the records of the South African war are also full of regrettable incidents, where officers, however gallant, knew no more than the hastily raised men

  1067
  they commanded. I trust that the preparation of a strong corps of highly trained officers will be recognised by the Government as an indispensable part of their scheme.
  But I rose rather to call attention to another part in regard to which I think my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State was jejune in his information. There are many in this House who have the honour to be lords-lieutenant of counties, and there are many more who take a considerable part in county business. We were told by the Secretary of State when he first introduced his proposals that his desire was to enlist the services of lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants in carrying them out. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to be told rather more fully than we have been yet what are the duties and responsibilities that we are to be asked to undertake. The noble Duke who spoke last reminded the House that it seemed probable that the Act of 1882, under which all lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants were appointed, would shortly become obsolete and lapse. We ought to know what is to come next, and, in regard especially to deputy-lieutenants, whether their acceptance of office implies the acceptance of any obligations, and, if so, by whom those obligations are to be enforced. There is a clause in the Act of 1882—Clause 30—under which the services of the deputy-lieutenants can be dispensed with. The number of deputy-lieutenants has been recently limited in proportion to the population of the counties, and a great many of them are gentlemen who, owing to age or infirmity, would probably be unwilling to undertake any further public duty. Is this dispensing clause to be put into operation? Are any number of these gentlemen to be asked to resign? and, if so, is it proposed to fill up the positions and to confer the status of deputy-lieutenant on all future members of the County Association? If deputy-lieutenants are to exercise any more than the purely honorary functions which they do at present, I think that is a thing which might very well be done.
  Then going on to the County Associations, the first part of Clause 1 empowers the creation of County Associations in
  1068
  any county in the United Kingdom. What is to happen in Ireland? The Militia are to be part of the Regular Forces, and the only Territorial Forces in Ireland will be a couple of Yeomanry regiments something less than 900 strong. Gentlemen who are lieutenants of Irish counties and deputy-lieutenants would be glad to know whether Associations are to be established all over Ireland to provide for something under 1,000 men; and if not, if counties are to be grouped for that purpose, what is to be the position of the lieutenants of the counties so grouped. Further on, in Section 3, it says the schemes are to provide for the date of the establishment of the Associations. It would be of great interest if the noble Lord or somebody speaking from that side would tell us presently whether associations are to be established next year as soon as the Act comes into operation, or whether there is any truth in the rumour that prevailed not very long ago that the experiment was to be tried first of all only in certain selected counties.
  The next sub-clause says that the Army Council may constitute the lieutenant of the county or such other person as they think fit to be president of the Association. We should like to know whether the discretionary power given to the Army Council is intended only to cover the cases of lords-lieutenant who, owing to age or infirmity or to holding high office, or possibly to-absence abroad in the Governorship of a Colony, are unable to undertake the presidency, or whether the Army Council will pick and choose in this matter and be entitled to say: "This gentleman is good enough for the King, but he is not good enough for us to put in a position of authority in his county." The word used is "constituted," which is different from the phrase employed elsewhere throughout the Bill. Chairmen are to be appointed; members of the association are to be appointed; the secretary is to be appointed; but the president is to be constituted. I do not know whether it is more than a verbal accident, but it would be interesting to know whether the office is to be held for life or for a term of years, or up to a certain age, or during good behaviour. I would also

  1069
  ask what powers and responsibilities the president of a County Association will have. Will the position be analogous to that of a patron of a hospital or of a charity bazaar, or is he really to be a working man on the Association, though not possibly the chairman? Will he be allowed to vote? Will he be allowed to resign if he cannot get on with his colleagues? If he resigns, which and how many of his duties as lord-lieutenant, apart from his duties as custos rotulorum,will he retain? Judging from a subsequent clause of the Bill, it appears to be the intention to substitute the president of the association for the lord-lieutenant, for certain purposes at any rate, because Clause 7, which is almost a verbatim copy of Clause 6 of the Militia Act, transfers to the president, subject to directions which may be given by His Majesty, the power of first appointments in the Territorial Forces. These are all points on which I hope we may get some information later.
  Then there is the question of the numbers and composition of the Association. We are told that not less than one-half of the Association is to be composed of representatives of the various branches of the Territorial Forces within the county. That in some counties might mean a very numerous Association indeed, because units are numerous and there is generally a healthy jealousy between them. I cannot conceive that Sir Howard Vincent, for instance, would be satisfied that the Queen's West-ministers were properly represented on any Association by any other Volunteer colonel than himself. There is a further point in connection with the composition of the Associations, which is a very important one. There are to be co-opted members, representative of the interests of employers and workmen. I take it that members of a great trade union and of such Associations as the Miners' Federation would be eligible and probably very desirable members of the association in their respective counties. But what about the employees in His Majesty's arsenals? There are. a great many of them at Plymouth, in the county with which I have the honour to be connected. It has been suggested rather than declared, I think, that men employed
  1070
  in arsenals are not to be eligible in future as members of Volunteer corps. I think that may be a very sound idea, for it is evident enough that in cases of pressure or imminent invasion they would all be wanted in the arsenals and would not be available as fighting mm; but that again is a matter upon which I hope we may receive some information.
  A more important point is as to the appointment of chairmen and vice-chairmen. Who is to appoint them? Are they to be elected by the Association or are they to be appointed by head-quarters? And is the lord-lieutenant if president to be eligible to be chairman or not? What powers will he have in regard to the summoning of meetings and for ensuring attendance at them? These matters may all be provided for in the scheme under subhead (j) (3) of this clause; but they require consideration, because if more than one half of the Association are to be officers and commanding officers of territorial units, it is plain that at certain seasons of the year, and still more at any time of pressure or danger, it would be very difficult for these gentlemen to attend, and all the work of the Association would have to be carried on by the remaining members.
  Then there is another section which says that counties may be divided. In such an event what will be the position of the president or the lord-lieutenant? Will he be universal president, a sort of connecting link between the Associations? And what especially will be his position in great manufacturing counties, where, I suppose, as in the case of Yorkshire and Lancashire, a great number of subordinate associations will of necessity be set up? Will the president of the central County Association have any status in connection with the associations of the great cities within his county, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, and the like?
  My Lords, I do not wish to take up the time of the House on Clause 2, though I may say that it seems to me to err rather in the direction of over-centralisation. I think that such matters as the provision of horses for the peace requirements of the regiment, and the safe custody of arms and equipment should be left much

  1071
  more to the commanding officer of the unit than to the County Association in the county town. I doubt whether those who prepared this Bill quite realise how many square miles companies and squadrons are sometimes spread over, and probably they do not appreciate the difficulty there will be in connection with squad drills and occasional drills in getting arms or saddlery for the instruction of the men unless the commanding officers are allowed to keep them at convenient centres where their men and officers can get at them.
  A more important point arises in connection with Clause 3, where we are, told that the Army Council is to pay to the association such sums as they think may be required. We have had very little information indeed, and very little was given in the other House, on this important matter of finance. Are we to expect that a block grant, calculated on the strength of the Territorial Forces in the county, will be assigned to each Association to be dispensed under the proper heads in much the same way as the commanding officer of Yeomanry or Volunteers now is allowed to spend his contingent grant? And if the money granted by the Government is not adequate or seems inadequate, will a County Association be expected to take round the hat to obtain what is necessary to make up the deficiency? I think in one of his speeches Mr. Haldane hinted at local funds being forthcoming to supplement this grant. There are certain purposes for which I think people would be ready enough to subscribe locally in connection with the forces within their county. Such matters as prizes for rifle shooting, I am sure, might be provided by local effort; but I do not think people would be inclined to put their hands in their pockets for things which in their opinion should more properly be paid for out of taxation. I think that Associations and those connected with them would be likely to be put in a very false position if they were obliged to come forward and say to the residents in their county: "The Government do not allow enough for the necessities of the Yeomanry, or the Artillery and Infantry who are recruited from among us, and we, therefore, have to appeal to you to supplement your taxes by
  1072
  voluntary contributions in providing the men, for instance, with serviceable greatcoats." Of course, we did that very largely at the time of the South African war, but that was a different thing, and I do not think, if this scheme is to succeed, it would be desirable to make anything of the sort either necessary or possible in the future.
  There is another point which concerns only a few of us, but which I hope I may be pardoned for mentioning now, because there is no particular clause in the Bill on which it arises. The Secretary of State indicated that when the Bill was in operation each group of regimental districts would have to find the equivalent of a division. How does that apply to groups of regimental districts in which great arsenals like Plymouth and Portsmouth, and in a lesser degree Dover and Chatham, are situated? As it happens, both Ports-mouth and Plymouth are within the same group of regimental districts—the Western Counties. Shall we be expected in that district to find a whole division and to contribute towards the number of men required to garrison Portsmouth and Plymouth besides? I am not aware what the military estimates of the requirements of those two great arsenals might be, but it is obvious that if the western group has to find those garrisons in addition to a division, it will put a very much heavier burden upon them than will be put by the same Act on counties in the eastern or central portions of England. I do not know whether any allowance is likely to be made in connection with the Territorial quota which the districts have to find in the matter of recruits for the Navy, but I find that last year the county of Hampshire alone provided one-eighth of all the recruits for the Naval service, and Devonshire provided 545, which is nearly five time as many as the whole of Wales together. It is only 500 odd, but even put so it is a matter deserving of some consideration before it is decided exactly what burden is to be laid on each part of the country.
  I hope my noble friend will not think that I have asked these questions or made these suggestions in any captious spirit. I can say speak for myself and I am

  1073
  sure I can say also for others who hold the posts of lieutenants of counties, that our only wish will be to accept loyally any duties that are put upon us, and to do our best to the utmost of our ability to make the scheme a success. But I think we are entitled to some further information than we have yet had as to the duties and responsibilities which will be put upon us, and I hope the Government will not turn a deaf ear to any suggestions in regard to those duties, when we know what they are, which our knowledge and experience of local government lead us to make.
  *VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with what my noble friend the Duke of Bedford has already stated on that part of the Bill which concerns the Militia, but I desire at the same time to express my extreme gratification that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has been able to see his way to come to a compromise with regard to the Militia, and I trust it will be an honest endeavour to save that old constitutional force from final extinction. Anyone conversant with military matters cannot fail to realise that the abolition or practical destruction of the Militia would be a grave national disaster. If the Militia had been included as originally intended in the organisation of the Territorial Army it would undoubtedly have been no more, and I think, when were member the great services that have been rendered to this country by the Militia in the past, and that those great services have been rendered voluntarily, your Lordships will agree that the Militia deserve greater consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government than was proposed in the first instance.
  It has been stated by my noble friend the Duke of Bedford that the Secretary of State when introducing this Bill in the other House stated that his reason for taking this unfortunate step in regard to the Militia was the fact that the Militia commanding officers had refused to agree to the supplying of drafts to the line battalions in time of war, and thereby endeavoured to east the whole burden of blame upon the shoulders of the Militia officers. As a Militia commanding officer I most emphatically repudiate such a
  1074
  charge. I regret that such a misleading statement was made, for I have yet to learn that the Militia have ever refused to carry out anything that was demanded of them. If the Militia commanding| officers have erred—and I do not admit that they have—in offering opinions or making suggestions which were not. in agreement with the views of the Army Council, I maintain that they have done so in order to preserve the integrity of their regiments. And I think they were fully justified in so doing, when we remember that the Secretary of State for War, in making his first military speech in the House of Commons, said with regard to the Militia that he agreed that the present condition of the Militia, was not satisfactory, but that he attributed that to no fault of their own, but to the fact that no definite function had ever been assigned to them, and that he in the future would see that they were not bled while in order to provide the line battalions with its strength in time of war. After a pronouncement such as that I venture to think that Militia commanding officers were not so un-reasonable as has been suggested in proposing that, if the Militia were enlisted for service across the seas, they should be allowed to go out to the scene of action in units of battalions for duties for which they have hitherto offered themselves whenever in the past invited to do so, and which they have done to the advantage of the country and the credit of their own honour. It is now made perfectly clear, however, to the Militia that these proposals will not be sanctioned by His Majesty's Government, and I venture to think that rather than sign their own death warrant they will accept any reasonable concessions that may be offered to them and sink some of their wishes for the sake of the public good.
  I gather from the statement of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War that the basis of the proposed concessions means that the Militia, instead of being split up in the Territorial Army, and thereby being finally ruined, are to go over en bloc to the Regular Army—to use Mr. Haldane's phrase, "lock, stock and barrel"—in order to provide the line battalions with third battalions and fourth battalions,

  1075
  and to find drafts in time of war and for other services. It must be perfectly plain to everyone that the present Militia service becomes absolutely obsolete, for it is proposed that out of the whole Militia service only twenty-seven battalions are really to remain on the Militia basis, but to serve under the Army Act. I should like to ask one of the noble Lords opposite who will shortly answer the different questions that have been put, why it is that out of these twenty-seven battalions, twelve are to be Irish, and only fifteen from England and Scotland? The worst point in Mr. Haldane's latest proposal with regard to the Militia to my mind is that concerning the officers. The officer question of recent years has been a difficult one for commanding officers to surmount. The great question to my mind is whether the Militia officer will be forthcoming in the future when he realises that he is never to attain the rank of field officer in his regiment, and that when he attains the age of thirty-five he is to be transferred to the Army reserve. I trust that the noble Earl who represents the War Office in this House will appeal to the Secretary of State to pause before he makes such a drastic change so unfavourable to Militia officers, who by devotion and great energy have rendered military service in conjunction with their civil employment, and who, if they can prove they can make themselves efficient in the future, should have better treatment meted out to them than is proposed.
  In making these remarks I trust that it will not be inferred that I am actuated by any hostile spirit. I am putting them forward merely as an expression of criticism, for I am fully aware that all questions with regard to the Army and Navy are treated in this House at least in a purely national and not a Party spirit, and I feel sure that that will always continue to be so. Never the less I maintain that full discussion of this Bill is of vital importance to the people of this country, for their security as a nation depends upon a proper comprehension of its principles, and unless every part of the Bill is fully and freely discussed the nation will, at some future time, find itself committed to a policy which it will be difficult to revoke.
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down dealt with the case of the Militia, and, without any intention of going into the questions of principle involved, I should like to say a word on the scheme which I understand will be the outcome of the passing of this Bill from the point of view of the Yeomanry. As I understand the Bill, its main objects are, first, to provide a large expeditionary force of 167,000 men for immediate service in the field; secondly, to maintain that force for an indefinite period in the field in case of emergency; and, thirdly, to make adequate provision for home defence. In order to attain these objects the Secretary of State for War is obliged to have recourse for each and all of them to the Auxiliary Forces, and the Militia, the Yeomanry, and the Volunteers are all called upon to make considerable sacrifices. I understand that at the last moment the role which the Militia are asked to fill has been completely changed, and they will be installed in what I venture to think is their proper place, viz., as a real support to the first line. But that entails an oversea obligation and other obligations which are not altogether palatable to the force, and I do not see how under this latest proposal you are going to lift that force from the position in which it now stands of being 1,000 officers and nearly 30,000 men short of its establishment. It will be interesting to know how His Majesty's Government hope to be able to maintain even its present attenuated strength under the additional obligations which they intend to impose.
  As regards the Yeomanry, that force is asked to sacrifice its present position, which in many respects is practically that of mounted Militia. They are asked to allow themselves to be absorbed in the Territorial Force under the administration of a local civil authority; they are to suffer a drastic reduction in pay, and, consequently, to undergo considerable unnecessary discomforts at their annual training. They are, nevertheless, asked to increase their efficiency, and to provide fourteen squadrons, which is roughly a troop for every regiment, in order to provide the Expeditionary Force with divisional cavalry

  1077
  for service in the field. Speaking on behalf of the force as a whole, I am confident that, as in the past, whatever role the military authorities and Parliament decide the Yeomanry shall fill, they will do their best to carry it out. But the Secretary of State for War was good enough some time ago to ask the opinion of Yeomanry commanding officers as to the effect this scheme would have on the force, and with this object a meeting of commanding officers was held last April. Fifty-two out of fifty-six regiments of Yeomanry were represented, and the officers present felt it their duty to come to certain conclusions. With your Lordships' permission I should like to read to the House the conclusions to which they came. They were as follows—
  "This meeting of Imperial Yeomanry colonels, representing fifty-two regiments out of the total number of fifty-six, while ready as soldiers loyally to carry out the scheme of re-organisation submitted by the Secretary of State and approved by the Army Council, should such scheme receive the sanction of Parliament, nevertheless think it their duty to place on record the following conclusions at which they have arrived: —
  "That they agree that owing to lack of organisation the force is unable to take the field; they therefore welcome the proposal to perfect the organisation, and to provide the necessary staffs and administrative services to put them in n, better position to do so.
  "That they believe, however, that so long as the nation is content to rely on the voluntary system for the defence of the Empire, that system must, be varied to meet the different needs of the various classes of men willing to serve."
  "They are consequently of opinion that to merge the Imperial Yeomanry into the proposed Territorial Army purely for Homo De-fence administered by a local civil authority, is a retrograde step calculated to impair its usefulness and efficiency, to reduce its numbers, and to destroy its character."
  "That understanding that the main object of reform of the Auxiliary Forces is to provide for expansion of the Regular Army in time of war, they regret that the terms of enlistment do not include the obligation to serve over-seas, in case of national emergency, as suggested by the Yeomanry colonels at. their meeting in July last, which suggestion received the warm approval of the Secretary of State, and which, if carried out, would have preserved the force as at present constituted under control of the central military authority."
  "That as regards the details of the scheme they are strongly of opinion that to drastically cut down the pay of the force, at the same time requiring a higher standard of efficiency, will have a disastrous effect, and that it is only by liberal treatment in peace time that men of the class from which the Yeomanry are now drawn will be induced to accept the proposed oblign-
  1078
  tion to servo at Army rates during embodiment in time of war."
  "They submit that a knowledge of riding, and of the care of horses, which a yeoman is usually possessed of on joining, is an asset worth paying for, and that the practical difference between a yeoman who has a horse to look after (which he frequently owns) and saddlery to clean, and a rifleman who has neither, justifies additional remuneration."
  "They protest strongly against any reduction in the period of the annual training, and also against the abolition of Regular adjutants and any reduction of the permanent staff."
  As a result of these representations and of the representations which have been made in another place considerable modifications have been introduced. In the first place, I understand the Regular adjutants and the permanent staff are not to be interfered with, at present at any rate. Then it appears that we are to have what might be called a period of grace; that is to say, it is hoped that regiments will be preserved more or less intact for a period of three years from the passing of the Bill; recruits are to be allowed to be taken for the usual period of three years on existing terms and conditions, down to the moment when the unit is transferred to the Territorial Army, and in like manner non-commissioned officers are to be allowed to re-engage on existing terms and conditions for the same period. That concession is undoubtedly a very useful one, and I hope that before the Bill passes into law, it will be extended to privates also who are willing to re-engage, for this reason—it is to our minds essential during the transition period, when it is possible an emergency might arise, that regiments should not be denuded of most of their best men—that is to say, men who have completed their first term of service and who do not care to re-engage under the new terms.
  Then there is the question of the reduction of men. Commanding officers regard it as essential, in order to maintain the efficiency of the force, that recruits in the future should come from the same class as are serving in the regiments today. If you cease to attract the class who are attracted to-day, you will cease to obtain men who have a knowledge of riding and of the care of horses, and if you lose that asset, which is a valuable one, by shutting the door on the yeoman of to-day, it is absolutely impossible that you can

  1079
  hope to attain anything like the same degree of efficiency in the allotted period of training. An illustration of that is to be found, as the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies will remember, in the evidence given before the War Commission of the very marked difference between the first, second, and third contingents of the Imperial Yeomanry in the South African War. The noble Earl opposite, the Under-Secretary for War, has himself this evening laid stress on the fact that the Territorial Army, it is hoped, will be recruited from the more intelligent classes, and that therefore they will be the more quickly trained. But I wish to point out that there is very grave risk of our losing this class altogether under the scheme as it stands. I believe it to be the fact that the yeoman of to-day, speaking generally, has no desire to make money by his service. He is willing to undergo hard work and to submit to discipline, provided he incurs no expense and is made tolerably comfortable. On that basis he would probably undertake greater obligations than at present. But if you want patriotism in peace time under a voluntary system you must differentiate between the classes who are willing to serve and recognise their reasonable requirements and then they will be perfectly willing to serve out the same terms as regulars in time of war. Mounted troops, when undergoing training, have a great deal of extra work to perform compared with the Infantry-men. They have their horses to look after, and their saddlery to clean, and it is reasonable that extra work should receive some recognition. Again, for the same reason, on account of the extra work, it is necessary that the feeding of the men should be done on the catering system, either regimentally or by contract. That costs money, and I understand that the Secretary of State for War has so far recognised that as to give a messing allowance amounting to 1s. a head in addition to the 6d. ration. We submit that that is not sufficient, and we hope that before the Bill passes into law an addition will be made to it. so that the men may receive the same substantial comforts that they are at present receiving without cost to themselves.
  There is one other point, and that is in regard to the fourteen squadrons which
  1080
  it is asked shall be furnished for service with the Expeditionary Force. It appears that these men are to be enlisted as special reservists under Part III. of the Bill. If the Yeomanry regiments are to be responsible for these officers and men, I hope it may be possible for them to be obtained under Part II., Clause 12, of the Bill, that is to say, that they should actually belong to, and volunteer from, their units, that they should undertake special service for the specified period, whatever it may be—three years I understand—and then come back and be absorbed into their original units, where they will naturally be of considerable value owing to the higher training they have received. In any other way it seems to me there will be a very poor response to the call for these special service men. I would like to point out that although these fourteen squadrons are to be enlisted for service over-sea, there is absolutely no provision of any kind made for maintaining them in the field in the event of their services being required. The whole of the rest of the force is to be enlisted for Home defence. There is no provision as far as mounted troops are concerned for any expansion beyond the Regular Army. Yet it is one of the vital points insisted on by the Royal Commission. It was on realising this fact that last year the commanding officers of Yeomanry suggested to the Secretary of State that in future the Yeomanry as well as the Militia should be enlisted for over-sea service in case of national emergency. But there is no provision of the kind in this scheme. We know that three months after the outbreak of the South African War then; was an urgent demand for 10,000 additional mounted troops. If a similar emergency occurred to-morrow a similar demand would undoubtedly arise, and we should find ourselves in the same position that we were in in 1899 of having to rely entirely on the patriotism of the moment.
  I cannot understand how in preparing mobilisation schemes the General Stall are able to deal with this great question. They cannot count on a single man with any certainty, So as far as I can see the scheme as it stands is merely a speculative alternative. Men are enlisted for one service and asked in emergency to volunteer for another, and at the

  1081
  best the nation will be spending largo sums annually in training a force for war which in the supreme moment may only be very partially available to support the army in the field. By the Militia being transferred to the Regular side the Infantry of the Expeditionary Force obtain an adequate reserve. But the Cavalry have none, and it seems to me that ultimately the role of the Yeomanry should be to perform for the Regular Cavalry in case of national emergency more or less similar services to those the Militia are now to be called upon to perform for the Regular Infantry. I know that the difficulties of adequate training to fit them for that purpose are great and will prove a serious obstacle, but I hope the possibility will not be lost sight of. I believe the Yeomanry themselves will be willing to do their utmost to fulfil such obligation if put upon them. We in the Yeomanry cannot pretend to like this; scheme, but at the same time we recognize, that in some respects it is a step in the right direction, more particularly in bringing cohesion to the Auxiliary Forces and in providing the necessary staff and administrative; services to enable them to take the field. If the scheme had stopped there we should have been all the better pleased, because in other respects we apprehend that it will discourage recruiting and endanger the character of the force as it exists to-day. But His Majesty's Government may be quite sure that in whatever form the Bill becomes law the Yeomanry will do their utmost to see that it has a fair trial.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to say a few words on this Bill from the point of view of a layman. I propose to deal with it on very broad issues and not to go into detail. In the first place, I desire to congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon the splendid testimonial which has been given to his scheme on the whole by the noble Field Marshal on the cross benches. The noble and gallant Earl has said that it is a patchwork scheme. Of that I am aware. But he adds that it is the best patchwork-scheme that could have been produced for the money, and that it has been very carefully thought out. I understand that negotiations are going on with regard to the Militia, and I hope that
  1082
  those negotiations will have a successful issue. The noble Earl on the cross benches said that the scheme has been well thought out. No doubt it is the result of very great thought and care, but I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that there are some points on which it has not been particularly well thought out.
  First, with regard to what the duties of this Territorial Army are to be, there are two views as to the duties of Volunteers. One view is that the duty of the volunteer is to defend his hearth and home, and the other is that he is to be a sort of second Army reserve. To a great extent this question of Army organisation hinges on whether you take the one view or the other of the volunteer, and the extent to which you take that view. The size of the Regular Army that we must have to meet our needs depends to a very great extent on its power of expansion, because, as Mr. Balfour has said, we shall always have a certain time allowed us in which we can get together our reinforcements. We shall very likely have six months. In six months a soldier can be made from the very beginning. The Times the other day said that no less an authority than Napoleon declared that if you only had willing, intelligent men you could turn them in six weeks into soldiers who could fight and do themselves credit in the first line. Therefore it is a most vital point to determine how many troops you want in these islands to protect us against invasion, because the fewer troops you want here, the more you can expand your Regular Army. Consequently the question hinge s to a very great extent upon how far you are, or are not, in accord with the blue-water school. The noble Viscount Lord Midleton asked whether the Front Bench of this side adhered to the blue-water school, but he did not get any reply. I am not surprised at that, because it is very difficult to say whether the Front Bench do or do not adhere to the blue-water school. I need not say any more about the great importance of the expansion of the British Army, because it was very fully acknowledged by Mr. Haldane in his first speech as.Secretary of State for War in the House

  1083
  of Commons on 8th May last year. He then said—
  "The first thing we want is absolutely clear thinking "—
  I suppose we shall all agree with that,
  "we want absolutely clear thinking about the purposes for which the Array exists, and the principles on which it should be organised."
  It seems to me that it was a little arrogant on the part of the Secretary of State to imagine that nobody before him had thought it necessary to have clear thinking on the question of the Army. It was, I think, rather an unmerited slur upon his predecessors in office to suggest that they had not endeavoured at all events to bring clear thinking to bear on these problems. It was also a slur upon his own chief, the present Prime Minister, who not very long ago was Secretary of State for War. Mr. Haldane announced this proposition with the air of a man who has made a great discovery—an astronomer, for instance, who has discovered a new planet, or a man of science who has discovered a new metal or a new gas. Mr. Haldane went on to apply this principle of clear thinking. He said that by clear thinking he had found the bed-rock on which Army organisation ought to rest. That bed-rock was this—that England is an island, and that the Fleet is sufficient to safeguard our shores. The whole burden of his song throughout was "England is an island." He talked about "this island," and I think your Lordships, if you look at the speech, will find that the word "island" occurs more often than any other. He quoted with approval Mr. Balfour's statement of 11th May, 1905, that the serious invasion of these islands is not an eventuality we need seriously consider. The Secretary of State also quoted with approbation Mr. Arnold-Forster's statement that to land 5,000 or 10,000 troops would be madness on the part of a foreigner, that they would all be cut up and not one of them would get back. Mr. Haldane then said that in our immunity from invasion—
  "we have the bed-rock fact for the organisation of our defence. If we provide against the contingency of that being wrong we shall have to provide against various other contingencies overwhelming in their number and complexity. …. If the Army is not wanted for home
  1084
  defence then its size is something that is capable of being calculated."
  And he adds that he looks to the Militia and Volunteers to reduce the size of the striking force. He says also that the Volunteers are not likely to be called upon to defend their hearths and home. but to come to the assistance of the Regular Army in other ways.
  After these pronouncements it is not at all surprising that Mr. Haldane was claimed as an out and out supporter of the blue-water school. Mr. Arthur Lee, for instance, in the House of Commons, said that although he belonged to the blue water-school he did not go so far as Mr. Haldane; while Major Evans Gordon said that if Mr. Haldane was correct in his views about our immunity from invasion there was no use at all for the Volunteers, and that they would become as obsolete as Lord Palmerston's fortifications. The matter was put even more picturesquely in this House by the noble Earl Lord Wemyss, who said that Mr. Balfour and Mr. Haldane were both swimming about in blue water. What was the Secretary of State's answer—a very strange answer it was—to that. He said—
  "They could not justify the keeping up of the Volunteers if they were out and out for the blue-water school, but this nation was governed as Mr. Disraeli once said, not by logic but by Parliament As long as Parliament remained Parliament, this country would never be logical."
  That was rather a strange thing to be said by a man who only a few days before-had declared that the one thing necessary for the Army was clear thinking.
  The whole bed-rock of his organisation has disappeared, and we have instead merely shifting sands. We hear no more about England being an island, the hearth and home business is gradually brought to the front. On 12th July, Mr. Haldane stated that the functions of the Volunteers were, first, to do garrison duty; some 140,000 Infantry, 8,000 Yeomanry, and 9,000 other men were to do garrison duty; secondly, to repel raids; and, thirdly, to be a second reserve for the Army. It was pointed out by Mr. Balfour and others in the House of Commons that only 170,000 persons were required for garrison duties and to repel raids, and that consequently there were

  1085
  70,000 or 80,000 of the Territorial Army not accounted for. In answer to that M. Haldane said—
  "It is a duty cast upon the Volunteers in the last emergency to defend their hearths and homos."
  And on 25th February, of this year Mr. Haldane had come to the conclusion that—
  "Raids might be serious things, and it is always possible that a considerable force might be got over."
  Then on 4th March last he went a step further away from the blue-water school, and said—
  "The primary purpose of the Territorial Army is to defend our shores. The force is essentially a home defence force …. they can go abroad if they wish, but the scheme and provision is for a force for homo defence, and it is upon that basis that the Bill is framed."
  It appears to me that the Secretary of State has absolutely boxed the compass. His first refrain was: "England is an island; our fleet is sufficient protection. "This, he said, is the bed-rock of our scheme. His second refrain is that the primary purpose of the Territorial Army is to defend our shores. "This," he said," is the basis of our plan." Why has there been this stampede on the part of the right hon. Gentleman from the blue-water school? I think Mr. Arnold Forster supplied the reason when he said—
  "All who have endeavoured to recruit men for the Auxiliary Forces knew that the defence of the soil argument was the principal incentive to volunteer service. It was unwise to take away that great inducement to volunteer service."
  Mr. Winston Churchill said the same, and so did Mr. Ramsay Macdonald from the Labour benches, while Mr. Keir-Hardie said—
  "Men would have no objection to train them-solves to defend their hearths and homos, but they would not desire to be placed in a position in which, when war broke out, they would be practically compelled to serve abroad."
  Then I would ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State to consider for a moment what duties arc to be placed on the Volunteers, and whether those duties could really be done by them in time of war. I can quite understand that in time of peace Volunteers would be willing to go through a certain amount of garrison duty; they would be willing to play at repelling raids, and so on. But when war broke out. when England was
  1086
  in difficulties, when she wanted to send her last man to the front, does anybody suppose that the Volunteers who had learnt their duty sufficiently to be available in the first line, would be content with garrison duty, with loafing about on the shore on the off chance of some raid or invasion? We all know what the Volunteer would do. He would immediately volunteer to go to the front and he would go, and we should be very glad for him to do so. Therefore, it appears to me that, although you elaborately train your Volunteer to do these various things, in point of fact when an emergency arises he will not be the man to do them. Somebody else will do them. Civilians or persons very imperfectly trained will perhaps do garrison duties; but, depend upon it, your 170,000 Volunteers who are told off for garrison duties and to repel raids will go to the front. So what occurs to me is this. The Volunteer organisation will not work on the lines laid down in the Bill. It is, to use a classic phrase, an "organised hypocrisy." What we do is to inveigle a man into the ranks of the Volunteers by telling him that he will have to defend his hearth and home, but we do not intend that he shall defend his hearth and home, we know that the will not be called upon to do so; what we do mean is that he shall be a part of the Army Reserve and go to the front. That is perfectly right, but I think at the same time that the Volunteer ought to be treated with perfect honesty in the matter.
  It seems also that besides the potential Volunteer there is another part of the British public who are unfairly treated in this scheme, and that is the British taxpayer. The British taxpayer is asked to pay for a larger Expeditionary Force than is in many people's judgment necessary. He is asked to pay for it on the plea that you cannot denude England of troops, that you must have a large number of well-trained troops to repel a raid or an invasion. But when we are telling the British taxpayer that, what we hope and expect is that these men will not be used to repel raids; a good many of us do not, think they are necessary to repel raids which will never occur. Our hope and expectation is that when

  1087
  the stress comes they will join the Regular Army.
  In conclusion I would like to say that from my point of view I discern one bright spot in the Secretary of State's scheme. I am afraid the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the cross benches will not agree with me—and that is that the Secretary of State has set his face like flint against anything in the nature of compulsion, whether for service at home or for service oversea. I think he is perfectly right. I entirely agree with Major See when he says that compulsory service saps the spirit of self-sacrifice. If you compel a man to serve at home, he will not be willing to serve abroad; he will give you what you compel him to give, but he will not give you anything else. I think that is profound human nature, and if in this supremely important matter the Secretary of State stands to his guns, as I hope and believe he will, he will have done a great deal to deserve the gratitude of the country.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just addressed you I approach this question purely as a civilian. I approach it with reluctance in an Assembly containing so many men distinguished both by their achievements and by their knowledge of matters military, but perhaps I have had rather closer touch with the realities of war than many civilians. I have stood on the brink of and looked into the black abyss of national disaster, and the lessons which that experience taught me I shall carry with me to the grave. I have seen this country with its 40,000,000 of people, and the Empire behind it with some 12,000,000 or 15,000,000 more of the same race, engaged in a struggle with a small people about one-hundredth of their number, and on the brink of defeat. And what made that experience bitterest of all was the thought that it was wholly unnecessary; that this country had immense resources in men, brave, patriotic, and willing, and yet at the critical moment it could only just muster a sufficient number to pull through. That experience impressed upon me for my lifetime the fact that you cannot improvise soldiers, and that no amount of patriotism,
  1088
  willingness, or devotion will save a militarily untrained nation from disaster in any great struggle.
  I should have hesitated to have addressed your Lordships to-night, but for two reasons. One is that those who agree with me on the question of compulsory service—I fear we are but a small number in this House, but we are a growing body in the nation—have been directly challenged by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War. I do not know why he directed so much attention to this puny body of adversaries, unless it was that he felt a little happier in dealing with those generalities with which it is possible to attack the position of the advocates of compulsory service than in dealing with some of the details of the complicated scheme which he was expounding. Be that as it may, I feel bound to say a few words in reply to some of the points which he raised against us. But there is another reason, and that is I have been asked and pressed to speak by the noble and gallant Earl Lord Roberts, who is my leader on this question. I recognise him as my captain and obey his orders, though I sincerely wish he had a more able lieutenant. I will do this at the bidding of the noble Earl, not only because I recollect the day when he came out to South Africa and turned disaster into victory, which alone would have entitled him to my willing obedience in all questions of this kind, but because, if I may say so without disrespect, I feel when listening to the noble and gallant Earl on this subject that I am breathing a different atmosphere from that which prevails when even the ablest and most experienced of those distinguished statesmen who have to deal with military questions in the country are addressing us. It seems to me that the noble Earl keeps continually before him and is always pressing towards two vital points, viz., our requirements and our capacities, which are the only two points which in my opinion profoundly matter; whereas all others who deal with this question, however great the ability and experience which they bring to bear upon it, never get beyond certain given conditions which have no foundation in the nature

  1089
  and essence of things, and are more or less accidental—I mean the existing objection on the part of perhaps the majority, at any rate of large classes, of the people to citizen service, and the idea of a given number of millions which we have drifted into regarding as a sort of generally admitted figure round which our military expenditure is bound to revolve.
  When I consider how different has been the experience of many of our most distinguished statesmen at the War Office from their experience anywhere else, when I have seen one man after another, who in every other public office or public duty which he has filled or discharged has achieved great distinction, attempting in succession the task of reforming our military system, and not one emerging from the ordeal with increased credit, I do not believe for a moment that it can be the fault of those distinguished men. Why should they always be less successful as Secretaries of State for War than in any other capacity? The fault lies in the fact that we are trying to deal with this question on an impossible basis, and we shall continue to fail as long as we try to deal with it on that basis. Given the necessities of the British Empire, given the vast responsibility for defence which it imposes upon us, I am firmly convinced that you cannot produce any satisfactory military scheme if you are going to be bound by the two rigid limits of Volunteer service and an expenditure of something like £28,000,000 of money. We shall go on from failure to failure unless we recognise that fundamental condition of things.
  Do we approach the question of our naval defence in this spirit? Attention has been called to-night to the fact that the Naval Estimates at one time circled round ten or eleven millions, and they have become £36,000,000—reduced now, I believe, to £30,000,000. Why was it that the nation, which at one time would not agree to spend more than £11,000,000 on the Navy, accepted and accepts with readiness this much larger sum? Because the question of naval defence has once for all been put upon an intelligible basis, because it has been approached from the point of view of a reasoned and
  1090
  thought-out consideration of our requirements. Nothing of the kind is ever attempted—at any rate officially—in connection with the requirements for the defence of the Empire on land. If we were to approach the matter from the point of view of our requirements I do not believe that it would involve so enormous an increase of expenditure, but I have always admitted that some increase would be necessary. We should, however, find that it involves a number of men which we can never hope to get on the present basis. Only numbers far larger than are contemplated by Mr. Haldane's expeditionary force, and far larger than any British statesman has ever dared face, would really suffice to defend this State and Empire in contingencies which are far from improbable. It is because the noble and gallant Field Marshal continually and courageously strives to make his countrymen realise these facts and deal with the subject on the fundamental ground of what is really necessary for the defence of the Empire, instead of for ever arguing upon certain given more or less accidental data which have been conventionally accepted by both Parties in politics—sit is for that reason he appeals on this question to his countrymen as I believe no other statesman of to-day appeals, and is producing an effect upon the people of the extent of which I believe political leaders are at present very little aware.
  I wish to be as brief as possible, but I should like to reply shortly to some of the arguments addressed to us by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not sure that I shall cover the ground of all his objections, but I will deal with the most important. One objection which he took, and it is a common one, was that any system of universal military training and service, such as is advocated by the National Service League, would provide us with a much larger Army than we need for home defence, and would not provide what after all we most need, viz., the power of expansion for our Expeditionary Army in case of a serious war abroad. I think that is a fair statement of one of the noble Earl's arguments. But that is an argument which

  1091
  comes strangely from the noble Earl, representing as he does in this House a Secretary of State who has dwelt with emphasis over and over again and has defended his whole plan principally on the ground of the importance of having such a force in this country as would enable us greatly to expand our Army abroad in the event of any really serious danger to the Empire, That is the whole justification of the "Nation in Arms" for which the Secretary of State has made such eloquent appeals.
  Let me say how this question strikes me. I consider that we are killing two birds with one stone. I do not believe that we are so safe in this country either from raids or from serious invasion as some noble Lords assume. I believe there is a great deal of the best military opinion on my side, and as long as there is any serious military opinion in favour of the possibility not only of a raid but of a really dangerous invasion, I for my part decline to have anything to do with running the tearful risk of being as unprepared to meet it as we are to-day. Against any serious invasion We require numbers such as the system we advocate alone Would give. But there is a great deal more in it than that. The existence of a large body of really trained men in this country would give a freedom to our Regular Army which it does not at present possess, because a certain number under present circumstances will always be retained here. Most important of all, it would give to our Fleet a freedom of action which would at least double its effective usefulness in time of war. There is nothing more serious in our present state of Military unpreparedness at home than the cramping effect which it would have on the action of our Fleet. The first principle of naval strategy, whether we belong to the blue-water school or not, is that the Fleet should be free to go and seek out the enemy's Fleet and destroy it. Can any one who knows the state of public opinion in this country realise what the effect of the absence of the Fleet from these shores with an enemy possibly threatening them would be? Can anybody believe that the boldest Secretary of State would venture to send the Fleet where he ought to send it in case of war with any great Power, as long as we had not such
  1092
  an Army or at any rate such an armed force in this country as would put any danger of invasion out of the question? The existence of a trained nation here would in the first place give far greater effectiveness to our Regular Army, and it would also give far greater effectiveness to our Fleet.
  But no doubt the greatest point of all is that, if we had here a trained nation, if we had what the Secretary of State has indicated, viz., a large reserve of men trained to arms, we should be able to send out in case of great emergency a large number of Volunteers who would be effective soldiers from the first moment they took part in the campaign. The risk which we run to-day, the weakness which afflicted us so greatly in the South African War, and the weakness which may destroy us in case of a great war, is that there is no amount of military training and knowledge on the part of the nation at all proportionate to the amount of bravery and patriotism which its citizens undoubtedly possess. The strongest of all arguments undoubtedly for the general military training of the people is the fact that it would put this nation into a position effectively to defend any portion of the Empire if it was convinced of the rightness of the war in which it was engaged. To-morrow you might be engaged in a struggle in which there were not, as there unfortunately were in the case of the South African War, differences of opinion among us—a struggle in which we were all convinced of the righteousness of our cause—a struggle upon which the very life of our Empire depended, and in which we might require 500,000 men. We have got the 500,000 men, but how many of them would be of any use in the field if they were to volunteer and go out? The two vital points of the whole discussion are our possible requirements and our actual capacities. The contention of those who are led by the noble and gallant Field Marshal is that it is the business of our statesmen to see that every potential military capacity of the country is developed in a shape in which it will be sufficient to deal with our possible requirements.
  Then one word in conclusion as to the alleged moral superiority of the voluntary principle. We are told that a smaller

  1093
  number of men giving their services freely are better worth having than a larger number acting under compulsion. What I object to in the present system is the premium which it sets upon a man not doing his duty in the matter of personal service for the defence of his country. If we even held the balance fairly between those who undertake this duty and those who do not there would be something to be said for it, but the present system inevitably throws the whole weight of our habits and social arrangements against the men who are willing to undertake this duty and in favour of the men who shirk it, so that the whole weight of the system leans against the volunteer. But I for my part am totally unable to understand how it can be contended on the one hand, that the training of a man to fit himself to take part in the defence of the country and Empire is a duty, and, on the other hand, that it is an injury to the man to insist on his performing that duty. I cannot see the difference between this principle and the principle of taxation. You might just as well contend that, though it was the duty of a man to contribute with his purse to the defence of the country, yet it was unjustifiable to make that contribution a legal obligation upon him. The two things seem to me to rest upon absolutely the same basis of principle, and I am thoroughly convinced that if you are really going to attempt what I believe this Bill honestly desires to do, viz., to obtain a citizen Army of adequate dimensions, you will never be successful as long as you are not in a position to lay down some general rule with regard to it to which all citizens have to conform. On the very threshold of your efforts you are met by the objection of the employers. We are told that no doubt it would be better if these people trained for a fortnight or three weeks, but that while employers would be willing to let them go for a week they would not for a fortnight. The whole national attitude of mind which makes such an argument possible is wrong. If this is a thing which is for the good of the nation as a whole, the question of the convenience of employers cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Yet it will stand in the way, and these difficulties will for ever stand in the way,
  1094
  until you have laid down one general simple rule for every healthy-bodied man with regard to service in the Army, and then, in this country as in other more logical countries, these difficulties will give way before you.
  *LORD LUCAS: My Lords, the general military policy of the Government has been, I think, more the subject of debate to-day than actually that part of its policy which finds expression in the Bill now before your Lordships' House, and it is only because I think that military policy is as easily defensible as it is that I venture to rise and address your Lord-ships to-night. There are a number of specific points that have been brought out in criticism of the Government. The first of these was the question of the reductions that have taken place in the Regular Army. These reductions were made as the result of, and only after, the carefully thought out policy of Army reform was decided upon. Those reductions are all a part, and are really a very important part, of the military system which is under reorganisation. After all, a battalion of Infantry is only an important and a valuable thing in so far as you are able to use it. If the organisation of your Army is such that for the want of other services you are unable to include that battalion of Infantry in your organised force, that battalion will be of less use to you than these subsidiary services, which, in the case in point, those infantry battalions are now to give place to. What has been the net result of these reductions? The result of these reductions is that, although you have a smaller number of valuable and efficient battalions, you are able, as a result of that, to mobilise a force which consists of six divisions instead of consisting of four divisions and that, it seems to me, is the justification of the policy of reduction; the net result of it is that you have been able to strengthen your Army instead of weakening it.
  The question of the Reserve was brought up to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. It has been the subject of controversy elsewhere, and particuticularly with regard to a Return that was laid on the Table by the Secretary of State for War on the state of our Reserve under the proposed reorganisation. I think this is an important point, because,

  1095
  although I must say that it was not the least included in the noble Lord's speech, there has been an insinuation that the Government, in order to hide the ravages which it is supposed to be making in the Regular Army, has issued something in the shape of a false Return. And therefore under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that (although, as I say, he did not in the least give any colour to that insinuation) the noble Lord threw the great weight of his authority upon that side, I think that perhaps an explanation of that Return may be of some value. The point which he took up was the fact that there were two Returns—one made in 1905, which estimated the reserve which you would get from 156 battalions of Infantry at 55,000 odd, and another Return issued the other day would get from 148 battalions at 63,000. which estimated the Reserve that you The reason of that it is very easy to explain. In the year 1897, at the time when the noble Marquess was contemplating bringing a certain number of three years' men into Infantry battalions, an estimate was ordered of the amount of reserve that would accrue, and the actuaries were instructed, for the purposes of that Return, to assume that 30 per cent. of the men who were joining would continue at the end of their seven years with the colours to serve the remaining five or twelve years' service with the colours, and on that basis the estimate was made. The estimate of 1905 was made on the same basis. What was the result of that? It means that out of every 100 men who join, at the end of seven years, if 20 per cent. of them extend—which is the normal percentage of extension—you will have eighty men in the Reserve, and if 30 per cent. extend you will have seventy in the Reserve. That means that on the basis of the 1905 Return you are estimating your Reserve at an eighth smaller than in the other case. The 1907 Return was calculated on the assumption of 20 per cent. of extensions, so that in the first place that shows that there was a different basis. If you reduce those two Returns to the same basis you must deduct one-eighth from the 1907 Return and you will make it 55,000. But outside that you have also to make allowance for the smaller number of
  1096
  recruits that would be wanted owing to the larger proportion who extend and remain with the colours. This would reduce it still lower—to about 52,000. That places the two Returns on the same basis. If you compare the number of 52,000 as the reserve for 135,000 men with 54,000 odd as the reserve for 145,000 men, it will show you that this estimate was not very far wrong. The fact that it is not in any way an over-estimate is shown by the Returns that have already been given. The Infantry effectives from January, 1884, to January, 1892, averaged 125,000 odd, and they produced an average reserve of 44,000. The present establishment of 135,000 would in the same proportion produce 48,000 men. This is Sections A and B of the Reserve only, and this estimate puts it at 45,000. I hope, my Lords, that that disposes of any idea that any new method had been used to produce this Return.
  The noble Lord also criticised the proportion of Reservists which was not included in this Expeditionary Force. I think that that critisism has weight like any criticism that comes from the noble Lord, but I do not know if he attaches very much importance to having a large proportion of men serving with the colours being included in your Expeditionary Force. I do not know how he would have reconciled that with his proposal of the three; years service, when inevitably you must have had a larger proportion of Reservists serving with the colours (as after all, you cannot get away from the fact that you enlist men at eighteen), than you would have under the longer period. And what is more, there is a great difference between the man who has been three years with the colours and the man who has served his seven or eight years with the colours, and that I think is a difference that people are sometimes inclined to forget when they are comparing the Army of this country with the armies of foreign countries who have the system of short service—that your men who have been seven or eight years in service with the battalion, and who only give five years to the Reserve, are (as you have heaps of testimony, which you will find all through the South African War Commissioners' Report) in every way some of the finest

  1097
  class of soldiers that we produce, and it was the opinion of those officers out there that battalions did not suffer in the least in efficiency by having a large proportion of Reservists.
  But that question of the Reserves still leaves you face to face with the great question of drafts. You cannot, under your present system—under the exigencies of your peace system—provide for the drafts which are necessary to maintain your Army in war; and the question of drafts brings us to the vexed question of the Militia. I do not think that the question which has been touched upon, I think by the Duke of Bedford to-night, as to the actual details of the negotiations that went on between the War Office and the commanding officers of Militia— —
  LORD RAGLAN: I object to the expression "negotiations" altogether; there was no question of negotiations.
  LORD LUCAS: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I withdraw the word "negotiations" and may, perhaps, be allowed to substitute the word "interviews." After all, I think that the manner in which this change has been brought about is comparatively unimportant. What really is the great question is this—that you have at the present time, with your Militia and with your Regular Army, two separate forces which are both enlisting the same class of man—both dipping their hands into the same pool.
  LORD RAGLAN: No.
  *LORD LUCAS: The noble Lord says no; but in his speech he admitted that it was so.
  *THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I beg your pardon. There are two distinct classes of men in the Militia—the man who remains in the Militia, and the other who goes to the Army. You have two separate classes.
  *LORD LUCAS: If that is so, and nobody has a greater knowledge of that than the noble Duke, all I can say is that the non-Army class in the Militia appears from the figures of the Militia to be an extremely small one. To a very great extent at any rate the two forces are recruiting the same kind of men.
  1098
  At present the Regular Army has the upper hand. The Regular Army gets its recruits, and the Militia has not been so lucky, and consequently the Militia establishment has fallen. What do the friends of the Militia advocate? They advocate practically removing the Militia from what has been called "the decimating influence of the Depot pressgang"—that is to say, to make the Militia an entirely separate force, thereby setting up two rival establishments. You have two forces separate one from the other, and it must inevitably be the case that where you have two forces existing side by side which arc in any way rivals, you will have a sort of spirit of opposition growing up between them. Of this I take it there can be no doubt—there can be no question about it—that if you did allow the Militia to be a separate force managing their own recruiting and all the rest of it, undoubtedly they would get larger numbers than they get at the present time. But what would be the result? The result would be that the Regular Army must inevitably suffer. That is the reason why, after all, the Army has been forced—has been compelled—to use the Militia depots and the Militia recruits, and to try and get these men from the Militia, because they are dipping into the same pool, and the Army has to depend largely upon the class who go into the Militia for its own subsistence. And that is the real reason for organising in two lines; the first line must consist of the professional class of soldier—the man who goes into the Militia and who goes into the Regular Army—and the class of men who are able to give up the necessary time for Militia service—sometimes men who are in casual employment, and at other times men who are in employment of a kind which enables them to go and give up the necessary time for training. Those are the men who must be brought together. If you have any system but that—if you have the two forces both trying to draw on the same class of man—then you will inevitably have waste, friction, and inefficiency of one or the other force; and as after all the primary object of the whole of this reorganisation is to strengthen the first line of your forces, it is inevitable, if you are going to have efficiency, that you must so

  1099
  organise those forces as to give you the best results for producing, for mobilising, and for maintaining your Expeditionary Force in the field.
  That, my Lords, is the reason why the contemplated change is taking place; that is the reason why these third battalions are being formed. These third battalions are to be primarily and essentially training battalions. I think in many ways they are far the most important feature of the scheme. They have been described as "bridges." I think that almost a better description of them is that these battalions will be the keystone of the arch, supporting upon one side of it the solidity of the Regular Army and upon the other side (with which I will deal in a few moments) the efficiency of the Territorial Army. They will have three separate functions. First of all, the training of the special contingent; they will be the training units of your special contingent, and according to the quality of the training you give those men so will their value in the field be. In the second place, they will form the depot nucleus, and will do the ordinary depot duties of looking after reservists, and they will do the recruiting and look after the clothing of recruits. In the third place, they will assist in training officers and non-commissioned officers for the Territorial Army. For those reasons they are, as I say, training units and are to be organised with a sole eye to training. They are to be local bodies scattered all through the country as training experts, with picked men, both as officers and non-commissioned officers, with the necessary apparatus and with everything they can have to enable them to become efficient trainers.
  Then, my Lords, perhaps the most important question just at the present juncture is the method of transferment of the present Militia into these training units. In the first place there is the question of the officers. What is proposed is that you shall draw a sort of line, and divide the present existing Militia officers info two classes, and that division shall be made by age. Sir Edward Ward's Committee, as no doubt your Lordships will remember, recommended the employment of a special reserve of officers up to the age
  1100
  of thirty-five, and that is the age limit which the War Office now propose to set. With regard to the class of existing Militia officer who agrees to go into the special contingent, what he is invited to do is this: all junior officers up to the age of thirty-four, and of the rank of captain and over, are to be entitled to go into the Reserve under the terms of Sir Edward Ward's Committee's recommendation—that is to say, receiving a retaining fee of £20 a year—and they will rise automatically to the rank of captain after so many years' service; they will then pass into the reserve of officers who do not get the retaining fee—with the rank of honorary major—at the age of thirty-five. Then we come to the senior officers over thirty-five. Well, the War Office and the Government realise to the full the great services which have been done by commanding officers of Militia, and they do not want to treat them in any way that could be called at all cavalier, and therefore what they would ask these officers to do is this; that they shall practically continue to be Militia officers; they will not join this new class of special reserve officers who get their retaining fee of £20, but that they shall go into the old reserve of officers, that they shall join the battalion for duty whenever the battalion of the special contingent is embodied; that is to say, they will do their regular training with them; but the Army Council fully realise that the command of both the third and fourth battalions should be within the reach of those officers provided they are competent in all respects to command them. Therefore it is propose I that so long as these officers remain in the special contingent, it should be open to them when the time comes, and when the vacancies occur, to command those battalions just as they would have done if they had gone on in the Militia.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Would the noble Lord tell us up to what age the men would be allowed to serve in those battalions?
  *LORD LUCAS: I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Duke off-hand.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Could the noble Lord say whether, when the

  1101
  present senior officers have passed away these commands will always be held by line officers?
  *LORD LUCAS: After the present commanding officer has passed away there will, if they choose to go into it, be other officers of these Militia battalions, who are at present in the Militia battalions and if they are fit to command Militia battalions they will do so, and that will continue as long as any of these officers who are at present above the thirty-five-year-old line remain in the Militia. At the end of that time, in the case of the third battalions, which have to fulfil, as I say, primarily the function of training battalions, it is probable after the present generation, so to speak, of Militia officers has passed away, that they will be commanded by line officers.
  LORD BATHURST: Can the noble Lord tell us at all what number of officers of the present Militia are over the age of thirty-five, and how many that will affect?
  *LORD LUCAS: I will let the noble Lord know that, but I cannot answer the question offhand.
  LORD BATHURST: That is a question that does not seem to have been gone into at all.
  *LORD LUCAS: All these questions, I think, are known about. I have dealt entirely, up to this moment, with the third battalion. The officering of the fourth battalion will always be a different matter. It is not primarily a training unit in the same way that the third battalion is, and therefore it will not. have the same staff of regular officers for instructional purposes that the third, battalion will eventually have. The third battalions, as time goes on (and it can only be done gradually) will have posted to them more and more regular officers until you have an establishment of something like nine or ten. The fourth battalions will almost certainly have a much smaller establishment of regular officers than the third battalion will have.
  *VISCOUNT HARDINGE: Might I ask the noble Lord if ho. can tell us where
  1102
  the fourth battalions will get their reserves from in time of war?
  *LORD LUCAS: The fourth battalions will receive their reserves probably from the third battalions, and also it is quite conceivable that they may perhaps under exceptional circumstances be reinforced from elsewhere. Then as regards the men. The men will be enlisted, or will be invited to enlist, in the Special Conti-gent under Part III. of this Bill, and if they do so they will receive a bonus of £2 for transferring. The Army Council hopes, and it is their intention (and the reason why the Bill was framed in this way, and why you add a third battalion to every two line battalions was because that is the intention of the Army Council) as far as possible to allow a man, when he goes from the Special Contingent as a draft to the line regiments, to remain in his Territorial corps. That is distinctly the intention of the Army Council, and I know that Militia officers attach a great deal of importance to that. It is distinctly the intention of the Army Council that wherever it is possible that shall be done. Of course I know that it would be impossible to ask the Government top in themselves to do that, because, as is well known, you may meet with circumstances in war where a battalion is absolutely cut up, and where you have got to produce practically an entirely new battalion to fill up the cadre. In exceptional cases (and, after all, fortunately those cases are exceptional) you may have to transfer a man outside his Territorial corps, and therefore it is not proposed in this Bill to put in any provision under which the men joining the Special Contigent shall only reinforce their own Territorial corps, though, as I say, it is the intention of the Army Council that it should be so wherever possible. But it is intended that existing Militiamen—and that perhaps is the point that will appeal most to commanding officers of Militia—existing Militiamen who transfer to the Special Contingent, shall have a promise given to them that they shall not be drafted under any circumstances outside their own Territorial corps unless by their own consent. That only applies to the existing Militiamen who choose to transfer, and does not apply to any man who may, after this Bill has passed, be

  1103
  recruited into the Special Contingent, although the intention is to do it wherever possible.
  My Lords, there is the question of the Territorial Army, which I think has had extremely little consideration in to-day's debate. There you are dealing with an entirely different class of men from those with whom you have dealt in the first line as Regulars and as men of the Special Contingent, and it is at any rate in this country the first attempt—the first scientific attempt that has been made—I should think it is probably the first attempt under any voluntary system that has been made really to organise for the purposes of war, and to allot a definite place in the military system to men who admittedly in time of peace cannot give up sufficient of their time, as far as we know at present, to make themselves what is called efficient to meet trained troops in the field. But after all, inefficiency is a question of degree, and the value of the second line depends upon how near you can get it to that high-water mark of efficiency, and that to a very great extent will depend upon what use you make of the time those men can give you, and what kind of training you propose to give them. This is a question which has been absorbing the attention of the General Staff for a considerable time, and with the utmost pains they have been working out a scheme that shall enable them to get the greatest value from the time these men are able to give. And in doing so, I think, perhaps a new principle in the training of Auxiliary Forces is to be put into practice, which I will explain as shortly as I possibly can. It is this. Hitherto, in dealing with your Auxiliary Forces, you have attached to your Auxiliary units, in the shape of a Regular adjutant, an instructor whose business has been not only the administration, but also, to a very great extent—and in practice, to an enormous extent—the instruction of the troops. The adjutant turns up at parade, it is the adjutant's advice that is taken; the adjutant very often drills the men himself, and always the auxiliary officer, whether company officer, sergeant or whoever he is, defers and plays second fiddle to the adjutant. It is indeed only natural that it should be so. Now
  1104
  the General Staff feel that if you continue that system you will never really give to the officer or the non-commissioned officer that confidence in himself which is desirable. What is really proposed to be done is this —that everything shall be done which can possibly give to the officers and the non-commissioned officers a thorough grounding and training in the work that they have to do, and that then, having been grounded and well trained in that work, they shall go back and command their own men. After all, the thing that makes a man a good commander is to have confidence in himself, and the thing that gives him confidence in himself is the knowledge that he is master of the thing he is instructing his men in, and that is where these training units are going to come in with regard to the Territorial Army. They will supply instruction in every way possible for officers and non-commissioned officers of the Territorial Army. Under their auspices will be held schools of instruction in such things as musketry, gunnery, and signalling. Courses will be held in tactics, reconnaissance, sketching, and a dozen other kindred subjects. You will also have in the Territorial Army, which you have not had before, the divisional and brigade staffs, who will be able to give instruction in such things as staff rides. It is proposed by those means to give that scientific instruction which is so desirable, and if necessary those training units will go on detachment in order to bring the instruction really to the men's doors. One knows how unworkable it is that you should have these schools of instruction a long way away, where neither the officers nor the non-commissioned officers have time to attend them; but if you bring thorn to the men's doors, then they can take advantage, of them, and having learned their subject, they will go back, and it is the theory of the General Staff that, having been given the necessary grounding, they will then be able to teach themselves how to act and to train their men at the same time, and that in that way you will be able to get a really sound foundation for the training on mobilisation when it comes. As to the training on mobilisation, that is a thing as to which you are

  1105
  not taking any more powers in this Bill than you had before. You are only to be able to mobilise all the Auxiliary Forces, in ease of a great emergency, just as you can do now, and as to its being a bug-bear, as it is sometimes described as being, and a thing that is going to keep men out of the Territorial Army, I think when you come to consider that in the whole of the last century the Territorial Army would probably have been mobilised at the outside three times, in the Napoleonic Wars at the beginning of the century (I admit that that is a rather large Number One) possibly in the Crimea, and finally in the South African War. That is to say, once in a generation. Well, I do not think any patriotic man—and the men who compose these forces are patriotic—would fear a contingency so remote as that. In conclusion I have to apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am sure every one of your Lordships will welcome the noble Lord opposite upon his advent to this House. His arrival here has been a matter of considerable and dramatic interest, and I am sure that we are all very glad that he has followed up that dramatic incident in so excellent a speech as he has just made to the House. He showed a very great knowledge of his subject, and I am sure we all hope that we shall often hear him address us upon this and similar subjects, and I hope further, my Lords, that we may look for a similar knowledge of his subject in the official representative of the War Office when we get into Committee and come to discuss this Bill clause by clause.
  We are still in a difficulty, my Lords. We were in a greater difficulty before the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Lucas) as regards the discussing of this Bill, because we really had very little power of understanding what it really intends to do. A few Papers dealing with it have been presented to Parliament—not very many—I do not think nearly anything like as many as have been asked for. But most of those Papers can now be torn up, because they were presented to Parliament before the recent rearrangement or reconstitution of the intentions
  1106
  of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Militia, and therefore very few of them are worth the paper they are printed on. Secondly, we are at a disadvantage because we realise that, unlike many Bills that come up to your Lordships' House, this Bill has been most inadequately debated in another place. I have seen it stated that only nine-clauses out of the thirty-eight in the Bill have been discussed at all. I do not suppose that my request will be carried out, but it would be of great interest to us all, I think, if the noble Earl could arrange for a copy of the Bill to be printed, showing in one coloured ink how much of it was discussed, and, in another coloured ink, how much was not discussed, and has not had even one word mentioned with respect to it in another place. It would assist us considerably in the many questions we are going to ask when this Bill goes into Committee.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Perhaps the noble Lord will suggest how that may be done.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It is easy enough to print in different coloured inks.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: That is easy enough, but not the other part.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I could easily do the whole thing, but I am not going to print it at my own expense. Now, my Lords, the hour is late, and for that reason, if not for the other reason that we are here to get information more than to get a Second Reading debate—I am going to confine myself more to asking questions, if I may do so, than to following the speeches which have come from this side of the House criticising the Bill—speeches with many of which I cordially agree.
  This Bill of course is of a highly technical nature; it comes to us, we understand, with the unanimous approval of the Army Council as well as of the Cabinet behind it, and therefore it is quite certain—it has been certain from the first—that it should receive

  1107
  sympathetic treatment from your Lordships, and I naturally assume that it will eventually pass into law. I sincerely hope that the Committee will so treat it, and that it will be given a thorough trial and a thorough chance when it is passed into law—because, my Lords, I do believe that it is one of the last bulwarks against any form of compulsory military service, or, as I venture to call it, against any form of conscription. Mr. Haldane has told us most frankly from the first that lie regards conscription as out of the question; and the noble Earl the Under-Secretary followed him in that line this evening. I am extremely glad to hear it. It cannot, to my mind, be too often repeated, and I am more particularly glad to hear, when I take it in connection with what we have been told, that the Army Council are behind the Secretary of State in promoting this Bill. I was reading this morning the evidence given by one of the military members of the Army Council before the Royal Commission, which was presided over by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Elgin). He was extremely emphatic in another direction from that to which the Army Council turns at present; he stated—
  "Personally, I should be in favour of compulsory military service."
  And four questions later on he said—
  "That would make them liable to go abroad in time of war, as every other foreign nation does."
  I am glad to understand, or to believe, that that distinguished general has repudiated that opinion, which was given four years ago. He must have repudiated it, if he supports this Bill; and I hope that his repudiation is likely to be a final one. The noble Viscount upon the cross benches (Lord Milner), who spoke so keenly as an opponent of the voluntary system in this country, discussed a subject which has been very often debated in this House; and I am not going to follow him in detail through all his arguments. I would only like to point out one thing: the noble Viscount gave us to understand that one of his strongest objections to any voluntary system lies in the fact that we can never hope to get the numbers that we require for it. And I
  1108
  confess that I should have liked to have heard very much what number it is that he considers necessary. He mentioned later in his speech some 500,000; but I did not gather for certain whether he intends that to represent the sum we should raise by compulsory service, or not. It is interesting to think of how many troops at this minute—troops of every possible kind—we have that can be called upon in various parts of the world to serve under the British flag. I have a list of them here; I am not going through them in detail, but the list gives the numbers of the Regular Army, the Auxiliary Forces, the Navy, the Naval Reserve and the Colonial and Indian Forces; and the total comes to 1,200,000 men. Well, that number, so far as number is concerned, seems to me amply adequate for anything we could possibly require. But I think the real problem before us is not so much to get the men, as to train them when we have got them; and I think that compulsory service is going to help us very little towards that desirable end.
  *EARL ROBERTS: I do not think the words "compulsory service" have been used by me this evening.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon—I was not referring to him, but to a remark made by Lord Milner. Now, I want for one moment to express regret for the fact that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl (Earl Portsmouth) did not go more into detail as to why it is necessary at all Why has it been necessary to place this long Bill upon the Table of the House? The noble Lord (Lord Lucas) in the course of his remarks claimed that the power the Government are taking to mobilise the Auxiliary Forces in certain conditions was no more than a power that the Government already have. Then why is it necessary to have a Bill to give them this power? As far as I can judge, speaking very generally, there are only two things that have made it necessary for them to bring in this Bill. The first is, that they are going to take the Militia and put them under the Army Act, and they are going to make them liable to

  1109
  Serve abroad. That undoubtedly requires legislative action; it requires legislative action such as the noble Earl opposite, as he knows, voted against not very long ago. Secondly, undoubtedly they need legislation in addition to set up these County Associations and to give them certain powers under the law. But putting aside those two things, I do not think there is very much need for legislation; and, therefore, why not have, as they might have had, if the Government had really given their minds to it, a very much more simple Bill? I do not complain—I merely mention this in passing—but I want to pass on to what this Bill does incidentally; because, as the noble Lord (Lord Lucas) pointed out to us, this debate is spread over the whole of the British Army organisation; and it is necessary that it should do so, because there are so many points in our organisation that this Bill touches indirectly, as well as those which it touches directly.
  Now, we are to have, as has been often said this evening, this new Territorial Army. To put it in perfectly straightforward language, the Yeomanry and Volunteers are to be called in future the Territorial Army. It is a change of name and a change of very little else. We all understand the reasons. There is nothing the War Office likes better than a change of name, that is always their great idea in carrying out any great reform. We had an Army Order on 1st January this year, which came out with a tremendous flourish of trumpets; it organised the Army at Home into six divisions—in other words, it organised the troops in England, Ireland, and Scotland under a new name as regards their local headquarters. There was not a man added; there was not, as far as I know, a man moved from one place to another in order to fit into the new organisation; it was simply a change of name, and nothing else. In the same way, we are going to have a Territorial Army where hitherto we have had the Yeomanry and the Volunteers. In the first place, I regret extremely that the Yeomanry have been touched at all, and I do not see that there was any necessity to touch them. They are a contented force, contented in absolutely everything, I believe,
  1110
  except the fact that they are not allowed to drink whiskey in their canteens, which was not a matter, at all events, that required legislation to put right; and they are thoroughly efficient, as my noble friend Lord Midleton pointed out, though naturally enough he did not go on to point out why it is they are so efficient. That omission on my noble friend's part is easily understood when we remember the part he himself took in bringing about that efficiency. Now, they have been threatened with all sorts of terrible things. They were to have had their pay reduced. We remember that when Mr. Haldane made his original announcement it seemed to imply that they were only to be paid 5s. a day for a short time, and that he called the Yeomanry "a costly experiment," an experiment, by the way, which has only lasted 100 years! But although they were originally threatened with a reduction of pay, we are glad to think that they have now received a three years' respite. I most sincerely hope that that three years will be prolonged indefinitely; because, unless the Government are prepared to show us that they have something very much better to give us in their stead, it is surely only true caution, in this particular case, to leave well alone.
  I want, very briefly, to touch on two points that are proposed, I believe, with regard to the Imperial Yeomanry; and the first is, that I regret extremely that this idea of a special service section has been revived. I have always believed that the idea of a special service section, or of a special service company, in any part of the Auxiliary Forces was about the most mischievous thing that you could introduce into it; because, after all, it does mean that the best men in the regiment come into that regiment for a time, and then are taken away from the regiment at the time when they are most particularly wanted. I know it was a very favourite thing to propose from the military side of the War Office that we should have these special service sections in the Auxiliary Forces; and I regret extremely that that old idea has been revived upon this occasion. Secondly, I feel bound to point out that in future the corps troops in

  1111
  an expeditionary force are to be selected, so far as the cavalry are concerned, from the Imperial Yeomanry; they are to be provided as I understand, from these special service sections. I have no objection, of course, per se to the Yeomanry carrying out this duty; but I do think it is a lamentable thing that these special service sections are to be taken into the corps troops when they go to war—that is to say, sent to serve in war with other troops with whom they will not have served in time of peace. It seems to me that this is opposed to the whole essence of any organisation for war, which is recognised after all by the Secretary of State in his desire to organise the Territorial Army into brigades, divisions, and such like in all arms of the service; it seems to me to be a complete negation of that excellent rule that you should use these special service sections in the way which I have described.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Is the noble Lord criticising the use of them as divisional cavalry?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have no objection to their being used as divisional cavalry if they have been trained as divisional cavalry in time of peace with the people with whom they are going to work in time of war; but I understand there is no such proposal. The proposal is that they shall be earmarked as Yeomanry Special Service Section; and that in time of war they shall be added to the corps troops.
  I pass from the Imperial Yeomanry, and come for a moment to the Territorial Army. They are to be put under these new County Associations; and the first point which strikes me with reference to this is that the responsibility of the commanding officer is to be very considerably diminished. He, obviously, is the person who, up to now, has had all the management, as far as the Volunteers are concerned, of his regiment—all the administration of the regiment has been under his thumb, but this is to be taken away from him, and handed over to the County Association; that is to say, I presume, it will have to be carried out by him under the orders of the County Association. Who are the County Associa-
  1112
  tion to be? A majority of the County Association are to be military officers, but not necessarily colonels of regiments. The Army Council will select any military officers they like in the command, and turn them into the County Association. Clause 1 (3), Subsection (d) says—
  "For the appointment of such number of officers representative of all arms and branches of the Territorial Force raised under this Act within the county (not being less than one-half of the whole number of the.association), as may be specified in the scheme."
  Well, my Lords, is it the intention of the Government that those should ever be junior officers? Will a major who happens to be a cousin of the Secretary of State for War be put on the County Association, and thus be in a position to criticise his own commanding officer in the regiment which happens to be under that County Association? I do not believe it is the intention of the Government that anything of that kind shall happen; but looking at the extremely loose way in which this clause is drafted, that is a thing which it is perfectly possible may happen. And I hesitate to think of what might happen. I can think of one or two particular instances where something of this kind might be carried out, and the trouble would be absolutely endless if it was carried out as the Bill takes power to carry it out. So much for that point. The serious part of it, I am afraid, is that the responsibility of the commanding officer is to be very seriously diminished in matters of administration. Then the Territorial Army is threatened with all sorts of pains and penalties; there is the familiar £5 fine if they serve less than four years and do not do six months training when war breaks out, which, obviously, will be a serious deterrent to many men enlisting. However, we have hopes that possibly these things may not be very strictly insisted upon. And one of course gives credit to the Government at once for the very excellent change they have made in relieving the commanding officer of his financial responsibility, because I have always felt not only that this was a serious detriment to him, but that it was a serious wrong that such a liability should be put upon him.
  But, my Lords, personally I doubt very much whether, even with all that the

  1113
  Government are going to do they are doing enough. I confess I have severe qualms as to whether what they propose is going to improve the Volunteers sufficiently, as compared with what they are at present, to make them (always aiming as I believe we should aim, towards that one goal) as fit as we possibly can to meet the best foreign troops. But there is one point to which I have already alluded, on which I will say a word. The suggestion that they should be organised into divisions of all arms I think worthy of your Lordships' most cordial support, and I hope it will be pressed on as rapidly as it possibly can be. But the pressing on of this scheme makes one thing necessary. It makes it necessary that the Artillery should be organised for the Territorial Army, and I understand it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to organise what I will call, for the sake of brevity, Volunteer Field Artillery, as it is necessary for them to be able to provide 1,000 guns at least for the Territorial Army. This of course will be a pure experiment. It is an experiment that we shall all watch with very great interest, and I only hope that the respite that we understand has been given to reductions in the Regular Field Artillery will remain until we are assured that this experiment in the Volunteer Field Artillery is a complete; success.
  I do not wish to go in detail into the proposals of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Militia. They have already been referred to considerably in the course of the debate, and I do not think I could add very much to what has been said. They are, as we know, to be organised into the third and fourth battalions, of which we have heard.so much; they are to be brought under the Army Act, and under the Army Votes; a certain number of Regular officers are to be added to them. At first sight the addition of Regular officers to Militia regiments must inevitably tend to increase their efficiency. I only hope I did not quite understand what my noble friend Lord Lucas was saying about the position of the Militia officer in future in these battalions—whether he would be allowed to get right up to the top and eventually to take command. The noble Lord was being subjected to a fire of cross-examination
  1114
  at the moment, and I perhaps—not he—rather lost the thread of his statement. But I should like to say that I sincerely hope that the door will never to closed to an efficient Militia officer getting command of his own regiment. It seems to me absolutely necessary, when you add regular officers to a regiment, to keep the three or four highest official positions in the regiment entirely in their preserve. I see no objection to a Militia officer having much more work than he has now. I feel sure you will always get a better class of man if you always leave that I door open to his progress.
  The Government also intend, as we know, to amalgamate certain battalions of the Militia, and I am very anxious to know whether that is possible without some legislative power enabling them to do it. The question was often discussed when I was at the War Office, and we always understood that the authority of Parliament would be necessary before any county regiments, or regiments representing half a county, I could be amalgamated. There is nothing in the Bill, I believe, to make such amalgamation possible—doubtless; owing to the fact that such amalgamation; is only part of the scheme recently decided upon. But I should like the noble Earl to look into the matter with a view to seeing whether some Amendment will not be necessary in order to I give the power which he requires. I hope care will be taken to see that these amalgamations are carried out with discretion. I believe no Papers have been laid before Parliament definitely showing what regiments are to be amalgamated; but a rumour has been going about—I do not know whether secrets have been leaking out or not, but I have a letter from the North of Ireland full of the most anxious fears as to what are believed to be the intentions of the War Office with regard to amalgamation. It is a letter sent to me by an officer of one of the Militia regiments, and if the rumours of which he speaks are true, well so much the worse. If they are not true, they may be taken as an example of what might happen unless great care is taken, and therefore that must be my excuse for mentioning the matter to your Lordships. The regiment in question is the Royal Irish Rifles, and the rumour which

  1115
  is current is that the third battalion is to be amalgamated with the fourth battalion, and the fifth with the sixth battalion. Of course, that is the natural thing that would strike any person who did not know anything about the local circumstances—to amalgamate the third and fourth, and the fifth and sixth battalions. Well, if noble Lords opposite amalgamate the fifth and sixth battalions of the Royal Irish Rifles, they will be amalgamating two things between which there is really no sort of possible connection. The 6th battalion—the Louths—are a most distinguished regiment—a very old Militia regiment—and they are Roman Catholic to a man. The South Downs, on the other hand, are a Protestant regiment, and I think I am perfectly safe in saying that no Roman Catholic recruit has ever been taken into the South Downs. Now if those two regiments are to be amalgamated in a part of these islands where religious feeling sometimes—though by no means always—reaches a heat which is almost inconceivable in modern days, I hesitate to think what will happen to the noble Earl opposite the next time he goes to the North of Ireland for a holiday, or for some other purpose. And, my Lords, I do suggest that this is an example of what might happen when the obvious thing is done to provide amalgamation without proper knowledge of the local circumstances. We do know from a statement of Mr. Haldane's as to the Phœnix regiments what is in contemplation, and I would suggest to him quite seriously that none of these amalgamations should take place until some local inquiry has been held into the circumstances of each case.
  The next outstanding feature of the future treatment of the Militia is that the men are to be enlisted for six months, and do fifteen days training. I prefer to adopt the phrase of the noble Field Marshal, Lord Roberts, and call it a short service machine. It is a change of name, and I make the noble Earl a present of; the fact that I have taken advantage of a change of name in the same way that I have accused the War Office of being so fond of doing. It is a short service machine, and I cordially welcome it, and sincerely hope it will be a success, as it will be if the Government put their
  1116
  shoulders to the wheel and spare no time in endeavouring to make it the success we all should like it to be. I must say the Government are rather light-hearted in the way they try to make us believe that these changes are not going to result in a very considerable increase of the Army Estimates. What is the position? The Militia are to be organised into twenty-seven regiments of 800 strong—that is, 21,600 men—and seventy-four regiments of 500 strong, or 37,000 men, a total of 58,000 men. Well, at present our Militia number about 90,000; therefore your Lordships will see that the Militia are to be reduced by about one-third in numbers. At present Militia recruits number about 30,000 a year. Of those, about 12,000 go on to the line. Therefore we may say about 18,000 pure Militiamen have to be taken every year to keep the Militia up to the strength of 90,000. It has slightly declined of late, but we may take the figure as being fairly constant at 90,000. Twelve thousand from the Militia, and 12,000 going from the Militia into the line leaves a total of 24,000 men to be trained for six months in each year—that is to say, you will have an average of 12,000 men always in barracks plus your officers and so on, which we may put at 5,000. If you are to have these in addition to what you have now, you have got, to begin with, to provide housing for an additional 17,000 men every year. Are those going to cast nothing extra upon the Army Estimates? Obviously there must be a very considerable increase in the Army Estimates. Speaking roughly, it was generally assumed at the War Office as a rule of thumb—not as a close estimate—that it cost £200,000 to house 1,000 men. Some 17,000 men have to be housed under this scheme, which, if I understand it correctly, the Government are putting forward, which means a very considerable increase to provide barracks, which will be wanted at once to carry out the scheme in its entirety. That is only one item which it seems to me will gradually increase the cost of things as compared with what it is at present. There are other items, such as ranges and training grounds, which will be required, and I think it is only fair that His Majesty's Government before we get into Committee

  1117
  should give us a detailed estimate to show how Mr. Haldane ca me to the conclusion, on the Report Stage in another place, that practically no difference would be made in the Estimates by the very considerable change that is to be made. But if it does cost extra money, one is tempted to ask where is this money to come from? I sincerely hope it is not to come from further reductions of the Regular Army. What, after all, is the position? Is it not perfectly obvious that very soon, at any rate (I shall be very glad to be corrected by the Secretary of State if I am wrong) within a year or two, troops will be coming back from South Africa? We are not going to keep British troops in South Africa for ever doing police work. As troops come home from South Africa, what is going to be done? They will upset the balance you have re-established of feeding battalions at home with battalions abroad—linked battalions. The obvious temptation of the Government will be to unlink them and to abolish them, thus saving money in order to provide money for the Territorial Army. That is the Government's favourite way of doing things. They have already reduced the Regular Army in order to provide money for the Auxiliary Forces. I sincerely hope it is not the intention of the Government to carry that a step further, and in case extra money is found necessary for the Territorial Army to provide it by further reductions in the line regiments and in other portions of the Regular Army.
  The Special Contingent has already been dealt with this evening, and I do not wish to say much upon that point. I was very much struck by one proposal of His Majesty's Government—a proposal which I understand still holds the field—that in future recruits enlisted for the Regular Army should go straight from the battalion at home, and not go through the depot at all. That was the position, I understood. I sincerely hope that the proposed changes will not do away with that excellent position. I always regard the time spent by the recruit in a line depot as being absolutely wasted. He was not at all under the care of the officers with whom he would eventually serve. We
  1118
  know that he did three months with them at his line depot, finishing with fairly advanced drill, but when he got to his battalion he at once dropped back to the equivalent of goose-step and was practically treated as if he had not done a course of anything at the depot at all. I understand that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to do away with that, and that in future recruits will go straight to the home battalion, and go through all their training in the home battalion until they are sent abroad. I most sincerely hope that that position will be maintained. Personally, I would prefer to see a great depot such as Caterham or Walmer, but apart from that, I sincerely hope that no change will be made in the present proposals of His Majesty's Government in this matter, because they can have nothing but an excellent effect.
  Now, my Lords, the hour is getting late, and I only want very briefly to recapitulate three only of the points which it seems to me were confronting His Majesty's Government when they undertook the proposals which culminated in this Bill, and to see how far they meet them. It seems to me that they had three problems before them. They had to carry out the recommendation of Lord Elgin's Commission; they had to provide us with an expansive power machine; they had to provide us with officers and non-commissioned officers in order to realise the possibility of expansive power; and they had to provide us with a striking force. What are they doing to meet those three necessities? They are slightly increasing Section A, but they are not really giving us a striking force, though I confess they are altering the position from what it is at present. They are going to give us some extra officers if the Report of Sir Edward Ward's Committee is found to be practicable, and if it is carried out, although I am obliged to say, as a caveat, that they are concentrating their attention at present more upon giving us a quantity of officers, and providing facilities for training them properly, than upon giving us quality. Then as to expansive powers, about 50,000 of the present Militia are to be made available for reinforcing the line in

  1119
  time of war. But as my noble friend Lord Midleton said, if this expansive power has been provided, it is almost nullified by the reductions His Majesty's Government have made. They have knocked off eight battalions of the line—battalions which I claim to have showed your Lordships were efficient. They were not reduced from military necessity; they were reduced because of political pressure. And the same with the Guards. One battalion of the Guards has been reduced; another has been sent to Egypt, condemned to die. The Secretary of State has told us of his unalterable intention of destroying it, although the General who said "Good-bye" to them on the occasion of their last parade in England told them that if they behaved themselves properly, they might be reprieved. But it is interesting with regard to the line battalions to notice a picturesque little incident that happened in Ireland last year with regard to the fourth battalion of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, which was one of the regiments condemned last year, and which I presume has been depleted, if not disbanded by now. At the All Ireland Rifle Meeting this battalion of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment obtained seven out of ten of the trophies that were offered for competition in shooting, and I see that Lord Grenfell, the Commander-in-Chief, said that it was his intention to send a special report to the Army Council as regards the efficiency in shooting of this particular battalion, which they had condemned. I presume that that Report was received by the Army Council, and I hope that they liked it when they got it. The Secretary of State told us on the First Reading of this Bill that he had been cutting down all things that were merely for show, and not useful for war, and that remark, I think, was an interesting comment on the loss that the Army has sustained of ten efficient battalions. Secondly, the Secretary of State, as my noble friend said, has reduced the strength of battalions at home. He has, thirdly, reduced the Royal Garrison Artillery by 3,400 men, and he has announced his intention of reducing the Horse and Field Artillery, though I believe up to the present there has not been any very great reduction. I notice that last October
  1120
  the Field Artillery was 18,000 men strong. I believe they are as a matter of fact a little less than that at present, though I should be glad to receive the exact figure. I believe they have probably by the efflux of three years men reduced this by about 800 since that date. I have been told that that figure has been given in the House of Commons. I have not been able to find it this evening, and I should be glad to know whether it is correct or not.
  Such, then, is the position. The Government have provided expansive power by turning these Militiamen into 50,000 Reserve men, but they have very nearly nullified all that they are doing by the reductions of which I have spoken. We must remember—we cannot forget—the fact that the Government all along have had two ideals. We have on the one hand Mr. Haldane's ideal, and the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty's ideal, of increasing the power of the fighting forces. But we have also the Prime Minister's ideal—that ideal which he expressed when he rushed into print and wrote to one of the Saturday weekly papers—the ideal that we should convince a number of foreign diplomatists who are now sitting at The Hague that we are making reductions in our fighting forces with the object of encouraging them to do the same. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's words are extraordinarily explicit. He said—
  "We have already given an earnest of our sincerity by the considerable reductions that we have effected in our naval and military expenditure, as well as by the undertaking that we are prepared to give if we find that there is similar disposition in other quarters."
  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say at one and the same time that you are increasing the efficiency of your fighting forces and also that you are ready to weaken yourself if other people will do the same, and that you have proved your readiness to weaken yourself. An attempt has been made to bluff somebody, and I want to know who it is. Are the Government trying to bluff the extremely astute diplomatists who are now sitting at The Hague, or are they trying to bluff your Lordships' House? Because the two positions taken up are absolutely irreconcileable, and I will conclude by expressing a sincere

  1121
  hope that it is not your Lordships, and the nation behind your Lordships, who are going to be bluffed, but that the scheme which has been announced is going to be carried out in its entirety and as thoroughly as it possibly can be done, because if it is not, the result of what has been done by the Government during the last eighteen months cannot fail to be most seriously prejudiced.
  Further debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for considering the Commons Amendments read.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I have to propose one Amendment, which is simply a verbal one, for the purpose of including Ireland in the Bill as well as the other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope your Lordships will agree to this simple verbal Amendment, and I move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.
  Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  The Lord Brassey discharged from serving on the Select Committee, and The Lord Stanley of Alderley added to the Committee in his place.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow at a quarter-past Four o'clock.