Sitting of 26 June 1907

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.
MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unadvoidable absence from this day's sitting of Mr. Speaker; whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order). Consideration as amended, deferred till Wednesday next.
London County Council (Electric Supply) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee [Preamble not proved].
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 220.]
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill and the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill. Reported with Amendments, from the Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill and the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PETITIONS.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From the House of Thurso; Ormiston; Pension; Tranent;
  1358
  and, Woodhall Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Haddington; Latheron; and Tranent (two); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Chief Inspector for 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIONS (GENWEN COLLIERY, CARMARTHENSHIRE).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by W. N. Atkinson, esquire, and J. Dyer Lewis, esquire, two of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an Explosion which occurred at Genwen Colliery on 5th March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of List of Certified Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children in England and Wales on the 1st August, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, on the 7th March, 1907, amending certain of the College Statutes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 218.]
  SUGAR CONVENTION (COMMERCIAL, No. 5, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Despatch to His Majesty's Minister at Brussels, respecting the International Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3840 and 3841 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure for 1906, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 219.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Automatic Railway Couplings.
  MR. BERRIDGE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state what progress, if any, has been made with regard to the examination of automatic couplings for railway wagons by the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade in April, 1906; and whether, in view of the fact that several persons claim to be possessed of efficient and cheap appliances of such a kind as would greatly minimise the number of those serious accidents to railway employees now regularly reported in the Parliamentary Returns, he will take such steps as will expedite the deliberations of the Committee, so as to enable him to put into early operation the powers conferred upon him by The Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The question of automatic couplers has not yet been inquired into by the Committee appointed to consider railway safety appliances, but the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways has recently made an independent investigation into the matter, and has advised that there is good reason to doubt whether the adoption of such appliances would tend appreciably to reduce the number of accidents. The Committee have hitherto been considering the question of "either-side" brakes, and, as the result of their investigations and experiments, the Board of Trade will shortly be in a position to propose a rule on that subject. Other matters affecting the safety of men employed in the railway service will from time to time be referred to the Committee.

  London Poor Law Expenditure.
  MR. BROOKE: To ask the President of
  1360
  the Local Government Board what was the total expenditure by the boards of guardians in London for the year 1905–6; how much of that total was centralised by an equal rate over the whole area, and how much was left to be raised locally by a varying rate; what are the principal heads of Poor Law expenditure in London at present not centralised; and what were the different totals raised under each head for the year l905–6.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The total expenditure met by boards of guardians in London in 1905–6 was £4,615,072. This represents the expenditure met by the guardians, not only for Poor Law purposes, but also for other purposes with which they are concerned. It also includes the expenditure of joint Poor Law authorities paid for by the guardians under precepts. It does not include expenditure out of loans. To meet this expenditure a sum of £3,039,210 was available, derived from grants or from rates leviable at a uniform amount in the £ throughout London. The grants amounted to £614,720. After allowing for sundry small receipts the total sum left to be raised by rates levied otherwise than by an equalised amount in the £ throughout London was £1,369,846. The principal heads of the expenditure in this total and the sum expended under each head were as follows:—

  £

  Out relief

  309,514

  Loan charges

  401,837

  Buildings and furniture, not paid for out of loans, rent, rates and taxes

  329,683

  Promotion in Salisbury Post Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that it is proposed to pass over several senior and qualified men at Salisbury for the post of assistant inspector of messengers in favour of a junior man; and whether the fact that this man was the only one who refused to sign a petition against a recent order which had to be withdrawn is the qualification that has gained him nomination for the post.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No post of the nature referred to by the

  1361
  hon. Member has as yet been formally authorised, but, as a temporary arrangement, a town postman is employed to supervise the telegraph messengers. He was selected because he was considered to be the best qualified officer at Salisbury to perform the duties. I am informed that his selection was not in any way duo to his not having signed the petition referred to. If an established appointment be authorised the claims and qualifications of all the eligible candidates will, of course, be carefully considered before a selection is finally made.

  Appointment of Women Inspectors under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  MR. STUART: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends in any instances to appoint duly qualified women as medical inspectors under the Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly in those places where that Act affects a specially large number of women and children.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am considering the question whether it is desirable to appoint any women doctors as medical referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

  Pay of Female Operators for the London Telephone Service.
  MR STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the general manager of the Post Office London Telephone Service has invited applications for skilled female operators at wages from 11s. to 26s. per week; whether, in addition to a knowledge of telephony, they must be able to receive and send on the Morse telegraph sounder at thirty words per minute; and whether he will explain the departmental action in asking for persons who are skilled telephonists and telegraphists in London to work for a maximum of 29s. weekly, when the wages of skilled women telegraphists are 38s. per week, and a Select Committee of this House is investigating the whole question.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In the London Trunk Telephone Exchange there is a class of call-wire telephone operators who in addition to performing
  1362
  duty as ordinary telephone operators, must be able to work the Morse sounder, but are not required to possess full telegraphic qualifications. Their scale of pay is the same as that of the ordinary telephone operators; but in virtue of their telegraph qualifications, their starting pay is fixed at a point above the minimum, according to their age and qualifications. It is to fill vacancies in this class at the authorised rates of pay that applications have been invited, and the question is not therefore affected by the sitting of the Select Committee.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Terence Dunne.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a claim for reinstatement from Terence Dunne, Quarrymount, Killeigh, King's County, to a holding on the Trinity College estate, Moneyquid, Queen's County; and can ho say what course the Commissioners propose to adopt in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners cannot trace the receipt of an application for reinstatement in this case.

  Closing to Public of Banks of the Shannon at Banagher.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain grounds on the banks of the Shannon at Banagher, which for sixty years have been used by the public without objection as a public promenade, were recently closed against them by order of Mr. Dudley Fletcher, inspector and engineer of the Board of Works, and that fishermen and other boat-owners, who from time immemorial had anchored their boats there, have also been prohibited from using this bank by the same order; will he say whether, before taking this prohibitory action, Mr. Fletcher or the Board of Works had taken legal opinion as to their right to interfere with the public in the enjoyment of this ground; if so, has he any objection to give the name of the counsel consulted and the terms of the legal opinion; and, if not, will he see that this order is revoked.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman )I presume that the piece of land referred to is the same as that mentioned in a Question put to me by the hon. Member for Birr on the 13th instant.† That land, I understand, has never been open to the public, nor is it used by boatowners to anchor their boats. The Board of Works inform me that they have given no order relating to the land nor have they consulted counsel, as they have no doubt as to their legal rights. It may, however, be that the hon. Member has in his mind another piece of ground at Banagher belonging to the board at which owners are allowed by courtesy, though not by right, to draw up their boats, but there has been no interference with their privilege.

  Grant of Money to Lord Cromer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any special vote of money is to be proposed for Lord Cromer, and, if so, when.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but the date when a Resolution for a special grant will be submitted to the House cannot be stated yet.

  Sir Eldon Gorst's Pension from the Egyptian Government
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Eldon Gorst is still in receipt of the pension of £500 a year granted to him by the Egyptian Government.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I must ask the hon. Member to defer his Question as inquiry is being made of His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo.

  Irish Land Purchase—Mortgaged Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners keep a record of the amounts of mortgages and other incumbrances, with their respective rates of interest, upon property sold under the Land Act of 1903, whether to themselves or direct to tenants; if so, will he state what the rates of interest are, and the average rate on such incumbrances; and
  † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 1613.
  1364
  will he state, without vendor's name, from the experience of the Commissioners, all the financial facts of a typical case, including cost of collection and usual outgoings and deductions connected with land and not connected with money, to illustrate the effect upon an incumbered owner of selling under that Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission inform me that no such record as is mentioned in the Question is kept by the Commissioners, and it would not be possible to state the financial facts of a typical case from which any general conclusions could rightly be deduced.

  Royal Visit to Ireland—Holidays for National School Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the proposed visit of His Majesty the King to Ireland next month, and the fact that on similar occasions the Commissioners of National Education extended the usual holidays given to national school teachers by one week, he will ask the Commissioners to consider the advisability of granting a similar privilege during the forthcoming Royal visit.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This question will be considered by the Commissioners of National Education at their next meeting.

  Medical Officers of Health and Veterinary Inspection.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what special training, if any, medical officers of health have got in veterinary matters: and whether, seeing that by the Public Health Act they are expected to diagnose diseases in animals used for food of man, he will give instructions to all sanitary authorities that only veterinary surgeons be employed in the inspection of meat and milch cows in all cases where the medical officer of health has no special training.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In the case of county boroughs any person who may be appointed as medical superintendent officer of health is required to possess a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine. This requirement ensures

  1365
  that the person appointed possesses the requisite training to enable him to discharge the duties which devolve upon him in the inspection of meat intended for human food. In other districts in which a medical superintendent officer of health is appointed the officer is required to possess a similar diploma. Any sanitary authority may appoint a veterinary surgeon for the purpose of the inspection of meat to be used for human food, and such appointments have boon made in the case of Dublin and Belfast.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Lombard
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-land whether the Estates Commissioners are in a position to state when the reinstatement of Mrs. Lombard to her holding on the Listowel estate, Ballyhooly, county Cork, will be effected; and if her application for an increase of the free grant for rebuilding and restocking the farm will be favourably entertained, seeing that the amount proposed to be allocated would prove inadequate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The solicitors to the owner in this case have not yet lodged the purchase agreement in the case of Mrs. Bridget Lombard, to whom the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned a free grant of £100. When reinstatement has taken place the Commissioners will consider Mrs. Lombard's application for a further grant.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Ellen Sheehy.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have received a representation form for reinstatement from Mrs. Ellen Sheehy, of Toureen, Athea, in the county of Limerick, who was evicted in the eighties by the landlord, Captain Harkness, for nonpayment of rent; and whether he will see that the inspector of the Commissioners interviews Mrs. Sheehy, whose present address is Newcastle West, with a view to inquiring into her case and taking action in reference to it.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the
  1366
  receipt of any application from Mrs. Sheehy.

  Drainage of the Scariff District, county Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken to promote the scheme for the drainage of the Scariff district, county Clare, which was brought under his notice some time ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer to the Answer which I gave on the 19th instant, to Questions put by the hon. Member for the Leix Division.† For the reasons then given it will not be possible to consider drainage schemes for particular districts for some time to come.

  Marking of Goods imported into Australia.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commerce Act of the Commonwealth of Australia requires that British-made articles imported into the Commonwealth of Australia, bearing English words, must also bear in every case the words "Made in England," appearing on the same side of the article as the other wording.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I understand that a regulation has now been made by the Australian Customs Department providing that it is sufficient that such goods should be described as made in Great Britain.

  The Suez Canal.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what approximately was the cost of construction, improvement, and enlargement of the Suez Canal up to the end of last year; the capital account, the number of shares, the original price or value of each share, the income in 1876, 1886, 1896, and 1906, and the dividends for the same years; and what is the present value of each share.ߤ See(4)Debates, elxxvi,463 ct seq

  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The following are the particulars

  1367
  desired by the hon. Member: Cost of construction, etc., up to 31st December, 1906, francs 612,484,201.23 (at par, £24,304,928 12s. 5d.) Capital: Shares, francs 200,000,000; loans, francs 272,999,399.16; total, francs

  —

  1876.

  1886.

  1896.

  1906.

  Francs.

  Francs.

  Francs.

  Francs.

  Gross revenue

  31,174,694·35

  59,022,626·28

  82,222,855·26

  111,989,122·98

  Net profits

  2,002,913·51

  28,358,166·14

  42,283,380·28

  71,377,464·78

  Dividend{ Gross Net

  28·55

  75·33

  100·05

  151·69

  26·05

  70·69

  92·50

  141·00

  Present value of—Action de capital, francs 4,480; Action de jouissance, francs 3,810.

  The Exchequer and Audit Department and the Official Secrets Act.
  MR. FIELD (, St. Patrick): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what contravention of the Official Secrets Act necessitated the Comptroller and Auditor-General recently drawing the special attention of the members of his Department to certain office rules prohibiting information to the public press under pain of dismissal.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am not aware that there was any contravention of the Official Secrets Act.

  Free Housing of the Colonial Audit Branch
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the Colonial Audit Branch in London received free housing accommodation, fire, and light at the expense of the Imperial Government for seventeen years prior to 1906, he will explain why the Comptroller and Auditor-General wrote off a point on this subject when it was raised by a subordinate.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) No, Sir; I cannot undertake to ask or to give an explanation of the reasons which led the Comptroller and Auditor-General to differ from his subordinate.
  472,999,399.16 (at par, £18,769,817 8s. 6d.) Number of shares: Actions de capital at francs 500, 400,000; now represented by Present value of—Action de capital, francs 4,480; Action de jouissance, francs 3,810.

  Communication between Members of Parliament and the Heads of Government Departments.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that, in reply to Questions 1733–9, Sir George Murray, in his evidence before the Select Committee on National Expenditure, on the 4th of November, 1902, stated that Members of the House of Commons could more intelligently criticise Estimates by studying departmental administration and by communicating with departmental officials, he will explain why the Comptroller and Auditor-General recently drew the special attention of his subordinates to certain office rules prohibiting official information of any kind to Members of the House of Commons under pain of dismissal.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) In reply to the last part of the Question I have nothing to add to my Answer of the 11th April last.†As regards the first part of the Question, it must be obvious to the hon. Member that communication between Members of Parliament and the heads of Departments was suggested, and of course no interference was intended with the discretion of the head of a Department as to the information to be imparted.

  Date of Visit of Channel Fleet to Bangor, County Down.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of the Admiralty if he can say on what
  † See (4) Debates., clxxii., 332.

  1369
  date the Channel Fleet is expected to visit Bangor, county Down, Ireland, this year?
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The Channel Fleet, according to present arrangements, will not visit Bangor. H.M.S. "Drake," and perhaps two other vessels of the Second Cruiser Squadron, will be there between the 3rd and 10th July; and the second division of the Atlantic Fleet will be there from the 1st to the 19th August.

  Elementary Teachers' Superannuation Fund.
  MR. HEDGES: To ask the President of the Board of Education when ho expects to be able to lay before the House the Actuarial Report as to the state of the funds under the Elementary Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1898?
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Report of the Actuary has not yet been received, but I understand the investigation is approaching conclusion.

  Additional Postal Facilities at Bar of Slattenagh, County Leitrim.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he is yet in a position to communicate the result of his inquiries into the question of additional postal facilities for the village of Bar of Slattenagh, county Leitrim.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The inquiry in this case is not yet completed; but I will send the hon. Member a reply as soon as I am in a position to arrive at a decision on the subject.

  Payment of Jurors' Expenses.
  Mr. SOARES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he is aware that jurors are summoned from Ilfracombe to serve on the assizes held at Exeter, and that the expenses which they are forced to incur in the matter of travelling and hotel expenses are considerable; and whether, by legislation or otherwise, anything can be done to relieve men in poor circumstances of this burden.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Juries for the assizes are summoned from
  1370
  different parts of the county for which the assizes are held. I fear I cannot undertake to propose legislation to provide for the payment from public funds of the expenses that jurors may have to incur in obeying summonses.

  Notification of Still Births.
  MR. W. PEARCE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can give the number of still births which were notified to the local supervising authorities by certified midwives under the Midwives Act, 1902, during the year 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have made inquiry, but have not been able to obtain this information.

  Proficiency Pay—Re-engaged Men as Second Class Shots.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, Under the new system of proficiency pay, men serving in India who have re-engaged for twelve months, in consideration of receiving 6d. per day extra pay, are liable to lose 2½d. a day in the event of their being classed as second-class shots, although no such deduction was contemplated or agreed to at the time of signing on; and whether, in view of the fact that this deduction may be regarded as a breach of contract, he can amend the order regarding proficiency pay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Extension of service from seven to eight years with the colours, whether in India or at Home, gave men a right to service pay, subject to their remaining efficient, and to their attaining such a standard in musketry as may be prescribed by regulation. The Class I. standard has been raised, in the interests of efficiency, both for service pay and proficiency pay, from that of second-class shot to first-class shot, and presumably the Indian Government will apply this rule in India as it will be applied in this country from the date of the next classification in musketry. This is within the discretion of the Army Council and involves no breach of contract. On the contrary, no standard has been set up for second-class pay, and men who are only third-class shots can earn the Class II. rate of 4d. for their full term of eight years. The difference between the two rates is 2d. and not 2½d.

  Alterations in Pay, etc of Staff Officers.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will specify the alterations which have been made during the present financial year as compared with the standard of 1905–6 in the salaries and emoluments of officers holding staff appointments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane. )The chief alterations of importance are as follows: — (1) The reorganisation of the staff of artillery commands which has been approved, includes the appointment of a lieutenant-colonel of general staff (at Aldershot)at a special rate of pay of £050 a year, instead of £550, the normal pay of that appointment. (2) Sanction has been obtained for raising the pay of assistant directors of supplies and transport (substantive colonels) from £750 to £900 a year. (3) The pay and allowances of the staff of the School of Musketry and of the assistant director, Army Veterinary Service, have been consolidated.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Reserve of Armour Plates.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty at what ports in the United Kingdom are 3/16 inch plates kept for repairing destroyers; and whether sufficient supplies of these plates for immediate repairs are now in stock at each one of the ports he names.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 11th June, steps are being taken to secure an adequate reserve of these particular plates. In the meantime there are approximate sizes in stock at each of the Home Yards which can be utilised in lieu of the 3/16-inch plates should the occasion arise.

    Dockyard Old-age Pensions.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many employees recently engaged at Deptford, Chatham, Greenwich, Devonport, and Portsmouth have been discharged through old age; what has been the amount of weekly
    1372
    pension granted to them; whether he is aware that the allowance made to employees discharged through old age is so inadequate that many of the above have been compelled to apply for parochial relief; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in view of the letter and spirit of the House of Commons Resolution of 6th March, 1893.
    MR. LAMBERT: It is estimated that during the six months ended 30th April last, some fifty established workmen were discharged from the home dockyards on reaching the age of sixty, with an average pension of about £45 a year. Very few dockyard pensioners are in receipt of parochial relief, and these few are men who have been discharged at a considerably earlier age than sixty. It is considered that the Resolution to which the hon. Member refers is being fully adhered to.

    H.M.S. "King Edward VII."—Defective Rudder.
    MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the directors of the Ayrshire Foundry Company or the officials of that company, who were responsible, were not brought to trial for fraud for their conduct in supplying a defective rudder for H.M.S. "King Edward VII."; and, considering all the circumstances of the case as reported in paragraph 18 of the Report from the Public Accounts Committee, who is responsible at the Admiralty for the fact that a criminal prosecution was not instituted.
    MR. SMEATON: At the same time may I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the manager of the Ayrshire Foundry Company has not been prosecuted for fraud in having supplied to the Admiralty the rudder for H.M.S. "King Edward VII.," which they knew to have a dangerous flaw, which flaw they concealed by a secret electric welding operation on a Sunday during the absence of the official inspector; and whether, in view of the recent disclosures regarding adulteration of cordite, the adulteration of canvas, and the secret commission paid by an Admiralty con tractor to certain stewards for passing ready-made clothing, he will take steps to deal with such cases with the utmost severity permitted by the Law.
    MR. LAMBERT: The question of a prosecution was carefully considered, but the law officers of the Crown, under all the circumstances, advised against that course. The firm in question was immediately struck off the contractors' list, and the running contract cancelled. The Admiralty will certainly use all their legal powers to suppress and punish such malpractices.
    MR. BELLOCasked whether the names of the directors of the company were to be given to the House.
    MR. LAMBERT: The name of the company is stated in the Question and in the Report. I do not know the names of the directors.
    MR. BELLOCasked whether the publication of the names would not act as a deterrent.
    MR. LAMBERT: Anyone can find out the names of the directors of the Ayrshire Foundry Company.

    Naval Contracts.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 10 of the Report from the Committee of Public Accounts; and whether he can give an assurance that in future the procedure followed in connection with the contracts for H.M.S. "Invincible," "Inflexible," and "Indomitable," for which, without Treasury sanction, no competitive tenders were invited, will not be repeated.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Treasury sanction will be invited should the occasion indicated in the Question arise.
    MR. LEA: Who was responsible for this departure from the ordinary practice?
    MR. LAMBERT: It was not during the tenure of the present Board of Admiralty.

    Bribing Admiralty Officials.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 5 of the First Report from the Committee of Public Accounts issued on Saturday last;
    1374
    and what steps the Admiralty purpose taking to prevent a repetition of these offences, either by contractors to the Board of Admiralty or persons under the control of the Admiralty.
    MR. LAMBERT: As regards employees of the Crown, the Admiralty are considering how best to emphasise the already stringent regulations forbidding such offences. The warning against bribery contained in the contract conditions has been made more clear. Any breach would result in the contractor being struck off the list, and other Departments would be informed of the delinquency. The Admiralty are determined, so far as is in their power, that these practices shall cease.
    MR. LEAasked whether the contractors in this case had been prosecuted, or whether there was any intention to prosecute them.
    MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir. This case occurred about two years ago.

    Defective Ammunition.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the contractors who supplied the 6,000,000 rounds in 1900 and 1901, 5,000,000 of which were condemned in 1905, were not proceeded against in a court of law, with a view to recovering the loss which the public suffered, in accordance with the view expressed by the Public Accounts Committee in paragraph 24 of their Report; and who is responsible for the fact that no action has been taken.
    MR. LAMBERT: It was considered that as the ammunition had passed inspection and proof and been accepted no claim could be sustained. There was no suggestion that the deterioration was due to fraudulent conduct on the part of the contractor.

    Illegal Possession of Government Cartridges.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any steps have been taken by the Board to prosecute the general dealer at Portsmouth who was discovered to have in his stock 22,400 cartridges for use with the Morris tube, all of which were marked Government property; and if not, why, considering

    1375
    the advice given in paragraph 26 by the Committee of Public Accounts in their last-issued Report.
    MR. LAMBERT: The general dealer referred to was prosecuted by the police of Portsmouth, but the charge was dismissed as there was great doubt in the case, and the law officers of the Crown advised that fresh proceedings against the man would probably prove fruitless. A further case at Portsmouth is now being investigated. The accused man, who was also concerned in the previous case, should have appeared before the Portsmouth magistrates yesterday, but I understand that this man has committed suicide.

    Closing of Coastguard Stations.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many coastguard stations have been closed during the last two years; and in how many cases was there a lifeboat station or a rocket apparatus, or both, at the coastguard stations which have been closed.
    MR. LAMBERT: Seventy stations and detachments have been abolished since 1st April, 1905. At twenty-five of these stations and detachments there was a rocket apparatus. Lifeboats are not maintained at the coastguard stations, nor are they in charge of the coastguard; but there are lifeboats stationed at nineteen of the places where coastguard stations or detachments have been closed since the date mentioned.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): Are we to understand that the rocket apparatus is also abolished?
    MR. LAMBERT: The rocket apparatus is under the control of the Board of Trade.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Is it not a fact that the rocket apparatus is worked by the coastguard?
    MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir, not entirely. The rocket apparatus is under the control of the Board of Trade, but by an arrangement with the latter Department it is
    1376
    placed in charge of the coastguard, where the costguard station is conveniently situated for the purpose.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the hon. Member make inquiry into the matter?
    MR. LAMBERT: There is a Report now before the Board of Admiralty.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): Are we to understand that the rocket apparatus will be worked at these stations?
    MR. LAMBERT: The Board of Trade is responsible.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will they work the apparatus?
    MR. LAMBERT: The, hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the President of the Board of Trade.
    MAJOR SEELY: Will the Report be laid upon the Table of the House?
    MR. LAMBERT: I cannot say that. It is being considered by the Admiralty.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: Are any more coastguard stations likely to be closed?
    MR. LAMBERT: A pledge was given by the Secretary to the Admiralty that no more stations should be closed until the House of Commons has considered the matter. That pledge will be strictly adhered to.

    Machinery in Gibraltar Dockyard-
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost of the machinery now housed at the Gibraltar dockyard; when it is proposed to set it up; and what sum is allotted in the 1907–8 Estimates for this service.
    MR. LAMBERT: Sufficient particulars are not available at the Admiralty to state what is the cost of the machinery now housed, but not erected, at Gibraltar dockyard. But if the hon. Member wishes, I will call for a report from Gibraltar, and communicate the information to him when received.

    Quick-firing Guns at Gibraltar.
    SIR WILLIAM.BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the age and calibre of the quick-firing gnus now lying unmounted on the shore at Gibraltar.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): There is no information in the War Office in regard to the quick-firing guns alleged in the Question to be lying on the shore at Gibraltar. I will inquire about the matter.

    Government Officials and Contractors' Commissions.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the Report from the Committee of Public Accounts shows that four stewards at one of the naval depots have been in the habit of receiving from the contractor a commission of 5 per cent. on all clothing-examined, and that the Admiralty, in view of the contractor's statement that he thought it was the custom, have found it necessary to issue notices warning all employees against the acceptance of commissions, will he state whether it is clearly understood throughout the War Department that such practices are irregular; and, if not, will he consider the expediency of issuing similar notices.
    MR. HALDANE: If my hon. friend will kindly refer to paragraph 419 of the King's Regulations, paragraph 94 of the Supply, Barrack, and Transport Services Regulations, paragraph 98 of the Army Ordnance Services Regulations, and paragraph 180 of the Engineer Services Regulations, he will find ample instructions in regard to the matters to which he alludes. There is also the usual clause in Army Contracts warning contractors of penalties in case they attempt to bribe. There are also the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1906.

    Defective Shells.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish any details regarding the bursting of a shell in a howitzer, whereby the howitzer was destroyed and men's lives jeopardised,
    1378
    at Lydd on Saturday last; and to what does ho attribute the accident.
    MR. HALDANE: A portion of the muzzle of an 8-inch R.M.L. howitzer was blown away at Lydd on the 29th ultimo (not on Saturday last), apparently by the premature explosion of a black powder filled common shell in the bore. No reason for the destruction of the howitzer can be assigned. Although formerly numerous prematures occurred with powder-filled shells, this is the first instance of any damage having been caused thereby to the howitzer.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether there was a defect in the shell such as had been complained of the other day.
    MR. HALDANE: We have no reason to think so.

    British Service: Ammunition.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the tabular results of trials of British service ammunition and high-velocity ammunition such as is used abroad, on which the official statement is issued that at 1,100 yards range the velocity of the latter was considerably less than what was attained with British service ammunition.
    MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend is apparently referring to a statement I made in debate in Committee on Army Estimates Vote 9, in which I inadvertently used the word "velocity" instead of "energy"; in regard to the "energy" of the Lee-Enfield bullet the statement would be quite accurate.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is it not the case, with regard to the substitution of energy for velocity, the energy is greater with the rifle bullet only after 1,400 yards has been reached?
    MR. HALDANE: That has got to be proved.

    Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUROn behalf of the hon. Member for Hoxton, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has

    1379
    made any inquiry and can give any computation of the number of women and children dependent for their food upon the 1,952 men of good service, extending from one to fifty-two years, discharged from the Ordnance Factory at Woolwich from 1st June, 1906, to 1st June, 1907; and, if not, will he make such inquiry and communicate the result to the House.
    MR. HALDANE: In selecting men for discharge, regard is paid to all the circumstances of each man including any points concerning his family he may put forward, but no record has been kept of the number of women and children dependent on those discharged. I am not prepared to order the undertaking of such an inquiry; in many cases the information could not be obtained, and I am inclined to think that some would resent the investigation as inquisitorial.
    VISCOUNT TURNOURasked if records were kept of the circumstances in each individual case.
    MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER -GRAY: When are the discharges to cease?
    MR. HALDANE: I inquired this morning, and am glad to say that they are approaching a termination.
    MR. CROOKS: We have been approaching the termination for five years. Is it not the fact that the last Government sacked or discharged 6,000 men and they said they were approaching the end of the dismissals? You have been forced to discharge many more, and surety the right hon. Gentleman can say when the minimum will be reached.
    MR. HALDANE: The reason why I cannot say accurately is that the calculation of the minimum is a difficult and intricate matter, but it is very nearly determined now.
    MR. MADDISON: How many men have been discharged at Newcastle and Sheffield owing to the reduction in the demand for munitions of war?
    MR. HALDANE: I cannot say.
    MR. KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say how many men were discharged from Woolwich Arsenal during the period between the end of the war in South Africa and December, 1905; and how many have been discharged since that date.
    MR. HALDANE: The number of men discharged at the Ordnance Factories in Woolwich Arsenal between 1st June, 1902, and 30th November, 1905, was 4,567, and between 1st December, 1905, and 22nd I June, 1907, was 2,473. These numbers do not include men discharged for other reasons.
    SIR J. RANDLESasked if the same type of men were being discharged by this Government as by the last. Was not the policy of the last Government only to discharge recent comers?
    MR. HALDANE: When you are performing this painful duty you naturally discharge the men who have been with you the shortest time, but as time goes on the short-service men become exhausted and you have to deal with those of longer service.

    The Militia.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can now state if it is intended to reduce the number of Militia battalions; and, if so, which battalions are to be done away with.
    MR. HALDANE: When the scheme for the Infantry of the Special Contingent comes into force there will be fifteen battalions of the Militia in Great Britain to be disposed of. These battalions would be dealt with as follows: — (1) By amalgamating the officers and men into the third battalions; or (2) by amalgamating the officers and men into the fourth battalions; or (3) by offering them transfers to the Territorial Army. Possibly a combination of all these methods might be adopted. It is not possible to say at present which Militia battalions will be dealt with as above.

    Indian Tariff on British Beer.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY:I beg to ask the Secretary of State; for India

    1381
    whether it is the intention of the Indian Government to impose an increased tariff on British beer entering India, the result of which will be that His Majesty's British troops in India and Burmah will have to pay an increased price for British beer.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOB-HOUSE, Bristol, E.): The Indian Excise Committee have recommended that the existing Indian duty of one penny per gallon on beer (imported as well as locally produced) should be raised to twopence The Government of India are considering the recommendation.

    Whippings in India.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that judicial sentences of whipping in India are appealable, but that the sentences in such cases are carried out at once, before the appeal can be heard, and that in many cases injustice has followed from this procedure; and whether ho can see his way to enjoining that such sentences when appealed against shall not be inflicted pending the hearing of the appeal.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Sentences of whipping are not ordinarily appeal able when whipping is the sole punishment ordered. They are appealable only when passed by a magistrate of the second class specially empowered by the Local Government, and it is believed that this authority is seldom given, and only when a magistrate having superior powers is at hand to hear an apeal, if any is made. When whipping is ordered in addition to imprisonment in a case subject to appeal, the whipping is not inflicted until fifteen days from the date of the sentence, or, if an appeal is made within that time, until the sentence is confirmed by the Appellate Court. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the whole subject has been for some time under the Secretary of State's consideration.
    SIR H. COTTON: Have there not been cases of scandalous injustice in which the whippings have been inflicted pending the appeal which has been allowed after the whipping has been carried out?
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of any such scandalous cases, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will draw my attention to any.
    SIR HENRY COTTON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman there have been many.

    Nairobi Gaol—Prison Treatment of Europeans.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the sentences passsed on Mr. Grogan and other Europeans concerned in the flogging of natives at Nairobi, whether they spent their term of imprisonment in the native gaol; whether sentence was passed about ten o'clock in the morning, when the prisoners were removed to a portion of the gaol, the only one in Nairobi, which had been divided from the rest of the prison; whether the same evening, Mr. Jackson, the acting Commissioner, arranged that the prisoners should be taken to some rooms above the police station which had been specially cleared for them, but the prisoners elected to remain in gaol for that night; whether a bungalow, situated in the best residential part of the town, which had just become unoccupied, was rented by the Government for the detention of Mr. Grogan and his companions until their sentences expired; whether he is aware that the prisoners had all their meals sent in from one of the hotels or the Travellers' Club; that they were allowed to smoke, while friends and relatives were permitted to visit them daily; will he explain why these lapses from prison discipline were allowed to occur, and who is the official responsible; and what action has been taken in the matter by the Colonial Office.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The Acting Commissioner is the officer responsible for the treatment of these persons while in prison. The reason which he gives for removing them from the ordinary gaol was that it had been medically condemned as insanitary for Europeans. In these circumstances the Secretary of State considers that their removal was justified; and he does not

    1383
    consider it neccsary to express any opinion on the subsequent relaxations of prison discipline, which are matters which must be left to the discretion of the responsible officer on the spot.
    SIR J. JARDINE: Why is this preferential treatment accorded to Mr. Grogan?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid there was a good deal of feeling between the official and non-official European classes in the Protectorate. They had consistently adopted the policy of supporting our officers on the spot in their administration of the law. If our officers had found it possible and advantageous to make some relaxations of prison discipline with a view to producing a better state of opinion, he thought full discretionary power should be given them.
    MR. LEA: Does the right hon. Gentle man think this relaxation of the rules —
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.
    MR. LEA: Is such relaxation usual in the case of prisoners confined for flogging natives?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think any white prisoner has been recently confined for flogging natives. A very severe example has been made of this case, and I now consider this matter must be left to the discretion of the local authorities.
    AN HON. MEMBERasked whether Mr. Grogan was still a magistrate, and whether it would not be better to remove this "Daniel come to judgment."
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was not discharging his magisterial functions now.

    Slavery on the Zanzibar Slip.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a definite statement as to the abolition of the legal status of slavery on the Zanzibar slip; and whether he will state why it is necessary to spend so large a sum as £40,000 to attain that object.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Report referred to in the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean on the 5th of June†has arrived this morning, and I hope to be able in a few days to make a definite statement. The sum of £40,000 is the amount which it is estimated will be required as compensation to owners of slaves for loss occasioned by their emancipation.

    Transvaal Loan.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to introduce the Bill guaranteeing the issue of the short-dated security of the Transvaal Government.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.): No Bill relating to the loan can be introduced until the Trasvaal Parliament has passed the necessary legislation. It is therefore impossible to fix any date.
    MR. GRETTONasked if the sanction of Parliament would be asked this session.
    MR. ASQUITH: Certainly.

    Ascot Race Meeting -Police Expenses.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan Police were detailed for duty at Ascot Heath during the recent race meeting; what the total cost of their maintenance, including pay, expenses of horses, etc., was; and to what fund is the amount charged.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The number of police doing duty at Ascot Heath during the recent race meeting was:— On the 18th inst., 649; on the 19th, 580; on the 20th, 746; and on the 21st, 530. Of these numbers, 510, 467, 575, and 417 employed in maintaining order on the course on the respective race days were paid for, as I said in answer to a similar Question last year, by various private persons; the remainder attended at the cost of the Police Fund. Nineteen mounted men were sent; these,
    † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 665.

    1385
    with all the horses, being paid for by private persons. I am not yet in a position to state the total cost, as the accounts have not yet been audited; but the amount will be approximately £1,400, of which some £200 will fall on the Metropolitan Police Fund.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Do we understand that the ratepayers of the metropolis will be called upon to find £200 for the attendance of the police at a race meeting outside the metropolitan area?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Metropolitan Police Fund will bear the cost of the police necessitated by the presence of the King, and of the police who have to look after that portion of the criminal population of London which attends race meetings.

    Cab Drivers' Whips.
    MR..SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the points of most of the whips used by London cabdrivers are made of gutta-percha instead of whip-cord; whether severe punishment can be inflicted on a horse by the use of such whips, and whether he will instruct the London police to take proceedings against all drivers guilty of cruelty in this respect.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that largo numbers of cabdrivers and carmen use gutta-percha or cat-gut points to their whips, the reason being that such material does not fray like whip-cord. I am not prepared to say that the proper use of such a whip involves cruelty; the police would at once intervene if unmerciful treatment of horses in any form came to their notice.

    Butterley Tunnel.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received a Report from the Board of Trade inspector on the condition of the Butterley tunnel and the complaints of traders regarding it; whether he can state if he proposes to take any action in consequence of the Report, either regarding the tunnel itself or regarding the Midland Railway Bill now before Parliament; and whether he intends to lay
    1386
    the Report of the inspector upon the Table of the House.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): Yes, Sir; the Report has been received, and will be laid upon the Table. Sir William Matthews is of opinion that the cost of maintaining a navigable channel through the Butterley tunnel would be out of all proportion to the use which would be made of such through communication, and that the arrangements proposed by the railway company for securing a supply of water may be accepted, provided that the company are required always to maintain a depth sufficient for barges drawing three feet. The Board of Trade therefore suggest that the Midland Railway Company's Bill at present before the House should not be withheld from the consideration of a Committee.

    St Asaph Rural District—Dr. Roberts Report.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Dr. J. Lloyd Roberts, of Colwyn Bay, county medical officer of health, when recently submitting his annual Report at a meeting of the district council of St. Asaph, North Wales, was requested to amend it; and will he state whether a local authority has the right to insist on a medical officer of health withdrawing statements which he has thought proper to make in his annual Report in regard to the sanitary condition of a district under his supervision.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I am informed that, in the opinion of the St. Asaph Rural District Council, the Report was inaccurate and incomplete, and that the medical officer of health has been asked further to consider it, and to submit it at the next meeting of the council. I am not fully acquainted with the circumstances of the present case, but speaking generally, it does not appear to me that a district council can insist on the withdrawal by the medical officer of health of statements in his annual Report in regard to the sanitary condition of the district under his supervision.

    Colwyn Bay Refuse Destructor.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the cause of delay in the construction of a destructor by the local authority at Colwyn Bay; and whether arrangements will be made for the destruction of offensive materials to be carried on at a greater distance from the town during the holiday season.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no information on this subject, but I will communicate with the district council with regard to it.
    MR. REESIs there any justification for these repeated inroads of the Picts and Scots into the sacred soil of Wales?

    Valuation Bill.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes to introduce the Valuation Bill promised by His Majesty's Ministers.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am afraid I cannot make any statement on the subject at the present time.

    Underground Telegraph Wires at Edinburgh.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has come to any agreement with the corporation of the city of Edinburgh as to the streets to be used for the underground telegraphic system through the city; and, if so, can he state the nature of the agreement.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I regret that notwithstanding every effort on my part I have not yet been able to come to any agreement with the corporation. I am advised that the direct route along Princes Street is quite practicable, and I shall be glad of any assistance the hon. Member may be able to give in expediting a settlement of the difficulty.

    Inspection of Welsh Intermediate Schools.
    MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education
    1388
    whether he has come to an arrangement with the Central Welsh Board whereby the dual inspection of intermediate schools in Wales which has been condemned by Welsh educationists and schoolmasters shall cease; and, if so, what is the arrangement.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): I am aware of the serious objections to the present system of dual inspection, and I hope means may be found to put an end to it, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Teaching the Welsh Language.
    MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the suggestions made to the Board by Welsh educationists relating to the teaching of Welsh in the training colleges of Wales; and, if so, what decision he has arrived at.
    MR. MCKENNA: A new regulation will be inserted requiring that "in training colleges in Wales provision must be made for the teaching of Welsh." The effect of this will be that there must be on the.staff' of every training college in Wales at least one person competent to teach Welsh. It has also been arranged that students may obtain on their ordinary certificate on leaving the college a mention of the fact that they have passed a satisfactory examination in elementary Welsh or, where this is the case, have obtained a mark of distinction in the Welsh language.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that Answer to the Irish Secretary.
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir.

    The Education Bill
    MR. KING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if it is intended to proceed this session with the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill; and if he can say when the Second Reading will be taken.
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes; certainly, it is proposed to proceed with this Bill, but I

    1389
    cannot yet say when the Second Heading will be taken.

    Grants for Pupil Teachers.
    MR. BRIDGE MAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the grants due for the instruction given to pupil teachers in the year ending 1st July, 1906, will be paid over to the local authorities; and what is the cause of the delay.
    MR. MCKENNA: The great bulk of the pupil teacher grants for the year ending 31st July, 1906, were paid before the conclusion of the last financial year. The delay in the payment of any of these grants which may still be outstanding is probably due to correspondence as to the fulfilment of the conditions precedent to the payment of the grants.

    Alcoholic Patent Medicines.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether official tests are made of patent medicines offered to the public as to the amount of alcohol which they contain: whether there is any limit to its use in patent medicines; if so, what is it; and what penalties are attached. to misuse.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): Perhaps I may be permitted to answer this Question. Samples of medicines are from time to time tested at the Government Laboratory, in order to ascertain whether they are sufficiently medicated to be entitled to the privilege of sale without a spirit licence. There is no limit to the use of alcohol, but in every case there must be sufficient medication to secure that the preparation cannot be vended as a beverage. The sale as a medicine of any article not entitled to be regarded as a medicine would subject the offender to the penalties applicable to the unauthorised sale of spirits.

    Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for what Services Supplementary Estimates are to be presented during the present session.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: It is impossible to say at present.

    The Public Trustee.
    MR. MICKLEM: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether any steps are being taken to constitute the office of Public Trustee under the Public Trustee Act of 1906.
    THIS ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): This is a matter which comes within the province of the Lord Chancellor, with whom I have communicated, and who has authorised me to make this reply. It is considered necessary to have a public trustee in being three months before the Act comes into operation, so that the necessary office arrangements may be made. With this in view communications have passed with Mr. C..J. Stewart, some time Official Receiver in the Companies (Winding Up) Department of the Board of Trade, and afterwards clerk to the County Council. It is intended to appoint him in October next, and meanwhile he is acting with a committee to advise in the constitution of the office and staff' under the Act of 1906.

    American Gooseberry Mildew.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture; whether, in view of the fact that outbreaks of the American gooseberry mildew in its highly infectious summer stage have occurred within the last few days in Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, and Norfolk, and that this disease, which is described in the Board's recent circular as having rendered the culture of gooseberries unprofitable and practically impossible wherever it has appeared, spreads with great rapidity by the spores produced in this stage, the Board will place the outbreaks under the charge of one or more properly qualified mycologists to supervise the carrying out of those measures necessary to secure the eradication of the disease.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSE. HOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somer setshire, S.): The Destructive Insects and Pests Bill, which will I hope receive

    1391
    the Royal Assent in a few days, imposes on the local authorities the duty of taking the necessary steps to prevent the spread of this disease, but the Board will gladly supply any information and assistance which it is in their power to afford. An inspector has been instructed to go down to Norfolk in order to arrange for the destruction of the affected bushes and the disinfection of the gardens. Similar precautions are being adopted in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire.

    Island of Lewis Medical Officer.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the Local Government Board for Scotland in their Report last year expressed the opinion that it was not possible for the duties attaching to the office of chief district medical officer in the Island of Lewis to be discharged by any one resident in Dingwall, will he state what steps have been taken by the Board to ensure the appointment, vacated some time since by Dr. Macrae, of Stornoway, being filled by a medical officer resident in the island.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): I have no official information, but I understand the District Committee is to meet shortly in order to appoint a successor to Dr. Macrae.

    Irish Dairy Instructors
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his atttention has been called to the appointment of Mr. Carroll, a son to an official under the Department, as instructor in dairying under the Department; whether his duties consist of inspecting creameries and instructing creamery managers in the technical side of their business, and what are his qualifications and experience; and, in view of the fact that experienced Irish creamery managers have been hitherto appointed to these positions, will he explain why the Department made an exception in this case.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): Along with five others Mr. Carroll was some time ago appointed for one season to act as
    1392
    instructor in dairying. Amongst other duties he will be required to inspect creameries and instruct creamery managers. Mr. Carroll has studied dairying at the Midland Agricultural and Dairy Institute, Kingston, as well as at the Ladelund Agricultural School in Denmark. He is son of Professor Carroll, who has been inspector of agriculture and dairying and superintendent of the Albert Institute, Glasnevin, successively under the Commissioners of National Education and the Department. The appointment to these posts is not confined to any one class, and I understand Mr. Carroll was chosen on his technical knowledge of the subject, his special knowledge of machinery, and the personal qualifications required in those who are entrusted with these posts.

    Dairy Management.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, considering the importance of the dairy industry of Ireland, he will instruct the Department of Agriculture to compile a pamphlet containing all the available information on the breeding and management of dairy cows, something similar to, but more comprehensive than, those issued by the Cornell University of New York and the Dairy Commissioners of Canada.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department understand that the pamphlets and reports issued by the Ministry of Agriculture for Canada and the Agriculture Department, Cornell University, comprise the results of experiments carried out by those authorities on the feeding and management of dairy cattle and particulars of a scheme for the improvement of dairy herds. The Department have in operation a scheme for the improvement of dairy herds, and are also carrying out experiments in the feeding of dairy cattle. As these experiments are not complete it would not be advisable to issue a Report at this stage. The Department have already issued leaflets dealing with the rearing and management of stock.

    Land Purchase Rules.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, in view of complaints as to the effects of the rules, forms, and instructions

    1393
    in use in connection with rent fixing, and the danger to the purchasers and to the ratepayers of basing prices upon rents considered inequitable, will ho advise a revision of those rules, forms, and instructions, and especially the annual and capital value of the landlord's property and of the tenant-right or occupation interest and improvements to be separately ascertained and set forth in every case; and, if not, will he state the objection to such revision.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): The rules, forms, and instructions referred to in the Question have boon prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Land Law Acts, and have, when made, been presented to Parliament in accordance with the statutes. I have no jurisdiction whatever in regard to these rules. The matter rests entirely with the Land Commission.

    Edenderry School, Portadown.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to.ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the residence connected with Edenderry national school, Portadown, county Armagh, was built for the benefit of the teacher; if the money advanced by the Board of Works was solely for a teacher's residence, and does the teacher derive any benefit directly or indirectly from it; how much interest and ground rent is paid per annum; and how much rent does the present tenant pay, and to whom does the profit rent go
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The house in question was built as a teacher's residence partly from funds obtained from local sources and partly by means of a loan of £250 obtained from the Board of Works on the recommendation of the Commissioners of National Education. The house is not now occupied by the teacher, but, as I have already stated, the teacher is at liberty to use it, if he should desire to do so. The Commissioners have ascertained from the local trustees, in whom ownership is vested, that the house is at present let at £35 per annum. Of this sum £5 5s. is paid in ground rent, £12 10s. in repayment
    1394
    of the Board of Works' loan, and £12 in repayment of a loan of £300 obtained from other sources. The balance of £5 5s. is expended on the upkeep of premises, and any sum which may remain is paid over to the teacher. I am inquiring into the general question of the conditions upon which the Board of Works make loans in such cases.

    Irish Evicted Tenants.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what do the Government propose to do for the families of evicted tenants in Ireland whose claims are morally and legally good, but who, owing to the death or exile of male members consequent on eviction, are, in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners, not suitable to receive holdings.
    MR. BIRRELL: It does not appear to have been intended by the Act of 1903 that evicted tenants should be compensated in money for the loss of their farms, but rather that such of them as were able to work land should, if possible, be provided with suitable farms. The only funds at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners for assisting evicted tenants is the Reserve Fund, upon which the Commissioners can draw, in the case of the sale of an estate, for the benefit or improvement of the estate or generally for the purposes of the Act. In the opinion of the Commissioners, these words would not cover grants of money to evicted tenants who are not in occupation of land on any estate, and whom it is not proposed to put in occupation of any such land.
    MR. GINNELL: Can nothing be done for families of this description?
    MR. BIRRELL: At the present moment I am unable to give a definite Answer.

    Irish Congested Districts.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has yet been decided to present to this House, or make available for public use, statistics for other counties corresponding to those already published for Donegal; and, if so, will he consider favourably the desirability of adding the area of untenanted and non-residential land.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already informed the hon. Member that it is the intention of the Royal Commission on Congestion to present statistics for the other counties of Ireland which contain scheduled congested districts, similar to those already presented in regard to Donegal. The question whether like statistics relating to non-congested counties should be published has not yet been decided by the Commission. It is not proposed to include in these statistics the area of untenanted land. A full return of untenanted land in each county in Ireland was presented to this House last year at the instance of the hon. Member.

    Extra Police Rates in County Cork.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the districts of Glashakinleen and Rockchapel, Kanturk rural district, county Cork, are compelled to pay a rate for extra police of 4¼d. in the£, though there has not been a single outrage, agrarian or otherwise, committed in either district for a considerable period: and whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the entire locality, the people will be relieved of the payment of the extra police tax.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the constabulary authorities can explain why a police hut and a force of one sergeant and three constables have been established on the farm of Mr. Owen Daly, near Meelin, county Cork; are they aware that this farm was sold by order of the recorder of the East Riding and purchased by Mr. Daly at public auction, but that, owing to the money having been paid to the then registrar of the court, Mr. Tristam Curry, who has since absconded, Daly has not yet got full legal possession of the holding, to his great loss and inconvenience; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Daly is popular in the district, that this police protection is personally most distasteful to him, and has communicated with District Inspector O'Neill, asking him to instruct the policemen not to accompany him to fairs and markets, this police force will be transferred to other duty, and the district relieved of the payment of an extra rate of 8¾d. in the£.
    MR. BIRRELL: The two districts named are assessed with a tax for extra police amounting to 7¼d. in the £. The extra force consists of three men of the reserve who are required for the constant protection of Mr. Owen Daly. It is the fact that no serious outrage has been committed in the locality during the past twelve months, but in the opinion of the police authorities, who are responsible for the preservation of the peace, it is absolutely necessary to afford constant protection to Mr. Daly. The police are stationed on his farm with his consent, and he has not applied for their withdrawal. In present circumstances it is not possible to relieve the locality from the charge for extra police.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that Mr. Daly does everything possible to escape from his police escorts?
    MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact, I am glad to say, that Mr. Daly himself is personally very popular in the district. He naturally dislikes being accompanied to the various markets by the police, as this interferes with him in the transaction of business: but nevertheless it is a fact that there are some few people in the locality who entertain feelings of strong disapprobation, and it is not the fact that Mr. Daly desires that the police protection should be withdrawn.
    MR. MOORE: Are the people who threaten him members of the United Irish League?
    MR. BIRRELL: I know nothing about that.

    Kilmeedy Schools.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in a letter, dated 3rd January, 1906, to the manager of the national schools at Kilmeedy, in the county of Limerick, stated that they proposed to alter rule l94 of their rules, so that they may be empowered to award grants towards building school-houses for separate boys' and girls' schools, where an average attendance of thirty five pupils is maintained in each school; and, if so, can he say what action they have taken or intend to take in the matter.

    1397
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Commissioners of National Education intend to devote any of the £40,000 voted for school buildings in Ireland to the building of separate boys' and girls' schools at Kilmeedy, in the county of Limerick; and, if so, when may it be available.
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when will the£40,000 for national school buildings in Ireland be available for the building of new schools in places where the old buildings have been condemned by the inspector's; what are the conditions for obtaining this grant; and whether they have been declared to be realised by the Commissioners of National Education in their letter of the 3rd January, 1906, to the manager of the Kilmeedy schools in the case of the schools there; and, if so, whether a grant will be given to him, and when.
    MR. BIRRELL: I will answer these three Questions together. It is the fact that the Commissioners wrote to the manager to the effect stated in the first Question, but they also subsequently informed him that their proposal to alter the rule had not received the necessary sanction. The Commissioners, therefore, have no power to make a building grant for separate boys' and girls' schools unless the average attendance of each sex is fifty or upwards. This condition is not fulfilled in the case of the Kilmeedy schools. The £40,000 for national school buildings in Ireland is now available, and the conditions under which building grants are made are fully stated in.the Commissioners' rules, to which I would refer the hon. Member.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable in the interests of education itself to alter this rule, and will he use his influence with the Commissioners of Education to bring that about?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot say that I think that is desirable. The number fifty is not unreasonable on the whole.

    Boyton Estate, County Donegal.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    1398
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what is the cause of the delay in completing the sale to the tenants on the Boyton estate, near Convoy, county Donegal, who entered into an agreement to purchase their holdings over two years ago, and are still paying the old rent to the receiver; and whether he will call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the tenants' loss in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase agreements in respect of this estate were lodged in December, 1905, and the case will be dealt with in its order of priority. In the meantime rent is not payable, but, interest in lieu of rent is being collected.

    M'Mahon Estate, Quilty, County Clare.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police at Mullagh and Quilty stations, West Clare, are herding twenty-seven head of cattle, night and day, on the M'Mahon property, near Quilty, leaving the supervision of the remainder of their respective districts to the people themselves; and, if so, whether he will give instructions to the police authorities to have those men withdrawn from this herding so that the landlord should employ herdsmen to look after those cattle, and have the police attend to their proper functions.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that police patrols visit a grazing farm on the M'Mahon estate for the protection both of the cattle on the farm and of the herdsman who has been threatened. It is not the case that the police act as herdsmen. The performance of their duty of affording the necessary protection in this case does not prevent them from performing their other duties in the district.

    Police and the Grazing Disputes.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the number of cases of driving of stock off farms in certain districts in Ireland, he will issue a circular from Dublin Castle instructing tenants of grazing farms as to the best mode of protecting their property in accordance with the views of the Chief Commissioner of Police.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer is in the negative, for the reason stated in my reply to the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh on the 17th instant.†

    Ballinaglera Boycotting Cases.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Brady, caretaker on a farm at Ballinaglera, county Leitrim, is so rigorously boycotted that he has to travel twenty-six miles to the village of Dromahair to obtain the bare necessities of life; whether he is aware that early on 18th June he was assaulted and his donkey and cart taken from him; whether any arrests have been made; and, if so, whether either the Attorney General or the Solicitor-General will prosecute in the case in person.
    MR. BIRRELL: On the 17th instant two men wore arrested upon the charge of assaulting Martin Brady, a son of the caretaker referred to in the Question, and stealing from him a donkey which he was riding. The accused were on the same day taken before the magistrates, who, by a majority, refused to receive informations and return the accused for trial. My right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland has since considered the evidence in the case, and has directed that a Bill against the accused shall be sent up at the next Assizes. He will consider the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member as to prosecuting in person, but he cannot undertake to do so in the case of every agrarian offence.

    Derrinlough Grazing Farm Dispute
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a grazing farm at Derrinlough, midway between Cloghan and Birr, King's County, occupied by a Mr. Parsons, of Shinrone, was cleared of all its stock on the 18th June; whether the police have any information on the subject; whether any arrests were made; and, if so, whether either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General will prosecute in the case in person.
    MR. BIRRELL: This Question refers to the same case as that about which the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh put a
    † See (4) Debates, clxxvi., 126.
    1400
    Question on Thursday last‡ No arrests were made, but proceedings by summons are being taken against several persons with the object of requiring them to find sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The Crown solicitor is in charge of the proceedings.
    MR. MOORE: Were these proceedings instituted under the Act of Edward III.?
    MR. BIRRELL: I dare say they were.

    Mr. Hopkins' Ballybrophy Estate.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations for sale to the tenants of the estate of Mr. Hopkins, Blackhall, county Kildare, situated near Errill, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, are pending before the Estates Commissioners; whether he is aware that Mr. Joseph Mole, who held the farms of Park and Lyrogue upon the eleven months system up to 1904, has for the purpose of sale to him been made a yearly tenant of those farms; and whether, in view of the fact that this land is required for the enlargement of small holdings and the settlement of evicted tenants in the locality, the Estates Commissioners propose to sanction the sale to Mr. Mole.
    MR. BIRRELLPurchase agreements in respect of the estate mentioned were lodged with the Estate Commissioners in July, 1905. The agreements include one by Joseph Mole for the purchase of a farm held by him as yearly tenant under a tenancy created in April, 1905. The question of making an advance to Mole will be duly considered by the Commissioners when they come to deal with the estate.

    Doon Evicted Tenant.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a grant in money or kind was made to Mr. P. Kilbride, of Toomaline, Doon, county Limerick, by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, how much; whether Kilbride is a reinstated evicted tenant; and, if so, will he give particulars of when and why he was evicted.
    † See (4) Debates, clxxvi., 626.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have sanctioned a free grant' of £180 for stock and £20 for buildings to Patrick Kilbride, who has been reinstated in a holding of 113 acres on the Wilkinson estate from which he was evicted in 1889 for non-payment of rent.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will steps be taken to see that the stock is not sold to pay this man's debts?
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners will take such steps as they can. Considering the general character of this tenant I am glad ho is reinstated.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has not the stock been already sold?
    MR. BIRRELL: I must ask for notice.

    Mayo County Council Chairmanship.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Goverment Board have decided between the rival claimants to the position of chairman of the Mayo County Council; and who is the rightful holder of that office.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already stated that the Local Government Board have no power to decide the question which the hon. Member raises. The question is a purely legal one, and could only be finally decided by a Court of law.

    Killoran Branch, United Irish League.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of a special meeting of the Killoran branch of the United Irish League, signed by two secretaries of the branch, containing a recommendation by a. county councillor that the members should ignore British law altogether and stand loyally by the laws of the United Irish League; and whether he intends to take any action in this matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has now been called to a newspaper report to the effect mentioned in the Question. Mr. Cawley, the person who is said to have made the recommendation referred to, is not a county councillor. No action
    1402
    appears to be called for. I have no reason to suppose that the supremacy of the law will be endangered by Mr. Cawley's remarks, assuming that he made any.

    Distribution of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the total number of the statutory free establishment of constabulary distributed by Order in Council on the occasion of the last redistribution of the force among counties and county boroughs; whether the constabulary authorities are of opinion that the number so distributed is adequate to existing demands and requirements in Ireland; whether there is power to increase the establishment of police in the absence of the proclamation of counties and baronies under the provisions of the Act 6 Will. 4, c. 13; and, if not, whether he will consider, in consultation with the constabulary authorities, the question of the propriety of recommending the Lord-Lieutenant to give effect to the provisions of this Act by the issue of proclamations declaring certain counties or portions of counties to be in a state of disturbance necessitating the employment of extra forces of police.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total number of the free force of the Royal Irish Constabulary, as fixed by Order in Council of 18th May 1906, is 8,553. I am not prepared to make any statement upon the matters referred to in the remainder of the Question beyond saying that the Government will take all proper measures for employing extra police in those districts in which their services may become necessary.

    Athenry Disturbance.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of the midnight affray between the police and a disorderly crowd at Athenry on Thursday last; and whether any of the rioters were arrested.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have received a police report of the disturbance at Athenry on the night of the 20th instant. Two persons who were identified as being disorderly on the occasion are being

    1403
    summoned to find sureties to keep the peace.

    Athenry Cattle-Driving Prosecution.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, at the hearing of a charge of cattle-driving against nine men before the Athenry Petty Sessions Court on Friday, the solicitor for the defence contended that it was not the duty of the constabulary to protect any man's cattle, and laid stress on the statement of the Chief Secretary that it was toe duty of these people to make some attempt to protect their own property; whether a majority of the magistrates dismissed the case; and what further action lie proposes to take in this matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: According to the newspaper reports of this case, the solicitor for the defence did not suggest that it was not the duty of the constabulary to afford protection, but said he was not aware that it was their duty to act as herds. Seeing that the constabulary do not act as herds, the solicitor's comment has no particular force. It is the fact that the majority of the magistrates refused information in the case referred to. The question whether further proceedings should be taken will be considered by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland in due course.
    MR. MOORE: Why does the right hon. Gentleman in some cases accept newspaper reports and in others reject them?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot say.

    Skibbereen Smuggling Case.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Dutch ketch "Cosmopolite" was recently seized by H.M.S. "Skipjack" for smug-ling, and that the charge was heard at Skibbereen, county Cork, petty sessions on 13th June last, and dismissed by the local bench of magistrates; whether he is aware that, on first being brought before a Court, when a remand was granted, two magistrates only were in attendance, Captain H. Townsend and
    1404
    Mr. B. R. Purdon, R.M., and that the-solicitor for the defence, Mr. J. Travers Wolfe, had canvassed a number of justices of the peace to attend, one of whom, Mr. W. Wood Wolfe, was a relation of his; whether he is aware that another magistrate, Dr. Jennings, although dispensary doctor and acting, as well, as locum tenens in another dispensary district, attended specially for six hours at the trial; will he say whether the "Cosmopolite" has been released, and, if not, is it in consequence of any irregularity at the trial; and what action the Government intend to take.
    MR. BIRRELL: I understand that the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. The prosecution was not instituted by the police, but by the Customs authorities, and any inquiry upon the subject should be addressed by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury who answers for the Customs. So far as the alleged canvassing of magistrates is concerned, I may say that the police have no knowledge that any such canvassing took place.

    Irish Protestant National School Teachers.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I; beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to resolutions passed by the Irish Protestant National Teachers' Union, with reference to the power of managers to dismiss teachers without assigning a reason; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been directed to these resolutions, and I propose that the first of them should be communicated to the Commissioners of National Education with an expression of the Irish Government's opinion that, if it is at all possible, effect should be given to the desire of these teachers for some protection against arbitrary dismissal.

    Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to give notice without delay of the Amendments to the Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill, which now

    1405
    stands next in order on the list of Standing Committee B.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Baronet's previous Question on this subject, namely, that if the Government should decide to propose any Amendments to this Bill due notice will be given.

    De Burge Bateson Estate Evicted Tenants.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say on what grounds the Estates Commissioners have decided not to take any action in reference to the case of the representatives of Mr. Cowhey, deceased, late of Ballinaguile, Croagh, in the county of Limerick, evicted tenant on the De Burge Bateson estate: and whether, having regard to the fact that there are five boys and two girls of deceased, unmarried, living on the home farm of 100 acres, he will take steps to see that their case is dealt with on its merits, so that some untenanted land on the Dickson Power estate may be given to one of them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have decided to take no special action in this case because the holding in which reinstatement is sought has been sold under the Land Purchase Acts to the occupying tenant, and the applicants are already in possession of a farm of 100 acres. Moreover, the applicants father is stated to have surrendered the holding from which the applicants allege he was evicted. If, however, the Commissioners should acquire the Dickson Power estate they will be prepared to consider any fresh application which may be made to them. I have no power to direct the Commissioners in the matter.

    Boyle Local Inquiry.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland have given notice that one of their inspectors will hold an inquiry, on 2nd July, 1907, on a petition forwarded by certain ratepayers in Boyle to constitute that township an urban sanitary authority; if he is aware that the notice was only received on 19th June, and that there is no meeting, either of the Ros-
    1406
    common County Council or the Boyle District Council, to be held between the date of notice being received and that on which the inquiry is to be held; if, seeing that both these bodies are interested in the matter to be inquired into, he will see that the inquiry be adjourned to a date that will give these bodies an opportunity of considering the course they should adopt in the interests of the ratepayers they represent; and if he will take steps to secure that the Local Government Board shall consult these bodies as to a convenient date for the inquiry.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board gave the usual statutory notice of this inquiry. The Board have since received from the county and rural districts councils a request that the inquiry may be postponed, and in reply have informed these bodies that the inspector will attend and formally open the inquiry on the date fixed, and will then adjourn it to any date which may be arranged to suit the convenience of the parties concerned.

    Limavady Post Office.
    MR. BARRIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether in the event of the Limavady post office being placed under Derry, the salaries of any of the Derry officials would be increased; whether the Derry postal officials are supporting the proposed change; and whether he can state the receipts of the Limavady office for each of the past ten years.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I cannot say at present precisely to what extent, if any, the work, and consequently the salaries, at the Londonderry office might be ultimately affected by making Limavady subordinate to Londonderry. The Londonderry officials have not been consulted as to the change, which is in no way the result of any suggestion on their part. The existing staff at Limavady will retain their present scale unless they prefer transfer to another office. The postmaster's salary also remains the same. There has been some increase of work at the office during the last few years, but last year showed a falling off. As I have already stated the change will

    1407
    in no way impair the postal facilities of the district including the Scottish and English mails, but on the contrary, will increase the efficiency of the local service.

    Warrenpoint and Carlingford Postmasters.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General the length of service and qualifications of the postmasters recently appointed to Warrenpoint and Carlingford respectively.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Neither of the persons appointed to the two sub-post offices named had any experience of post office work; but both were regarded as the most eligible of the available candidates.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: And in order to appoint these two men were thirty other officials with sterling qualifications passed over so that Nationalists might have the appointments, men who had never had a single hour's acquaintance with the office?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The officers appointed were those considered to be the best qualified.

BUSINESS OK THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the Business for next week.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): It will be the Finance Bill.

INJURED ANIMALS ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A, with an amended Title.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 221.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 221.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

INCEST BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 222.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 222.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Beckett.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Bowles: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Beckett.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. George Faber; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Mansfield.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Amendments to: Destructive Insects and Pests Bill [Lords]; St. Neots Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (HOUSE OF LORDS).
Ordered, That the Proceedings on the House of Lords Motion, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer).

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [25th June]to

1409
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 j House to alter or reject Bills passed by j 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. camp-bell-Bannerman);
Which Amendment was,
"In line I, 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)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: The discussion upon the Resolution and Amendment before the House was closed last night by a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary for the Colonies which was remarkable in many ways. I do not think anyone who listened to that speech would entertain for a moment the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion that the sluggish appetite of the followers of the Government in this House and in the country required something more stimulating than the half-hearted, lukewarm utterances of his colleagues who had preceded him in the debate—the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. Those right hon. Gentlemen professed to find in the Resolution nothing that was unfriendly or hostile towards the House of Lords, and they stated as their belief that were this Resolution to have the effect of law, there still would be a useful and honourable role for the House of Lords to fill in the Constitution of the country, and there still would remain for them very many responsible and difficult duties to perform. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had plainly thought that such poor stuff as that was not sufficient to arouse the-popular enthusiasm in favour of this crusade, und that, if it were necessary, as he believed it to be, to play up a little more to the gallery in the matter, the
1410
situation demanded much more lurid and blood curdling language than that indulged in by his colleagues. Accordingly the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to deliver a harangue which, for the wealth of its vehemence, violence, and vituperation, has seldom, I think, been exceeded in the annals of Parliamentary history. It was the sort of speech everybody is accustomed to in other arenas. We have heard something like it at the hustings, on the pavement, and in our parks, but I venture to say it is a new experience coming from a responsible Minister of State speaking with the responsibility and authority supposed to attach to occupants on the Front Bench. What were the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman thought it becoming and consistent with his dignity and position to describe the institution which, in the opinion of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General has a dignified and important role to fill in the legislation of this country, and has many difficult and responsible duties to discharge? He charged that House with being animated solely by the meanest partisan motives; he described that institution as nothing but a Party dodge,, and, warming to his subject as he proceeded, he reached a climax when he declared that the House of Lords used its veto for the grossest and basest purposes of political partisanship. Now I observe hon. Members opposite, with few exceptions, have not cheered that. My anxiety has been to elicit cheers from them for that reference to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and if they had cheered it I think some of them would find themselves in a position which would render it difficult for them to follow the Government in the division lobby, because if they believe it is a true-description of the House of Lords it will be difficult for them to reconcile their action in supporting a Resolution which the Prime Minister, who is responsible for it, has declared will still leave that House of Lords, described in such language by the right hon. Gentleman, an important factor in the legislation of the country. But the speech had other advantages. It unmasked for the first time in this debate the true inwardness of the Government proposal, and it also disclosed in part the methods by which it is proposed to accomplish their purpose. Now, the most cursory examination of

1411
this proposal will, I think, satisfy any Member of the House who has taken the trouble to examine it that, if followed up by legislation, it must necessarily annihilate the effectiveness and power of the House of Lords for legislation. I do not stop to criticise the extraordinary machinery by which they propose to adopt three separate and distinct occasions, at distinct intervals, on which four Members from either House will meet in secret conclave and, like the witches in "Macbeth," stir up the political cauldron; I do not propose to waste time in discussing this fantastic proposal, because it is perfectly plain to anyone who has followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies that these proposals, in their present form, are the merest and veriest sham, and are the subterfuge of a weak-minded and divided Government which is marking time upon this question and wishes by this performance to leave it, open, so that when they have watched the course of politics they may be able to say either that their proposals meant everything or, on the other hand, nothing. But the right hon. Gentleman was also good enough to reveal something of the methods of the plan of campaign, and for this purpose he had recourse to the language of military strategy. He told us the Government were opening the first line for a great siege; they had to sap up to the first parallel. I hardly think it was a happy inspiration for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to sapping and mining. It is not the first time in the history of this short-lived Parliament that we have heard of this policy of sap and mine, and I think the result of its first application, in the case of the Irish Council Bill, was hardly of such a character as to encourage its repetition. I would like to dwell for a few moments on the history and incidents of that Irish Council Bill, because it is invaluable, to my mind, in this discussion, owing to the fact that it demonstrates clearly how unreal and artificial is the nature of the effort that is being made to manufacture a case against the House of Lords. Will any Member on this side or on the other side of the House stand up in his place and say now that he believes the Government ever intended or desired to pass the Irish Council Bill?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FUR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I do.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I am glad to see this indication of courage on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that that quality will soon be displayed more actively in connection with Irish administration. But while I have not the slightest desire nor idea of understating the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, I should like to refer for a moment to the position in which we stand in regard to the Irish Council Bill. In the first place it was introduced for the purpose of enabling hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to reconcile, to themselves and to the electors, the various conflicting and inconsistent pledges which they had given on the subject of Home Rule, and it was supposed that this could be best done by a sort of mongrel measure which enabled some of them to point to it as an instalment of the larger policy, while others could regard it as merely an innocuous contribution to local government. But the real and main purpose of the Irish Council Bill was this: it was deliberately framed in the expectation and belief that the House of Lords would reject it, and certainly it demonstrates this lesson—the futility of this talk that we have listened to about the will of the people. The will of the people when clearly and definitely expressed is one thing, but the form in which the Government of the day chooses to clothe that expression of its opinion is a wholly different matter. We must assume that the Government either had, or believed they had, the sympathy and support of the Members for Ireland below the gangway in the introduction of their Irish Council Bill. That is not a violent assumption, because their subsequent action showed that that was so. If they had not the implied sanction or express sanction and support of hon. Members for Ireland below the gangway, then that would make it absolutely plain and clear that they never meant business with the Bill; but if they had that sanction and support then an object lesson is afforded on this question of the people's will. If hon. Members for Ireland had given any such promise, and if they proceeded loyally to carry out that promise, that Bill, with their assistance,

1413
would have gone from this House and would have been sent up to the House of Lords to meet its doom. Just imagine the outcry against the House of Lords here if they had set their voice once more against the clear and expressed will of the people, not merely the will of a small section of English electors, but of the entire Nationalist people of Ireland, whom we are so anxious to govern according to Irish ideas. That would have been the cry. That was the main purpose and object of this abortive Bill, and had it not been for the accident that, instead of hon. Members for Ireland supporting the Bill in this House and helping it on its way to the Upper House—had it not been for the accident that they took the course of a referendum to an Irish Convention, that Bill would have passed from this House with the assistance of the Government and its legions, and the cup to be filled up against the House of Lords would have received a very substantial addition. Had that Bill gone to the House of Lords and been rejected, that House and not the Government or this House would have been interpreting the will of the people. If that Bill accomplished nothing else, it has accomplished one result which I think is almost without parallel in the history of Irish administration, certainly for the past century. All classes, creeds, and sections throughout the length and breadth of Ireland were united in their condemnation of that Bill, which went to its grave without a single individual in that country to mourn or regret it. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member below the gangway has certainly one merit which distinguishes it from the Resolution of the Prime Minister. That Amendment, which was so well proposed and seconded, raises a courageous straightforward issue. At the same time I confess to a certain difficulty in following the argument which was addressed to the House in its support by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, because, as I understood him, it seemed to me that the ground upon which he advocated the adoption of the straight and square course proposed was that the House of Lords were out of sympathy with the schemes of social and industrial reform which are believed in by the Party sitting below the gangway. It struck me as rather an audacious assumption, because the hon. Member
1414
went on to say that their Party numbered thirty in this House. It would be, I think, rather a novel and dangerous constitutional principle to say that where an expression of public opinion has only reached the concrete shape of re-burning to this House thirty representatives of particular views, those views were therefore to prevail and to be taken as the mandate of the country, and that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were here with authority to dictate to the other sections and Parties to the Constitution.
MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe): I think my hon. friend never made any such statement of his position. What he said was that the House of Lords was against reforms which the people wanted, and not merely of what we wanted.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I accept that explanation, but who are the people in the opinion of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle? I would be the last to misrepresent any hon. Gentleman, but I certainly understood, and I think the House understood, that the main line he took was that the views and ideas of the House of Lords were in direct conflict with the views of the people as he understood them. Of course, it is perfectly obvious when speaking of the people he was speaking for those whom he represents, and for whom he is entitled to speak. I doubt whether any hon. Member would care to attempt to explain the views of those whom he has no claim to represent. It is not a violent assumption that the hon. Member in speaking of the views of the people was speaking of that class of the community who sent himself and his colleagues to this House. The hon. Member based his case for the adoption of the Amendment upon the allegation that the House of Lords had often delayed legislation. Well, strange to say, it is that fact which in the opinion of many people in this House, and certainly of very many people outside the House, commends the retention of the House of Lords. This delay or retarding of legislation is essential in the system of Party government. Every man in this House knows that the Party opposite, as well as the Party on this side

1415
of the House, has frequently brought in measures embodying principles and intended to carry out objects which, when in Opposition, they have themselves for years opposed. That is common to both Parties in this House, and the explanation is obvious. The Party, whichever it may be, has come to the conclusion that there has been during some years of discussion and controversy material provided to satisfy them that the people of the country, taken as a whole, have come to a deliberate conclusion on the matter. But there is another benefit in this retarding of legislation. We all know that the English people are very sympathetic at times; they are, like other people, on some occasions inclined to run away with questions, and it may so happen that under the influence of popular excitement, popular prejudice, or popular sympathy, the Government of the day bring in a scheme which, in many of its essentials, involves a course of injustice to the rights of minorities. It is well that such a measure, after being fully debated and purged of those inequalities, should perhaps get another chance, and that is what actually happens in practice, because I think there is hardly a case on record in the history of Parliament in which a Bill, which after discussion in this House and the House of Lords has been ultimately rejected, has ever again been reintroduced in its old form. It has always been made the subject of amendment, and it has also received the benefit of the criticism which it has undergone in the previous session, or in the session before that. That criticism and those changes have been for the inevitable good of the general community, and those measures have been purged of very many clauses which, if not noticed, and passed unchallenged, would have worked undoubted hardship on individuals and minorities. This cry for the abolition of the House of Lords is no new one. With hon. Members below the gangway and hon. Members opposite it is entirely different, and I think the country will ask and wait with some impatience for an answer to the question why it is, or what it is, that to-day for the first time has opened the eyes of hon. Members to the necessity for destroying one of the integral parts
1416
of our Constitution, which has survived for centuries and been the envy and admiration of every civilised country in the world, an envy and admiration, I may say, which has taken a form which we know to be the sincerest form of flattery, that of imitation.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Where?
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Many authorities have been quoted. I will satisfy the impatience of my hon. friend the Member for South Donegal if he will only restrain himself. Many authorities have been quoted in favour of the excellence of our constitutional arrangements, but the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies quoted one who was somewhat disparaging. I am sorry that he is not in his place, for I would have liked to refer him to one authority, and in his absence I will refer the House to an authority whom, I am sure, he will value much more than those who have been quoted, and that is himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies published an election address in 1899. I presume that one may say that an election address is prepared with some little care. It is not a mere collection of random thoughts. Here is an abstract from the right hon. Gentleman's election address—
"I believe that the present Constitution of the United Kingdom is upon tin- whole the best and most practical arrangement for the purposes of government which exists in the world, or is recorded in history."
I am quite aware that right hon. Gentlemen opposite feel the onus which is cast upon them of explaining to the electors of the country why it is at this late hour of the day they have become so keenly alive to the pressing importance of this question, and, so far as I can follow their suggestion, it is that the action of the House of Lords for the last two years is a sufficient justification for attacking an institution which for so many centuries has been an integral and vital part of our Constitution. Three measures have been referred to—the Education Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, and the Trade Disputes Bill. Certainly it is a case of hit high or low you cannot

1417
miss, because one of the three measures selected was passed by the Lords with Amendments, another was rejected, and the third was passed, that is to say, that so far as the Lords could do it, they did not reject the Education Bill, but they amended it. Let me say a word with regard to the Education Bill, because I think it is a very happy illustration of the real meaning of the political maxim as to the will of the people. It is not desired that the will of the people should be contravened if it is clearly and definitely expressed, but it is a matter for the determination of this House and the House of Lords, whether the form in which the Government have thought fit to express and to clothe their views and ideas as to the will of the people in every case is to be accepted, and whether that is to be taken as consonant with the wishes of the people, without their having an opportunity of saying "Yes" or "No" on the subject. I quite admit that this question of the grievances under which many people believe they suffer in the matter of education was a burning topic at the last election. There can be no doubt about that. This much I am confident of, that the electors of this country never contemplated by any expression of their will to set aside; one form of clerical tyranny and set up in its place another, and to place the children of the poor belonging to the Church of England and the Catholic Church at the mercy of that somewhat elastic and indefinite element, the Nonconformist conscience. Then, with regard to the Plural Voting Bill which is also included as one of the counts in the indictment against the House of Lords; there is a great deal to be said in favour of such a Bill. But to my mind it is a crude and ridiculous proposition to say that in the case of a representative system like ours, which is full of anomalies, which makes no provision for proportional representation, or for redistribution, nor has regard to any logical principle which anyone can understand or see, and when the consensus of opinion is that the whole system requires to be overhauled and remodelled —I say it is idle to think that the House of Lords or any other legislative body was acting unwisely in saying, "We will not allow this thing to be done
1418
piece-meal. You must bring in a comprehensive scheme to deal with all those anomalies and give every Party fair play." The criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies with reference to the action of the House of Lords on the Trade Disputes Bill was most extraordinary, and showed what amount of freedom and latitude of expression of opinion he is prepared to concede to the House of Lords. The gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman's attack on that institution in connection with the Trade Disputes Bill was simply that Lord Halsbury in the course of one of the debates had expressed views in reference to it which, if my recollection serves me, coincided with the views expressed in this House by the Attorney-General. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies did not select for his criticism one of the Members of the Upper House who sits by hereditary right? On the contrary, he went out of his way to make an attack on a man who by exceptional ability, his distinguished and brilliant professional and political career, was an honour to this House for many years and who took his place in the Upper House because he had attained to the highest legal position in the land.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): What I said was that Lord Halsbury had had the candour to express the true reason for passing the Bill and that he did not hide himself behind the hypocrisy of saying that it was passed in the interest of the public.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman is under a complete mistake. I was not referring to him, but to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who selected for attack a distinguished Member of the Upper House solely on the ground that Lord Halsbury upon occasion had made certain references to one of the principles of the Bill. All I said in connection with the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds was that Lord Halsbury's criticism coincided to a large extent with the views expressed by the

1419
hon. and learned Gentleman in this House. In the course of the debate hon. Gentlemen opposite have been challenged to quote one single instance in which the Ho use of Lords has set themselves in open defiance of the people's will. We wait with anxiety and interest to know what is that case.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: The tramways over Westminster Bridge.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I am very grateful for that interruption, and I hope that in the remote ages when the House of Lords is to be destroyed, if that time ever arrives, the worst epitaph that can be written upon the House of Lords will be that in one case it voted against tramways going over the bridges in London. That is the solitary exception. On the other hand, there are many instances in which they have rejected measures which subsequent experience showed had not the approval of the country. When the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was interrupted by cries of "What about the Home Rule Bill?" he said, "I anticipate that and I will explain it." What was his explanation? It was, "Home Rule is not yet a settled Controversy." I do not quite follow the lucidity of that explanation, but I take it for what it is worth. It enables me to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the second effort he has made as a prophet with regard to the future of the Home Rule question. What were the views of the right hon. Gentleman as expressed in his election address of 1900, some time ago it is true, but not a long time in the history of an aspiring statesman? I commend this language to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has two points; it demonstrates the useful position which the House of Lords has occupied, and I hope will continue to occupy for many years to come; and in the second place, it demonstrates what the views of the right hon. Gentleman are as to the future of the Party with which he is now associated.
"What will happen,"
the right hon. Gentleman wrote—
"if a Radical Government comes into power? They enjoy the support of the Irish Vote, and
1420
on the understanding that they will introduce a Home Rule Bill—either they will break their pledges or the dreary farce of their last administration will be repeated."
"The Conservative Party,"
he goes on to say—
"in the House of Commons will vigorously oppose and the House of Lords will most certainly reject that pernicious plan which the electors of England have twice condemned."
In the matter of politics as well as in other matters, I believe that the English people like to do business. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL counter cheers.] I am glad to hear those Ministerial cheers, and I hope that the Gentlemen who have cheered will bring pressure to bear upon their Government to do business in this matter, and come out into the open, take their courage in their hands, and adopt and support the abolition Amendment moved by the Labour Party. Let them do this and thus give an opportunity to the people of the country, which I believe they are impatiently waiting for, of pronouncing their verdict upon the Government and the Party who have wasted two whole years of Parliamentary life in the weary wilderness of drifting and drivelling. I believe that if they do submit this issue in a clear and definite form to the electors of the country the result will not be for a moment in doubt.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University began his speech on the Resolution submitted by the Prime Minister by firing off another speech which he had prepared for the Second Reading of the Irish Council Bill; and therefore he struck the wrong note. I feel sonic sympathy with him, for many a time I have had experience of the same trouble myself, in common with most Members of this House. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success with which he has got off that speech at last; but I do not quite see what his grievance is about the Irish Council Bill. His complaint is that the House of Commons does not represent the will of the people. I should have thought that the action of the House of Commons on the Irish Council Bill serves to demonstrate how sympathetic the House of Commons is in regard to the

1421
wishes of the people. The moment the House of Commons discovered that all sections of the people in Ireland repudiated, through their Convention, the Irish Council Bill, they responded to the will of the people and dropped the measure. The right hon. Gentleman complained that this Resolution was so vague that the Prime Minister and the Government, if they discovered that their plan did not commend itself to the country, would propose something else. My recollection is, however, that the Prime Minister was very definite and laid before the House a very clear scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman can persuade his Leader to be as definite in his plans in regard to other important matters, such as tariff reform, and to lay before the country as clear and definite and consecutive a scheme as the Prime Minister has put forward—if he no longer waited, I will not say for the jumping cat, but for the jumping preferential kangaroo in order to see how it leaped in the country—then we should know pretty well where we are. The right hon. Gentleman naturally is a very ardent advocate of the position of the House of Lords. He represents a privileged minority in Ireland—a minority which has associated British rule in Ireland with its one disastrous failure; a minority which has induced the British Parliament to initiate legislation, and, what is more important, to fail to initiate legislation, which has had the effect of driving millions of his countrymen for shelter and sustenance to foreign shores; a minority which has made the Protestant religion, which stands in every other land for faith, freedom, and progress, in that country synonymous with oppression and cruel rapacity. No wonder that the right hon. Gentleman has no confidence that the democracy will finally sanction a system of that sort, and that he looks for strength and refuge to the House of Lords. His criticism upon this plan is this. He first of all says he prefers the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. Of course, that is always what critics of any plan say. They attempt to divide the forces of those who propose any reform. It is a very natural system of tactics, and I do not blame them for attempting to do so, but I should blame very much those who on this side of the House listened to them.
1422
It is an obvious attempt to produce a schism, but I am perfectly certain that in this instance it will not succeed. The right hon. Gentleman has referred within the last few minutes to the Home Rule Bill of 1893, and I observe that one thing he said in the course of his speech was that there were many cases in which the House of Lords rejected Bills passed by this House where they had been amply justified by the sequel. I waited to hear the instances, but the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned them. He only mentioned one in the course of a century, namely, the Home Rule Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider what would have been the effect of this Resolution if it had been in force in 1893 in the case of Home Rule? It is perfectly true that the Government sent up to the House of Lords a Bill which was afterwards rejected by the country; but, supposing the Bill had been sent up under this Resolution in 1893 and rejected by the House of Lords, assuming that the Ministry of the day persisted in 1894, there would have been a second Bill. When a Government re-introduces a Bill they naturally profit by the criticism passed upon the first Bill, and probably in 1894 they would have had an amended Bill. That, I presume, would have been rejected. The first opportunity there would have been of sending up the Bill a third time would have been in 1895, or during a special session of 1894, and if the Lords had not accepted it, it would have passed on to the Sovereign and received the Royal signature in the winter of 1894. It could not have come into operation until six months after that Parliament had been dissolved and an anti-Home Rule majority was present in the House of Commons.
MR. BONAR LAW: The date of the dissolution could have been altered.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: How could it have been altered when the Government had been beaten? It would have been perfectly impossible for that Government to go on for another fortnight. Thus that Home Rule Act under this plan would not have come into operation until a

1423
Unionist Parliament had been summoned, and if they were not prepared to accept that Act, and the country was overwhelmingly against it, all they had to do was to pass a Bill of two lines declaring that it should never come into operation. The precedent of 1893 is a justification of the Prime Minister's plan. Let me take another point. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone said that a good many Bills were passed through this House about which those who supported them had a good many misgivings. They may pass Bills in that way once; they cannot do it twice, and I am perfectly certain they cannot do it three times. I do not know any great controversial measure which has ever been carried through this House which did not to a certain extent shed some of the support of the Ministers who brought it forward. I remember specially the Act of 1902 and the Act of 1904. There was then considerable cleavage among the right hon. Gentleman's own friends: there were about fifty or sixty Members, his very loyal supporters, who never went into the division lobby, and many of them voted constantly against the Government. With a great agitation going on in the country against that Bill, and with by-elections going against the Government, could the right hon. Gentleman even have attempted to force his Bill through in 1903, if there had been a perfectly impartial House of Lords to throw it out? No Minister can possibly face the electorate with an attempt to press through a measure against all that gigantic agitation which can be got up against an unpopular Bill. I agree that the Government plan is a medium course between the two extremes which say, on the one hand, that there shall be no Second Chamber at all, and, on the other, that there ought to be a revising Chamber with practically co-ordinate powers. It is a medium course, but a real one. An indefensible Bill that cannot stand criticism cannot be carried in face of a procedure of this kind. It is rather remarkable that there has been no out-and-out defence of the House of Lords during the whole of this discussion. The noble Lord did not defend it, and the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for the Walton division of Liverpool clearly indicates that a considerable
1424
body of opinion on the Unionist side of the House recognises that the present system is absolutely indefensible. They are very subservient in the House of Lords, and the right hon. Gentleman, I think, is the first to recognise that they would stand from him that which they would not stand from any other living man. I remember the speech of Lord Lansdowne when he complained that they had great Bills sent up to them at the end of the session when they had not sufficient time to consider them. But they passed them nevertheless; so things are made easy for the right hon. Gentleman, though I doubt whether in his heart he really thinks that it is the most effective revising Chamber that could be set up. I do not say we ought not to have a body for that purpose, or that in a scheme of this kind, you might not under certain circumstances have better legislation; but I am certain that the present system has made Party Government, as we understand it, absolutely impossible. Let us consider some of the arguments that have been used. I forget by whom, but by one hon. Gentleman in the course of this debate we were challenged to produce cases where the House of Lords had so materially altered Bills as to make them worthless, or rejected them altogether, and where the House of Lords had been wrong. I put it the other way. The Irish Home Rule Bill is the one solitary case that is claimed throughout the century, the single case in which hon. Members opposite claim that the House of Lords has been right. They have rejected or mutilated a good many Bills. They have so mutilated Bills as to take the life out of them. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said they did not reject the Education Bill. On the contrary, they passed it, but they amended it. It is not always necessary to kill a man; you may simply deprive him of his limbs. And that is what was done with the Education Bill. If you guillotine a man, you do not kill him; you only remove a part of him. That was what was what was done with the Education Bill. They so mutilated it as to take the life out of it. That process has been going on for three-quarters of a century. Several instances have been given in the course of the debate. I will

1425
add one or two cases which are relevant to the discussion. The argument of the Leader of the Opposition is this, and the argument was put not only in his speech here but in his speech elsewhere last night. He says—I do not use his exact words, but their substance—What safeguard have you against rash legislation which may destroy beneficent institutions, overthrow property, and generally imperil the security of the rights and interests of the people? Does that criticism apply to the legislation rejected by the House of Lords during the last fifty or seventy years? Let us take the treatment of Nonconformists, and that is a good case, for the reason that the House of Lords contains no Nonconformists. There is no substantial representation of Nonconformity in the House of Lords in the same sense as the Anglican and even the Roman Catholic Church are represented. There is no body of opinion that can make itself felt in which the Nonconformists are represented. That is an important feature. I am not making any personal attack on the House of Lords. I believe that the Members of the House of Lords are imbued with the same sense of duty as other Britishers are when they are placed in a position of responsibility. What I say is that they are ill-informed; that they have not the experience which is essential, they are not in touch with the interests in regard to which they have to legislate, and they are really not competent to deal with questions of this kind. And it is just on questions of this kind, about which they know nothing, that they go wrong. Their training is not of the standard which enables them to understand them and more than that it gives them a prejudice. I have no doubt we suffer from it ourselves, but at any rate when we get into this House we do come into contact with every shade of opinion and have to consider it. The House of Lords do not come into contact with this great body of opinion. How have they treated the great body of Nonconformists? I think Nonconformists are as well-behaved, as well-conducted, as industrious, as sober a body of men as you can find in any community in the country, and they have sacrificed more for what they conceive to be the cause of religion, especially amongst the young,
1426
than probably any other community of the country. How have the House in Lords treated them with regard to universities, schools, and training colleges? They have always treated the proposition to allow Nonconformists to sit in a university, to get inside a training college with Anglicans and Roman Catholics, and to teach in the village school, as if it were a real danger to the moral standard of society. I ask any fair-minded man whether a Chamber which is so completely out of touch with a body of men who, after all, have done great things in some of the noblest passages of the history of England is fit to sit in judgment upon their claims, demands, and grievances. Speaking as a Nonconformist, that is my case against the House of Lords. They have themselves admitted that they were wrong in most cases. The Universities Bill was sent up from this House time after time, to allow Nonconformists to take degrees, and it was thrown out—for the sake of religion. It is true that after twenty, thirty, or forty years they allowed the Bill to go through. But does anybody say that there was anything gained by the delay except bitterness, exasperation, and rancour—rancour in religion, the last place where we want it? After this long delay of forty or fifty years they grudgingly let Nonconformists into the universities; but they had to make declarations which had never been made before lest they should contaminate their associates. The only Nonconformist Bill that was allowed to get through the first time was the Burials Bill. They did not mind how Dissenters were buried, so long as they were out of the way. Then there was the case of Church rates, which is another case in point. The Quakers are the best citizens in the whole country, and in proportion to their numbers they have done more for the cause of humanity than any other community. What was gained by putting these excellent citizens in prison for the cause of true religion? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said the Education Bill was a Bill to place the schools of the kingdom at the mercy of the Nonconformist conscience. He could not have read the Bill. It was a Bill to give control of the schools to the citizens of the land. It handed over

1427
the schools of England to county councils. Where the Nonconformists were in a majority they might get their man in; where the Anglican Church was in a majority, as it is in most cases in England, they could get their man in. What it really did was to hand over the control of education to the Anglican county councils. Still, it gave fair play to Nonconformists. It allowed an Anglican county council, or any other county council, to choose a Nonconformist teacher if he was the best man. That was all. I now pause to consider the means by which the Bill was thrown out. It was done, the right hon. Gentleman knows best how, but I am not sure that the history of the tactics whereby that Bill was thrown out was not one of the severest criticisms on the House of Lords. The conference was not a conference of the House of Lords. From that conference the weightiest and most sagacious leaders of the House of Lords were left out; the Duke of Devonshire and Lord St. Aldwyn, men of the greatest weight, were excluded. Why? In order to enable the Bill to be thrown out. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR:was understood to say that he denied everything the right hon. Gentleman had said.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I observe that what the right hon. Gentleman says does not cover what I said about Tariff Reform. Let me take a case the right hon. Gentleman denies. Does anyone who knows him believe that he negotiated the rejection of the Education Bill because he thought that the substitution of the Bible for the Catechism in the schools would lower the standard of morality, or that the admittance of Methodist, Baptist, or Congregationalist teachers to give lessons in a parish school would make infidels? No; there are relatives of the right hon. Gentleman who believe that, but whatever the right hon. Gentleman is, he is not a bigot. Therefore, he was without excuse, for bigotry was the only excuse. It was done simply with a view to the general situation, and the consciences of Anglicans and Nonconformists alike were purely pawns in a political game. And this is the great
1428
impartial Assembly, which, without Party bias, sat in judgment on the action of the turbulent, partisan Commons! The right hon. Gentleman knows better than that. But it is not merely with regard to Nonconformists that they have treated democratic legislation in this way. There is Ireland. We have heard a good deal about Home Rule; what about Irish land? There was the Bill of 1870. The Lords mutilated that Bill by cutting out a provision that would have prevented capricious evictions; it was re-introduced in 1881, when the Lords admitted they were wrong. What happened? In the meantime scores of thousands of men, women, and children were driven from Ireland, and whole tracts of country laid waste. That is what was done by this revising Chamber. Then take the question of artisans' dwellings. A Bill was introduced in 1868 to enable the local authorities to pull down insanitary dwellings, and the Lords cut out the effective provisions. In 1875 Sir Richard Cross introduced a Bill which incorporated the whole of the rejected provisions, and a Tory Government admitted after seven years that the House of Lords had been wrong. What did they do? Nothing. They will take a good deal from a Tory Government. Legislation which affects mines and factories, even although it involved heavy burdens, is accepted, but the Lords draw the line at anything which affects land, even when proposed by a Tory Government, and out went the provisions that could be so described. That measure has been practically inoperative ever since, owing to their action; and slums which ought to have been removed, with all their degradation, all their misery, all the damage they do to the vitality of the race, stand to-day as a monument to the revising Chamber. Talk about guarding against danger to institutions! During the time I have known politics the only institutions that have been wiped out were wiped out by Tory Governments. As to one of them I agree they were right. It was an old institution, I am not sure that it was as old as the House of Lords, and that was quarter sessions. They destroyed it in a day. The House of Lords in that instance were right. But there was another institution, a beneficent one, fairly long established, doing a great work—the school boards of this country, which for over

1429
thirty years did more for education, so essential not only to our national greatness but to our commercial supremacy, than any organisation this land has ever seen. They drew some of the best citizens into the work and they were a triumph of British self-government. But there was an extreme clerical faction which did not like them, and they had to go. Where was this defender of national institutions then? Then there is property. You must defend property! The only Bill that I can recall which deprived anybody of property without compensation was passed by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a valuable public property, the reversion to the public of the licences, recognised by law as a vested interest. True, it was only a vested interest for the benefit of the public, not of a class. That property the right hon. Gentleman wiped out, nay, he handed it over as a political bribe to a powerful section of the community. It was the greatest act of plunder and confiscation since the days of Henry VIII. The House of Lords consented. This is the defender of property! This is the leal and trusty mastiff which is to watch over our interests, but which runs away at the first snarl of the trade unions.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: What about your Party?
*Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We did what we promised at the last election. A mastiff? It is the right hon. Gentleman's poodle. It fetches and carries for him. It barks for him. It bites anybody that he sets it on to. And we are told that this is a great revising Chamber, the safeguard of liberty in the country. Talk about mockeries and shams. Was there ever such a sham as that? No wonder the right hon. Gentleman scolds the naughty boys who throw stones at it. The House of Lords, it seems, defends capital. Of a kind, yes. But generally against whom does it defend capital? Against the House of Commons? Why should this House destroy capital?
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: interposed an observation which did not reach the gallery.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The noble Lord represents land, but it is not the
1430
only form of capital, though it is the only form you cannot scare away. The noble Lord finds some comfort in that. We are told, too, that the House of Lords defends capital. Why should the House of Commons be supposed to be in a conspiracy against capital? The Times the other day talked about the danger to property of an absolute House of Commons. Has it ever occurred to The Times that practically every profession, every great trade, every great industry, no matter what Party is in power, sends its very best men to the House of Commons? I can say without hesitation about the House of Commons that this is true. All the great industries, the land, shipping, mining, textile trades, the iron trade and every great industry and interest in this country, are represented by men who have devoted their lives to those particular industries before they were elected to the House of Commons. The other Chamber represents substantially only one form of capital. Yet it claims that it has to watch in the interest of property the House of Commons, which is composed of men engaged in every form of industry and commerce, to which they devote their services, and out of which they make their livelihoods. That being so, is it not folly and nonsense to talk of the House of Lords being necessary to protect property? I know of only one Bill passed in the last few years which represents a great inroad upon the profits of capital. That is the Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not say it is unjust, save in one particular; but the exception is important. Suppose there is an accident in a colliery. The man who has put his capital into its development may lose every penny. But the man who derives his income out of royalties from the same colliery has not to risk a farthing. Is not that unfair? Yet it is that injustice—the absence of a provision to make royalties pay their fair contribution towards these accidents—which enables the Bill to pass through the Assembly which is supposed to be the special protection of capital. It is also well-known that the House of Lords has plundered the railways to a huge extent. Railways have cost twice more in this country than in any other country in the world. Why?

1431
Because the House of Lords has piled the cost on to the railways when they came to acquire land; and now the trade and industry and capital of the country have to pay heavily on account of the action of this Chamber which is supposed to be our appointed guardian. The Leader of the Opposition is in favour of checks upon legislation, but deprecates checks upon administration. The right hon. Gentleman insists that there should be a check upon a revolutionary House of Commons which may seek to destroy the country. As if it were possible to conceive of any House of Commons, representative of the people, desiring to ruin their means of livelihood! Forty millions of people suddenly gone mad! But why should we wait for legislation? Legislation is a most roundabout way of destroying the country. Administration, upon which the right hon. Gentleman would put no check, would be more rapid and effective. If a statesman wants to destroy the country, all he needs to do is to pick a quarrel with some part of the world and spend £250,000,000 on a war. That was done not long ago without the slightest check; without a debate in the House of Commons even.
MR. LYTTELTON: With the approval of some of your colleagues.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Possibly, my colleagues had done so on false statements as to the facts. [MINISTERIAL cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "Oh,"
MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to make the charge that false statements have been made by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House? [MINISTERIAL cries of "He did not say so."]
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There was such a tremendous shout that from whatever was said by the right hon. Gentleman I was unable to gather who was alleged to have made false statements. It is not in order to say that Members of this House made false statements. I do not say for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman said that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What I said about these statements was—
MR. LYTTELTON: That they were false.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; and I still say it. [MINISTERIAL cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."]
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you heard the right hon. Gentleman that time.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not hear who it was that made the statements.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I made these statements when I had to face much more dangerous persons than hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am not going to withdraw them now.
MR. T. L. CORBETTagain rose; and Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE refusing to give way was greeted with OPPOSITION cries of "Sit down."
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! Does the hon. Gentleman rise to a point of order?
MR. T. L. CORBETT: Yes. Sir.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: then sat down.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: I rise to appeal to you, Sir. [MINISTERIAL cries "An appeal is not a point of order."] I ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in deliberately stating that false statements have been made by right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted he made that accusation.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On account of the constant interruption I am unable to gather who it was that made these statements. But it is well known that it is out of order to say of any Members of this House that they made statements which they knew to be false.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I need hardly say that I do not want to charge

1433
any hon. Member or right hon. Member with having made false statements. What I meant to say, and what I said before, and still say, is that there were statements which were inaccurate—
MR. T. L. CORBETT: That's better.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And if we are not to say of statements that they are inaccurate, then there is an end of all criticism in this House.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: You insulted us.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he was far removed from my mind. The Leader of the Opposition declared that he was not in favour of checks upon administration, because it detracted from a Minister's sense of his responsibility. Is not that true also of legislation? As a matter of fact there is nothing more disastrous to the effective criticism of measures in the House of Commons than the knowledge that, though a Bill may pass through this House, it is likely to be mangled or rejected elsewhere. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman has used in regard to administration is doubly important when it comes to legislation. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the object is—no revision, no check, when a Tory Government is in power, but every cheek when there is a Liberal Government in power. He is afraid of a revolution. If there is a revolution it is not the House of Lords that will arrest it. It will be the first institution that will vanish without a struggle. In the English revolution it was the House of Commons that made the last fight. The House of Lords was abolished by a Resolution. The House of Commons made the fight, and when the time for a revolution comes—if it ever does come—the only share which the House of Lords will have in the revolution will be in creating it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has pointed this out in one of his most powerful passages—and this is the answer to his followers who now ask when the House of Lords have done any harm—
"We know for our part that in the course of the last hundred years they have more than
1434
once brought the country to the verge of revolution; and that they have again and again mutilated, delayed, or rejected Bills of the first importance which are now universally accepted to be salutary and expedient."
But the people are slow to embark on revolutions, and the fact that it has taken fifty or sixty years to curtail the powers of the House of Lords is the best proof of that. They are tolerant of longstanding grievances. No one can doubt their wrongs. But I know the people; I was brought up amongst them. It is only when they are driven by a long course of injustice and of denial of justice that they are ever exasperated into a revolution, and the surest and greatest security against that is, not the House of Lords, but some machinery which will deal effectively, promptly, and justly with their requirements. It is very remarkable that every great Liberal statesman who has ruled this Empire for fifty years has always come to the same conclusion about the House of Lords. I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Lord Rosebery, in language no less strong, came to the same conclusion, and the two greatest names of all—John Bright and Mr. Gladstone—who had given long service to the State and who were no revolutionaries, were of the same opinion. John Bright, although he has been denounced in language stronger than even the present Prime Minister, was a prudent, cautious, and temperate man in action, and always essentially anti-revolutionary. Mr. Gladstone had an almost exaggerated reverence for existing institutions, especially hereditary institutions. He was the last man to lift his powerful arm against them, and yet after the longest and most distinguished public career that this country probably has known, when he had no further personal interest in the matter, and when he had no responsibility for the leadership of the Party, he said that practically progress was impossible until you had dealt with this barrier. The present Prime Minister, who after all has had a longer experience of Parliamentary life than any man here, comes and deliberately asks the House of Commons, and from the Commons appeals to the country, to accept the counsel given at the end of a great career by a statesman who stands

1435
to-day not merely in the British Empire but throughout the world as the man who embodies the noblest and the most exalted traditions of British statesmanship.
MR. F. E. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has delivered a speech which was throughout impressive and in many passages eloquent, and which certainly was in refreshing contrast to many of his utterances in the country. He has had the privilege of making himself the mouthpiece of a statement of the greatest possible importance. Apparently he has been authorised to inform the House on behalf of his colleagues that they have changed their opinion. He has apparently been authorised to inform the House on behalf of the Members of that section of the Cabinet who are commonly described as belonging to the Liberal League that they have changed their views on the subject of the justice or injustice of the war. As I understood it, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was of great historical interest, because he implied that in consequence of "false statements" made to them, or "inaccurate statements" if they were made by Members of this House, they have now changed their view. Does the right hon. Gentleman represent to the House that he has been authorised on behalf of his colleagues who previously said that the war was just, to say that they now hold the view that it was unjust? Let him at least, out of consideration for the Attorney-General who sits near him, and who was a frequent and welcome guest at the celebrations at which Lord Rosebery presided, say whether that is so or not. The Attorney-General told the country in explicit language, which I will quote if necessary, that the war was necessary. Will the President of the Board of Trade tell us whether the Attorney-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised him to come forward in the House of Commons and say that they have now discovered that this war was not a just and necessary war? I notice that next to the right hon. Gentleman is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He spoke in eloquent language which will long live in the memory of those who sit on this side of the House, because
1436
he spoke at a time when support from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the benches opposite was welcome—and he also said that the war was just. Will the President of the Board of Trade put it that the right hon. Gentleman was misled by false statements? Has he changed his mind? If he has not changed his mind, will he get up in this House and say that he and his colleagues have not changed their minds, or that the President of the Board of Trade has inaccurately claimed to speak for them in this House?
Now I pass with pleasure from the subject on which I was led to embark by the argument imported into this debate by the right hon. Gentleman. The President of the Board of Trade informed the House with eloquence, and in tones which quivered with emotion, of the suffering of people who are living in slums, and his remarks were received with generous warmth on that side of the House. What kind of prelude is that to a constitutional agitation which will convulse this House for ten years, and make social reform difficult if not impossible? Does it not mean revolution? Is not that what the Attorney-General has told us? Are you going to establish a revolution, even when reporters are not present, and are you going to postpone all your schemes for social reform? We were told by the right hon. Gentleman in the speech just concluded that the House of Lords had destroyed the school boards. The statement was received with great cheers on that side of the House. I make one observation on that. The right hon. Gentleman had not even considered the tenor and the effect of the Prime Minister's Resolution. It was not the House of Lords who destroyed the school boards; it was the voice of the people. [Laughter.] Is that statement received with incredulity? [An HON MEMBER: Yes.] Is it not amazing that persons can be found to vote for Resolutions which they are intellectually incapable of understanding? An hon. Member says with great warmth that they were not destroyed by the people. That is not my position. It is the position of this Resolution. "In order to give effect to the will of the people it is necessary that the

1437
opinion of the House of Commons shall be by law established in one session of Parliament." Even a Conservative House of Commons is a House of Commons, and if your criterion of the representation of the people and of their decision is right, the House of Commons which decided that it would destroy the school boards was just as entitled to claim to represent the people of this country as a House of Commons like the present which would, possibly, if it could, recreate them. Then we are told in the same way that there was confiscation by the House of Lords of the reversionary property in public houses. I should like to make the observation that just in the same way as school boards were abolished, so have licences, for good or bad, been dealt with through the House of Commons. I am not saying that there ought not to have been a revising Chamber of such a character as might have interfered with either or both of these proposals. That is not the controversy at present, because you are not proposing to establish such a revising Chamber. You are proposing to say that no matter which Party is in a majority in the House of Commons the decision of the House shall be taken at all times and on all measures as representing the voice of the people. Many of us have for some time wondered what was the reason why the President of the Board of Trade had thrown himself with so great warmth into this constitutional question. Representing a constituency very near to Wales, I am not without opportunity of forming an opinion as to complaints with regard to the position of the right hon. Gentleman on other questions which may have led to this new enthusiasm for a prolonged constitutional dispute. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of allaying some of the suspicions of the faithful. Inquiry was made as to when the long-looked for Pisgah—Welsh Disestablishment—was to be reached, and the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter in reply in which he said—
"You ask me whether, if this Parliament runs its normal course, it is the intention of the Government to press a measure for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales through all stages in the House of Commons. To this I can give an unqualified answer in the affirmative. Over the probable
1438
action of the Lords when the Bill is sent up—or, shall I say, down?—to that Chamber, the Cabinet have, unfortunately, no control. As to your second question, whether in the event of an appeal to the country being precipitated owing to the action of the Lords, Welsh Disestablishment will hold a prominent position in the official programme upon which the decision of the constituencies will be taken. Of course, in that contingency, all questions must necessarily be subordinated to the one great issue of whether the Peers or the people are to govern the land. But Welsh disestablishment will undoubtedly stand in the forefront amongst the matters which Parliament, under the new conditions which I hope to see established as a result of the conflict, will be called upon to deal with. I have just seen the Prime Minister, and he fully sanctions the above as an accurate interpretation of his views and intentions. Unity now on the eve of the great battle against the grand foe of liberty, Nonconformity, and Wales—the House of Lords.—Yours truly.
What is the privileged position which this overdue promissory note holds at the present moment? It is that after the Government has dealt with licensing, the land system, and a new Education Bill, a Bill for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales may be brought in; but is it not possible that the zeal and enthusiasm which the right hon. Gentleman has thrown into the campaign against the House of Lords is, to some extent, due to a desire to escape the effect of his promises to the electors of Wales? The right hon. Gentleman was the leader of the Liberal revolt in Wales, and it is not surprising that men who thought they were to receive through him the measure on which they had fixed their heart should quote the case of the tyrant of ancient history, of whom it is written that his policy secured for his followers the gaol and for himself the throne. The right hon. Gentleman, consistent even in details, has bought his countrymen in the cheapest market, and sold them in the dearest. We were told in the brilliant but rancorous speech of the Under-secretary for the Colonies of the many respects in which the House of Lords to-day has ceased to be entitled to the respect and admiration of his country-men. The right hon. Gentleman repeated that charge with so much variety and richness of invective that we might ask him, Are these the men to whom the Government are prepared in the future to continue to entrust the functions which the Prime Minister has told

1439
us are so responsible and so important? We were told by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that the House of Lords will still have functions to discharge which are of the greatest possible use; but at the same time we have been told, in a spontaneous sentence, that the House of Lords is one-sided, hereditary, unpurged, unrepresentative, irresponsible, absentee. [MINISTERIAL Cheers.] Let that be cheered from below the gangway on both sides of the House. Every man is entitled to cheer that statement who has come into the open with an honest proposition that the House of Lords ought to be abolished. No man is entitled to cheer that statement, or to make it, who is going in the centuries which are in front of us to commit to an Assembly so constituted what the Prime Minister describes as important and responsible functions. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told us that Nonconformity is not represented in the House of Lords; and that the House of Lords has plundered the country. Then end them. That is what you cannot persuade your Government to do. This incessant conflict between principle and practice is due to the constantly vitiating influence of the Liberal League in the Cabinet! As they destroyed the Irish Council Bill, as they destroyed the Education Bill, so they are equally destroying the proposals for dealing with the House of Lords! The proposals made by the Labour Party below the gangway I consider to be odious, ignorant, and detestable, but they are at least logical, coherent and consistent. What we object to, and what Ministerialists, if they were men, would resent, is that moderating tendency which in the smoking room is so loudly denounced, without that denunciation being reflected in the division lobby. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies referred to the rejection of the Education Bill as an incitement to violence by the House of Lords. What are we to say in adequate praise of the moderation of the men of Lancashire in restraining the riotous impulses springing up in their bosoms in consequence of that rejection? Is there any language which can do justice to the men of Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, and St. Helens who, while smarting under a sense of wrong occasioned by the destruction of that
1440
Bill, have nevertheless behaved in such a way that time after time in the lobbies they have compelled the nominal followers of the Government to vote with the Opposition in their efforts to destroy that Bill? The Under-Secretary for the Colonies is extremely versatile in dealing with this and other questions—I will not quote his speeches of five years ago, and thus apply the quinquennial alternative—but will quote from an article of his in the recent columns of a periodical. Let us pause for a moment to notice the hard fate which has compelled the right hon. Gentleman, when he wished to press his views on the Cabinet, to select the medium of a newspaper, having had the misfortune to see colleague after colleague, far inferior to himself in the arts of swashbuckling, pass over his body into the Cabinet. It throws some reflection upon the indignation with which Manchester is seething at the loss of the Education Bill. What is the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman only a few weeks ago commended in the columns of the Nation? We do not ask for permanency from you, or constancy from Ministers, but we might have some degree of consistency as the fleeting weeks pass. For three weeks a man may hold the same view. Did the right hon. Gentleman think, at the time he contributed that article to the Nation, that the best method of dealing with the House of Lords was to hold occasional sterile conferences with them? On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman then thought that Privy Councillors as well as Peers should be capable of exercising the full legislative privileges of the Second Chamber as they exist to-day. The Crown, said he, should summon not less than a hundred, nor more than 250 such persons for each Parliament. Writs of summons were to issue from the Crown on the advice of Ministers, might be declined, and persons declining might sit in the Commons. Peers or Privy Councillors who have held Ministerial office should receive ex-officio writs. Is that still the right hon. Gentleman's view?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester. N.W.): The hon. Member will understand that I was only

1441
recommending one way, which I deemed a smooth way, of dealing with the House of Lords. There may be other methods ess smooth.
MR. F. E. SMITH: Am I to understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has so much leisure that it is his habit to put forward in the Press smooth proposals which he is not prepared or wishful to see carried into law? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest that at the time he wrote that article he did not think that that was the most convenient method of dealing with the House of Lords? It is sufficient to point out that it is a method to which he gave his name, but it is not the method on behalf of which he spoke last night. The right hon. Gentleman in another place has observed that there are more ways of killing cats than by choking them with cream. I may be allowed to add that there are more ways of addling a political egg than giving it to an Under-Secretary to sit upon. I do not gather that there is any serious dissent from the view that in essentials, though not in form, it is not possible to distinguish the proposal put forward by the Government from the proposal put forward by hon. Members below the gangway for ending the House of Lords altogether. I do not suppose that anyone can seriously contend that the solemn mummery of three conferences is likely to keep the House of Lords as an effective and permanent part of the Constitution. Let me test the value of these conferences by a question. Is there a single Member of the House who would say that had conferences been held on the last Education Bill, and the Government had had the power to say to the House of Lords, "You shall take this Bill without a line changed," they would not have said it? If that is a fact as regards measures of first class importance, what is the use of suggesting that there would be a power in the House of Lords to alter by a conference Bills on which the House of Commons felt strongly? At such conferences I suppose the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and the President of the Board of Trade would be two of the representatives of the Commons; and conciliatory representa-
1442
tives they would be. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies would begin with a pleasant reference to the particular artificial methods by which the House of Lords representative might deal with his defective eyesight; the President of the Board of Trade would suggest with polished levity that it was time that the House of Lords was committed to the scrap heap. Does the hon. Member seriously believe that men of first class political ability, as many Members of the House of Lords are, are going to make themselves parties to a political farce of this kind? They are condemned to perpetual sterilisation as far as membership of this House is concerned, and they are it is suggested, to be powerless in their own Chamber. Take Lord Lansdowne, or Lord Crewe, or any other able representative of the House of Lords: is it to be the measure of the services they are to render to the State that they are to be unwilling and powerless members of a conference which is to receive and register on three separate occasions the decisions of the House of Commons? The proposal is an idle one. At the end of the third conference we are told the Bill is to be passed over the head of the House of Lords. This is, I suppose, "The way that must be found, and shall be found;" but speaking for myself, if I were a Member of the House of Lords I would never accept such a Bill—never, never. You might if you choose have one general election upon the subject combined with other topics—I suppose, Welsh disestablishment, to keep faithful Wales sound on the question of the House of Lords, and land proposals in order that the predatory classes generally may take sound views of the question. But every one of the measures which the Government are going to bring forward will be put to the country, in the hope that by accumulating every cause out of which you may draw some discreditable dregs of popularity you may be able to strengthen and add weight to the campaign against the House of Lords. Do you suppose that if you were Members of the House of Lords and the Government of the day came and said, "Here is our mandate to end you"—do you suppose that there is a man of spirit who would not send it back? If I were a Member of the House

1443
of Lords I would send the Bill back, and, to be perfectly frank with the House, I would continue to do so until I thought my personal safety was in danger. The total destruction of the House of Lords would be better than its fall under the proposal before the House, for then, at any rate, its Members could sit in the House of Commons. So Members of the House of Lords will be absolutely better off if they fight, and still fight to the bitter end, even if this preposterous proposal succeeds, than they will be if they acquiesce in it. Supposing the Liberal Party come back and ask the House to pass the Bill, there will be three or four more years of convulsion. What is to happen to the right hon. Gentleman's slums; what is to become of the quaver in his voice in the meantime? Will they deliberately squander eight useful years that might be utilised for the purpose of dealing with unemployment and providing old-age pensions? These schemes were never honestly put forward, and to-day they are revived in order that the Liberal Party may carry forward this spurious constitutional strife. Let them desert if they chose their schemes for social reform. Let them dissipate if they would the most powerful instrument for good ever given to the Government of this country by the people of this country. For himself he placed on record his conviction that in the decade of convulsion which the Government invited the Liberal Party would find its permanent sepulchre.
MR. SIMON: In the indignant oration to which we have been listening, many things have been said by my hon. and learned friend. But there are one or two other things about which we should like to hear from the other side of the House, and although this debate has proceeded for some time I do not find any considerable attention given to the matters which I have in my mind. One of them is this: What, according to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is the function of the House of Lords, and what is the function of the House of Commons? The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone said that he recognised the democratic principle, but I did not catch any observations from the last speaker which show that he recog-
1444
nised the democratic principle, and certainly it could not be inferred from anything that he said; but confining my remarks to those persons who think that the Constitution of this country must have a democratic basis, I think we are entitled to ask how in the present condition of things they say that this democratic basis is to be secured? The hon. Member for Oxford University referred to the constitutional position, and I am sure he will not deny that there is provided under the Constitution a means, I do not say of determining definitely, but of attemping to find out what is the will of people, and that is a general election. That is the constitutional method of ascertaining the will of the people. What do hon. Gentlemen opposite suppose happened at the last general election? Were the people of England at the last election deciding nothing? Is it not reasonable and proper to say that a general election being the instrument by which we endeavour to ascertain the popular feeling, a general election should be the means and machinery by which we arrive at the proposals which ought to become law? I understand that according to hon. Gentlemen opposite the election of 1900 was a magnificient exhibition of the common sense of the people of this country, and where is the force of now taking up the position that the election of 1906 is an exhibition in a contrary direction? You cannot at the same time assert that you hold by the democratic basis and also that you believe in the House of Lords as at present constituted. You may believe in one or the other, but it is impossible that you can believe in both. As I understand it, the proposition appears to be that when the Conservative Party is fortunate at the polls, then we have a House of Commons which expresses the will of the people. But if that Party is unsuccessful and is defeated, then according to the present theory the Liberal House of Commons does not express popular opinion, and you have to turn to the House of Lords in order to ascertain what popular opinion really is. Is the purpose of the House of Lords in the Constitution to determine what the people do want, or what they ought to want? It is perfectly plain that that House now exists in order to determine

1445
that Conservative opinion shall prevail. Here is the extraordinary position of the Leader of the Conservative Party. He does not know whether the result of an election is going to be favourable to him or not. If it is, he comes back into this House and says that he is carrying out the wishes of the great mass of the people by passing the measures which he proposes. But supposing that the Leader of the Conservative Party finds himself in a minority in the new House, it does not matter; he calls in the old House to redress the balance of the new. Consequently it does not matter to a Conservative statesman what the result of a general election may be and perhaps that is the explanation of the assertion that the result of a general election is comparatively unimportant. There is high authority for this, that if one has to choose between serving in one place and reigning in another, it may be better to reign in the other. I distinguish carefully between the theological and the political meaning of the phrase "another place." Using the phrase in its political sense, as meaning the place to which good Conservatives hope to go before they die, is it not fair to say that the Leader of the Conservative Party is never under the embarrassing necessity of having to choose between serving in this House and reigning in the other? He does both: and even if the result of a general election is adverse to him, and he has to sit there in opposition as a critic of the Government, over the way he exercises the power of a political Zancig, and is able to put into operation the machinery of the House of Lords to prevent the people being so foolish as not to follow Conservative traditions. If that is the position, does it really seem so absurd, so unreasonable and outrageous, that the mass of the people who do not happen to be Conservatives do not acquiesce in your view? Does anybody suggest that an intelligent foreigner who was brought to look at the British Constitution as a new thing, if it was propounded to him in the terms of the speech to which we have just listened, would not be absolutely aghast at our calling ourselves a democracy? Is there any second Chamber on the Continent that can exhibit such an
1446
amazing and astounding constitution as the House of Lords? It is for that reason that the vast mass of the people of this country can see no justification in theory or in practice for the House of Lords. Anybody would think from the line of argument adopted on the other side that if the check which that House exercises over this House was removed, we should go headlong to destruction. I presume the Ministers who now sit on the Treasury Bench have some consideration for their political futures, and I presume that the Liberal Party is not going to run headlong to destruction if the check which now exists and prevents that calamity is removed. The Parliament of 1900, satisfied as it was with its performance, certain as it was that it was following pure Conservative traditions, found there was no House of Lords to check it. When the general election came there was a check, and that is the real constitutional check. It cannot be said that the House of Lords exercises a calm and unbiassed criticism on the legislation of this House. If that could be said, much that is best in the House of Lords might be allowed to remain. But can anybody get up and say that the House of Lords in the past has not been swayed by a certain bias and by certain prejudices in a certain direction? My complaint is that they have acted with this bias and prejudice and did not know how biassed and prejudiced they were. How is it possible for an institution which contains representatives of only one kind of interest to recognise the real claims that can be made by another Party for concessions by proposals they have made peculiarly their own? It never has, never will, and never can be so under the present constitution of the House of Lords. That being so, I feel that if the Government had not taken up the challenge that was thrown down (for it was no quarrel of theirs) they would in truth and in fact have failed to interpret the real feeling in the country. Whether we are right or wrong the general election which is to come will determine. But for the time being there is a great majority in this House that was elected after a great struggle and a great amount of discussion, and it is its bounden duty to carry out what it conceives to be the wishes of

1447
the electorate. I do not claim that the question of the House of Lords was in terms put before the electors, but if you consider what has taken place since the election you must believe that the great mass of the people who put this Government into power call now and call earnestly for this reform.
MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.): "We have been told this afternoon by the President of the Board of Trade that Unionists sitting in the House of Commons are representatives of a class largely responsible for the driving of thousands of people from residence in Ireland. This is altogether a new charge to be levelled against Irish Unionists. I have in my short time in this Parliament heard many charges levelled against Irish Unionists, but this is the latest, and I think I may fearlessly claim is the one with the least foundation which could possibly be levelled against us. I can recall it opposition to that suggestion than in an important speech the real ruler of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, dealing with the continued decline in the population of Ireland, said that if only Irishmen would remain in Ireland, and work as they had to work in America, it would be better for Ireland and better for themselves. I fear this is to a large extent true. I am free to admit that even in the part of Ireland from which the Unionist Members come there is a continued and much regretted decline in the population. We regret it on many grounds, but we have to admit that it is a result of the continued decline of agriture, even under the best possible conditions. We are here to claim, and I think the House will be largely in sympathy with us, that the present fiscal policy of this country has a great deal to do with it. I only make this reference in answer to the taunt thrown across the floor of the House this afternoon. I prefer to deal with the debate on very different grounds. This is the third day of a debate which will do nothing, and was never meant to do anything tangible as regards the House of Lords, and is nothing more nor less than what may be termed a diversion. It has been finally brought on because of the growing restiveness of many hon. Members opposite. We have had this afternoon reference to the
1448
question of temperance, and as one who was returned pledged in favour of temperance legislation I have, not for the first time, to express my regret that the Government has not fulfilled its pledges to its temperance supporters on the other side of the House to press forward the important Bill to which they gave great prominence in the King's Speech. Many measures of first-class importance were mentioned in the King's Speech, and we know that the session is now so far advanced that few are likely to be placed on the Statute-book. We have the Prime Minister's Resolution before us, and an important Amendment upon it from the Labour Benches, and I am bound to admit at once and frankly that I infinitely prefer the Labour Amendment. Its blunt straight-forwardness is a quality which I most highly appreciate, while the obscurity of the Prime Minister's Resolution is such as we must conclude is not altogether without purpose. While listening to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade I thought the Labour Members had a right to claim his support in the division lobby. It was a speech not for altering the House of Lords, or for rearranging the terms on which Bills are negotiated between the two Houses, but a speech out and out for abolishing the House of Lords. Now Irish Unionists have every reason to feel grateful to the House of Lords for their action in times past. A good deal has been said this afternoon, and with great ability, to minimise the action of the House of Commons in reference to the Home Rule Bill of 1893. What was the condition of Parties in the House of Commons at that time? The Government, with Mr. Gladstone at its head, had a precarious majority of only forty members, and its supporters included eighty Nationalists. Irish Nationalists in those days were men who took up a very extreme position. In later years the Party has been composed of men who have made very modest speeches in this House, though recent circumstances have caused the nominal leader to make some very extraordinary speeches on the other side of the Channel—I refer particularly to the speech delivered in Wexford last Sunday, in which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said they were still as much rebels to

1449
English rule as they were in 1798. I desire to recall the attention of the House to this advanced movement, and to point out the real danger which it constitutes to the loyal minority in Ireland. We are abundantly satisfied with English rule, we want no better treatment than the people of England and Scotland get, and we are contented with it; but we do look to the predominant partner to see that we continue to have all the rights and privileges which the people of England and Scotland enjoy. If, after the lapse of time, we have again the two great rival Parties in numbers almost equal, as they were in 1893, when the Nationalist Party held the key of the position, and practically dictated the policy of the Liberal Party, then a real danger at once evolves, so far as the Loyalists of Ireland are concerned. What happened in 1893? We know that, in spite of their precarious majority, a Bill, far reaching in its provisions, was then forced through this House, and was very promptly rejected by the House of Lords. We felt grateful to them for that action. We doubt not that under similar circumstances they would follow the same course again; but what I want to emphasise is that the passing of the Bill through this House was attained by the help of the Nationalist, or the disloyal Party. I ask the House to remember that the Nationalist Party was keenly interested in shaking off the rule of Great Britain, but in this House at that time there were a majority of English and Scottish Members who voted against any such legislation. I desire to show that in regard to the Bill to which I am referring it was not the decision of England and Scotland, the predominant partner, which led to effective legislation; it was the opinion of a minority, supported by the Nationalist Party which rendered that result possible. I have said that such a position may again evolve, and I hope that if ever that day comes, we shall have exactly the same step taken by the House of Lords. We do not for a moment, however, wish to leave the impression that we should not gladly welcome some changes in the constitution of the House of Lords. We have had
1450
some references made this afternoon to the Nonconformist conscience. I am myself a Nonconformist. I came here prepared to vote for a modification of the Education Bill—I refer to the clauses dealing with popular control and tests for teachers. But I found when that Bill was introduced that it was absolutely impossible for me to vote for the measure in its entirety, and in the shape in which it finally left this House it became still more impossible. I for one did not come here as an enemy of the Church of England to support the Bill in any shape or form. I remember well the speech of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland when he introduced that Bill, which he said meant equality for all. But in its passage through this House it was shaped more and more in favour of a small class in England, a class which I maintain have no right to any special privileges on either side of the Channel. The Government seemed determined to place the Roman Catholic Church and those belonging to it in a special and privileged position, and that was also manifest I think, in more recent legislation by the same right hon. Gentleman, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. Passing from that, we had a brief reference this afternoon to the Irish Council Bill. I was glad to hear the Chief Secretary for Ireland so promptly accept the challenge thrown down by the ex-Attorney-General for Ireland, because his admission leads me to say—and I think there is very general curiosity on the subject—that if he did introduce that Bill, anxiously wishing to see it placed upon the Statute-book, he has been very badly treated by those from whom he had a right to receive the most cordial support. Indeed, it is a matter of common knowledge that the terms of that Bill were placed before the Leaders of the Nationalist Party, and practically accepted by them. They voted for the First Reading. We know that public sentiment in Ireland was against the action of the Parliamentary Party on that important matter; and when the Convention was held at Dublin, a very few days later, we had a remarkable development by the present Leader of the Nationalist Party—I do not know how long he is going to continue to

1451
be its Leader, because there are many evidences that his power has been largely diminished by his action.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. The subject on which the hon. Gentleman is now speaking has nothing to do with the question before the House.
MR. BARRIE: The matter has been so freely referred to that I thought it was permissible to speak upon it. At the Convention on the initiative of the Nationalist Leader the Bill was rejected. When we find Members of the Nationalist Party breaking away and setting up a platform of their own, it clearly shows how important is the House of Lords as a Second Chamber, with a right to review what has been done here, and we hope the day is far distant when it will cease to have that power. Every time there has been an opportunity to test the feeling of the country it has become increasingly clear that the Government has already lost a great deal of the support with which it came into office, and the electorate are only waiting for an opportunity of altering the decision arrived at only eighteen months ago.
MAJOR RENTONI do not propose on this occasion to deal with the subject historically, nor with the question of heredity. I deeply regret that on this subject I am entirely out of harmony with those with whom I usually act. I see no practical difference between the carrying of the Amendment and the carrying of the Resolution. The Resolution is one of hostility against the House of Lords without a declaration of war. I personally prefer the Amendment, which is precise, clear cut, courageous, lucid, and which is a declaration of war, pure and simple, against the Lords. I prefer the Amendment to the Resolution which the Prime Minister has proposed. We have heard a great deal about the Members of the House of Lords in this debate. Having been a careful listener throughout, the only thing I wonder now at is why they are to be tolerated for another three or four or five years. They have, it would appear, committed every crime in the calendar. [MINIS-
1452
TERIAL cheers.] My hon. friends cheer that. But if that be true their proper place is at the Old Bailey and not Westminster Palace. I am a great believer in a second Chamber, and that is one reason why at the present moment I am addressing the House, but I do not believe in a second Chamber which is too strong, nor in a second Chamber which is simply a mere farce, and of no practical utility whatever. The Prime Minister spoke as to what should be the predominance of the House of Commons. Nobody can deny that it has been brought home by many speakers that the House of Commons is predominant. What the Prime Minister ought to have said was not "predominance," but "omnipotence," and that, with all due deference to the House of Commons, is a doctrine which I cannot subscribe to. I have ventured myself to put down an Amendment which would not have caused much greater delay than the plan of the Government, and it would at least have had this advantage, that it would have enabled the people of this country to be consulted. In days gone by I myself have spoken in the country about the "standing menace" of the House of Lords, the "gross anomaly," and all the rest of it, of which we have heard so much in the last few days. But I have seen during the very short period I have been in Parliament what convinces me of the fact that a second Chamber is absolutely necessary. The hon. Member for Wandsworth last night said that he had analysed many of the divisions, and found that most frequently about half the Members of the House voted. He might have added that on those occasions not half of the Member voting knew what they were voting about. Now the House of Commons cannot, in the very nature of things, represent the will of the people. It only represents a small majority of the people of this country. It is absurd that under the present arrangements one Member should represent 30,000 electors, while another should represent only 1,600. Surely that is a thing which should be put right. After all, we must, also and always remember that we are not elected so much on our own merits as upon the demerits of our opponents. If you are so anxious to trust the people, why is it that the Government in power has always such a horror

1453
of any by-election? Two reasons have been given for the course the Government are taking, one of which is the wrecking of the Education Bill of last session. As regards that Bill I am in great doubt how I stand. I am the elected representative of the will of the people in my constituency, one half of which is Church of England and Roman Catholic, and they are all most bitterly opposed to the Education Bill. The other half of my constituency, as represented by the Free Church Council, passed a resolution rejoicing in the action of the House of Lords in destroying the Education Bill. I am, therefore, in great doubt in what way I represent the will of the people. I believe the Government are making the same mistake on this question as they made recently in regard to Ireland, and there they had far better opportunities of gauging the feeling of the people than they have on this question. The Prime Minister reminds the House how in 1649 the House of Commons abolished the House of Lords, but he did not say what the House of Commons did on the following day. I will not dwell on that, but we know that there followed ten years of the greatest tyranny, and in Ireland the troubles of the present day may be dated back to that time. Domestic peace is as essential as external peace. The country has a horror of violent changes, not required and not submitted to it, and I shall, therefore, give my vote against this Resolution and against the Amendment.
MR. NIELD: I have listened with interest to the views expressed by the hon. Member opposite, views which I much appreciate as the expression of an independent opinion, which one must at all times respect. I could wish that it were more frequently given expression to on that side of the House. In taking part in this debate I desire first of all to call attention to a speech delivered by the hon. Member for South Hackney when he addressed his constituents for the first time upon the conclusion of his first Parliamentary year. The hon. Member for South Hackney is recognised as a thorough-going Radical, but nevertheless he stated that he at any rate was a Second
1454
Chamber man. The reason he gave for that opinion was that nine times out of ten when called to a division in this House he had not the faintest conception of what he was voting for, and he declared that he entered this House simply to obey the direction of the Whip who pointed out the lobby into which he was to go, and that was the sum and substance of what he knew as to what he was voting for. Now that is a courageous statement; and I should like to hear the hon. Member deliver himself of such sentiments in this House. I have hopes after all that the hon. Member will carry out his views in the division lobby upon this question, and I have no doubt there will be others who, like the last speaker, will carry out their determination to preserve a Constitution under which we have flourished for so many generations. I wish to say a few words about the Amendment, which at any rate is honest, that is put forward by the Labour Party, which seeks to destroy the Second Chamber altogether. There was a phrase in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle which I think shows conclusively whither the Labour Party would take us, although it shows the absence of any generous feelings towards the Lords for passing the Trade Disputes Bill. The Member for Barnard Castle said he spoke as the representative of organised labour. I think the term "Labour Party" in this House and "organised labour" are much the same, and organised labour desires to put a final termination to the life of any Chamber which is not directly responsible to the electorate. The Labour Party claim that they should dominate the whole of the legislation because of the votes they already command and the votes which in the immediate future they hope to command in greater quantities. We have to test how far that is likely to be beneficial either to hon. Members on this side or the other who are not directly dependent upon the Labour vote. If we accept the principles which the Labour Party (with consistency I admit) are putting forward in this Amendment, we must remember that the tribunals of the Labour Party are very much akin to a Junta, for they sit with closed doors, they decide matters by those who

1455
are in command for the time being, and I can see precious little difference between the methods of the much-abused Star Chamber and the methods of the organised Labour Party acting through its executive officers. If the victory for organised labour is going to compel a man to join their union and make a man come down "on the knee" to accept their doctrines and organisations, then we are going to have a powerful body which is to control in future the destinies, not merely of social legislation, but of everything else that concerns the administration of this House. I will give an instance of what I mean. It is an experience of Sir William Hart-Dyke, who was a respected Member of this House for many years. A very large number of supporters, members of a local trade union, who had been his staunch friends, were working for Sir William Hart-Dyke at the election of 1906. A week had elapsed, and then those men who in all previous contests had not only supported but actively helped him as members of his organisation, came in and confessed that, much as they desired to see Sir William successful, and anxious as they were to take their old place in his political organisation, they had had the word from the trade unions that they were to support not him but his opponent. Is that the expression of the free will of the people indicated in this Resolution which is going to govern the constitution of this House? When we have got rid of the Lords, what is going to happen to the Crown? I dare say hon. Members opposite would suggest that nothing is likely to happen. Without desiring to appear vindictive I cannot refrain from telling the House what already is the expressed opinion of one of the prominent Members of the Labour Party. Speaking in my own division on 12th November last the Member for South West Ham delivered himself at a meeting of trade unions in this way: "He expected nothing from the present Government." That, I think, is very satisfactory. Then he went on to say, "The Lords would have to go, but with the Lords the Church and the Crown would have to go together." That is an indication of the way the wind is blowing in that quarter. I may say that those remarks were commented
1456
upon by the editor of a paper with the view of drawing from the hon. Member a disclaimer, but such a disclaimer has never yet been sent. That being the condition of things, what security have we that the Constitution of this country will be maintained if we allow the Second Chamber, the revising Chamber, to be set aside? Anybody would think that the House of Lords had never done any good. An hon. Member opposite said they had committed every crime in the calendar, but he forgets for the moment that they have placed upon the Statute Book many statutes relating to factories and workshops, the public health, employers' liability, and other matters affecting the working classes. I venture to say that the Public Health Act of 1875 is one of the great charters under which the homes of the poorer classes have been made sanitary and kept sweet. That measure, introduced by Lord Cross, was passed by the Assembly which, according to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, can do no good at all. Anybody would think from the utterances of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle division that the one great and heinous crime of the Lords was committed in 1893 when they altered the Employers' Liability Bill of that year. What was the alteration in that Bill which caused the Government of the day to abandon it? It was because they inserted a clause to enable men to agree with their employers that the compensation to be paid should at least be equal to, or greater than, the compensation provided by the scheme under the Bill. It was owing to the petulance of the Government of the day that the Bill was not proceeded with. The provision which was rejected then has been embodied in the Act which has since been passed, and it is of immense benefit to men who do not desire to get into the hands of lawyers or to take their cases into the Courts. They are able to get compensation awarded to them on terms approved by the registrar, so that there can be no question of dealing unfairly with them. And yet that is put forward to-day as one of the reasons why the House of Lords should be abolished. Then there was the Aliens Bill, which had for one of its objects the

1457
protection of British workmen against the unfair competition of foreigners who come to this country. One would have supposed that that measure would have been endorsed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but while they appear to be most keenly attached to free trade in goods, they objected to our doctrine when applied to labour in times of strikes. Looking at the position of the House of Lords historically, who is there in this House who will not say that it has been in the past a bulwark of the people's liberties? In the early days, when over-reaching claims were made by the monarchy, the House of Lords interfered again and again to the great benefit of the community against the prerogative of the Crown. From what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite one would think that the House of Lords was an absolutely irresponsible Chamber, composed only of men claiming to act by right of primogeniture. But it is too often forgotten that the House of Lords is recruited largely from this House. I should like to call attention to the fact that no fewer than sixteen new peers have been created on the recommendation of the present Prime Minister, and of these fourteen have served in the House of Commons. In fact, of the 166 new peers created by successive Governments since 1880, no less than eighty-nine have been Members of the House of Commons, and presumably, therefore, capable legislators. The House of Lords includes in its membership eminent men like Lord Kelvin, Lord Roberts, Lord Kitchener, and men who have served the State well in the capacity of judges and administrators. I should like to call attention to the experiment which was tried in the seventeenth century with regard to the abolition of the House of Lords. You cannot too often remind the country that this is not a new question. The attempt was made before to work with a single Chamber, and it was found to be a lamentable mistake, as the authors themselves were the first to admit. A Resolution of the House in 1649 purported to abolish the House of Lords. It was then that an expression was used for the first time which has been familiar ever since in Radical clubs and in debating societies, viz: that "the House of Lords is useless,
1458
dangerous, and ought to be abolished. "The curious thing is that those who attempted to govern first by one Chamber, and afterwards by the Lord Protector, came and humbly petitioned the Lord Protector in 1657 to have the country governed by the aid of two Houses. They suggested that the method of appointing the second Chamber should be by nomination at the personal will of the Lord Protector himself. I have here a copy of the writ which was addressed by the Lord Protector to his own son summoning him as a Peer of the Realm. I think that is a chapter in English history which ought to be remembered when hon. Members opposite are dealing in this flippant way with the Second Chamber. In his book on the life of Cromwell the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India says:—
"The Independents, though so inferior in numbers, were more important than either Presbyterians or Episcopalians for the reason that their power was concentrated in an omnipotent army. The movement named generically after them comprised a hundred heterogeneous shades, from the grand humanism of Milton down to the fancies of whimsical mystics who held that it was a sin to wear garments and believed that heaven is only six miles off. The old quarrel about Church polity was almost overbalanced by turbid tides of theological enthusiasm. This developed strange theocracies, nihilism, anarchies, and it soon became one of the most pressing tasks of the new republic, as afterwards of Cromwell himself, to grapple with the political danger that overflowed from the heaving of spiritual confusion."
Relating his experiences after a short period as Lord Protector, Cromwell said—
"I can say in the presence of God, in comparison with whom we are but like poor creeping ants, that I would have been glad to have lived under my wood side, to have kept a flock of sheep rather than undertake such a Government as this."
Imagine what the condition of things would be if we had but a single Chamber now. Imagine if we had but a single Chamber, and that Chamber as susceptible to pressure as the present Treasury Bench is to the claims put forward by various classes in the House. Imagine Dr. Clifford going periodically to Hyde Park, with banners flying and drums beating, and demanding measures in regard to matters of theology and undenominational teaching. Supposing that the single Chamber were the only body to enact the law,

1459
what happened in the seventeenth century might happen again in the twentieth, with very great detriment to the welfare of the country. Now to sum up the historical part of the argument. [Laughter.] I have no doubt that it does not commend itself to some hon. Members, but experience is a test which in these matters should not be overlooked. I turn for a moment to an expression used by the Prime Minister on Monday. He referred to a saying of Burke that "the virtue, the spirit, the essence of the House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the nation." Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the House of Commons elected in 1906 is the express image of the nation? If he does he might legislate for the purification of the electoral law; he might bring in such drastic legislation as to deal with candidates and others who promulgate falsehoods or half truths as was done at the last general election both in cartoons and in prints. If this be truly and honestly carried out, the National Liberal Publication Department must be suppressed or reformed out of existence and never again allowed to pollute the stream of facts. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the Municipal Reform Party?] I do not think it permissible for me to deal with that now, but it is only after what I have said in regard to influencing the public mind by placards and by carefully edited half-truth pamphlets that we will be able to say that the will of the people, as expressed at a general election, is the true spirit of the nation. If we are ever to get the true nature and character of the national will we should make it impossible, either by the speeches of excitable politicians or by cartoons, to mislead the unthinking masses who will not take the trouble to read and form a judgment for themselves. I agree with the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool that the electoral majority gained by the Liberals at the last general election was "got by Chinese labour out of passive resistance." If the House reflects the opinion of the country, why did not the Under-secretary for the Colonies give a proof by resigning and testing at a by-election at Manchester whether that is so or not? The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of what has
1460
been described in the newspapers as "his ferocious speech," referred to the position of the Bishops in the House of Lords, but the right hon. Gentleman should remember that these men could teach him something in the way of meeting opponents. At any rate, they are men whose lives are open to no reproach at all. I have one quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman the Under-secretary for the Colonies, who took care, in quoting from Bagehot's "English Constitution," to read the context of the passage without reading the passage which preceded it. [Ironical MINISTERIAL laughter.] I mean without giving the passage itself. [More ironical laughter.] Mr. Bagehot says that—
"The danger of the House of Commons is, perhaps, that it will be reformed too rashly; the danger of the House of Lords certainly is that it may never be reformed. Nobody asks that it should be so; it is quite safe against rough destruction, but it is not safe from inward decay. It may lose its veto as the Crown has lost its veto."
If the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman was to discover constitutional support for his argument he might have found another and earlier passage in the same book which stated that—
"The most dangerous of all sinister interests is that of the Executive Government, because it is the most powerful. It is perfectly possible—it has happened, and will happen again—that the Cabinet, being very powerful in the Commons, may inflict minor measures on the nation. which the nation did not like, but which it did not understand enough to forbid. If, therefore, a tribunal of revision can be formed in which the Executive, though powerful, is less powerful, the Government will be the better; the retarding Chamber will impede minor instances of Parliamentary tyranny, though it will not prevent or much impede revolution."
I warn hon. Members opposite that in their zeal for legislation they may remove the only check which preserves the well-being of the nation and cause a tide to rise in certain quarters which will sweep them off their feet and irrevocably wreck the Empire which has taken so long to build up.
MR. MOND: The hon. Gentleman opposite said that we must be guided by experience; but I would remind him that in order to apply experience favourably it is necessary to have regard to the time in which that experience was gained. A reference was

1461
made to the experience of the Common-wealth; but that does not apply to the circumstances of to-day. I have been waiting to hear some defence from hon. Gentlemen opposite of that noble institution the House of Lords. I have listened to the wild divagations of the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, which struck me as more violent than anything which had been said by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The hon. Gentleman could not defend the House of Lords, but only turn to abuse the President of the Board of Trade. When the hon. Member for the Walton Division, with his ability, cannot undertake the task of defending the House of Lords, it may well be supposed that a good defence of the House of Lords is not possible. The only interesting speech I have listened to was that of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, who is not satisfied with either the House of Lords, the House of Commons, or the Party system. I am afraid that the ideal world which he wants will only be realised by him on his reincarnation. By the criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite we are placed between two fires. On the one hand we are told that we propose the abolition of the House of Lords, and, on the other hand, that our plan is unworkable. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to make up their minds as to which horse they are going to win on. The discussion as to the will of the people has been more psychological than political. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that we never knew what the next majority in this House will do; if we are to wait for that we shall never do anything at all. The logical conclusion of that would be the abolition of both Chambers. I do not see how the House of Lords can possibly have the occult powers which they are assumed to have of stating what the will of the people is. If they could they might be called thought-readers. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition complains of a Bill and, standing up before the Front Bench, he holds it up. The query comes back from the other House "What is this?" The right hon. Gentleman says, "This is a Liberal Bill." Then the Lords say at once, "This is a hasty, ill-considered piece of legislation."
1462
But when the right hon. Gentleman holds up another Bill, and says, "This is a Tory Bill," the House of Lords says, "This is an excellent and well-considered measure and must be passed." The real differences between us and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are of a much more fundamental nature. We believe that the people ought to rule themselves and rectify their own mistakes when they make them, but they believe that a number of superior persons called the House of Lords ought to rule and protect us against our own representatives. We do not claim that the people or that their representatives will not make mistakes, but what we claim is to make our own mistakes and put them right, and that these people who represent nobody shall not interfere, because they also make mistakes. If we make mistakes we are accountable to the electors, but if we are told that when we elect representatives some third person whom the electors never heard of and do not want to hear of is going to come forward and say, "I am here to protect you against the man you have sent," I say that is ridiculous. I will argue that question on any platform and even in the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency. I should like to know what he would say if some noble duke were to come and declare that he would protect his constituency against him. We are elected by the people who sent us here, and yet it is said that once in this House we want some irresponsible people to look after us in order to see that we shall not make some mistake. We are not so frightened or so terrified that we may not make a mistake. As Nelson said, "the man who has not made a mistake has not made anything at all." Why is it that this question only arises when a Liberal Government is in power? It is not the first time that the question has been raised. It has been raised not only on the Education Bill of last year, but on the Plural Voting Bill. It was brought forward in 1831 and 1832, and at intervals it has been raised ever since. It is a permanent question. The right hon. Gentleman opposite accused us of being anxious to tinker with the Constitution; but if his motor car was out of order and would not do its work would he not send it to the garage for repairs before he trusted himself in it? It is

1463
nonsense for the Lords to sleep well and then wake up and talk about hasty legislation. What the people in this country want is not a check on legislation, but faster legislation to accord with modern social conditions. If you study our social conditions, our legislation, thanks to the House of Lords, is fifty years behind the times. There is no country more conservative than this, in which there is less need to guard against hasty legislation. That is why we are so opposed by some hon. Members below the Gangway and above the Gangway opposite who would like us to be extreme. I do not agree that these proposed conferences will be the foolish, sterile things represented on the other side. There have been effective conferences in the past, as, for example, on the Irish Church and the Franchise and Redistribution Bill; and on last year's Education Bill the conference nearly led to an agreement. The scheme of the Government will leave both sides with a strong motive to endeavour to arrive at an agreement, for the Lords will know that they cannot ultimately stop a Bill, and the Government will not be desirous to mortgage time for further legislation by repeated reintroductions of the same measure. There will be every inducement to them to compromise, not on principle, but on matters of detail. I will give you a business instance. Two parties have a quarrel, but they do not want to go into litigation. The counsel on both sides suggest that there is a little doubt, and this leads to negotiation. Then with regard to the Education Bill: we do not know, and few people can tell, how far concessions were made by the other side and how far the Bill would have been a success if it was passed. Was there ever a more hopeless position? We should consider what the proposals of the Government are. Both sides are agreed. Both sides agree that the will of the people should prevail. They only differ as to the machinery by which the will should be expressed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University in his work on the British Constitution says—
"The will of the electorate can only be expressed through its representatives."
We may not be the exact image and mirror of the individual opinion of each of our supporters, but we are a mirror of the average opinion. That is the best we
1464
can say, and the country will have to take it for what it is worth and be satisfied with it. The majority in the House for the time being represents the will of the majority of the country. I do not put it higher than that, and the question is not whether the Upper House shall compel us to go to the electorate, but how far the cheek of the Upper House is to work. You say that if we do not agree we ought to send the majority back to the people who sent them here. But we came here in 1906. The election turned largely on the education question. We introduced a Bill which we believed satisfied the electorate. What are we to do? The noble Lord suggested a referendum. How could we put the points of difference between Clauses 3 and 4—a mere matter of machinery? The noble Lord might be able to explain it to the aristocratic division he represents, but most of us would break down absolutely. Most of us never understood it, and most Members never would understand it. I should have gone down to my constituents and said, "You wanted an Education Bill and we have passed an Education Bill, but the House of Lords have refused it. Do you still want it?" If my constituents had any spirit at all they would have said, "We told you what we wanted, and if you are so stupid as to think we change our minds in twelve months you are not the proper person to represent us." The one point that has not been considered up to the present is that, although it may have been necessary to have long delays when means of communication were few and worked slowly, and the people had no power of expressing their opinion; but every Government ought to know the general feeling of the Party in the country in a much shorter time now owing to the introduction of the telegraph and other means of disseminating news. If some Governments are blind enough to run their heads against a brick wall that is not my fault, and it does not affect my argument. My argument is that with the quicker methods of disseminating news and the quicker and freer access to constituencies, no Government could undertake to pass a measure to which the people of the country really have a rooted objection. You can overdo it very much, but I believe that if the country had eighteen months or two years, as they would have

1465
under our check, to consider a measure, the constituencies would be glad to tell us their opinion. We come back here, and after all we are not a mere Party machine, as the noble Lord says. No Member of this House is going to vote in such a way that his constituents will turn him out. That would be against our conscience, and we are not going to commit political suicide. None of you have proposed that the veto of the House of Lords should be restricted to one session. Up to now you have offered no alternative whatever. After all, take the famous Home Rule incident. In 1886 Mr. Gladstone was defeated on Home Rule, in 1892 we were returned on Home Rule. The Lords throw it out. It is no argument to say that the country did not want it in 1895. They wanted it in 1892, but they did not want it in 1895. They wanted Local Veto then. But I think they were as anxious to have Home Rule in 1892 as they are now. I believe they are increasingly anxious for it, and I am perfectly convinced that one of the greatest mistakes the Lords ever made was their rejection of the Home Rule Bill in 1893. If that question had been settled we should not have had millions of Irish people driven away from Ireland. Do you want the people to be extinct before you give them self-government? The House of Lords delayed national education for forty years. They threw out every attempt to obtain national education, and the first attempt was made in 1808. Ever since then the Lords have struggled against it, and they are struggling against it now. Nothing appears important to the other side of the House. Social equality, religious equality, education, giving the Irish what they have asked for for the last century, nothing is important; let it wait. We are not content to wait. English democracy must have what it wants. Our leaders have called us to the fight, and we are willing to fight, but there must be no slackening or faltering on the part of our leaders. However bad or extreme their proposals may be, we will uphold them and back them up; we cannot afford to be beaten, and we will not be beaten. If our leaders will keep the path of courage which they have pursued in the past the people of the country will follow their lead. The people are sick and tired of the question. When you go on to a platform
1466
you are told, "We do not want to be told of the House of Lords and of the past. What are you going to do? When are you going to end it?" And if we do end it we shall earn the gratitude of the country. Now I want to say a word to Members who represent Labour. Are they going to split the division? Are they going to deliver us into the hands of the enemy on this question? We think together on the question, and we ought to work together on it if we never work together again. If they do not work with us now the heaviest responsibility will rest upon them. This and similar questions must be put out of the way if the Liberal Government is to do any good. We are not going into a small battle which is to be won by one slight charge. Although Members opposite are few in this House they are strong in the country. They have behind them wealth and social privilege. They can exercise the power of the House of Lords as it has been used in the past. All these weapons, the blows of which have fallen heavily in the past, can be brought up again. There must be no blacklegs in this matter, no holding back, no sectional jealousy. There must be but the onward march of the army of democracy. We have a right to demand a decision, and I for one am not afraid of what the result will be, for it will be a great and glorious victory for democracy. Those who toil laborious days and nights have a right to demand the liberty of the people, and that men shall be free to exercise their rights, their votes, and their opinions, without hindrance.
MR. PIKE PEASE: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on his honest speech, which was particularly refreshing to listen to, not only because of its characteristics, but also because of the fact that it is one of the few definite expressions from those benches in favour of the proposal of His Majesty's Government. Anyone who has listened to the speeches delivered during the last few days, including those of the Members for the Gainsborough division, Stratford-on-Avon, and the Leith district, will realise that there are great numbers of Members on the Liberal benches who

1467
are not in full accord with the great speech made by the Prime Minister two or three days ago. It seems to me that there are a considerable number of Members in this House, anxious to support the Government, who at the same time are not in full accord with the Prime Minister's speech. I think hon. Members on the other side will agree with me when I say that the main question has been to a great extent over-shadowed. The real question before the House is whether or not we shall at the present time abolish the veto of the House of Lords; and when the division is taken to-night there will be a considerable number of Members who will vote for its abolition without meaning to do so. It has been said by the hon. Member for Chester that this question of the conference is a very important one, and he cited instances of conferences in the past, including that with regard to the Education Bill. But those conferences were of a totally different character from that proposed in this instance. In reference to the Education Bill conference, each Member who spoke knew that his words would have some effect. But if a conference takes place in the future on the lines suggested by the Prime Minister, the members of the conference on one side will know that whatever is said will make no difference, because it will be only a matter of time before the Bill is passed over their heads. I think there is a great deal of exaggeration in politics on both sides, and that a great many statements are made in political warfare which hon. Members deeply regret. What is the use of going into a conference if in the end you are expected to acquiesce in proposals of which you do not approve? I ask the House, do they rightly represent the will of the people or do they not? The right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for India, in regard to political spirit, said—
"The political spirit is the great force in throwing love of truth and accuracy into a secondary place. This achievement has indirectly countenanced the postponement of intellectual motives."
The hon. Member for Chester referred to the Education Bill as expressing the will of the people. I would
1468
say that it did not represent the will of the people. Does any hon. Member believe that, if the question had been put to the people as to religious instruction being given in school hours, they would not have said that they were opposed to the action of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary for Ireland? There is no Member of the House who does not think that if the question had been put before the people they would have said that it was essential that religious education should be within school hours. Take another question, that of the Agricultural Rating Bill. Some years ago many speakers all over the country said that that Bill meant doles to the landlords. If the question had been put to the people: "Are you in favour of doles to landlords?" it is perfectly plain that the answer would have been: "No; we are not in favour of doles to landlords." And everyone knows that the Liberal Party have acquiesced in the continuance of that Rating Act. Take the question of the sugar and tea taxes. Supposing this question were put to the nation: "Are you in favour of a tax on sugar and tea, or do you believe that it is better to raise the same amount of revenue by a tax on manufactured goods?" Does any one doubt what the answer would be? The answer would certainly be by a very large majority in favour of a tax on manufactured goods to maintain the revenue. ["Question."] Hon. Members say, "Question"; I can give them the names of 138 Members of the Liberal Party who spoke at the general election against a tax on sugar under any circumstances at all. Take the question of the Transvaal loan; it is quite an arguable point whether the people of this country would or would not be in favour of granting a loan to the Transvaal. It is not a question of whether the money can be raised or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies the other day said plainly that the money could be raised, and that it was only a question of interest. Take the question of the Plural Voting Bill; I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite will at once say that there was no doubt with regard to that measure that the people of the country were in favour of it. My answer is: "If that is so, why do not the

1469
Liberal Party go to the country in regard to it?" The question might be fairly put from the platform: "Is it right that a constituency like the City of Durham should be ten times as important, as far as electoral power is concerned, as the constituency of Romford in Essex?" Do you think that, if asked the question, the people would reply that such a state of things ought to be allowed? Do you not think they would say that that was a greater wrong than that a man should have a vote for his own place in which he lived, and for the place in which he has his business? I think I said before that it depends entirely on how the question is put. Take the question of the administrative acts of His Majesty's Ministers. Take, for example, the Edjaldi case. Does any one believe, if the question were asked whether he should have compensation, or further compensation, the people would not say: "Certainly, give him compensation." There cannot be the slightest doubt with regard to it. And if you go through the various administrative acts of the Government, you will certainly come to the conclusion that this House does not represent the will of the people. I doubt very much whether it represents entirely the will of the Liberal Party. Take the question of temperance reform. If the Liberal Party were asked in the country: "Are you in favour of two years elapsing before the Temperance Reform Bill is drafted?" the reply would be, "No." I say, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that we, on this side of the House, are acting against the will of the people, why do they not ask what the will of the people is? The Attorney-General the other day spoke of a revolution. Where is the revolution? We see no signs, at by-election after by-election, of anything like a revolution; and I sincerely trust that the good sense of the people will show that we must follow the example of every other nation in the world by having a strong Second Chamber. I will not for a moment attempt to justify our present system; I do not think for a moment that it is possible to justify the present position of the House of Lords; at the same time it is essential that there should be a Second Chamber, with the power of vetoing any Bill which goes up
1470
from this Chamber. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that there is no great feeling in the country in regard to the Resolution now before the House. But if the Liberal Party think that the nation do feel strongly in regard to this question, if they think that there is a large body of wicked men standing in opposition to the will of the people, why do they not go to the nation, and then, if they ask the question, they will get their answer.
MR. MADDISON: I think the hon. Member who has just sat down has aptly illustrated the poverty of the defence which has been made of the House of Lords. Really no one has made a defence of that Assembly. The hon. Member for Darlington has given it up completely; he admits there is no defence for the House of Lords. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone in his able speech also gave it up entirely, and proposed what the Prime Minister called a foreign device, namely, the referendum, to meet the peculiar and anomalous conditions which he knows exist in the Upper House. The absence of defence of the House of Lords has been a common feature of this debate. There has also been an entire absence of alternatives to the Government plan. Just imagine an opposition led by so resourceful a man as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and yet with all his ability, his charm of speech, and his marvellous use of words, he has not even made an attempt to offer any alternative whatever to the present proposal. As I read the history of my country it is in the main one of gradual reform. It has been a step-by-step policy, whilst in other countries they have attempted to get reforms by huge strides. I know it is more heroic and picturesque. I confess that I have a little of the pugnacious in me occasionally, and the big strides attract me more than the step-by-step policy. But when I reflect, I realise that in this land of ours—which we all love—this land of freedom where there is more liberty than in any republic on the face of God's earth—we have reached, achieved, all this by the step-by-step process. Therefore it is strictly in accordance with our traditions; it is in

1471
our blood, and we reach the end quicker by this method. The Government's plan appears to me to be on the royal road of this evolutionary process. We have been told by many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the gradual change in the position of the House of Lords; how at one time the House of Lords really led the nation, and rightly so, because it contained the brains of the country at that time. We know how gradually before the onward march of the newer spirit and the newer conditions it has receded further and further. The stages in our civilisation are marked by the backward movement of the House of Lords, until at last we have the Leader of the Opposition admitting that, broadly speaking, nothing remains in the functions of the House of Lords but to interpret the will of the people. It is that function which we are considering, and throughout this agitation the question is, How does the House of Lords fulfil its single function of being the interpreter of the will of the nation? If we can show that it has failed to exercise this function, then there is nothing left to justify its existence in its present position and with its present uncontrolled powers. One has only to ask that question to answer it. How does the function of the national interpreter work? We all know it works in this way: whenever a Tory Government is in power, every Bill they send up, whether it is an Education Bill, a Licensing Bill, or any measure of a different nature, is accepted at once by the House of Lords as interpreting the will of the nation. That means that the Tory Party are always regarded as the embodiment of the national will. No one can deny this. For the last twenty years, save three, the Tory Government were in power, and not one single Government Bill during that period was rejected by the House of Lords or mutilated or even seriously changed by them. Therefore the interpreter of the national will always takes the Tory Party and the Tory Government as embodying that will. But when a Liberal Government comes into power they begin to discriminate. In the case of the Trade Disputes Bill, which was an exception, they held that it represented the will of a large section
1472
of the nation and they let it go through. But they decided that the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill did not represent the will of the nation, consequently in the first session of the most democratic Parliament that has ever gathered within these walls the House of Lords declared that that Parliament, fresh from the enthusiasm of a general election, did not represent the national will. The ordinary man in the street that we talk so much about and know so little of, although he does not care much about constitutional history, and is not very much concerned with our procedure, knows when a thing is fair and when it is unfair, and I venture to say that he will regard the position of the House of Lords as unfair. The Leader of the Opposition, in one of those pretty discourses of his, set himself to elaborate what I should have thought was a self-evident proposition, that democracy or popular opinion makes mistakes. Of course popular opinion makes mistakes. I call myself a democrat, although I know I am often vigorously assailed by some of my hon. friends, but I am quite indifferent as to that. I am a democrat, and I accept the majority whether right or wrong; I do not quarrel with the Leader of the Opposition when he says public opinion is quite fallible; but the right hon. Gentleman, having made that statement and laid down that proposition, goes on to contend that aristocratic judgment in the other House is infallible. What a strange mixture of reasoning that is. I make this statement at once, that after some little thought in my own way I have concluded that it would be a disadvantage to be ruled by a single Chamber. I know that in that I probably differ from a good many hon. Members of this House with whom I generally associate. I confess that to me it does seem desirable that there should be a Chamber of review or revision—call it what you like—although I think that the final word, when a final word has to be given in case of fundamental differences, must always rest with this House. I have seen in my short career in this House Bills approved of in principle, but owing to the exigencies of the Parliamentary situation the Government or the promoters of such Bills have absolutely refused

1473
Amendments which they admitted were required because they knew that by accepting them they would lose their Bill. I want all legislation to go through two atmospheres. I want an opportunity to be given for such Amendments to be made where there is more time and under more favourable conditions. For that and other reasons I do stand, and very resolutely stand, for two Chambers. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite who believe in two Chambers do not see that their resistance to such a proposal as that of the Government is fatal to their position. If they on the one hand assert the need of a Second Chamber, and on the other hand are prepared to stand by a Chamber which they know lacks every condition which is needed for a just Second Chamber, then they give their whole case away. If instead of the Education Bill being sent to the other place you had taken it by consent to a general meeting of the Carlton Club, I do not think its fate would have been any worse than it was in the House of Lords. I am prepared to defend that statement, not as a mere exaggeration of speech, but as being literally correct. The truth is that the House of Lords in our time has never rid itself of its Tory character, which still clings to it, and it must cling to it under present conditions. I have always been against the hereditary principle. In my first election address I was bold enough to write, some fifteen years ago, that I was against the hereditary principle in any form and everywhere. To that declaration I still adhere. For the life of me, judged by the democratic test or any other I can think of, I can find no justification for the hereditary principle in legislation. To-night we have to decide whether we will or will not support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division. I am going to vote against that Amendment, not, as I have already said, because I am against the declaration it contains with respect to the hereditary principle, but because I regard it as a mere abstract and pious opinion. What does it do? The Resolution of the Government says that in order to give effect to the will of the people you shall do so-and-so, and it lays down a distinct plan. But what
1474
does the Amendment do? It proposes to leave out from the word "That," and 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." But it says nothing else. If that is carried you will be doing nothing, and all you will have done is what you might have done on a Wednesday or a Tuesday in the early part of the session, namely, declare your opinion about the hereditary principle. This Amendment does nothing more than that. I cannot conceive how you can have the practical proposal of the Government and the mere theoretical expression of the opinion of hon. Members opposite put in more violent contrast than it is by the Amendment and the Resolution. Surely we are not going to pedal away saying that we do not like Lords and hereditary legislators. We want something that will curtail their power; something that makes this House in practical affairs predominant. That is all we want. We have here a plan which is the beginning of a scheme which will put the other Chamber more in subjection to the will of the people. We are not here to-day simply to declare that we are against the hereditary principle, which may be useful for platform purposes and of which I appreciate the value in that sense, but which for business purposes is of no value at all. You are face to face now with a practical proposal. I know that hon. Members opposite are in favour of the Government Resolution. The hon. Member for Clitheroe made a speech which left no doubt in my mind as to his intention, and of his assessment of the value of his own Amendment, because he knew it would have no practical effect; but he knew also that it would be the medium for a declaration of opinion. I shall vote against this Amendment because it does not take the line of least resistance. It is wonderful what agreement there is between Socialism and Toryism in some respects. The Leader of the Opposition and several hon. Members on the other side of the House have distinctly stated that this agitation against the Lords is dishonest, and that its object is to divert the attention of the country from the

1475
failure of the Government to redeem the promises on which the Liberal Party were returned. It has been said that the Government, instead of going on with the social reforms they are pledged to deal with, prefer to go out into the wilderness on a question of constitutional reform. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, whose enforced retirement from the House no one regrets more than I do, has declared on several platforms that the Government have got up this agitation in order to get out of the task of dealing with social reforms. I remember that a speech was made of a similar character by the hon. Member for Blackburn. I agree with the declaration made by the Members of the Labour Party against the hereditary principle, but I regard the Amendment as having no practical value. If it were carried it would have no effect, and to carry it into effect you would have to surrender practically everything else. You would have to go out into the wilderness for nobody knows how long, in order to fight the matter right through. But with the plan of the Government it is different. I will not say that I perfectly understand the plan of the Government.
MR. CROOKS: Hear, hear!
MR. MADDISON: Of course the hon. Member for Woolwich does. I followed the Prime Minister's speech very carefully, and I have tried to think about it since, and, after all, both the hon. Member for Woolwich and myself do understand the main outlines of the proposal. My difficulty is as to whether everything cannot be done in two sessions. If it is to take three sessions, that will be a huge mistake. I think the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle division went somewhat out of his way to attack the Government plan. I think he has hardly got a right conception of its nature. One illustration will suffice for me. The hon. Member tried to set up a parallel between the conferences last year on the Education Bill and the conferences which will take place under the scheme of the Government. But he is comparing like with unlike, and when you do that you never get an accurate result. What is the fact in regard to the conferences held
1476
last year? Representatives from this House went to their masters to beg them to give something, and so eager were they for the Bill that they nearly gave it all away, because they knew that the House of Lords had the whip hand. But will that be the case under the Government scheme? The representatives of the House of Commons will have exactly the reverse position. They will go with the knowledge behind them that they have the ultimate power to compel the acceptance of a Bill. On this question the Government could not be better represented, from my point of view, than by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, and I would say this last word to Ministers, that, having started on this journey, you have got to go through with it. Even if you fall you will have the consolation that you have made a landmark in the history of political reform, that you have reduced the great Tory Party to helplessness in the defence of the House of Lords, and that you have brought the democracy of the country within sight of the promised land, and of the time when they will be supreme in their own House.
MR. MIDDLEMORE: There is only one remark in the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley to which I will refer. He spoke of the absence of any alternative proposal to that which the Government themselves have proposed. There is, in the first instance, the proposal of the hon. Members who sit below the gangway. There is also the proposal of the House of Lords, which is not yet before us. A Committee of that House is now sitting to consider how to reform itself. I think, perhaps, we might well afford to wait for that suggestion. Perhaps when it comes it will meet the views of some hon. Members opposite. At any rate, we can afford to wait for it. The hon. Member opposite can wait, for he said in the course of his speech that this is the freest country in the world, freer even than countries which are more democratic, and this great freedom has grown up under the House of Lords. I think if you wait for a few weeks for their proposal it will not be time thrown away. I should like to preface the two or three remarks I have to make by saying that

1477
it will be quite impossible for me to vote against the proposal of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway for the complete abolition of the House of Lords. It seems to me, however, a more manly, more straightforward, and far simpler course than that proposed by the Government. There is one thing to be said in favour of the proposal of the Government, that is that it is very English indeed. You are to retain the form, but you are to destroy for all intents and purposes the function of the House of Lords. You are to kill the body, but from sheer love of imposture in the matter of procedure you are to leave the corpse unburied. It almost reminds me of one of those animals that we read of in Darwin, who have long since lost their eyes, but retain the eye sockets with which their ancestors once looked out on life. By whom is the House of Lords to be suppressed? It is to be suppressed by a House of Commons—and I shall try to justify that statement—by a House of Commons that cannot get through its own business. By a House of Commons which has been trying to pass a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill for forty years and which has not been able to do it. [Cries of "Why?"] By a House of Commons which carries on its business by a process of log-rolling. By a House of Commons which has twice tried to force upon the country a proposal to break up the Union contrary to the wishes of the country. In my opinion, the House of Commons is decadent. May I illustrate what I mean? I remember that I first began to take an interest in politics on my return from America in 1870. I then for the first time began to read the English Press. In that year a great Education Bill was passed. It was brought in by Mr. Forster. It was an enormous Bill, compared with which the Bill of last session was a trifle. It was bitterly and constantly opposed by the Dissenters, but it was passed. Again, in the same year Mr. Gladstone proposed an equally enormous Land Bill. That was obstructed by the Irish to such an extent that I remember reading how Mr. Gladstone, when he entered the House, threw himself back in his seat and gave a loud shout of despair at the severity of the obstruction. But both of those enormous Bills were passed without the aid of the
1478
closure in any form. We could not do so now. See how we have degenerated. The steps seem to have been, first, the introduction of the simple closure, then the closure by compartments, and finally the reference of the business of the House to Committees upstairs, where they are closured, unreported, and almost held in secret. That is the position we have arrived at. Half of the clauses of our great Bills are utterly undiscussed in the House of Commons, and the proposal now is that they should be undiscussed in the House of Lords also. [AN HON. MEMBER: "No."] "No," says an hon. Member, but if you deprive the Lords of the authority to veto they will certainly not respect themselves if they discuss the Bills, and if our great Bills are to be undiscussed both in the Lords and the Commons, the only remaining factor in legislation is the Cabinet itself, which is frequently elected—I suppose most Cabinets are elected—on a basis of outrageous misrepresentation. The suppression of discussion seems to me to be a very curious ending indeed to the system of Government by discussion. It has been asked: For what purpose does the House of Lords exist? I think it exists to discuss those large parts of vital Bills that are undiscussed by this House. I think, too, it exists to refer Bills of vital and fundamental importance on which this House has expressed an opinion, but on which the country has not given a clear verdict—to refer such Bills back to the people. I think it exists to ask a verdict from the country upon them. In my opinion the Resolution of the Government deprives the country of its right, and in the present state of things the House of Lords is standing for the rights of the people, and not the House of Commons. It stood for the rights of the people in the matter of Home Rule, and I shall uphold the very limited rights which it still possesses.
DR. POLLARD: It think I am right in saying that the House is unanimous on one point, namely, that the will of the people must prevail, but a sharp difference of opinion arises as to who shall interpret that will. The assertion put forward by hon. Members opposite that the House of Lords is in a position to know the will

1479
of the people far better than this Houre is, to my mind, supremely ludicrous. The Peers may be the lords of the land, but they are not the lords of the people. It cannot be denied that the House of Lords is the submissive instrument of the Tory Party, so that it comes to this, that whether that Party is in office or out of office, or in a helpless minority as at present, they claim to represent the will of the people. Such a position is intolerable, and I, for one, am delighted that the Prime Minister has brought forward this Resolution. The proposal is further to limit the powers of the House of Lords by placing the two great Parties in the State on an equal footing so that neither Party has an unfair advantage over the other, and to give the people the choice of policy. Now the Government has not sought a quarrel with the House of Lords. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government had picked a quarrel before the House of Lords had done anything, and that the Liberal Party preferred to spend the time of Parliament in altering the legislative machine to dealing with the important questions of social reform. It is quite the opposite—and it is because we desire to carry land reform and social reform that we are determined to improve the legislative machine, in rejecting the Education Bill and the Plural Voting Bill at the instigation of the Leader of the Tory Party the Lords themselves have thrown down the challenge, and the Government could not do otherwise than take up that challenge. The issue is clear and straightforward, and cannot be evaded. The issue is the supremacy of the people. What is the situation? At the General Election the Liberals gained a decisive victory, the Government was returned to power with an unexampled majority, and yet that Party is robbed of the fruits of their victory by the action of the House of Lords. The country will not be satisfied, and ought not to be satisfied, that its representatives should go on ploughing the sands. The right hon. Gentleman opposite admits that this House is the predominant House, and has pointed out that on the all important matters of finance, peace and war, administration, and the rise and fall of Governments, this House is supreme; and that the House of Lords has no right to intervene. What remains—over what is it that the House of Lords claim
1480
controlling voice? Broadly speaking, it is the Amendment of the land and liquor laws, and any measures affecting the social well-being of the people. My opinion is, and there has been nothing stated in this debate to alter my opinion, that the House of Commons, the direct representatives of the people, is by far the most competent assembly to deal with these questions. Now the attitude of the House of Lords towards social questions is well known and well understood. The Liberal Party is severely handicapped in their attempts to carry out their pledges in the direction of social and land reform, their Bills have to be drafted not in the interests of the nation as a whole, but fashioned so that they will meet with the acceptance in the House of Lords. Our own convictions are disregarded, the prejudices of the Peers considered, the result is that valuable Parliamentary time is spent and little useful accomplished. In the present, controversy it has been, for the most part, tacitly assumed that our attitude towards the House of Lords is to be determined by our views of its efficiency as a regulating or revising Chamber. What I desire to say is that there is a considerable body of opinion, by no means extreme, whose attitude is not determined primarily by the consideration I have mentioned. The attitude of hostility towards the House of Lords maintained by those who think as I do, and which, as I have said, is independent of the question of the efficiency of the upper Chamber, is based upon the conviction that an assembly constituted as is this House by the popular will upon an elective basis, ought not to be called upon to submit its conduct to any assembly not constituted in a similar manner. You may regard this as merely sentiment. Perhaps it is only a sentiment. But it is one which springs from a profound sense of the dignity of this House as the instrument through which the British nation exercises the highest function of citizenship, viz., self-government. I do not care how excellent the other Chamber may be, how excellent in its working, how unerring in its judgment. I do not care how foolish or inefficient we may be; the fact remains that we are here as the representatives of the free electors of a country, and it is for them, and for them alone, to sit in judgment upon us. There is to me

1481
something inexpressibly humiliating in the thought that we who are assembled here by the favour of millions to give effect to the policy, whether that policy be good or bad, which is approved by the majority of our citizens, should have to submit our resolutions for criticism, amendment, or even reversal, to a body of men who owe their position of power not to any national force which is behind them, but to the accident of a peculiar historical development. At the moment, no doubt, the feeling I have indicated is confined mainly to this side. But I venture to say that were it not for one fact, it would be largely shared by the opposite side. The fact that the House of Lords has been the effective Party hack of the opposite side is the only thing that has prevented them from sharing our resentment, and I firmly believe that even as it is they must occasionally be dimly conscious of such a feeling. I have heard Members say that if the House of Lords always acted impartially and treated both the great Parties in the State in the same, manner, those who are now opposed to that House would not have been so. It may seem paradoxical, but I venture to say that if the House of Lords always acted impartially, so far from enjoying the regard of both Parties, it would now be sharing the hostility of both. Both Parties would have felt the same humiliation in submitting their decrees to an assembly not deriving its authority direct from the people. It is the partiality, the unfair discrimination shown by the House of Lords that has preserved it for so long. It has allied itself with one of the permanent Parties in the State, and by so doing has become invested with some portion of that permanence. Had it acted independently of either Party, it would have received the support of neither, and both would have felt the loss of dignity involved in having to submit to its judgment. To one great Party in the State the House of Lords is an object of hostility unmingled with respect; to the other it is an object of contempt tempered with a recognition of its utility for Party purposes. This is not the proper sentiment that a second Chamber should evoke. Whether there ought to be a second Chamber at all is a question apart from the one I have raised. For my own part, whether I personally think it necessary or not, I am willing to
1482
defer my opinion to the views or fears of those who think that it is so. But what I say is, that if there is to be a second Chamber it should be one to which all Parties can defer without loss of self respect, and that can only be to a Chamber of an elective nature, and, like ourselves, deriving its authority directly from the nation.
MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I intervene at this late stage of the debate with all diffidence. The eloquent and able speech of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone East was so convincing and so carefully reasoned that it must have brought conviction to many whose minds are not altogether closed to logical argument, and even to those who, from some mental or intellectual deficiency, fail to attain to the full height of absolute conviction, it must have afforded pleasure to have listened to it, and, I hope, some considerable profit which will be more apparent at a later stage of their political development. We range from that speech to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, delivered with that vehemence, misdirected energy, and absolute lack of logic which are so characteristic of his utterances, which frequently amuse the House, and always fail to bring conviction to a single Member of it. Last night the right hon. Gentleman made a quotation from Bagehot's "English Constitution." I will, with the leave of the House, take the liberty of quoting from the authority which he has chosen. I find on page 109 it is stated that—
"Our House of Commons is, as all such Chambers must be, subject to sudden turns and bursts of feeling, because the Members who compose it change from time to time."
Again quoting from the same authority selected by the hon. Member himself I find—
"While the House of Commons is what it is, a good revising, regulating and retarding House would be a benefit of great magnitude."
While I think the House of Lords is a most useful institution as it is, there is an improvement which I have long thought would be a most useful change, viz., the introduction of Colonial representation. How that is to be done I do not say. It may be by some system of life Peerages, or Peerages by virtue of and during the

1483
tenure of certain offices. We are not without precedent for that. We have the Lords of Appeal, and the Scottish and Irish representative Peers. It would be improper for me to say more on this subject at this time. I only throw out the suggestion, which I hope is not without some value. In concluding my remarks I will only add one word of warning. You can easily do away with such a body as the House of Lords, but you cannot easily replace it. It is the growth of generations, and it has great traditions of honour and integrity behind it. Alter all that has been said about the House of Lords, no one has questioned its uprightness. In the House of Lords you have a body of intelligent, thoughtful men, many of them already distinguished in the House of Commons or in public positions of great responsibility, eminently able men, who are accustomed to affairs through having to manage their own estates, by means of which they are brought into connection with every kind of business, and with experience of every phase of life. Above all, you have a body which is absolutely incorruptible, loyal, honest, and patriotic, who do their best for their country and look ahead in order to secure its welfare, not only for the immediate present, but in the future. I say that such a body of men is an asset which no country can afford rightly to dispense with. It is a heritage which has come down to us, for which we ought to be thankful, and which we on this side of the House will do our utmost to support and to preserve.
MR. CROSFIELD: As Lord Byron said, there is one subject upon which most people are eloquent and very few agreeable, and that is themselves; but on the first occasion of rising to address this important House a few preliminary observations may be pardoned. I should like therefore to explain why I venture to make a few remarks and why I intend to vote in support of this Motion. I can claim no title to rush in where constitutional authorities have evidently trod with circumspection and caution. I would be content simply to subscribe to the course which the Prime Minister has taken, because one sees Tin the Resolution the courage, sincerity,
1484
sagacity, and caution which have endeared the Leader of the Party to all who follow him, including humble Members of the Party like myself, who regard our chief not merely with respect but with affection. And so I told my friends in my constituency that while we have on these Benches such an abundant flow of oratory, the Whips were quite content if they had my vote without too much of my voice. At the same time I would not have my constituents think I was shirking a tight place. I have made the acquaintance of a crevasse on one occasion and stood under an avalanche on another, and have been in other tight places. I am, therefore, not going to shrink from my duty and privilege of addressing this venerable assembly. I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking to-night, because this is an occasion which affect; not a single section of one's constituency, but the whole. I know the views of the large Liberal and Labour element which I have the honour chiefly to represent: I know the views of the large contingent of Irish friends who live in Warrington; I feel sure they will approve of my vote on this occasion. So far as argument may be necessary, I feel inclined to address myself to the free trade Unionists who supported me at the last election. So far as I have any grip of the fundamental issue, the pith and essence of what the Government are proposing amounts to this, that after due precautions against hasty legislation and without undue and dangerous delay, the will of the people shall prevail. We have been told in this very interesting debate that distinguished Members of another Chamber profess to know that will as if they were a Chamber of Zancigs. I am afraid that does not hold water at all, and we have proof to the contrary of the most overwhelming kind. One of the best summaries of that proof we listened to in the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe, who gave us a lucid and convincing summary of the measures which the Lords have rejected which were wanted urgently for the benefit of the people. The case against them is, I fear, equally strong, whether we consider what they have done or what they have left undone. For when prejudice and passion and race hatred have run high have the Lords ever tried to use their undoubted influence in the

1485
country to allay those mischievous sentiments? May I refer for a moment or two to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, and his contention that when the time came to translate this Motion into a Bill we should have a single Chamber, and consequently bad and hasty work. I am sure the great majority here feel that quite the contrary is the danger—that we run the risk of too much delay, a point that was made very clear in the frank, powerful, and brilliant speech we hoard this afternoon from the President of the Board of Trade. He—and last night the Undersecretary for the Colonies said the same thing—pointed out that we could not legislate for the ease of a mad people returning a mad Parliament. Neither can we, nor are we, going to waste time in anticipating the impossible. The Secretary of State for India wrote, a good many years ago, that he had no great love for Second Chambers, and although I dare say there are plenty of people in this country who think the consequences would be- disastrous if we had no Second Chamber, I, for one, should be able to sleep in my bed quite comfortably. I believe in the prudence and sense of fairness of the English people, and I believe in the advantage of full responsibility being placed upon the representative Chamber. But I believe, at the same time, that it is better to have a Second Chamber, if only because, for my part, I would not like to see the Crown dragged into the dusty turmoil of Party politics. That is not the only reason; there are other reasons why it is better to have a Second Chamber. But I am truly thankful that the Government mean business on this question, and that in future we are not going to have the interminable delays and the emasculation and cutting town of our measures—delays which have told against the real interests of the nation for so long. The allusion has been made in this debate—and indeed the Prime Minister, laid emphasis on the fact—that in their graver issues politics are something much more serious than a game. Yes, that is true, and so is life, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose has reminded us, laughter has a forepart in it. It would indeed be hard luck to deprive the poor politician of his little bit of humour. I am told that one day Dan Leno came down to the House, and
1486
the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich—whose wit and genius are not second even to Leno's—met him when he was leaving, and said, "Well, Dan, what do you think of it all?" "Not bad," said Leno. "Not bad; but I think it would go better to the piano." Poor Leno; we all miss him, and all appreciate his little joke at our expense. If there is humour in the House, there is also good humour, and I venture to think that any foreigner who has been present this week would consider this great debate with its far reaching issues a striking example of it. And a new Member making his maiden speech must of all others be most sensible of the kindness, and the generous courtesy of the House, for which I sincerely beg to thank hon. Members. It was to me the greatest honour of my life to be elected to represent the old Roman town of Warrington, where the first beginnings of some of the most important industries of England were started by those ancient pioneers of civilisation and trade, and it is also one of the greatest privileges I shall ever enjoy to speak for the first time in this time honoured assembly, so potent for good, not merely by helping people, but rather by giving to them the best opportunities for helping themselves, and capable, therefore, of exerting so beneficent an influence even in the humblest cottage in the land.
MR. CREAMER: We have heard a great deal during the debate concerning the will of the people, and we heard from the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool that the will of the people had been rightly regarded by the House of Lords when the school boards were abolished by the last Government. I remember very well the debates which took place on that question, and I then stated that which I repeat to-night, that there was no mandate from the constituencies upon the subject; that there was not a single petition presented to this House in favour of the abolition of school boards; that there was not a single public meeting in the country asking for their abolition, and that they were abolished at the instigation of the Bishops in the House of Lords. And that is the instance cited by the hon. Member to show that the House of Lords does the bidding of the country. A more

1487
unfortunate illustration he could not have offered. My justification for intervening in this debate is that I have an Amendment to the Resolution on the Paper—an Amendment which is in the form of a Motion which has been on the Order Book for seventeen years. I essayed from time to time to get an opportunity to propose it as a Motion, but was not successful until four years ago in submitting it to the judgment of this House. The House will therefore perhaps excuse me if I read it—
"The power now possessed and frequently exercised by the House of Lords to veto measures adopted by the House of Commons should be limited to one session of Parliament."
There is no ambiguity about that. It is brief and comprehensive, and if I may judge by the opinion which has been expressed concerning it by many hon. Members, it is a Motion that would if moved and if not subjected to official pressure on the part of the Government Whips but left to the free decision of the House, be carried by a very large majority. In considering this question of the House of Lords, I have always felt that whenever the time came for it to be dealt with, it would have to be dealt with by limiting its power of veto as proposed by the Prime Minister, or better still, if I may be permitted without being egotistical to say so, by the Motion I have read. I regret, however, that by the ruling of Mr. Speaker I am precluded from moving it as an Amendment. The Resolution and my Amendment both propose to restrict the vetoing power of the House of Lords, and I am delighted to think that now the question i is submitted to the judgment of this House there can be no doubt as to what the verdict will be. Hon. Members who have been as long in this House as I have been will be cautious how they accept the advice of hon. Members opposite sitting above the gangway. The Labour Members who propose to abolish the House of Lords have been congratulated by Tory Members on the straightforward character and manliness of their Amendment as against the somewhat ambiguous Motion of the Prime Minister, but I would advise Labour Members to look with suspicion on such congratulations. My experience is that there is a mass of the people in the country who favour the continuance of
1488
the House of Lords, not as at present constituted, but because they believe in a Second Chamber. If, however, you ask them whether they do not think that the House of Lords has too much power and that that power should be limited, they agree with you. From that experience I have arrived at the conclusion that the Motion of the Prime-Minister is a practical one, which the country will ratify, when it is asked to do so. Being satisfied that the country would object to the Motion to abolish the House of Lords, but that it will agree to the Motion of the Prime Minister, I prefer to vote for what is practicable rather than that which is desirable. We have had some extraordinary speeches delivered in this debate, and I have listened with attention to all of them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oxford University stated that every civilised State in the world had a Second Chamber, but he omitted to state how they are constituted. When I moved my Resolution four years ago, and eight members of the present Government voted for it, I gave to the House a brief epitome of the way in which Second Chambers were constituted in every country of Europe and in the United States, and I brought to light the extraordinary fact that there was not a Second Chamber in the world established on the hereditary principle like the House of Lords, that possessed the power of perpetual veto. On that occasion I cited the little State of Norway as a model upon which a Constitution should be based. I believe that in Norway they have solved the problem of a Second Chamber. There there is one suffrage, every man is entitled to a vote; 150 Members have to be elected to constitute a Parliament. At their first meeting they elect one-fourth of their body to constitute a Second Chamber, or a Chamber of Revision. They have separate Houses, and separate officers. The lesser body possesses limited powers, and by no means the powers possessed by our Second Chamber. When a Bill is sent up to the lesser body they have a right to amend or reject it. That may be done for two sessions, but if they do so in the third session the lesser body and the larger body meet as they did when they were originally elected, and a two-thirds majority of the combined Houses

1489
suffices to pass the Bill. That is essentially democratic, it is the most simple form of a Second Chamber in the world and, I commend its study to Members of this House. As I stated, I intend to vote for the Motion of the Prime Minister, as a practical proposal, in preference to the impracticable Amendment moved from the opposite side of the House. It is said that all things come to those who wait, and I do not regret having waited seventeen years to get what was then regarded by many Members as a theory brought forward as a substantive motion by the Prime Minister, and I sincerely hope that the proposal of the Government will be passed into law. Speaking in regard to a Second Chamber four years ago, I said—
"If no Second Chamber existed in this country and it was proposed to establish one in which the qualification for a seat was that the occupier should be the eldest son in certain families, and that these eldest sons should possess a power of perpetual veto—if such a proposal were made, then the author of such a proposal would be speedily incarcerated in an asylum for idiots."
To that opinion, expressed four years ago, I adhere now. I regret that the Amendment which has been moved will not enable me to vote for it, and I am sorry that it has been moved, because the country will be misled by the division to-night. I know many Members of the House who are not going to vote for the Amendment, but who are going to do the more practical thing of voting for the Motion of the Primo Minister. You are placing many Members of the House in a false position. Suppose that you get 100 votes in favour of your Amendment, the country will be justified in coming to the conclusion that there are only 100 Members of the House of Commons who are in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords, whereas there are double or treble that number, as would be proved if a clear issue was raised upon the subject. I therefore regret deeply that the Amendment has been moved, and I shall not be able to record my vote for it.
SIR EDWARD SASSOON: The hon. Member for Gainsborough in the earlier portion of the debate spoke with the courage of his convictions, and remarked that there was no difference between the Amendment and the Resolution. But the hon. Member who
1490
has just sat down seems perfectly satisfied with the wisdom of the course embodied in the Resolution, which resolves itself into this, that this House is asked to emasculate and to cripple an essential portion of the Constitution which has withstood the storm and stress of political strife for centuries past. The hon. Member for Brighton, speaking a few days ago, said it was perfectly conceivable that the majority in the country might be the minority in this House, and he asked whether the Government were going to place this unbridled power in the hands of a single Chamber. The hon. Member for Elland made an onslaught on what he was pleased to call the indefensible and untenable position. I think that the hon. Member entirely misappreciates the situation, because there is more statesmanlike capacity in the Upper Chamber than the hon. Member seems to dream of in his philosophy. The hon. Member for the Hyde Division of Cheshire, who made an able speech yesterday, said there was only one thing more difficult than making a maiden speech, and that was matrimony. But there is one thing far more trying than that, and that is the disagreeable stages which are preliminary to the dissolution of marriage. And when we see an hon. Member with a promising political career before him, ruthlessly entering upon a path of disruption and distrust instead of harmonious adjustment, one cannot help thinking that evil communications corrupt good manners. Then he went on to say that this House drew its vigour and vitality from frequent contact with the people. Might I suggest to him that the House of Lords is not altogether bereft of similar sources from which to draw its life blood, being constantly replenished by a fresh infusion from among the most powerful minds and intellects in the country. It is for this reason that the country has come to regard the House of Lords, with all its faults and all its deficiencies—and what human institution can boast of being perfect—as a useful and valuable institution, representing the country at large with its law-abiding will and convictions, as compared with the fluctuating and transient views so often observable in popular assemblies. The Party opposite seem altogether obsessed by the notion that the country is under the despotic heel of an irresponsible and

1491
oppressive Second Chamber. Whence do they derive that impression? Is it from the people? If so, when? We know that at the last election if there was one thing brought out more strongly than another it was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined to maintain at all hazards the present fiscal system of the country, which, whether it is obsolete or not, has certainly not borne out the prospects which its authors predicted to the people. We are told that the House of Lords rejected the Education Bill. I should like to know what section of the people really approved of that Bill. I know that the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that he was prepared to make very special concessions to denominations other than the Church of England. But that was not within the four corners of the Bill. There was not one single line which bore upon it, though I have no doubt they were honestly determined to carry out their intentions. The hon. Member the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, while rather wearing his heart upon his sleeve, at the same time showed the cloven hoof when he told us that a reformed House of Lords meant a weakened House of Commons. So far as I can gather from his idea of the case, the upper Chamber is to be deprived of all authority so that we may invite the country to enjoy a period of uninterrupted enjoyment of a reign of terror interspersed with occasional interludes of dictatorships! The President of the Board of Trade, in drawing up his black list of iniquities charged against the Lords, told us of their action on the Franchise Bill in 1884. What happened then? The Conservative Party in the House of Lords insisted that it would be most proper that the Bill should be accompanied by a scheme of redistribution. After a good deal of demur the suggestion was acquiesced in, with the result that there was harmony and concord, and the passage of the Bill was facilitated. Instead of beating the air as the Prime Minister and the Government are attempting to do, let me make a suggestion to them. Let the Prime Minister await the Report of Lord Newton's Committee, of which an ex-Prime Minister has been appointed Chairman. ["No."| If you will not accept that suggestion, then accept the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, of the referendum. I
1492
know that it involves considerable expense, but I think that no expense or trouble is too great to ascertain the minds and convictions of the people of the country, when you propound measures which go deep down to the roots and to the strength of the Constitution. If the Prime Minister refuses that solution, why should he not appoint a hybrid Committee to consider the difficulties which have arisen I would respectfully remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that past experience conveys a wholesome lesson which the Government would do well to take to heart, and it is that if you tamper with the Constitution of this country, if you destroy the well-balanced and harmonious symmetry which has been evolved in the course of several centuries, you will be laying up for yourselves a storm of social and political trouble compared to which the eternal Irish problem with all its hideous intensity and perennial recrudescence will be as but a mere dust in the balance.
Mk. RUFUS ISAACS: It is a most remarkable feature of the debate that none of the able speakers of the Conservative Party have advanced any real defence of the House of Lords as it at present exists, or, what is more important, of the continuance of the veto as now exercised. For seventeen of the twenty years preceding the beginning of the present Parliament that veto was not put into operation. It is because during the seventeen years of Conservative Administration the House of Lords has never exercised the right which we are told it is its power and function to exercise; and because when a Liberal Government is in power and measures are sent up from this House the House of Lords for the first time for a long period, wakes up from its slumbers to exercise its veto, that we are forced against our will to consider how a Constitution which is supposed to act fairly to both sides can be amended so as to place the two great political parties in positions or greater equality. The Marquess of Lansdowne claims that nobody would venture to say that the House of Lords did not give an impartial hearing to any measure which came up from the House of Commons. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Those cheers are somewhat faint, and I am not surprised. They suggest a question which I should have thought it would not have been necessary to put.

1493
Is there anyone on the Opposition side of the House who thinks that an impartial hearing is given to any Liberal measure sent from this House to the House of Lords? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] Is the hearing given to a Conservative measure an impartial hearing? [Cries of "No."] Is it really necessary to discuss the impartiality of the House of Lords? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree with me—it is useless to consider any such suggestion of impartiality—If the veto was exercised impartially why did the House of Lords pass the Education Act in 1902, a constructive measure of first-class importance put forward by the Conservative Party after it had been elected on a totally different issue? We are told that our constitutional system is bi-cameral; in theory that is correct, but in practice it is not. In reality the right of veto in the House of Lords is exercised at the expense of one Party in the House of Commons and for the benefit of the other Party. That is the true position of affairs. The Leader of the Opposition is the last who has a right to complain of the Prime Minister's Resolution, for he was mainly responsible for the use of the House of Lords as a weapon against the Liberal Government. It is said the House of Lords delays certain legislation in order that the will of the people in regard to it may be ascertained. Is that a true view of the situation? How do you ascertain the will of the people? I agree, as we all must agree, with what fell from the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone in that extremely interesting speech he made when he said that what is meant by the will of the people is the will of the majority. There is only one constitutional means for ascertaining the will of the majority of the people, and that is at the general election, and it might be expected of a Party which prides itself on being the Constitutional Party that they should defer to this method of expression of popular opinion. What is suggested by our opponents as the true test in order to enable the House of Lords to ascertain the will of the people? One or two speakers have suggested the use of the referendum. It is too late for me to discuss that question to-night, and I will content myself with saying that it is an impractical measure which would not work under the system by which we
1494
are now governed. "What is more, it would be quite useless and very much to the detriment of the poorer Members. [Cries of "Why?"] Because it entails expense. [An HON. MEMBER: "But the poor would not have to pay for it."] It would involve a kind of miniature general election. Does anyone who knows the mind of the people imagine for a moment that there could be a referendum to the people without the introduction of a number of other matters totally unconnected with the question before them? [An HON. MEMBER: "Chinese labour, for instance."] Yes, Chinese labour if you like. That is a good argument against the referendum. It the answer given to the referendum was in favour of those who sit on this side of the House, what would be said on the other side? Why, exactly what was said about the general election. They would at once say the answer had been given not upon this particular question but upon a number of other questions. You have only one constitutional means of ascertaining the will of the majority of the people. When a Parliament has become old and stale, when a number of by-elections have gone against the Government, it is possible to argue-that the will of the people is changing. It has been said that the House of Commons cannot claim to represent the persistent and continuous will of the majority as expressed at the general election. I am not sure whether anyone in this House quite understood what the Leader of the Opposition meant by the persistent and continuous expression of the will of the majority. How long must it be persistent? For what period? Does it become a persistent and continuous will when it is expressed in favour of the opposite Party, and are we not entitled to say that it is a persistent and continuous will of the people when it has been expressing itself in a. series of by-elections for some two or three years, and when it culminates in the crushing defeat of the Government with the large majority which now sits on these Benches? The Government have produced a scheme which appeals to me for the very reason which apparently arouses the opposition of some of my hon. friends below the gangway. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle, who moved this Amendment, said that the scheme of the Prime Minister was too

1495
cautious, too moderate, and too considerate. It is for that reason that I support it. I am myself unable to understand the view of the hon. Member for the Gainsborough Division of Lincolnshire who has come to the conclusion that by supporting the Prime Minister's Resolution he would be voting for abolishing the Second Chamber. There are a number who have put forward that view, but it seems difficult to follow. It appears to me—and I submit this for the earnest consideration of the House—that the scheme of the Prime Minister is devised, not to abolish the Upper House, but to consolidate and strengthen it, and to preserve it so long as it acts in the true spirit of democracy. That is the Prime Minister's Resolution. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, and to carry out the expressed views of many Members of the Liberal Party. It professes to be a moderate scheme with the idea of bringing the relations of the two Houses more into harmony. It is intended after discussion in this House, not once or twice, but three times, to have conferences, two at least and probably a third. It is only intended then that the Upper House should no longer have a voice in regard to a measure and that it should be passed independently of them. I submit to the House that that is a proposal for the protection of the House of Lords, because if the House of Lords continues in the path it has marked out for itself the votes given for the proposal in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle will be very much more numerous. There are many in the House who feel strongly the anomalous position in which the representatives of the people are placed by reason of the action of the House of Lords; but, notwithstanding that, we do desire in dealing with any constitutional question to walk warily and cautiously, to take care that any proposal which is to be put before the House, and which is to be carried into execution, should be prudeut and moderate. It is not usual for the people of this country to rush headlong into some great change. They would prefer this change to that in the Amendment, and it is because I am convinced that this view is the one which will commend itself as the right and just manner of dealing with the House of Lords that I appeal to hon. Members
1496
on this side of the House, and below the gangway to give the best support to the Prime Minister's Resolution, so that it will have full driving force in the country. Those who are in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords should vote for the Prime Minister's Resolution, in order that we may be able to put before the country the views, I will not say of the Liberal Party, but of all progressives in the House of Commons, to prove to the people that they are the views, not merely of those who are pledged to follow the Prime Minister but of all who think that the time has come when stops should be taken to ensure that the will of the people shall prevail.
EARL PERCY: We have now come to the end of this three days debate, during the greater part of which the emptiness of the Benches in all parts of the House has very accurately reflected the total indifference with which the country regards this Resolution. We are asked to give our verdict upon two separate issues. The first is that raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and wholly ignored by the President, of the Board of Trade in his reply. The second is that raised by the Resolution itself. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who spoke earlier in the debate, that if it were necessary that we should vote in favour of one or other of these proposals I should greatly prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. I prefer the Amendment which says what it means to the Resolution which means something which it does not say. It is quite true that the Amendment is in one respect not quite candid. It does not say, if the House of Lords is to be abolished, whether anything, and, if so, what, is to be put in its place. Most people would imagine that was the first question to be considered before commencing the work of destruction. But I do not quarrel with the omission, the reason for which is obvious. It is, as everyone knows, that the hon. Member, wishes to rally to his support in the lobby as many as possible who are against the House of Lords, and as many as possible who are against the predominance of a single Chamber. It would be quixotic to expect that he

1497
would forego that Parliamentary advantage, and it is only another illustration of the utterly unrepresentative character of many of the decisions which are given in this House. But the hon. Member for Barnard Castle is quite explicit as to what he wants the House to do, and as to the grounds on which he asks us to do it. He wishes us to abolish the House of Lords, in the first place, because it is an irresponsible Chamber; in the second place, because it is representative entirely and exclusively of interests which are necessarily opposed to the public welfare; and in the third place, because, as a matter of fact, he says, it has been an obstacle and a hindrance to national progress. Well, I traverse every one of these counts in his indictment. It may be true, and I think it is true, that the House of Lords has certain defects which ought to be remedied, and which both the House of Lords and hon. Members on this side of the House have declared that they are willing to remedy. But I wholly deny that it is in any sense irresponsible. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle explained that he meant that it is not directly elected; but is he going to lay down that direct election is an indispensable qualification for the discharge of public duties and responsibilities? That would be fatal to the principle of hereditary monarchy, to the theory on which we base our judiciary, to the system of the franchise under which the suffrage is in many cases inseparably connected with the hereditary transmission of property. There are thousands of people whose right to vote depends on the property they have inherited. Do you wish to disfranchise every poor man who inherits property? And what are the "interests" which the House of Lords exclusively represents? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Land."] And which are necessarily hostile to the public welfare My right hon. friend the Member for St. George's has pointed out that a large proportion of its Members are men who have filled responsible and distinguished positions in the Colonies, in the Army and Navy, in the House of Commons itself, and in many other professions. They represent, if anything, the quality of experience. Is that a quality which disqualifies for the discharge of legislative functions? The phrase really means nothing else than that a certain
1498
number of Peers happen to own landed property. Is that necessarily a disqualification for the exercise of legislative functions, and, if so, is the possession of any property a disqualification? [An HON. MEMBER: It should not be the only qualification.] There is no single Member of the House of Lords who sits merely by virtue of the fact that he holds landed property any more than Members sit in this House because they happen to be millionaires. If we are to compare different kinds of property it is indisputable that land has the advantage, from this point of view, over almost any other form of wealth. As the President of the Board of Trade has himself pointed out, it is irremovable, and therefore its own interests must share in the decay or in the prosperity of national interests, and suffer or prosper according to the wisdom or unwisdom of legislation. It differs, too, from many other kinds of property in that a large portion of the interest on capital must necessarily be spent on the property and on those to whom it gives employment. And, in the third place, from time immemorial the possession of great landed estates has been held by public opinion to demand from the owner, who in the large majority of cases has responded to the call, the discharge of many and varied public duties. As for the final count of the hon. Member's indictment, that the House of Lords has proved an impediment and hindrance to national progress, I am content to rest my case for the time being on the statement made by the Attorney-General in this debate, that the political history of this country has been a history of concessions by the aristocracy which have ended by making us the freest democracy in the world. But if the House of Lords were irresponsible and representative of interests necessarily antagonistic to the national welfare, the conclusion would be not that the House should be abolished, but that it should be reformed. But reform has been ruled out, both in the Resolution and in the Amendment A few months ago I moved a vote of censure on the Government on the ground that they were postponing social reforms in favour of revolutionary change, I do not now think the prospects of social reform more roseate than they were, because I do not think the Front Bench is in earnest about social reform. The

1499
President of the Board of Trade referred to defects in the Artisans Dwellings Act, and said that all the misery of the slums is a monument to the incapacity of the Revising Chamber. Then what are the Government about? Why are they fiddling while Rome is burning? Two sessions have passed, and there has not been even a proposal to bring in a Bill to amend that Act. But while I do not take a more cheerful view of the prospects of social reform, I do not think that constitutional revolution is likely to occupy as much of our attention as at one time seemed probable. The proposal to revolutionise the Government of Ireland has already ended almost before it had begun; and I doubt whether the attack on the British Constitution is ever likely seriously to begin at all. The Prime Minister called the Resolution a preface, and I imagined it might turn out to be the preface to a pirated edition. No one, however, will credit Lord Rosebery with having had the slightest hand in drawing up this Resolution. But a preface is not a beginning. It is either an explanation or an apology. This preface is not meant for an apology, and if it is an explanation, all I can say is that a poorer literary effort it has never been my lot to peruse. Even with the assistance of the Prime Minister's explanation we are still in doubt as to the number of years it will take under his scheme before a Bill can be passed through Parliament. The ambiguity of the Resolution is not due to any lack of literary ability on the part of a Cabinet which comprises the Secretary of State for India, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and it is not due to any lack of time, because they have given so much time to drawing up the Resolution that they have not been able even to frame the Licensing Bill that was promised in the King's Speech. It must be due to the inherent impossibility of the task of trying to invest with an appearance of seriousness a policy which consists in abolishing something which never existed—the veto which the Lords have never possessed. We pressed some time ago for a Report of the Colonial Conference. I wish we could have a Report of the Cabinet deliberations on this subject, because nothing quite so funny can have happened in history since the famous discussion in '' Alice in Wonder-
1500
land" as to bow the Cheshire cat was to be beheaded, when the executioner said you could not cut off a head which has no body, the king said that if there was a head you could cut it off, and the queen's argument was that you were not to talk nonsense, and that if something was not done in less than no time she would have everybody's head cut off all round. This Resolution expresses the same sentiments in a somewhat less felicitous form. For many months past we have heard the House of Lords assailed on the ground that it was hereditary, that it was partisan, that it rejected measure, and that it passed them. We naturally expected, therefore, to be asked to affirm a Resolution which would declare that an hereditary Chamber had no title to be consulted as to the form in which effect should be given to the wishes of the people. But it turns out now that all these denunciations were mere conjurors tricks intended to mystify and mislead the audience. The Government have refused to take part in the deliberations of the Select Committee on the reform of the House of Lords on the ground that they have a plan of their own, and now it appears that this plan has no relevance whatever to the criticisms which they have made on the existing system. What we are asked to do is not to declare our hostility to the hereditary principle, but to place upon record our belief in the futility of representative institutions. In plain English it means nothing less than that, in order to give effect to the wishes of Members of the House of Commons, it is absolutely necessary that the people of this country shall have no opportunity of saying whether those wishes correspond to their own. That is not an attack on the House of Lords; it is an indictment of the House of Commons. The President of the Board of Trade said that a great many powers of the House of Lords would remain. I agree. They would still retain the power which Ministers most dislike of asking inconvenient questions, such as whether, when right hon. Gentlemen talk of liberty in Ireland, they mean liberty to drive off other people's cattle. They would still have power to amend and to reject Bills as often as they came before them. What this Resolution really does is to

1501
empower a temporary majority in the House of Commons just before a dissolution to suspend the whole legislative machinery in respect to any measure which they thought would not be accepted it' put before their constituents. For this Resolution as it stands, and even as it was explained by the speech of the Prime Minister, would apparently abolish altogether the veto of the Crown. It is not intended to do so, but that only shows how carelessly the Resolution has boon drawn. If we put in "subject to the veto of the Crown," what becomes of the Resolution? The Resolution says the will of the House of Commons is to prevail. It cannot mean that it is to be final, otherwise the veto of the Crown would be nugatory. It cannot be seriously suggested that we are to lay down for the first time the proposition that the opinion of the House of Commons ought to carry weight and influence with the Crown. So that the proposal really is that in future where there is a conflict between the two Houses as to what the people want, the decision should be taken away from the people themselves and transferred to the Crown. But this new function of the Crown is not to be exercised at any given moment, but only after several years of conflict, and the Government proposes to shorten the duration of Parliaments. Therefore in practice it would never come into operation except on the eve of a dissolution. And then, when the presumption is that Ministers have lost the confidence of the people, the Crown is to be invested with a special prerogative, which enables it to give effect to their wishes. Is it possible to imagine a more absolutely futile proposal, or one which in practice would be more certain to remain a dead letter? I now pass on to my second proposition, that the plan of the Government is not only unworkable in practice, but that so far from removing, it would perpetuate in an aggravated form the very evils which hon. Gentlemen opposite allege as a justification for their attack on the present system. Their complaint is that the present system operates to the disadvantage of the Liberal Party, and that it gives the Conservative Party an advantage which is unfair to them and detrimental to the public interest. I take first the disadvantage to the Liberal Party. It is not pretended
1502
that any measure brought in by Liberals, which the people want, has been permanently defeated, or even that it has been delayed for more than a few years. The utmost that has and can be alleged is that there has been some delay, and that that delay was caused by an irresponsible body. But how would this Resolution alter that state of things? The delay will be as great as ever. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] It might be even greater, for the President of the Board of Trade argued that the Home Rule Bill of 1892 could not have become law before the end of the Parliament in 1895, and that the new Government would have had to call a special session in order to delete it from the Statute-book. The delay will be as great as ever it was, but the power to cause delay would be exercised in a more irresponsible manner than it is now, because manifestly the House of Lords would know that delay could not of itself occasion the loss of the measure, and that if it was lost, the responsibility for its loss would rest not with them, but with the Crown. Then I come to the alleged advantage which the existing system gives to the Conservative Party. That is the main grievance, and it was never more picturesquely described than by Lord I Crewe when he said the Liberal Party were playing a game with the dice loaded against them. The Prime Minister apologised for using the same metaphor. Why should he apologise? It shows exactly what the grievance is really worth. For once abandon the metaphor of a game—a game, by the way, in which the stakes are not the money of the players but the rights and interests of other people—and substitute for it the true analogy of the administration of a public trust by a changing board of directors, each of them bound by rigorous rules which prevent them from investing the shareholders' money in speculative securities without reference to the shareholders, and the grievance disappears altogether. If in that case the rules press more hardly against one set of directors than the other, that is not a proof that the rules are in themselves unfair; it is only a proof that one set of directors is more speculatively inclined than the other. But if the grievance were a genuine one how would the scheme of the Government remove it? Hon. Gentlemen opposite think the House of Lords ought

1503
to have rejected the Education Bill of the last Government although it had been passed by the House of Commons, and the President of the Board of Trade said, in a speech outside this House, that the Party opposite were afraid that if the people returned a tariff reform Government the House of Lords would not throw out a Tariff Reform Bill. That is the most cheering news for the cause of tariff reform I have yet heard. I thought it was already dead, but it now appears that we must abolish the House of Lords in order to prevent its adoption. But would it prevent it? On the contrary, it would make it inevitable, for, if a tariff' reform Government came into office under the system proposed in this Resolution, they would only have to suspend the Constitution and their proposals would become law automatically. Therefore neither of the grievances which are contemplated by hon. Gentlemen opposite would be removed, but would be intensified if the Resolution were carried. But the real motive of the Resolution is, under a specious pretext of giving the House of Commons greater control over legislation, to give to the Ministry of the day greater control over the House of Commons by investing it with powers and authority which it was the express design of the Constitution to withhold from it. The whole assumption is that Ministers represent the people and that their legislative proposals will be in accordance with their interests. I say the theory of the Constitution is precisely the reverse. Ministers are not the representatives of the people, but the servants of the Crown; they need not have a seat in this House, if they accept office they cannot sit here without re-election, and, so far from the presumption being that they will act in accordance with the public interests, it is that at any moment they may become a menace to popular liberty, and that it is necessary to surround them with the most elaborate safeguards against an abuse either of their executive or of their legislative authority. To the House of Commons whose function it is to voice public grievances is assigned the only effective check against executive tyranny, the power of refusing supplies; and to the House of Lords which in its judicial capacity is the supreme interpreter of the laws as they exist, is given a co-ordinate legislative responsibility with the Commons of insisting that
1504
no subject of the King is deprived by law of the rights which he enjoys by law without the express and deliberate assent of the people. If we are to be asked to change this constitutional machinery the first proposition that must be established by the Government is that it has failed in its purpose. But the charge against the House of Lords is not that it has failed to answer its purpose—but that it answers it too well; not that it has ceased to be a check on Ministers, but that it is what it was intended to be, inconvenient to them. I do not believe it is possible to point to a single measure introduced by the Liberals in the last thirty years which the Lords have rejected, that would not have taken away rights of the kind I have referred to, or a single measure introduced by Conservatives of the same description which the House of Lords has assented to. Can anyone say that the House of Commons has equally well fulfilled its constitutional duty? Every one knows that it has largely lost the effective control of Supply, that it has almost abandoned its initiative in legislation and that even the discussion of legislation introduced by the Government is smuggled upstairs and stifled by the closure. The fact is the House of Commons has already parted with its independence. It becomes every day less and less a check upon Ministers and more and more a passive instrument for registering their decrees. And while the House has become the servants of the Ministry, the Ministry has become the slave of political organisation and the party caucus. Why, in the last two sessions we have seen a labour Bill passed in a form denounced by its own authors in obedience to the dictates of the Trade Unions, and the Irish Council Bill, which obtained a majority of 300 in this House on its First Reading, withdrawn at the bidding of the Irish Nationalist Convention. Two processes have gone on side by side. By the skilful way in which the votes of minorities are organised in the country the caucus has been enabled to establish its power over the Ministry, and the Ministry terrorises the House of Commons by the threat of a dissolution. Nothing is more remarkable than the emphasis which hon. Gentlemen put on the power of the House of Lords to force a dissolution. The great hold which a Government have over their followers is the fear that a dissolution may follow if

1505
they do not do as they are told, and the threat loses half its force when there is an equal possibility that a dissolution will follow if they do. Ministers object to the House of Lords not because it affects the control of the House of Commons over legislation, but because it is an obstacle to their own control over the House of Commons. You will pass this Resolution with your accustomed majority, a majority perhaps as great as that which passed the Irish Council Bill. And the result will be the same but with this difference, that it will draw the attention of the country to the paramount need of a reform of the House of Commons itself which will make it a truer reflex of the real balance of opinion in the country and restore something of the independence which it has lost. Does anybody deny that that is a view which is widespread and growing? There is nothing more remarkable than the complete indifference with which the public tolerates what in this House is regarded as a public scandal. Few Governments lose anything by applying the closure; no Opposition loses anything by resorting to obstruction. Why this indifference of public opinion, unless it be that the people are not hankering for controversial legislation, that they are essentially a people of compromise and keenly alive to the great danger which may attend the unchecked despotism of a temporary majority. I was reading the other day the classic work of Mr. Bryce on the American Constitution, and I was struck by his observation that "it is becoming an increasing belief among competent observers in the United States that the day is not far distant when in England some veto power or other constitutional safeguard must be interposed to protect the people against a hasty decision of their representatives." But the danger now is not merely that the decision may be a hasty one, but that it may be the result of a chance combination of minorities. Against that danger, I believe the country will insist upon being guarded. But the whole policy of the Government tends in the opposite direction. They wish to give prominence to controversial legislation, to cripple still further the influence of the minority, to strengthen the power of the Government inside the House, and to remove all checks upon its despotism from without. The feeling outside this House is
1506
people is that the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished, and I say that so long as there is that divergence of view, the only effect of your policy will be—that Governments will increasingly lack that which more than anything else determines the success of their legislative proposals—the driving force of public opinion; and obstruction, instead of being regarded as discreditable, will be looked upon as the only effective strategy by which a minority, otherwise impotent, can rescue the most vital interests of the nation from destruction, and, like the Roman general of old, cunctando restituere rem.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): It is always a pleasure to hear and a difficult task to follow the noble Lord in debate, and he will not, I am sure, take it amiss when I say that if we could regard him as a typical instance of the normal operation of the hereditary principle, some of our objections to the House of Lords would be substantially mitigated. But unfortunately experience shows us that the case of the noble Lord cannot be relied upon as the outcome of the settled purpose of Providence, but rather as a happy and unforeseeable episode in the chapter of accidents. Much as I admire, and as the House must admire, his dialectical and debating ability, I must say, having carefully listened to him to-night with that attention his speeches always deserve, it is with surprise I find that the noble Lord has contributed—at least so far as I have been able to discover—only two new arguments to our debate. The first is, that he discerns in the Resolution a covert and disguised attack—upon what? The veto of the Crown. Well, I was under the impression that the veto of the Crown was one of the obsolete powers in the British Constitution. I do not know precisely how long it is since the power was exercised. I think not since the reign of William III.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Two hundred and three years.
MR. ASQUITH: I have it on the authority of one of our greatest experts in these matters that it is more than 200 years since it was exercised, and if it should ever be exercised again, upon

1507
whose advice would it be exercised? Of the very Ministers of the Crown whom the noble Lord regards and denounces as amongst the most dangerous enemies of popular freedom, and who, after all, are the creatures of the House of Commons, whose supremacy this Resolution affirms The other novel argument contributed by the noble Lord is this, that if the resolution were brought into operation the House of Lords, which he admits does now by the exercise of its powers substantially delay legislation, would be able to do it as much in the future as it has done in the past. He has omitted to notice a most important phrase in the Resolution, which in the view of the Government is a phrase of the highest moment—that it is in the lifetime of a single Parliament that the House of Commons is to be supreme. It would take a great deal more than the somewhat superficial review the noble Lord has given us of the acts of the Lords during the present century to convince any student of history and politics that the restriction of their veto to the lifetime of a single Parliament would not have had an enormous effect in adding beneficial measures to the Statute book. I want clearly to state what is the position as it emerges at the end of our debate. I begin with an acknowledgment that personally I have been a slow and, to some degree, even a reluctant convert to the necessity of this particular method of dealing with the problem. I have cast about—as which of us has not?— during all these years of opposition in this House to try and discover some way of escape from the situation, which almost every speaker in this debate, on whichever side of the House he sits, has acknowledged to be indefensible, that would at one and the same time give effect to the democratic principle that the will of the people must prevail and do the least practical violence to our constitutional usages. I have even—scandalous as I am sure the avowal will seem to some hon. friends behind me—at one time coquetted with the referendum. But hoping, as many of us have hoped, that a solution could be found in the shape of what I may call a constitutional modus vivendi—a convention similar to the conventions of which both our common law and our Parliamentary law are full, not written on paper, not defined in the exact language of an Act of Parlia-
1508
ment—hoping for the establishment of such a modus vivendi (a re-establishment, let me remind the House, of a practice which actually prevailed sixty or even fifty years ago, when the House of Lords submitted to the sagacious guidance of the Duke of Wellington, Lord Aberdeen, and other statesmen of the past), the experiences of recent years have convinced us that that is an unattainable hope. Yes; but why? Because it would be the essence of such an understanding that the House of Lords—admittedly in the language of the Leader of the Opposition a subordinate partner, admittedly powerless to control executive action or financial policy—should, in the sphere of legislation also, be content with the functions of revision and consultation, and, if need arose, of reasonable delay. But has the House of Lords shown any disposition to accept such an understanding] It has fallen, unfortunately, in those latter days into the hands of guides and leaders—not necessarily and not always sitting within its own walls—who have degraded it from the position of a revising Chamber, and in some sense an arbitral authority, and who have converted it, as everybody knows, into the docile and subservient instrument of a single Party in the State. That is the crux of the whole problem. It is that fact clearly brought home and burned in upon the minds, at any rate of the progressive electorate of this country, which accounts for the indignation and resentment which is felt outside these walls. What is it they see? I am enunciating a proposition which has not been seriously controverted by any speaker in any quarter of the House during the whole of this debate when I say that what the people see is a partisan Assembly, worked in a partisan spirit, and yet assuming to hold the position and to exercise the functions of an unprejudiced umpire. In my opinion it is a moot point whether the House of Lords is more dangerous to the State when it abdicates or when it abuses its proper functions, for that is the vicious alternation to which, under the unhappy guidance to which it now submits, it is in practice reduced. I take once again the hackneyed but most instructive case of education. Whatever else may be said about the election of 1900, no one can pretend that the education question was at that election a live issue. Yet within two years

1509
a Bill was passed through the House of Commons which, it is not an exaggeration to say, effected a complete revolution from top to bottom in our educational system, a Bill which was assented to by the House of Lords without delay and without demur, although not only had it never been submitted to the people, but as we now know from what has since happened if it had been submitted to the people it would have been by an enormous majority repudiated. This is an illustration which cannot be too frequently repeated and pressed home. Then we come to the general election of 1906. In England and Wales education was one of the predominant controversies of the hour. A new Parliament, fresh from the polls, with the instructions of the electors freshly written as it were upon their electoral tablets, passes through this House—what shall I call it? I believe it was a very good Bill, but at any rate it was reduced, it was diluted, it was the attenuated minimum as compared with the popular demand, and that Bill, as we know, was first mutilated and then strangled out of existence by this impartial, dispassionate, revisory body. The truth is that, whatever the noble Lord's theory may suggest, in practice the House of Lords gives effect to the will of the House of Commons when you have a Tory majority; the House of Lords frustrates the will of the House of Commons when you have a Liberal majority; and neither in the one case nor in the other does it consider—what, indeed, it has no means of ascertaining—the will of the people. We have heard in the course of this debate put forward by various speakers what I believe to be an entirely new-fangled constitutional doctrine—the doctrine, I mean, that the House of Lords has by prerogative the power, and by some mysterious form of intuition the means, of determining at what precise moment the House of Commons ceases to represent the will of the people. I am not going to argue that question. I have nothing, I think, to add to what was so lucidly stated by my hon. and learned friend the Attorney- General, but I should like, since quotations are the order of the day, to make one quotation, and it shall be the only one with which I shall trouble the House It bears on this very point directly and gives the opinion of, perhaps, the greatest Conservative statesman who ever led the
1510
Party opposite. I am going to read the language used by Sir Robert Peel in 1831, on the day after the Second Reading of the first Reform Bill. He was arguing, of course, against the democratic constitution which now prevails. This is what he said to the House—
"When once you have established the overwhelming influence of the people over this House, when you have this House the express organ of the public voice, what other authority in the State can, nay, what other authority in the State ought, to control its will or reject its decisions? The people are the judges of their own interests; the people are enlightened and well affected to the Throne; the House of Commons is the organ of the people; who will presume to check its patriotic course?"
You could not have more concisely or more admirably stated than in the prophetic language of that great Conservative statesman the principles for which we, as the Liberal Party, in this Resolution are to-day contending. I have stated the problem, and I come to the question with which I will deal very shortly—How are you going to solve it? Nobody disputes its existence. The noble Lord himself does not. You may put something else in the place of the House of Lords; you may call it by the same name if you please; but that will not really alter the situation which I have described. Our plan is entirely without prejudice to any changes of that kind which may ultimately be decided upon. I am not going to prejudge the deliberations of the Committee to which the noble Lord has referred, although, perhaps, after a good many years study of this subject, I may say that I am inclined to be sceptical of the possibility of creating in this country a new Second Chamber which can be relied upon to perform the functions, and only the functions, which are appropriate to such a body in a democratic constitution. However that may be, and I do not wish to prejudge the issue, in any such scheme two things are certain. The first is that it would be far more revolutionary, in the true sense of the word, than the proposal which is now being made by the Government, and in the next place it will take time, years it may be, or a life-time of a whole generation, to bring it into effective use. But the question for this House of Commons is—How are we to deal with a practical and urgent situation which cannot afford to wait until the womb of the future

1511
has conceived and brought forth a new Second Chamber up to date? That is the reason why the Government now put forward the plan which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has described to the House. That plan has been attacked from two entirely different points of view. On the one hand, we have been told by what I may call the regular Opposition that it would annihilate the legislative existence of the House of Lords, and in fact establish a system of government by a single Chamber. On the other hand, we have been told by the hon. Gentlemen who sit below the gangway, and who have brought forward the Amendment, that it is a half-hearted and imperfect measure, that it would stimulate an irresponsible body to interpose arbitrary delays between the declaration of the popular will and its legislative expression and embodiment, and that, therefore, we ought to go in for the simpler and more drastic plan of abolishing the House of Lords. These contradictory attacks may be left, to some extent, to answer one another. But let me say, speaking for myself—I do not know how far I express the views of my hon. friends around me—I must confess that the prospect of government by a single Chamber does not fill my mind with quite those apprehensions which it seems to engender in many bosoms on the other side of the House. "[An HON. MEMBER: Why not accept the Amendment?] I am going to deal with that. When I look around the world at the constitutional systems which are in actual operation, apart from those countries where federal government prevails, I do not see many Second Chambers—I doubt whether I see any—which are really justifying their existence. But I must add a personal admission of my own view, and in my hot political youth, in answer to the question put in those days by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India whether I would mend or end the House of Lords, I used to answer with the shorter of these two words. I must say that when I heard all the lip homage which was paid by the orators on the other side of the House to the virtues of our bi-cameral system I felt that such language came with singularly little force from gentlemen who admit on the one hand, as the Leader of the Opposition has told us,
1512
that, so far as administration and finance are concerned, we have long lived under the uncontrolled rule of a single Chamber and who, on the other hand, so soon as they have secured what they consider a safe majority here in the House of Commons, consign the Second Chamber to a term of hibernation which, for all legislative purposes, might just as well be the long sleep of death. Although I am not myself in a state of apprehension as to government by a single Chamber, in dealing with our constitutional system we have to proceed cautiously and to take into account the opinion of the nation. In my view the opinion of the nation is not in favour of the establishment of a single Chamber. That is not a mere blind adherence to ancient tradition. It is only fair to remember that every year adds to the magnitude and complexity of our duties, and that an inevitable curtailment of debate on many points. It may well be thought that there ought to be an opportunity for the reconsideration of measures which have been discussed in this House before they are embodied in the Statute Book. I wish to make a strong plea to those who favour this particular solution of our constitutional difficulties to remember that, whilst voting against the Prime Minister's Motion in the hope of substituting an Amendment of their own in this sense, it has no hope of adoption. By doing so they will be dividing at a critical moment the forces of progress, and will be creating the perfectly false impression to the world outside that all sections of the Liberal and Progressive Party are not united in their determination to adopt the most simple, the most practicable, and the most easily-attainable means of putting an end to a system which has become both dangerous and intolerable. The Government's plan has these two advantages: that, without touching the question of the composition and character of the House of Lords, it deprives it of the partisan veto it at present possesses, and leaves it only with those powers of revision and deliberation which are the proper functions of a Second Chamber under a democratic Constitution; and secondly, it does all this without derogating in any way from the supreme authority of the House of Commons. I agree with the Prime Minister that this scheme must be accompanied by an abridgment of the duration of Parliament.

1513
The scheme will deal effectually with all the difficulties of the case. The situation which confronts us is at once intolerable and dangerous, and the remedy proposed by the Government is at once simple and effectual. Let the House of Commons by a decisive voice to-night adopt with emphasis the principle of the Resolution, and I venture to say that it will have
taken the first and the longest step on the road to the final emancipation of the people.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put.
The House divided:— Ayes, 315, Noes, 100. (Division List No. 251.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Agnew, George William

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Harmsworth,CecilB.(Worc'r)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cleland, J. W.

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

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hart-Davies, T.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Armitage, R.

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hedges, A. Paget

Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

Cory, Clifford John

Helme, Norval Watson

Astbury, John Meir

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Atherley,Jones, L.

Cowan, W. H.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cox, Harold

Herbert.Colonel Ivor(Mon.S.)

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Cremer, William Randal

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crombie, John William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Barker, John

Crossley, William J.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset)

Dalmeny, Lord

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

Holt, Richard Durning

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone.N.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol.S.)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Beale, W. P.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Beauchamp), E.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Beck, A. Cecil

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

Hyde, Clarendon

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Idris, T. H. W.

Benn,SirJ. Williams (Dev'np'rt

Duckworth, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Benn,W(Tower Hamlets.S.Geo

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jackson, R. S.

Bennett, E. N.

Dunne,Major E. Martin(Wals'll

Jardine, Sir J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Elibank, Master of

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Billson, Alfred

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Erskine, David C.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Essex, R. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Branch, James

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Laidlaw, Robert

Bright, J. A.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Lambert, George

Brodie, H. C.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamont, Norman

Brooke, Stopford

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Brunner,J.F.L.(Lanes.,Leigh)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

BrunnerRtHnSir JT(Cheshire)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever, A. Levy( Essex,Harwich)

Bryce, J. Annan

Fullerton, Hugh

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire,Wirral)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Furness, Sir Christopher

Levy, Maurice

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Gardner.Col. Alan(Hereford,S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gladstone.Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Lough, Thomas

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Glendinning, R. G.

Lupton, Arnold

Buxton.Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Cairns, Thomas

Gooch, George Peabody

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cameron, Robert

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Donald

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Grey,Rt.Hon. Sir Edward

M'Callum, John M.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Crae, George

Chance, Frederick William

Grove, Arohilbald

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gulland, John W.

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Thomasson, Franklin

Maddison, Frederick

Bees, J. D.

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E

Mallet, Charles E.

Rendall, Athelstan

Tillett, Louis John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Renton, Major Leslie

Tomkinson, James

Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

Rickett, J. Compton

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Marnham, F. J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Toulmin, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Massie, J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ure, Alexander

Menzies, Walter

Robinson, S.

Verney, F. W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Vivian, Henry

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walker, H. Do R. (Leicester)

Mond, A.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walters, John Tudor

Montagu, E. S.

Rose, Charles Day

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

Montgomery, H. G.

Runciman, Walter

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Russell, T. W.

Ward, W.Dudley (Southampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)!

Waring, Walter

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Morrell, Philip

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wason,JohnCathcart(O rkney)

Murray, James

Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

Waterlow, D. S.

Myer, Horatio

Sears, J. E.

Watt, Henry A.

Napier, T. B.

Seaverns, J. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Seely, Major J. B.

Weir, James Galloway

Nicholson,CharlesN(Doncast'r

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

White, George (Norfolk)

Norman, Sir Henry

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sherwell, Arthur James

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitehead, Rowland

Nuttall, Harry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitley,JohnHenry(Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whittaker,SirThomas Palmer

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wiles, Thomas

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth')

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smith,F. E. (Liverpool.Walton)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

Soames, Arthur Wellesley J.

Williamson, A.

Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk.Eye)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson,Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stanley,Hn. A Lyulph(Chesh.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.).

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilson, J.W.( Worcestersh. N.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Pollard, Dr.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Winfrey, R.

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

Straus, B.S. (Mile End)

Wodehousr, Lord

Price,RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.)

E. A. (Abingdon)

Wood, T. M Kinnon

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Stuart, James (Sunderland) j

Yoxall, James Henry

Priestley,W. E. B. (Bradford.E.)

Sutherland, J. E.;

Pullar, Sir Robert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Radford, G. H.

Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury

Rainy, A. Rolland

Tennant,H. J. (Berwickshire)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hudson, Walter

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jacoby, Sir dames Alfred

Alden, Percy

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jenkins, J.

Ambrose, Robert

Farrell, James Patrick

Johnson. John (Gateshead)

Barnes, G. N.

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Ffrench, Peter

Jowett, F. W.

Bell, Richard

Flynn, James Christopher

Joyce, Michael

Bertram, Julius

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Kelley, George D.

Black, Arthur W.

Gill, A. H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Boland, John

Glover, Thomas

Lamb,EdmundG. (Leominster)

Bowerman, C. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Brace, William

Hall, Frederick

Lea,HughCecil (St.Pancras.E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Halpin, J.

Lundon, W.

Clough, William

Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire.N.E.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clynes, J. R.

Hayden, John Patrick

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Cooper, G. J.

Hazleton, Richard

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Crooks, William

Henry, Charles S.

Macpherson. J. T.

Dalziel, James Henry

Higham, John Sharp

MaeVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hodge, John

M'Kean, John

Delany, William

Hogan, Michael

M'Killop, W.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Markham, Arthur Basil

1516

1517

Masterman, C. F. G.

Redmond, Join E (Waterford)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Meagher, Michael

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wardle, George J.

Mooney, J. J.

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nicholls, George

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

Wilkie, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

Richardson, A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Wilson, W. T. (Weshoughton)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Seddon, J.

Young, Samuel

O'Grady, J.

Shackleton, David James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.George Roberts.

O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N

Smyth,Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

O'Malley, William

Snowden, P.

O'Shauglinessy, P. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walsh, Stephen

Main Question put.
The House divided:— Ayes, 432, Noes, 147. (Division List No. 252.)

AYES.

Abraham,William (Cork.N.E.).

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brodie, H. C.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brooke, Stopford

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

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Agnew, George William

Brunner,RtHnSirJT (Cheshire)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bryce, J. Annan

Dobson, Thomas W.

Alden, Percy

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Duckworth, James

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Ambrose, Robert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dunne,MajorE.Martin( Walsall

Armitage, R.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Armstrong, W. C Heaton

Hurt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton,RtHn.Sydney Charles

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Asquith,Rt. Hon.HerbertHenry

Byles, William Pollard

Elibank, Master of

Astbury, John Meir

Cairns, Thomas

Erskine, David C.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cameron, Robert

Essex, R. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Causton,RtHnRichard Knight

Everett, R. Lacey

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Barker, John

Chance, Frederick William

Farrell, James Patrick

Barlow,Jn. Emmott (Somerset)

Channing,Sir Francis Allston

Fenwick, Charles

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Ferens, T. R.

Barnard, E. B.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R.R.

Ffrench, Peter

Barnes, G. N.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Flynn, James Christopher

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Cleland, J. W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Beale, W. P.

Clough, William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Beauchamp, E.

Clynes, J. R.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fuller, John Michael F.

Beck, A. Cecil

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Bell, Richard

Collins,SirWmJ(S. Pancras.W.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cooper, G. J.

Gardner,Col.Alan (Hereford.S.)

Benn,SirJWilliams(Devonp'rt)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Benn,W.(T'W'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gill, A. H.

Bennett, E. N.

Cory, Clifford John

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Glendinning, R. G.

Bertram, Julius

Cowan, W. H.

Glover, Thomas

Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex.Romf'rd

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cremer, William Randal

Gooch, George Peabody

Billson, Alfred

Crombie, John William

Grant, Corrie

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Crooks, William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Black, Arthur W.

Crosfield,A. H.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Boland, John

Crossley, William J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Bottomley, Horatio

Dalmeny, Lord

Griffith, Ellis J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dalziel, James Henry (

Grove, Archibald

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Brace, William

Davies,Ellis William (Eifion)

Gulland, John W.

Bramadon, T. A.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Branch, James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Brigg, John

Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Bright, J. A.

Delany, William

Hail, Frederick

Halpin, J.

Lundon, W.

Philipps, Col.Ivor (S'thampton

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Lupton, Arnold

Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Harmsworth,R.L. (Caithn ss-sh

Lynch, H. B.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Hart-Davies, T.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pollard, Dr.

Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire.N.E.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

Harwood, George

Maclean, Donald

Price,Robert John (Norfolk.E.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

MacNiell, John Gordon Swift

Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford, E.

Hayden, John Patrick

Macpherson, J. T.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

Radford, G. H.

Hazleton, Richard

M'Callum, John M.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Hedges, A. Paget

M'Crae, George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Helme, Norval Watson

M'Kean, John

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Hemmerde, Edward George

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Killop, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen,W.

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

Redmond, William (Clare)

Henry, Charles S.

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

Rees, J. I).

Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

M'Micking, Major G.

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Higham, John Sharp

Maddison, Frederick

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

Hobart, Sir Robert

Mallet, Charles E.

Richardson, A.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rickett, J. Compton

Hodge, John

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hogan, Michael

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Marnham, F. J.

Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

Holt, Richard Durning

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Massie, J.

Robinson, S.

Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset, N

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robson,.Sir William Snowdon

Horniman, Emslie John

Meagher, Michael

Roe, Sir Thomas

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Menzies, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rose, Charles Day

Hudson, Walter

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rowlands,.J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Moral, A.

Runciman, Walter

Hyde, Clarendon

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Russell, T. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Montagu, E. S.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Montgomery, H. G.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Mooney, J. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Jackson, R, S.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Jardine, Sir J.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Morrell Philip

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Morse, L. L.

Sears, J. E.

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Seaverns, J. H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Murray, James

Seddon, J.

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Myer, Horatio

Seely, Major J. B.

Jowett, F. W.

Napier, T. B.

Shackleton, David James

Joyce, Michael

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Nicholls, George

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

Sherwell, Arthur James

Kelley, George D.

Nolan, Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Norman, Sir Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

King, Alfred John (Knutsford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Simon,.John Allsebrook

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Laidlaw, Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Nuttall, Harry

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Snowden, P.

Lambert, George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Lamont, Norman

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Soares, Ernest J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

O'Grady, J.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N.

Stanger, H. V.

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E

O'Malley, William

Stanley Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Lehmann, R. C.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich

Partington, Oswald

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral

Paulton, James Mellor

Strachey, Sir Edward

Levy, Maurice

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lough, Thomas

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye

Summerbell, T.

1520

1521

Sutherland, L. E.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

Williams,Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ward, W. Dudley (South'pton)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wardle, George J.

Williamson, A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Waring, Walter

Wills, Arthur Walters

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull,W.

Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Thompson,J.W.H. (Somerset,E

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Tillett, Louis John

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh., N.)

Tomkinson, James

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Weir, James Galloway

Winfrey, R.

Toulmin, George

White, George (Norfolk)

Wodehouse, Lord

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whte, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Ure, Alexander

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Young, Samuel

Verney, F. W.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Yoxall, James Henry

Vivian, Henry

Whitehead, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Walsh, Stephen

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Walters, John Tudor

Wiles, Thomas

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

Wilke, Alexander

NOES.

Alison, Sir William Reynell

Duncan,Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Arnold- Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Moore, William

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Aubrey,Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Fetherstonhugh, Godfrey

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm.G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Alfred

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

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

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gordon, J.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester

Gretton, John

Pease,HerbertPike (Darlington

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

Haddock, George R.

Percy, Earl

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy,Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Heaton, John Henniker

Renton, Major Leslie

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Hervey,F.W.F. (Bury S.Ed'm's

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Burdett Coutts, W.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kennaway,Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

Sandys, Lieut,-Col. Thos.Myles

Cave, George

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn. Col. W

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

Keswick, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sheffield,SirBerkeley George D.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

King,Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Clark,George Smith (Belfast,N.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants.,Fareham

Starkey, John R.

Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Liddell, Henry

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Long,Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Craig,Captain James Down,E.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tumour, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Dalrymple, Viscount

M'Iver,SirLewis( Edinburgh, W.

Walker, Col.W. H. (Lancashire)

Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

Du Cross, Harvey

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

1522

1523

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Younger, George

Viscount Valentia.

Resolved, 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-Bannerman.)

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes before Twelve o'clock

Preamble
The Earl of ONSLOW — Sat Speaker.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London and North-Western Railway Bill. — A petition of Mr. Edgar Francis Briggs, of 14. Great Marlborough Street, London, Solicitor, praying for leave to present a petition of the Hon. Cecil Saumarez Irby, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. —Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition to the Herts and Essex Water Order having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 6th of June and Monday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill.—Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 4th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—The Chairman of Committees in- formed the House that the opposition to the West Ham Corporation Order was withdrawn: The orders made on the 6th instant and Monday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [H.L.].—The King's con- sent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Sunderland Corporation Bill.—Moved, That the order made on the 20th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order).
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Killery's Divorce Bill [H.L.].—Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a Tomorrow.
Colne Valley Water Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a. Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [H.L.].— Returned from the Commons agreed to. with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. —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.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3840. France (Pondicherry).
  No. 3841. China (Wenchow).

  COMMERCIAL NO. 5 (1907).
  Despatch to His Majesty's Minister at Brussels respecting the International Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902.

  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by W. N. Atkinson and J. Dyer Lewis, two of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances

  1259
  attending an explosion which occurred at Genwen Colliery on the 5th March, 1907.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, for the year 1906.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  List of certified schools for blind, deaf, defective, and epileptic children in England and Wales on 1st August, 1906.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Account of receipts and expenditure of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the year ended 31st December, 1906; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, on the 7th March, 1907, amending certain of the College Statutes. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 83.)
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES, ETC.) BILL—METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  Report from the Joint Committee that the Bills ought to be allowed to proceed; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Proceedings of the Joint Committee laid upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 81).

  A DERELICT.
  LORD MUSKERRY:My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have been acquainted of the report of the captain of the P. & O. steamer "India" that, near Cape Roca, he passed a derelict in the track of shipping and a great danger to navigation; and whether,
  1260
  to avoid the serious risks presented by this derelict, the Government will cause one of His Majesty's ships to be despatched for the purpose of discovering and destroying it. The American Government have fitted out a ship especially for this purpose, and as we have by far the largest number of ships on the sea I think we ought to do some thing of the same kind.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, my noble friend takes a laudable interest in everything that pertains to the safety and comfort of British seamen, and I thoroughly applaud him in that. The fact that this derelict has been sighted has been notified to the Admiralty; but I must say that a Committee which considered this question of derelicts came to the conclusion that, except in exceptional circumstances, it was not desirable to send His Majesty's ships in search of them. It is very difficult, to find them; they are shifted about by wind and tide, and very often sink long before they are found. I would also point out that in this particular case the derelict is close to Cape Roca, and it does seem to me that, being so near to the mouth of the Tagus, it might be taken care of by Portuguese rather than by British ships.

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  [SECOND HEADING.]
  Order of the Day, for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN)My Lords, I think it was generally accepted in the debate yesterday that my noble friend behind me had, in a fair and temperate and lucid manner, set before your Lordships the substance of the Bill; but in the course of the discussion which ensued various questions were asked to which noble Lords desired to have answers. I think it is a somewhat inconvenient practice to ask many questions across the Table during the progress of a Second Reading debate, but, of course, His Majesty's Government have no other wish than that the

  1261
  House should be put in possession of any information which they can provide. Therefore I have possessed myself of certain information bearing on some of the questions which were then put, which I shall be ready to submit to your Lordships. Some of them were dealt with in the very able maiden speech which was delivered by my noble friend on the second bench behind me last evening, but as the House had then considerably thinned I daresay your Lordships will not mind if I repeat some of the information which he then gave.
  The noble Viscount Lord Midleton raised a question about the reductions which had been made in the Army, and stated that those reductions had wiped out the increases which had been made during the years from 1895 to 1898, during which I think the noble Marquess opposite was in charge of the War Office. I believe that putting it in one way, that is not an unfair statement; but I am informed that there is another way of putting it, and that the fact is that we are still 27,000 men in excess of the numbers of 1895. The noble Viscount also dealt with the question of the establishment of the home battalions, and he said that the home battalion establishment had been reduced from 750 To 720 men. But that is not a reduction in actual numbers. Owing to the effect of the system of three years enlistment, which is still making itself felt, the strength is very much below the establishment, and the reduction is not really a reduction in men, because the men are not there. The object of the reduction is to make the establishment and the strength coincide; and I am informed that there is every intention, when the men are forthcoming, to make the establishment revert to the former figure. It is also worth mentioning that the twenty-five battalions on Colonial stations have had their strength increased by seventy-four.
  Then the noble Viscount questioned us about the Artillery. He was very anxious to know whether there had been, or was to be, any reduction in the Artillery. No, my Lords, there has been no reduction in the Artillery establishment. There has been a reduction of two depots at home, but that
  1262
  has been more than compensated by the increase in the Indian establishment. It is not proposed in any way to weaken the strength of the Artillery, which at the present moment is altogether inadequate to the needs of the Expeditionary Force. On the contrary, it is the intention to increase the strength. With the present establishment it is only possible to mobilise forty-two batteries, whereas sixty-six are required for the Expeditionary Force. This is owing to the great number of men required for the largely increased ammunition columns. The Secretary of State for War has several times explained his intention of providing ammunition columns from the special contingent in order to be able to mobilise the necessary number of batteries, and this proposal has the full assent of his council. There are also proposals under consideration for increasing the Reserves of Regular artillerymen.
  Then a question was asked with regard to the field artillery of the Territorial Army. That artillery is to be armed with the field gun which was in use by the Regulars before the recent rearmament, and that gun is to be improved by being mounted on a quick-firing carriage. Then, outside the divisional organisation of the Territorial Army, there will be raised a number of strictly local corps for coast defence, consisting chiefly of garrison artillery; and it is hoped to raise these corps in the immediate neighbourhood of the defences which they will have to man, so that they may always train and become familiar with the guns which they will have to use.
  The noble Viscount also called attention to the composition of battalions. He said that in the Expeditionary Force the proportion would be 380 and 620 instead of 500 to 500, as at the time of the war; but in this comparison he did not use the same sets of figures. The noble Viscount gave the numbers of infantry in the future war establishment at 28,847 serving soldiers and 48,900 in the Reserve, and he compared them with the figures at the time of the war, which were, he said, 57,000 with the colours and 43,000 from the Reserve. In the first case the noble Viscount did

  1263
  use the infantry figures, but in the second he used those for all ranks. The actual numbers from all ranks embarked to South Africa were 56,553 with the colours and 42,957 from the Reserve. In the future war establishment there will be, it is calculated, 75,558 men with the colours and 85,023 with the Reserve. But it has also to be observed that at the time of the war the battalions did not go out at what we should consider full strength. The Reserve was unusually low at that particular moment, owing to the men who had rejoined the colours under the Army Order of 1898. The effect was to show more men with the colours than would otherwise have been the case.
  The noble Viscount asked a question as to military opinion with regard to the value of the special contingent, and I am informed that in the opinion of the military advisers of the Secretary of State the Special Contingent will be perfectly efficient to use as drafts. They consider that these men will, on the whole, be more efficient than the men of the Militia Reserve who reinforced the Regular battalions in South Africa, for they will have had a longer average service than those men. In the Natal Army, after the relief of Ladysmith, it was the opinion of all the. officers who had to do with these men that they did their full work at once and in a short time were not distinguishable from the older soldiers.
  A question was raised as to the average age of the Militia. I think the noble Viscount said that the fighting age of the Militia was between twenty and thirty-five, and that it would be found that the Militia would not present a good appearance if that age was prescribed. The figures do not bear out that contention. I find that of the Militia under twenty and over thirty-five there are 31,000, while the number between those ages is 52,800. The noble Earl Lord Donoughmore asked a question with regard to the amalgamation of regiments, and whether extra legislation would be necessary for that purpose. I understand that it is believed that this will be covered by the Bill; but that, of course, is a question which would naturally
  1264
  come up in Committee. The Duke of Bedford referred to the Norfolk Commission and stated, as I understood him, that if the proposals of that Commission were accepted he would be prepared to find recruits both for the Militia and for the Army. That, however, depends on the argument that there are two classes of men who will enlist for the Militia—one going on to the Army and one remaining in the Militia itself. But I understand that view is not accepted universally, and in those circumstances it would, of course, be necessary to make further investigation before one could go on with that proposal. But, anyhow the offer of the noble Duke would involve, I imagine, the adoption of the Norfolk Commission's proposals altogether, and this would mean compulsion and a very large expense. We cannot be expected to accept that proposition.
  Then questions were asked, and were very largely answered by the noble Lord behind me, as to officers in the Militia, and especially as to their succession to the command. Perhaps I had better repeat the answer. It is that junior officers up to the age of thirty-four who are of the rank of captain or under are to be invited to go into the Reserve of officers under the terms of Sir Edward Ward's Committee. They will receive a retaining fee of £20 a year, and will rise automatically to the rank of captain and pass into the Reserve of officers, who do not get a retaining fee, with the rank of honorary major at the age of thirty-five. Then with regard to officers above thirty-five, they are to be invited to go into the Reserve of officers and join for duty with the battalions of the Special Contingent, but they will not receive the £20 payment. The Army Council fully recognise that the command of a Special Contingent battalion should be within the reach of this class of officer, provided that they are competent in other respects. This applies to both the third and fourth battalions. As vacancies occur in the third battalions the establishment of Regular officers will gradually be decreased until they number about nine or ten. This is rendered necessary by the amount of training and instruction which the third battalion will have to do. The officering of the fourth

  1265
  battalion is at present under consideration, but the tendency will probably be not to give them so large an establishment as the officers of the third battalion It has been asked by one noble Lord whether those officers who are below the age of thirty-five at the date of transfer would become eligible for succession to the command. It is intended that they should not become eligible.
  Several points were raised by Lord Scarbrough with regard to the Yeomanry and by Lord Fortescue with regard to the County Associations, most of which will naturally be better dealt with in Committee. But I may say, with regard to the County Associations, that it is intended to start these Associations as soon as possible, and, as far as possible, simultaneously. Everything is ready to make a start as soon as the Bill is passed. It is intended that the Lord-Lieutenant should be the president of the Association in every case, except when there is any reason why he would desire not to hold that position; and it is hoped that the president of the Association will be its constitutional head, and he should not be excluded from the chair if that is a position for which he is suited and which he desires to hold. At any rate, he would take a leading part in the work of the Association.
  A question was asked with regard to the officers of the Territorial Army who would be put upon the County Association. I am informed that it is intended in most cases that they should be senior officers, but it was thought better not absolutely to tie our hands, in case other officers should appear to be qualified for that post. As to the allotment of troops in grouped regimental districts, the General Staff has been at work upon the allotment for some months, and it is intended shortly to refer the results of their work to a larger Committee. Wherever possible they have worked on the force that already exists, and it has been found, on the whole, that the General Staff requirements fit them very well. I hope that the information I have given may be of use to the House, and it is in that belief that I have troubled your Lord ships with it.
  1266
  In dealing with, this Bill I am unavoidably compelled to say that I find that my connection with the Commission which sat with regard to the war in South Africa has been so much mentioned in the debates here and in another place that I am bound to refer to it. It is a point which, has not been raised by me. Since the Report was issued I have never said a word about it in any public manner. I have felt that the position of a Commission of that character is one which ought to compel silence upon the members of the Commission. A Royal Commission is appointed for a specific purpose; its members meet for that purpose and perform that purpose; but when that purpose is finished they separate, and there is no possibility of their assembling together again to give any deliberate conclusion. In those circumstances it has always appeared to me that for a single member of a Commission to take upon himself in any way authoritatively to declare the meaning or intention of a Report is beside the mark. It has been, of course, very gratifying to me that not only was the Report of the Commission a unanimous one, which is one of the matters to which I shall always look back with the greatest satisfaction, but it has not been on the whole seriously challenged; and that, considering how full of controversial matter our investigation was, is a position which I should not wish to disturb.
  But, my Lords, there have been in discussions preceding the introduction of this Bill and also in these debates references to our Report, and particularly to one passage. I think the noble Earl on the cross benches (Lord Roberts) was the first to draw attention to this passage, and the other day a right hon. Gentleman in another place, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, paid us the compliment of describing it as a classic passage. That right hon. Gentleman criticised the use of it by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State, and he went on to say that my right hon. friend knew quite well that the Commissioners did not mean what he meant when they wrote those words. He said—
  "They contemplated too definite matters. They laid down that there must be an oversea

  1267
  obligation lying upon the second line, and that, in the second place, there must be compulsory training in time of peace in order that men should be fit to discharge their duties in time of war."
  He added—
  "Both of these recommendations are ignored in the Bill."
  I have searched my memory and I have searched the pages of the Report, but I cannot find any reference to either of the qualifications mentioned. It is a gratification, of course, to be quoted as an authority, provided always that there is sufficient of one's opinion quoted to bring out its true meaning and that nothing is read in which the writer did not intend to include.
  I am afraid I have, I will not say an accusation, but an objection to take in the case of the noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches. The noble and gallant Earl used this passage in the first place, I think, in connection with a public letter which he addressed to authorities throughout the Kingdom, and I can only say that I think in that case also he was inclined to use it in a meaning more favourable to his proposals than the words bear out. Again he made a reference to it in July last, and he said then that the shortcomings of the Auxiliary Forces were proved by the evidence in our Report. My Lords, many shortcomings were proved by the evidence in our Report, but this quotation which has been so frequently used is in reality only three lines out of a paragraph which contains forty-five, and the heading of that paragraph is "General Observations on the Imperial Forces." It was the general system with which we were dealing in that paragraph, expansion outside the limits of the Regular Forces; and though, of course, alterations in the organisation of the Regular Forces might affect our position, the actual expansion of the Regular Forces themselves had nothing to do with the matter.
  In the earlier part of the paragraph we dealt with the limit which existed at the time with which we were dealing. As noble Lords know, the limit in 1899 was that laid down by Mr. Stanhope's Resolution of two army corps and one at home. It was the expansion beyond that that we had in view. I do not wish to go into
  1268
  details with regard to those particular matters, because I have no wish whatever to be supposed to be entering or making any attack upon the Administration of noble Lords opposite; but I want to enforce my position that it was the military system and nothing else with which we were dealing. The Commission drew attention in this part of their Report to defects in the military system. They found that the expansion which they thought necessary was difficult in 1899. That difficulty had not been removed when their Report was written, and therefore references were necessary to it in their Report. I go further: no advance had been made even last year. I make that assertion not on my own authority, but on that of the noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches. The noble and gallant Earl, speaking on 10th July last year, said —
  "My remark about the Regular Forces was misconstrued. I never said a word against the Regular Forces. I said that the armed forces of the Crown, taken as a body, were not more fit for war now than in 1899. I was talking about the recommendation made by the Commission presided over by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that outside the Regular Army there should be a power of expansion. Nothing has been done to bring that about. That was what I was alluding to last year, and what I allude to now."
  Therefore, my Lords, I think I may say that we are now for the first time discussing a method for bringing about the expansion to which we referred. I should like to read a few lines which follow those generally quoted, in order to show the defects to which we pointed. The words which are generally used are—
  "The true lesson of the war. in our opinion, is that no military system will be satisfactory which does not contain a power of expansion outside the limits of the Regular Forces of the Crown, whatever that limit may be."
  But we went on to say—
  "If the war teaches anything it is this, that throughout the Empire, in the United Kingdom, its Colonies, and dependencies, there is a reserve of military strength which for many reasons we cannot and do not wish to convert into a vast standing army, but which we may be glad to turn to account in our hour of need, as we did in 1899. In that year there was no preparation whatever for utilising these great resources. Nothing had been thought out either as to pay or organisation, as to conditions of service, or even as to arms. Even here in England it was to be an experiment."

  1269
  We mentioned further on the case of handbooks, and I desire to press that because it does not seem a very large thing to undertake. We had evidence from two officers who raised corps— Colonel Thornycroft and General Baden-Powell—of the use which had been made by them of handbooks, and we also had before us Sir William Nicholson, who was then Director of Military Intelligence, and, on being pressed on this point, he expressed his agreement as to the value of these handbooks. He even said that he had himself brought under consideration the necessity of inquiring into the organisation and equipment of Colonial forces, but that had been refused on the ground of expense, although, as a matter of fact, only a single officer for six months would have been necessary to carry out that operation. I do not wish to weary the House, but I do desire to make it quite clear that this passage from our Report which has received so much currency does not mean at all any adherence to compulsory service or any change of that description. As I have shown, we declared distinctly against a vast standing army. But, at the same time, we turned to the reserve of military strength found in the United Kingdom and its Colonies and dependencies. The noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches could not find last year that anything had been done in that direction, and therefore I contend that this Bill is the first effort really to grapple with the difficulty.
  The title of this Bill is the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. Therefore it deals with those forces, but, in the course of the discussion, both here and in another place, the rules of order have not been sufficient to prevent a pretty large divergence into the other parts of the military system. For my part, however, I do not intend on this occasion to say anything at length with regard to the Regular Forces. It is one of those alterations in organisation which affect expansiveness that the Expeditionary Force, which, under Mr. Stanhope's Memorandum, was 80,000 men, is now to be 160,000. Having said that, I do not intend to go further.
  I do not think that we ought to forget the lessons of 1899. But we must also
  1270
  remember the circumstances. And if we keep in remembrance the circumstances of that time I cannot see how anybody can argue that a call, tremendous and unprecedented such as the one that came at that time, could come without any warning. There were warnings enough in 1899 if they had been taken account of. I do not wish to raise any controversial argument, but the sudden emergency argument is sometimes put very extravagantly. What is the assumption? The assumption seems to be that the country will be found in the guardianship of the troops who have just assembled for the first time for six months training, and that they will be pounced upon by the best soldiers of the best European Army. I cannot, I am afraid, imagine a raid out of the blue. I do not see how it is to happen. I cannot imagine how all the Government agents and all the newspaper reporters of all the world are to fall asleep. But, even if that were the case, ex hypothesi the whole Expeditionary Force will be at home, and the Fleet cannot possibly have been blown out of the seas. There would have been a sufficient warning certainly if either of the other alternatives had taken place.
  Then there was a suggestion made in this House a few weeks ago, that the assemblage of the Fleet at Lagos might have afforded an opportunity for a raid of this description; but I rather think my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would have regarded that as an opportunity of catching the raiders like rats in a trap. Those who put forward the raid argument cannot have it both ways. Either the Fleet must be beaten, and then the Expeditionary Force would be at home, there being no one to convoy them across the seas: or the Fleet would convoy the force across the seas, in which case it would be in command of the seas and well able to make short work of the raiders. There might be a third supposition, that both the Fleet and the force had left our shores, and that while the Expeditionary Force was absent the Fleet had met with disaster. What, however, was the history of 1899? The orders to mobilise were given on 9th October, and the first field force, which consisted

  1271
  of 41,000 men, had all sailed by 17th November. Others followed in separate divisions, but it was not until the middle of March that 75,000 men had landed in South Africa. Therefore it took five months to complete what was an extremely successful mobilisation, on which I have always felt inclined to congratulate the noble Marquess who was Secretary of State for War at the time.
  Is the future to beat that record? If it does not, how long will it take an Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men to leave our shores? Certainly they cannot all leave on the same day, or during the same week or the same month. Their departure must be gradual, and during the process the scheme of the Bill now before your Lordships would come into operation, and the second line of troops would take their place, occupy the barracks, and undergo training; and therefore before the last troopship could have sailed the battalions thus trained would be on guard to undertake the most sacred duty that can befall any men— the protection of their homes. This Bill, therefore, will for the first time seriously attempt to provide the framework on which the organisation the Commission desired will be built.
  A good deal of criticism has been directed against the clauses relating to the County Associations. I am quite prepared to admit that there may be many blanks in those clauses. On the other hand, I am not sure that it is not more prudent to put matters tentatively. I believe that no mistake would be worse than to send down a scheme of a cast-iron description for the adoption of local bodies. If the scheme is flexible there. will be room for adaptation to local feeling and local prejudices, perhaps even sufficient to deal with the cases of the two Irish regiments which the noble Earl mentioned yesterday afternoon. We must remember, too, that in this case the County Associations will be helped by the sympathetic guidance of the military authorities. I think this will: also tend to the desired end, which is to have a force efficient for the protection of our shores against a foreign foe.
  I should like to be allowed to refer, though it is outside the limits.of this
  1272
  Bill, to another chapter in this eventful history. This Bill, of course, is for the United Kingdom, but the Commission, in the passage in their Report which I have quoted, referred also to the reserve military strength in our Colonies and dependencies. The proceedings of the Colonial Conference are now in your Lordships' hands, and I venture to think you will find the discussion on military defence not the least interesting in that volume. The Secretary of State's statement was received with acclamation. What was the principle underlying that statement? It was, as in this Bill, local autonomy — local autonomy under the guidance of a general staff recruited from the forces of the Empire as a whole. The discussion at the Conference ma de it perfectly clear that each Colony desired to manage its own local affairs. That was the view of Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand, and of South Africa, but all welcomed the idea and promise of trained advisers. The noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches said last night that the Secretary of State had not faced the elementary facts, and he went on to say that we had shut our eyes to such things as the Canadian frontier, and that our silence might be misinterpreted. A perusal of the proceedings of the Conference will show that that is not so. We did hear the views of Canada and the other Colonies. They are confident in their own resources, but entirely sympathetic to the defence of the Empire.
  This Bill is for the establishment of a Territorial Army for home defence. We can all remember the patriotic feeling in the dark days of 1899. Though the danger which threatened us was far distant and the difficulties of enlistment and service were not few, still that patriotic feeling manifested itself distinctly. Surely we are not wrong in saying that we may rely confidently in time of trouble on a similar manifestation under the scheme prepared by the Government. A man joins the Territorial Army knowing the call awaiting him, and that that call is that he should promptly take service on the occasion of an emergency to supplement the military training he has already had. Knowing, too, that he will take a share in no ill-directed effort but in a scheme which

  1273
  is suggested and approved by the combination of local knowledge and scientific attainments, which is best calculated to win his confidence and enthusiasm.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have listened to a very interesting speech from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, though, as he himself admitted, he sometimes wandered very far from the provisions of the Bill. Yet I am quite sure your Lordships were very glad to hear all he had to say upon the wide questions of Empire with which he dealt. The noble Earl made a complaint, at the beginning of his speech, that the speakers on behalf of the Government during last evening were interrupted by a series of questions put to them to elucidate the provisions of the Bill. I do not see what use a Second Reading discussion is unless it elucidates the principles and details of a Bill, and there never was a Bill the principles and details of which required more elucidation. It was discussed at certain length in another place, but, though several speeches were heard from the Government Bench, a considerable mistiness remained over the whole subject, and Members of the House of Commons were very little wiser after those speeches than they were before.
  And, my Lords, if there was required any other justification for the attitude and conduct of speakers on this side of the House, last night I think it would be found in the result, because the questions we put have led to answers being given in the very interesting speech of the noble Lord who spoke to us for the first time last night (Lord Lucas) and in the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, which have thrown considerable light on the matters under discussion. The noble Earl went on to discuss the question of compulsory service, and I was very glad to hear him say once more, on his own behalf and on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they were not in favour of compulsory service. There is no one in this House who does not profoundly respect the opinions of the noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches (Lord Roberts), but when he presses upon us the advantages of compulsory service we always feel that we are faced with this dilemma, that
  1274
  a large conscript Army is not required for home defence and cannot be used for foreign service. There is no country in the world which has used its conscript troops for service abroad unless they volunteered, and therefore the principle of compulsion maybe said not to be required for home service and to be of no use for foreign service.
  The advocates of this system feel that dilemma, and the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, speaking last night, tried to get out of the difficulty by contending that these compulsory troops were required for home service; that is to say, that the raids which we have to fear may be so powerful that we may require this enormous conscript Army in order to protect us. I am not one of those who belong to the extreme blue-water school, but I must say I think it is an exaggeration—I think it is a gross exaggeration—to say that we require the enormous force which would be raised by a conscript Army in order to be prepared, I will not say for any probable, but for any possible invasion of these shores. I do not believe that, under these circumstances, the people of this country will ever consent to undertake the burden on their time and on their purse which compulsory service would involve. They pay already for their Fleet. They stint nothing for their Fleet. I am quite certain that I am speaking what everybody knows when I say that in the opinion of this country there is no money that is required for the Fleet which ought not to be spent. Having arrived at that conclusion, I think the country would resist the extra burden which would be thrown upon them by a conscript Army.
  That brings me to the practical consideration of this Bill. We have to deal with a limited amount of money. Whatever money is required for the Fleet will be found, but, in the case of the Army, we have to deal with a limited amount, and we have to keep expenditure on that Service within the four corners of that sum. The first question which occurs to anyone approaching the discussion of a new Army system is: Is the money which Parliament is to be asked to provide going to be economically spent? That was the burden of the greater part of the speech of my noble friend Lord

  1275
  Midleton last night. He contended that under the military policy of the Government there would be a reduction of efficiency and practically no saving of money. To that we want a very definite answer. Is it or is it not the fact that under the policy of His Majesty's Government the Regular Forces of the Crown will be diminished by something over 20,000 men? If that be true, then at any rate we should expect to find a very considerable saving of money.
  The second question is: Is there to be a saving of money? My noble friend put the question to the Government. He asked whether the Government had made an accurate estimate of what their policy is likely to cost. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, although he dealt most fully with some of the questions which, my noble friend put, carefully abstained from dealing with that particular question. He said nothing about money. The noble Earl dealt with the Artillery, and told us in very definite language that there was to be no reduction in the Artillery— no reduction in numbers and no reduction in efficiency. The noble Earl nods assent. Therefore we may look upon it as an absolute pledge given by His Majesty's Government to Parliament that under their policy there will be no reduction whatever either in the numbers or in the efficiency of the Artillery. If my noble friend's speech had led to nothing except that distinct pledge from the Government his efforts certainly were not thrown away. My noble friend Lord Midleton suggested that upon the figures, so far as he could calculate them, there would be at the very best a saving of about £800,000. Now, do the Government agree with those figures? That is a very simple question, and one upon which I have no doubt the War Office have arrived at a very definite conclusion.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: We received the suggestion of the £ 800,000 at eight o'clock last night, and there has scarcely been time to inquire into it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am inclined to think that this £ 800,000 is likely to be rather a phantom figure. Have the Government reflected on the
  1276
  cost which the County Associations are likely to involve?. I do not want to repeat what my noble friend said last night, but, as the Government have not answered, it is necessary to remind them of the point. My noble friend suggested to your Lordships that each of these miniature War Offices all over the country would require a staff of clerks of its own. We who live in the country are very familiar with this sort of thing. Nearly all the reforms in local government which we have witnessed in our time have led to increased expenditure. It is quite true that they very often lead to greater efficiency, and I earnestly hope that this will be the result of the proposals of the Government; but without exception such proposals have led to greater expenditure. That is the universal experience I do not care what county in England you take.
  And what check is there upon the expenditure of these County Associations? Has that been thought out among the many matters which the Army Council have considered? The noble Earl who has just sat down took credit to himself and his colleagues that the clauses with regard to the County Associations were so vague. They are absolutely vague. There is no inference which Parliament can draw from the words in the clauses respecting the County Associations. I would venture to ask what is in the mind of the Government. What among all the plans and memoranda lying at the War Office at this moment is written as to the County Associations? Are they to have a lump sum, or are their bills to be presented and paid with a more or less check according as the War Office at the moment may think well? I do not say that the plan is a bad one, but I say it is a great and rather hazardous experiment.
  I studied at one time of my life the question of rating reform and how far money should be paid by way of grants -in-aid by the Exchequer to the county authorities, and the one axiom which is always laid down is that where a locality has the responsibility of administering a particular service it should be a contributory party to the cost, because, if the whole of the funds are provided by the Imperial Exchequer, extravagance is

  1277
  almost certain to result. That is an axiom in rating reform, but your Lord ships will observe that in this instance no attention appears to have been paid to it. The money is to be raised from the taxpayers and paid over either in a lump sum, or according as it is required, to the local authority, who is to manage it apparently in its absolute discretion. I would ask the Government to tell us whether the sympathetic guidance of which the noble Earl spoke will deal with points of that kind—whether the County Associations will have an absolutely free hand, or whether the general principles on which the Government desire they should work will be indicated.
  I will not dwell at any great length upon the clauses dealing with the Territorial Force. I notice that the noble Earl, in that part of his speech which had reference to the Bill, almost entirely confined himself to the Territorial Force. I will only say this upon that head, that some of the provisions which deal with the Territorial Force have been found, and are still found, by Volunteer officers, who will mainly constitute the officers of the Territorial Force, to be of too drastic a character. I may instance, for example, the famous proviso in Clause 16, which enacts that after the Reserves have all been called out the whole of the Territorial Force shall be embodied for an indefinite period. I will not labour the point. Your Lord ships are well aware how difficult it would be for all the Volunteers in the different parts of England to be mobilised for an indefinite period upon such an emergency as is described, and I think that in his later speeches in another place the Secretary of State explained that as a matter of fact that particular proviso will never be rigidly enforced, and that it will be adapted to the circumstances of each corps. But, if that be so, the proviso ought to disappear, because it has frightened, is frightening, and will continue to frighten a very large number of possible candidates for the Volunteer Force. Under the earlier words of the clause there is ample power to call out as many of the Territorial Force as may be required, and this drastic proviso is really unnecessary.
  1278
  Since the clause was drafted there has been a great change in the proposals of the Government which centre round the Militia. Those changes I need not say, so far as they go, I welcome very heartily. When the Bill was first introduced the Secretary of State and his advisers were wedded to a rigid interpretation of the scheme of two lines as against three lines. I think the Secretary of State was perhaps misled to some extent by the symmetry of the proposal, and he conceived that it would be a proper and a symmetrical arrangement that the land forces of Crown should be split into halves: on one side should be all the professional soldiers, and on the other side all the amateur soldiers— on one side all the soldiers who were ready to go into action and on the other side all those who were unready. That was his conception, and consequently he organised the Army in two lines. People began to see that there was a great blemish in this proposal. It was quite true that the Regular Forces of the Crown were ready, and that there was a second line which was organised to appear upon the scene of action in six months time. But there was a gap. What was there to stand behind the first line in the earlier months of the war? Were there any organised units which would be ready to take the place of the Regular Army in the garrisons at home and in the Colonies, and were there any troops sufficiently organised to take their position on the lines of communication in the earlier stages of the war?
  The noble Earl who has just sat down has indicated that in his opinion all these fears of great emergency may be swept aside. He said we should always have warning. My Lords, I look upon a speech of that kind with profound dismay. I believe that the noble Earl cannot do a worse service to his country than by repeating statements of that kind. Of course, we expect and believe and hope that there will not be a war, and the chances are that there will not be a war for very many years. The chances are, no doubt, even stronger that we shall be able to meet that war properly and with sufficient readiness; but we keep up the armed Forces of the Crown as an insurance

  1279
  against possible danger, and the whole raison d'etre of the Volunteer Force and of the other Forces of the Crown is lest that emergency should overtake us.
  The noble Earl says we should have warning, that we would know beforehand in sufficient time that there was going to be a great war and that we could then mobilise. I can assure him that the difficulties of the course he proposes are very great, and I remember circumstances connected with the South African war which justify my observation. When negotiations are very critical, when peace and war are hanging in the balance, you cannot order a general mobilisation without precipitating the very crisis you wish to avoid. The fact is that to the last moment a Government will always desire to avoid mobilisation. Therefore the noble Earl's phrase is a most unfortunate one. We must be ready, not a few months after mobilisation, but the next morning after mobilisation. If war becomes inevitable on a Tuesday we must be ready in the course of that week, if necessary, to move the whole of our Regular Force abroad, so far, of course, as our shipping would permit, and to mobilise the troops which stand immediately behind in order to support them in that great operation.
  It is not sufficient to have troops like the Territorial Force, which will only be ready after six months training. We require organised Auxiliary units to support them as soon as the Regular troops themselves are ready. Therefore I welcome the rehabilitation in the scheme of the Militia. That Force affords an opportunity for obtaining these organised units. I do not care whether you say that the armed Forces of the Crown are to be organised in three lines or in two lines. It is largely a question of phrase. But behind the first line there must be a supplementary line, something which is not necessarily quite so good, but which is ready as soon as the first line to support them in the field. The Secretary of State, evidently impressed with that view, saw it was necessary to change his scheme, and the Militia reappeared. The Militia constitute the only organised units available for the purpose I have indicated. That makes a great change, and I think a good deal of the interesting speech
  1280
  which was delivered by Lord Lucas last night was really conceived upon the basis that the scheme had not been altered as it has been by tire rehabilitation of the Militia. He seemed to think that the important thing was to merge the greater part of the Militia absolutely in the Regular Force, and to change all their characteristics so that they should be assimilated to the Regular Army and lose as far as possible their distinctive character. I do not think that is good policy.
  There are limitations upon the existing Militia which ought to be swept away, as, for example, that they can only be used, compulsorily, at any rate, for service at home. There is also the fact that the standard of efficiency of the Militia is not so high as is required for the purposes I have indicated. But if those two defects could be remedied, then beyond that the character of the force should be changed as little as possible. Now, why do I say that? I say it because you have to consider the sentiments of the men who form the Militia now and who are going to form the Militia under your new scheme. They are voluntary agents. They cannot be compelled to join your new force. You will have to ask them; you will have to go on your knees to ask them. You must consider their feelings, and it is no good attempting to ride rough shod over them. Unless the men of the Militia consent to back you up you are defeated on the very threshold of your scheme. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that you should consider, and consider carefully, the susceptibilities of Militiamen.
  In order to achieve what I have already indicated as the necessities of the case you will have to make certain rather drastic changes. You will be compelled—I frankly admit it—to admit more Regular officers than you have already to assist in the training of the Militia, and you will have to insist that they shall enlist for foreign service. But the Government want to go further. They not only say the Militia must enlist for foreign service, but that they shall go on foreign service, if required, with and under perfect strangers, men with whom they have not served before. That will be a very stiff fence to jump.

  1281
  We on this side of the House can take no responsibility for it whatever. I do not say, speaking only for myself, that I shall oppose it; but do not let it be said afterwards that it was done by the general consent of your Lordships' House. That is not so.
  So far as Militia officers are concerned they are quite willing to admit Regular officers, and they are quite willing to go on foreign service in time of emergency, but they are not willing—that is to say, they cannot advise—that they should go under strangers. I changed that phrase because, as your Lordships know, a great misunderstanding has taken place as to the attitude of Militia officers. We do not refuse anything. We are not in a position to refuse anything. We shall do, of course, as we an; told, but, if we are asked for our advice, we cannot advise that these men should be asked to serve under perfect strangers. Supposing the Government do not agree with us—and I am afraid they do not—then I would ask them in every way in their power to mitigate the severity of that change. In the first place, as your Lordships know, there are two categories of Militia battalions under the scheme. There are the battalions which are mainly to be used as units, and there are the battalions which are mainly to be used as draft-producing machines. These battalions are seventy-four in number. They are to have a large number of Regular officers assigned to them, and it was a matter of great interest to us at the beginning of this debate to know what would become of the Militia officers. A good deal of light has been thrown on that point both by Lord Lucas and by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and we understand that even in those battalions the equities of the position of existing Militia officers are to be considered to some extent.
  But I am not only thinking of the feeling of Militia officers. I am thinking of the efficiency of these battalions. I am not satisfied to know that after a certain number of years' service a Militia subaltern will become a captain. What I want to know is whether he will be a substantive captain, an acting captain— that is to say, whether he will have command of one of the companies into which
  1282
  these battalions must be divided. There should be Militia officers commanding companies, not in their own interests but in the interests of these battalions How can you do without them?
  I would ask your Lordships to pay attention to this rather dry detail for a moment. What officers are going to command the battalion when it is out for its annual training? We know there are to be four regular captains at the depot training the recruits, but once a year, for a longer or a shorter period, the whole battalion is to go out for training, 500 strong. I suppose the companies will not be more than 100 strong. All the Regular captains will not be available, because, although the Militia battalion goes out for training, the Regular officers who have had charge of the recruits have also to do the work of the depot of the Line battalion, and the Line recruits will be still at the depot and will require training. Therefore, a number of these officers will have to be left behind when the Militia battalions go out for training. The four Regular captains and two subalterns and so forth will not be available. Consequently you must have some other substantive officers even in time of peace to command Militia battalions when out for training. And if the training is longer than the Government have indicated, as I earnestly hope will ultimately be the case, the necessity for these extra officers becomes all the more apparent.
  I am speaking of time of peace. But take time of war. What is to be the function of these battalions in time of war? In the first place, they are to send out drafts. The drafts must go under officers, and if you send out a sufficient number of men in a draft you will require a captain to go with them, and of course it is a far better system that when you send out a draft an officer who knows the men should accompany them. So that in time of war you will require other officers besides these Regular officers, for, according to the Government's scheme, the Regular officers will be left in England to train more recruits and so supply successive drafts to the Army in the field. The Secretary of State went further. He said that occasionally these seventy-four battalions will what he calls "throw off" battalions—

  1283
  whole battalions to fight in the field. I have never been quite able to understand what capacity there is for throwing off battalions from 500 men if you leave anything behind. The Secretary of State thinks he can do it, but, if he does it, these battalions which are thrown off will require trained officers whom the men know and who know the men. Regular officers, as I say, will not be available, and therefore you will require Militia officers serving under Militia engagements as officers of the battalion.
  The first mitigation I would suggest in the Government's scheme is that they should recognise frankly that officers of the old stamp should continue to be officers of these battalions—that is to say, that the posts for officers should not be confined to Regular officers. This leads me to suggest to the Government that as a matter of fact it is a great pity that they should resolve so firmly that these seventy-four battalions should never, or hardly ever, act as units. Why do they come to that conclusion? Why do they think that twenty-seven battalions will be sufficient for the purpose I have indicated— that of acting as units in colonial garrisons and for lines of communication? Why, my Lords, in the South African War you used sixty-eight Militia battalions for this purpose. Why should you think that in a future war you will only require twenty-seven? It is not likely that the next great war in which we shall be engaged will be of less dimensions than the South African War. I think it will be of greater dimensions; and the idea that you are likely to have sufficient troops for the line of communications with less than half the number you used in South Africa seems to me an assumption founded on no reason whatever. If that is so, then twenty-seven is not sufficient, and you will require many more battalions to act as units on the outbreak of war. Is it not far better to say so at once? Why should you depress the spirits of all these seventy-four battalions by telling them they never must act as units when you think it highly probable that they will have so to act? If it were said that the Militia must furnish drafts, that they might have to act as units, not twenty-seven battalions but
  1284
  all of them, that would to a large extent mitigate the natural mortification which the decision of the Government must have inflicted on the Militia.
  I come to one other point, and here I hope the Government will agree, because they have already gone a long way in that direction. Lord Lucas told us last night that, although the Militia must be content to be drafted into the Line in time of war, yet it was the intention of the Government to draft them as a general rule only into their Territorial battalion; and he went even further, because he said that, with respect to existing men serving in the Militia, the Government were prepared to give an absolute promise that existing Militiamen should never be asked to form drafts except to their own Territorial battalion. That is a concession, but I would ask the Government not to make two bites at a cherry. Let them go the full length and say what they ought to say, that tinder our Territorial system the other battalions of the Territorial regiment ought only to be drafted into the first or second battalion. of their own regiment. That is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and it is the system which obtains with regard to the first and second battalions already. Why should not the third battalion be treated in a precisely similar way? That, again, would be some mitigation. There is a certain sympathetic feeling between the Militia battalion and the Line battalion of the same Territorial regiment, and the Militiaman would not think himself entirely among strangers when he was passed from one to the other.
  Lastly, I suggest that with regard to disembodiment the present system which obtains in the Militia should be preferred to the system under the Reserve Forces Act, which the Government propose to substitute for it. Under the Militia Act when the period of active service comes to an end the whole unit is disembodied together, but under the Reserve Forces Act once a man has been called out for permanent service he has no claim to be dismissed to his home at all until the end of his engagement, he having once more re-entered into the active Line. Within that limit each man has

  1285
  to stand by himself. He is not disembodied with his friends. He is allowed to go to his home as an individual, or he is not. That, again, is a variation from the existing system in the Militia which I deplore. I think it far better that the men should understand, if they are to be subjected to this process of being sent abroad and being drafted into strange battalions, that at any rate when the war comes to an end and the Militia return they should all have a chance of going back to civil life together. The continuance of Militia officers as substantive officers, the concession that all the Militia ought to be capable of being used as units, the concession that they should only be drafted into their own Line battalions, and that they should all be disembodied together—these are concessions which I think the Government might grant.
  There are one or two other points to which I should like to call the attention of His Majesty's Government. They are in the direction of improvements in the standard of efficiency of the Militia under these new circumstances. There is the question of the training, which I have already mentioned, but on which I will say one or two further words. We want to be clear about the training, and, though I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary for War, I am afraid I was not quite clear as to what training is proposed for the Militia under the new state of things. A few weeks ago the noble Earl told us, in great detail, what the training of the Special Contingent was to be. There was, first of all, to be a preliminary drill, which in many cases would be divided into two parts, and then there was to be an annual training which was to be fifteen days one year 'and twenty-one days the next. I want to know whether the same system is to prevail now that the Militia have taken the place of the Special Contingent. Is the six months preliminary drill to be divided into two parts, and is the annual training only to be fifteen days one year and twenty-one days the next? If that is so, I regret it. It is a great mistake to have the preliminary drill split into two parts, because the recruits will not know what to expect when they join the force, and
  1286
  employers will not know what they are in for if a long period of preliminary drill may be suddenly projected upon them two or three years after the men have joined. It is far better that the six months preliminary drill should be taken together.
  Then I would ask for information about the annual drill. Last night the noble Earl the Under-Secretary said that there would be fifteen days annual drill and musketry as well. Does he mean that there will be fifteen days annual drill and musketry training every year—because the Secretary of State observed in another place that he could not promise that there would be training every year? It may well be that on reflection the Government have come to the conclusion that there must be training every year. If so we should like to know the facts. My uncertainty applies to annual drill as well as to preliminary training. It is much better to have a fixed period, and to have the same period every year. The idea that musketry training can be put in the background, that you can have six days of it, and have that only once in every two years, seems to me to be the most absurd proposal that could possibly be made. Musketry training is much the most important part of the training. It is not the whole training, of course, but of the two I venture to say— though perhaps I ought to speak with more diffidence in the presence of great soldiers —that the musketry training is the most important. It is of the greatest moment that there should be adequate musketry training, and that it should take place every year.
  That means a local training, and I do not conceal from your Lordships that the suggestions which I have made, if they were adopted by the Government, would approximate the position of the seventy-four battalions to the position of the twenty-seven battalions. And this leads me to ask His Majesty's Government why they maintain these two categories at all. I am sure your Lord ships will allow me to say that I have not approached this Bill in a Party spirit. In the criticisms which I have made I have tried to put myself more or less in the position of the Government, and to work at their Bill from their own point of

  1287
  view. I ask them, in all seriousness, why they maintain these two categories. The distinction that is made is the most invidious thing in the world. How are the Government going to pick the battalions which are to go into the one category and those which are to go into the other? I do not envy them the prospect. I do not envy them the friction and the justifiable indignation which they will arise when they begin to deal with this question. What they had much better do would be to introduce a sufficient number of Regular officers into all the Militia battalions to raise them to the standard of efficiency which they require.
  I am afraid I have troubled your Lordships at great length. I will only say, in conclusion, that I am grateful to the Government for having at any rate maintained the Militia in being. I earnestly hope that they will not obstinately set their face against further Amendments in the Bill when we get into Committee; and if they do make the concessions which I have ventured to suggest to them they will mitigate the not unjustifiable mortification which the Militia undoubtedly feel at the treatment to which they must perforce be subjected.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Earl the Secretary' of State for the Colonies I could not help feeling a certain amount of commiseration for him, inasmuch as he appeared to me to be endeavouring to discharge a difficult, if not impossible, task— namely, that of reconciling the finding of his own Commission with the Bill which has obtained his enthusiastic support. It is no use the noble Earl trying to get out of the fact that the main finding of his Commission was that what the country needs beyond anything else is the power of expansion in our military forces. I submit, in spite of all that has fallen from noble Lords on both sides of the House, that there is no expansion provided for under this Bill. You do not add an officer, you do not add a man; as a matter of fact, you no not take a single step to render the country more fit to grapple with an emergency than we were a few years ago. I believe that to be a per-
  1288
  fectly plain and accurate statement of the case, and I do not believe any independent military authority would contradict it.
  I observe that, with the charity which always characterises Members of this House, nearly everyone who has spoken has endeavoured to find some thing favourable in the Bill. I confess, so far as I am concerned, that I should have thought that the only people who would rejoice over these proposals were the people who were contemplating making war on this country. To my mind there is only one favourable aspect with regard to it—namely, that it is absolutely bound to leave us in so deplorable a condition that we shall before long be obliged to take very radical steps in order to put ourselves. in a safe position again. Indeed, I am not at all sure whether it is worth our while to discuss the Bill at all. I believe that historians will record with astonishment that one of the principal measures of the session was a Bill the main feature of which was that preparation for war was not going to begin until war had broken out. Rather move than a year ago we were led to suppose that a new era was going to dawn on this country, that a complete transformation was going to take place, that we were going to see created "a. nation in arms.'' We were led to believe that hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men would flock voluntarily to be trained. A picture was drawn of instructors in summer cycling from one village green to another, and in winter from one school house to another in order to drill these expectant volunteers. Smart young solicitors were going to act as adjutants for several battalions at once— a sort of combination of Arcadia and Aldershot, with a dash of Lincoln's Inn thrown in. In addition there was to be beneficent landowners offering their land for nothing, sympathetic employers who were to let their men go and pay their wages at the same time, and sympathetic representatives of labour who were going to do all they could to assist this movement.
  What is the result of all this torrential eloquence about "a nation in arms" and reservoirs of national spirit and all the rest of it? The result is a reduced Regular Army—a largely reduced

  1289
  Regular Army. That is one result. The other result is that the Militia is now liable for foreign service. The Yeomanry remain precisely where they are, the Volunteers remain precisely where they are but have a new name. Literally the only new military asset which is acquired are the County Associations—a boon which does not appear to be thoroughly appreciated in all quarters. This is the result of the torrential rhetoric, and, I suppose I ought to add, "clear thinking." The "clear thinker," the person who is responsible for all this, has the audacity to tell us that we are 50 per cent. stronger now than we were before he assumed office. Personally I am not in the least surprised, I am not even disappointed, but I take it that there must be many who are disappointed, because when rather more than a year ago I ventured to express the opinion that the present War Secretary would not be more successful than his predecessors, I was at once met with the assurance that the new Secretary for War was an entirely different man from his predecessors. My friends informed me that he was quite different from them; he had a deep insight into military matters; he was a man of inflexible determination, and had a thorough grasp of his subject; and, above all, he was going to do what none of his predecessors had ever done—give the voluntary system a fair chance.
  Many people appear to have been taken in. It is remarkable to me as showing the extraordinary power which oratory and rhetoric, or, as I should prefer to call it, claptrap, still possess over many people. So far as I can see, it is perfectly easy to be a highly successful Secretary of State for a short time. As long as you continue to talk about a nation in arms, national duties, reservoirs, and all the rest of it, people are ready to applaud you to the echo. But there is no particular merit in this. It is merely a question of practice. Anybody who has had practice in public speaking can turn out these unimpeachable sentiments. In fact, you do not require a human being to do it; it can be done just as well by a gramaphone. It is only when you begin to act that you are found out.
  1290
  I should like to ask sober and common-sense people why this particular Secretary of State should be expected to succeed where his predecessors were supposed to have failed. There are two explanations. One is the extremely unflattering one, which I decline to accept myself, that all his predecessors were incompetent men. The second alternative is that his predecessors never gave the voluntary system a fair chance. Well, I am aware that there is a sort of lingering superstition that there is an immense amount of untapped patriotism, so to speak, in this country. It really seems to be thought by many persons here that every able-bodied man in this country has got somewhere about him a sort of bump of patriotism which only requires to be touched in order to develope him into a red-hot patriot, and apparently the agency by which this patriotism is to be invoked is the agency of the County Associations.
  As to the County Associations, I confess that I see nothing to admire in the idea. Surely national defence is the duty, not of local bodies, but of the Government, and it appears to me that this is nothing but a mean-spirited attempt on the part of the Government or the War Office to transfer their obligations to local authorities, and eventually, I suppose, to saddle on the rates to some extent the Territorial Army. How, as a matter of fact, can these Associations have any effect at all upon the spirit of volunteering? It is gratifying, more especially in view of the attacks which are now being made upon land, to observe the excessive confidence which is placed in that somewhat archaic official the Lord-Lieutenant; but, after all, what power of peaceful persuasion does a Lord-Lieutenant possess? How can he or anybody else on the proposed Associations induce an unwilling man to enter the Territorial Army? It appears to me that to these Associations will be assigned the somewhat undignified task of endeavouring to persuade a small fraction of the population to discharge what ought to be a national duty. I feel inclined to suggest, as a motto for these Associations, something of this kind: "We expect that every man in this country will find some other man

  1291
  or boy to do his duty for him." That is really the principle upon which they will be expected to work, and even supposing that they do get into working order it is perfectly clear that everything in the nature of uniformity will be practically impossible.
  To return for a few seconds to the question of the present Secretary of State and his predecessors. On the whole, it is not fair to charge any of those gentlemen with failure. It is not my noble friend Lord Midleton who has failed; it is not Mr. Arnold-Forster who has failed; it is not even Mr. Haldane who is about to fail; what has really failed is the voluntary system. Let us be honest if we can. I, at all events, desire to be honest, and I do not impute any fault to these distinguished men. I attribute their failure solely and simply to the voluntary system. As a country we are exactly in the position of a man who has got an excellent carriage which has seen better.days while all his neighbours possess motor cars. He finds that he is unable to get as much work out of his carriage as he would like, and he sends for various experts to give him advice. One expert suggests a new wheel, another that the seating accommodation should be altered, the third proposes something else, and the fourth —and this is the most acceptable proposal of all—suggests that the whole thing should be covered with a new coat of paint. That is exactly the position we are in when we talk about military reform.
  The voluntary system does not give us the number we require; it never has given us the number we require and it never will. The voluntary system clearly broke down a few years ago, and to my mind this Bill is absolute and convincing proof that the voluntary system is recognised on every side to have broken down. I can prove it in this way. Your Territorial Army is fixed at 300,000 men. Upon what do you base those figures? They are not based on your military necessities in the least, but solely on the fact that 300,000 is the largest number you can count on getting under the voluntary system. Nothing has excited greater criticism in this Bill than the proposal that the training of these
  1292
  troops should not begin until after war has broken out. Why is this? There is nobody here, I take it, who will assert that training after war has broken out is better than training before war has broken out. But the evident reason why the Government have been compelled to act in this way is that if you were to exact six months training from recruits before they joined the Territorial Army you would not get any men in continuous employment under conditions of that kind. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe you will even get the training after hostilities have broken out, because after what occurred in 1889 I doubt whether any Government would have the courage to call out these men. Therefore, we should be reduced to this, that when the Regular Army and the Militia had left this country we should be obliged to keep our Fleet chained round our shores in order to give the country some sense of confidence.
  I do not feel that I have any particular right to speak on this question, but there is one point which I desire to touch upon before I sit down. I listened with considerable attention to the speeches from the Front Opposition Bench, and I must admit with regret that, although those speeches were no doubt admirable as regards their quality of destructive criticism, they offered no alternative at all. To use the jargon of the day, the Government Bill holds the field. The only real alternative is that proposed by the noble and gallant Field Marshal Earl Roberts and my noble friend Lord Milner. Unfortunately, those two distinguished Members of your Lordships' House apparently do not count. They represent—and I am proud to call myself one of their followers—a great and growing opinion of the country, but they evidently do not command much confidence upon either of the Front Benches. It is curious to observe the different estimates in which the opinion of the noble and gallant Field Marshal is held according as he happens to agree or disagree with the Government. When the noble and gallant Earl agrees with the Government he is triumphantly cited in favour of their plan as the greatest military authority of the age. But when he disagrees he is politely ignored by both

  1293
  Front Benches, just as much by the Front Bench on this side as by the Front Bench on the other, as if he were some obscure retired Militia major with a grievance, or somebody of that kind. My noble friend Lord Milner does not count either. Personally I attach a great deal more importance to the opinion of the noble and gallant Earl and of my noble friend Lord Milner than I do to that of most other people. I attach more importance to their opinion than even to that of my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Donoughmore, who have spoken from the Front Opposition Bench in the course of this debate. Lord Roberts and Lord Milner have at all events the courage of their opinions. They are not afraid to say, and in my humble way I say too, that the voluntary system has broken down, that you cannot put it right until you have recourse to universal service, and that universal service must be a statutory obligation. I maintain that this is the only logical attitude. We are always being told, and more even now than at any other time, that it is the duty of every man to defend his country. If it is the duty of every man to defend his country, why in Heaven's name and in the name of commonsense is it left optional for him to do so when other things are made obligatory upon him? And if it is absolutely essential to our safety, as we have been told over and over again, that we should have a great trained reserve, why, again, do we leave it to chance and the County Associations? I have listened with the greatest pain to the deplorable utterances of my noble friends on the Front Opposition Bench with regard to this question of compulsion. It appears to me that their horror and their hatred of even the mildest form of compulsion, such as is suggested by the National Service League, is such that they are literally prepared not only to run any risks, but apparently to see the country actually conquered or annihilated rather than adopt a system of compulsion.
  THE EARL. OF DONOUGHMORE: No.
  LORD NEWTON: They will not have it. But it is all very well to say "No."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I do not know whether he thinks he is representing my views, but I said that compulsory service was not necessary I did not say I would not adopt it if it was necessary.
  LORD NEWTON:I am glad to have drawn that amount of repentance from the noble Marquess, because being a young man I feel sure he will live long enough to regret having made the statement to which I alluded. But my noble friend below me (the Earl of Donoughmore) has not cleared himself. They both went out of their way to applaud the equally deplorable sentiments uttered by speakers last night. If you are going absolutely to refuse to discuss at all the question of compulsion merely because it may involve some personal inconvenience, it seems to me that the sooner we sweep away all this talk about national defence and Army reform the better, because it becomes little more than a farce.
  I have only one other matter to refer to, and that is with regard to voting for this Bill. We are asked to vote for this Bill because it is the last and final chance for the voluntary system. If I really thought that was the case I would vote for it with the greatest pleasure. If anybody could assure me that that was a true statement, and that compulsion would follow if this Bill were not a success, I would gladly vote for it; but I am afraid I cannot regard the Bill as anything but an immense and solemn sham. It is a Bill which was not brought in in the least in order to meet the military requirements of the nation. It is a Bill brought in in order to redeem rash pledges made during the election and at other times in favour of economy and so forth; it is a Bill brought in for political reasons; it has been emasculated and altered also for political reasons, and that being so I personally prefer to have nothing to do with it.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, when we come to look at what this Bill contains we find nothing whatever except the dry bones on which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposes to hang the newest War Office scheme.

  1295
  There is nothing whatever that we can discover from the Bill itself, and that being so the next thing we should refer to would be the speeches of the Secretary of State himself. The right hon. Gentleman has made a great many speeches; I do not believe any man in this world holding the office he holds has ever talked so much and said so little. If by any chance he has made a speech which appeared to contain some glimmerings of a system or of a principle, he has always hastened shortly afterwards to make another speech in exactly the opposite direction. When he first came into office he made a great many speeches, and the bulk of them might have been made by the noble and gallant Earl Lord Roberts. My noble friend below me has alluded to those speeches, and, therefore, I will not detain your Lordships by further quoting from them. But of late the right hon. Gentleman— I suppose in consequence of some political pressure—has altered his position, and the last few speeches he has made might be fitly put into the mouth of that Member of another place who is the proud father of an innocent-minded boy of fourteen years of age who as yet is untainted by militarism.
  Then we come to the Bill as introduced in this House and the speech of the Undersecretary of State for War, from whom we might have expected some information. But the noble Earl is like the needy knife-grinder: he had no tale to tell us at all; and it was not until we heard Lord Lucas, whose most interesting and informing speech we listened to with so much pleasure last night, that any details or any inkling of what was really behind this Bill was vouchsafed to your Lordships. I am afraid I must, with all respect, put the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the same category, as I did not get much information from it. That being so, let us turn from the speeches of these high officials to what they have actually done.
  I will take first the question of the Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War has done two things which to my knowledge have never been done by any other Secretary of State for War since such a person has existed in this country. First
  1296
  of all, he has reduced the Regular Army to below what it was before the late war. As a rule, after a war the Regular Army has been largely reduced, but it has always remained stronger than the establishment before the war. In this case, however, the right hon. Gentleman bas not only abolished all the additions that ware made to the Regular Army for the purposes of the war, but also additions made before the war. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman has largely reduced the pay of the Regular Army. Never has faith been broken with men to the extent and to the amount that it has been broken with those men who entered the Army on the understanding that they were to receive service pay. From 20,000 to 30,000 men have had their pay reduced from 2d. to 8d. a day, and that loss falls with excessive force upon those branches of the service who receive corps pay—engineers, army service men, and various other tradesmen whom you wish to attract to the Army by good pay and generous treatment.
  Then I should like to say a word with regard to the riding-masters. The British cavalry has had every possible fault found with it on every possible occasion, but if there is one thing upon which everybody is agreed, it is that there is no force in the world which rides anything like as well as the British cavalry. That being so, what can one put it down to except to the fact that the instruction of the riding-masters is of the very best description? These officers have been swept away and an adjutant is to take on their duties. I do not know what is the case in the Regular Army, but in my own regiment the duties of the office have about trebled within the last five years, and I do not see how much time the adjutant is going to spare from the task of grappling with the mass of correspondence for the instruction of recruits in the riding-school. It is still more remarkable when you think that this great Liberal Government, which considers itself to represent the democracy of the country, has proceeded to reduce the number of officers who are promoted from the ranks. The position of riding-master peculiarly suited men promoted from the ranks. It gave them an assured position and a respectable

  1297
  pension; but now the whole of the cavalry will be deprived in future of that particular form of promotion.
  I now come to the Militia. I am afraid I cannot take the same rose-coloured view that is taken by my noble friend on the Front Opposition Bench. This scheme is the end and the abolition of the Militia. It is no use saying otherwise. Do not let noble Lords deceive themselves. To show that I am making no mistake I will quote a few words from the letter of the military correspondent of The Times, who appears to know considerably more about the scheme than anybody else, including the Secretary of State for War himself. The words he used on Friday, 21st June, were these—
  "Until we know what the attitude of the Militia will be, nothing is finally settled. The Militia arc the best judges of their own interests, and they must decide for themselves what they will do."
  I do not think we are going to have much chance of doing that.
  "In order to leave no opening for misconception hereafter, it is necessary to remark that whether the old Militia keeps or loses its name of Militia in the.3rd and 4th battalions it will in effect wholly' cease."
  Let us not, then, deceive ourselves in any way: the Militia does entirely disappear.
  If I might mention a personal matter, I am chairman of the Militia Rifle Association, which is the only central body which in any way represents the Militia, and therefore I venture to address your Lordships at some length on this matter, because I represent the feeling and opinion of the force. I must go back for a few moments to matters of history, and I will take first the Crimean War. Your Lordships will remember that the Militia was embodied for a considerable period during the Crimean War and the Mutiny. After the war, for some years— certainly for a year or two— the greater part of the regiments were not trained. The Militia regiments were not kept up to strength, and no attempt was made to recruit them in any way. The first attempt made to deal with the Militia was in 1866, I think, when a Committee was appointed. General Peel was Minister for War, and the Militia Reserve was formed. The original idea of the
  1298
  Militia Reserve was that they should be supernumerary to the establishment of the Militia. There is one remarkable tiling about Army reform in this country, and that is, that while all the things which are detrimental to the Militia always remain, anything which is for the good of the Militia always drops out; and although the Militia Reserve remained, the question of making them supernumerary to the Militia absolutely dropped out.
  Then I come to Lord Card well's scheme to which the Under-Secretary of State referred us. Lord Cardwell's scheme has given us the Regular Army which we now possess. But I think the noble Earl forgot—possibly he does not know— that the whole of Lord Cardwell's scheme was based on a largely increased Militia, dependent, in the first place, on voluntary enlistment, but to be made up by ballot if voluntary enlistment would not fill the ranks. There again the whole of Lord Cardwell's scheme went through, with the exception of the one portion which would benefit the Militia, the resuscitation of the, ballot being dropped. What happened? The Militia was brought closer to the Regular Army, with the result that the recruiting of the Militia was moved out of the hands of the Militia into the hands of the Regular Army. That meant that the recruiting of the Militia ceased to be anybody's particular business, and it became merely a side issue of recruiting for the Regular Army. The old Militia permanent adjutants, who had their disadvantages, were abolished, and adjutants were sent for short periods from the Army, and they were judged not by what they had done for the Militia regiments to which they were attached, but by the number of recruits they induced to transfer to the Regular Army. Therefore the whole result of Lord Cardwell's reform was that the Militia was very much damnified in every possible way.
  Another horrible thing that happened about that time was that some abominable person invented the expression "Auxiliary Forces." I do not know who he was, but if ever there was a man who injured his country it was that person. The expression "Auxiliary Forces" was used to wrap up three absolutely distinct

  1299
  forces, serving under different conditions with different ideas, different feelings, and different sentiments, and nothing has done more harm to those three bodies than that enforced triangular sort of management.
  I now come to the War. The Duke of Bedford some time back expounded to your Lordships at some length the very great services which the Militia rendered during the War. Those services are forgotten as though the War had never taken place. The short memory of this country is amazing. The dust and smoke of war has hardly cleared away before the fact that you employed 100,000 Militia in South Africa is forgotten as though it had never taken place. But the officers and men of the Militia remember it, many of them to their cost. Those who have had no experience cannot be aware of the immense amount of hardship which was inflicted upon both officers and men and unflinchingly borne by them by the prolonged embodiment of the War. I could give your Lordships a dozen cases where the entire livelihood of an officer was lost by his volunteering for a duty which he had not originally agreed to do.
  Then came the advent of my noble friend Lord Midleton to the War Office. He was the first Secretary of State for War for a great many years who attempted to do anything whatever for the Militia. First of all, he largely increased the pay during the training. He levelled up the pay of the non-commissioned ranks to that of the corresponding ranks in the Regular Army. He largely increased the bounties and established a system of bounties during the non-training period. It has been said constantly by those who apparently are determined to depreciate the Militia that in spite of the enormous cost the Militia has gone down in numbers. There are certain reasons for that. If your Lordships will take the trouble to turn to the returns of the Militia for the years following the Crimean War, you will see that prolonged embodiment which gives to the Militia work which a great many of the men never contemplated, or at any rate looked upon as exceedingly unlikely, when they originally enlisted, always exercises and must exercise a deterrent effect upon recruiting, for a certain period. You must also remember
  1300
  that the increased recruiting consequent upon the war somewhat anticipated the recruiting crop of ensuing years; that is to say, a certain number of men enlisted both in the Regular Army and in the Militia who would not then have enlisted had it not been for the war. I can assure your Lordships, and I think every Militiaman in this House will agree, that if it had not been for those non-training bounties introduced by my noble friend the Militia to-day would have been in a parlous condition.
  Then there is another thing that my noble friend Lord Midleton did. He took up the question of the proper training of officers. He threw open a large number of courses to officers and set aside £ 10,000 in the first year for the pay and allowance of officers while going through those courses. Another thing done while my noble friend was at the War Office was the reduction of the number of deputy-lieutenants, and the establishment of an age below which a gentleman should not be appointed to that high office. As a result of that, it is now not so easy for a young man, who should be serving his country, by the payment of a three-guinea fee to obtain a quasi-military uniform in which to go to the Levee. To that extent it must have been a benefit in turning the minds of those gentlemen who wish to have pretty clothes in the direction of officering, as they should, the Auxiliary Forces. All these things were carried through in face of the bitterest opposition from the military. A distinguished general officer said to me, "I hope you will never be too good; I shall oppose your being made good as much as possible, because if you become too good they may reduce us." I think that is a view— I; regret to think it, because it is a very short-sighted and unpatriotic: view— which has been taken by a great many Regular officers towards the Militia.
  My noble friend was succeeded at the War Office by Mr. Arnold-Forster. One of the first things Mr. Arnold-Forster did was to increase the standard of height for the Militia. At one fell swoop that change removed from the Militia that very large body of young men who are in the habit of entering the

  1301
  force because they are a little below the standard of the Regular Army, or for the purposes of "feeding up" for the Regular Army, or to see if they like a soldier's life. At one stroke of the pen all those men were kept from the force, and the Militia is blamed for being under its establishment. I will not dwell on the Report of the Norfolk Committee, except to say that the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Roberts, in his evidence before that Committee, made one statement about the Militia which has been made the most of and supplemented and used as the text in the campaign of depreciation which has been carried on for the last year or two against the Militia.
  I now come to the present Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman appointed a Committee which, were I not following the example of My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State, I should hesitate to call the "Duma," to go into the whole question of the Auxiliary Forces. It was my fate, in concert with certain other noble friends and various commanding officers, to be summoned to that "Duma," where certain questions were put to us. The first question asked was, Is the Militia prepared to accept enlistment for service abroad in case of emergency? To that we unanimously answered, It is. Then they asked, Is the Militia prepared to accept drafting by individuals to the Regular Army? We all said that it was not. A remarkably unfair use has been made of that meeting. The Secretary of State for War said that the Militia officers had refused to find drafts. The military correspondent of The Times has used practically the same expression. I quite agree with my noble friend the Duke of Bedford on this matter. I was asked for my opinion — I imagine it was considered to be of some value or it would not have been asked for— and I gave it, because I knew that if you persisted in this course you would not get the men to enlist. That is what happened, and it was then said that we were of no use and ought to be abolished. That, however, by the way. It was very remarkable that that statement should have been made by the Secretary of State for War,
  1302
  because he has or should have in his possession the Report sent in and signed by the members of the "Duma" at that very meeting, and no words used in that Report would even hint that the officers of the Militia had refused to do anything whatever. I ask His Majesty's Government, Will they lay on the Table of the House that Report? I do not think it can be called a confidential document. If the War Office are not prepared to do that, I call on the Secretary of State for War to withdraw the statements that he has made about the Militia colonels.
  Now I come to the present proposals. First, with regard to the third battalions. These ideas have been in the air for some considerable period, and a great many Militia battalions have been training. Have any Militia battalions been asked if they will transfer to these new third battalions? If they have, what has been the result? If they have not, why have the War Office been afraid to ask them? I will ask your Lordships to dwell for a moment on the position of the Militia commanding officer of one of these battalions which is to be turned into a third battalion. First of all, it is pointed out that no Militia officer under the age of thirty-five will ever be anything except an honorary major retired into the Reserve without any retaining fee at all. A very noble position, showing the gratitude of the country for services rendered! It is quite clear that no Militia officer above the rank of captain is wanted at all in these third battalions, or will ever have the chance of seeing them. Under no possibility whatever will he go to war. I do not command a battalion of this sort, as I belong to a different arm. But supposing I did command one of these battalions, I am to be asked to go to the men and say, "I hope you will take on this gigantic increase of liability in the very manner which you dislike most, for no extra pay whatever except a £ 2 bounty, which is hedged round with all sorts of conditions; I hope you will do it, but I am not going to take it on myself." Is that a fair position in which to put any commanding officer? I do not consider that you can in decency ask any officer and gentleman to do a thing of that sort.

  1303
  Then with regard to officers of the Militia. By a stroke of the pen they are to be turned into officers of the Reserve of Officers. It must be known even at the War Office that the number of officers in the Militia as now constituted is exceedingly small. Is there any proposal in this scheme that is likely to increase the number of officers prepared to devote a substantial part of the year to training themselves as soldiers? They will have no mess, because I do not believe the regiments are going to be trained as battalions. The only person who attempted to give us any information on this matter was Lord Lucas, who hummed and hated and said it was a matter for future consideration. That they will not be trained as battalions is, I think, plain. They will have no mess, no home; they will not go to war with their own units — which will not matter so much because they will never see a unit. They will have no battalion training whatever, and will enjoy none of the camaraderie of living in mess, which is the whole essence of the British Army. What is to be the reward for which you are going to get this vast influx of young so-called Reserve officers? £ 20 a year, or about 7s. a week ! For that magnificent sum of money you are going to get as officers an immense number of gentlemen who, as things are now, cannot give the time necessary to serve in the Militia. No regimental mess, no unit to belong to, liable to be sent as drafts here or there to any branch or arm of the service—I do not for a moment believe you will get one-tenth of the officers you have had.
  Then as to the men, which is really the point put to us. I have had twenty years experience of the Militia, and if I do not know what the average Militiaman thinks the sooner I am kicked out with ignominy the better. I am the more entitled to say that I do know because I am one of those fortunate people— there are not many of them—who do their own recruiting and are not interfered with practically by anybody. They try to interfere with me, but I do my best to ward them off. What are you offering the men? I am not talking of the present Militia. I will not lay down any figures, but next year when we are discussing this matter I shall be very
  1304
  much surprised if 10 per cent. of the men now serving have transferred into this new force. Quite lately it has been the fashion— I think it is part of the campaign of calumny against the force— to say that the Militia competes and interferes with the Regular Army in that it recruits exactly the same class of men, and that if the Militia could be abolished recruiting for the Regular Army would ipso facto become magnificent. If there is anything absolutely untrue from start to finish it is that remarkable idea, which nevertheless has got into the War Office. Its falsity can be proved in this way. The War Office acknowledge that every year 12,000 men go from the Militia to the Regular Army. But there are 90,000 Militiamen. Therefore there must be something like 80,000 who do not want to go to the Regular Army.
  But putting that aside, how can you induce young men to enlist in this new force? What do you offer them? You ask the recruit to go and do six months at the depot and he has to go to the depot for his annual training. If there is one thing on which all Militiamen are agreed it is that nothing has ruined recruiting for the Militia more than the fact that recruits have to be trained at the depots of the line. From the moment the recruit puts his nose inside the barrack gate, everybody from the colonel to the drummer boy is bullying him to transfer to the Regular Army. If he is a fairly strong-minded man he may get through his recruit's course without being transferred to the Regular Army. But in future this unfortunate person is not only to do his recruit's course at the depot, but he is to have this experience every year, and from the moment he enters the gate for his annual training—which will probably be coal carrying or whitewashing the barrack-room—everybody will be at him to transfer. It seems to me to be a most remarkable and extraordinary thing that people should think it possible to get a considerable force of men to enlist under these conditions. Then, my Lords, I think the six months universal recruit training will interfere very largely with the recruiting for the Regular Army, because that period may take them right through the winter. As to the fortnight's

  1305
  training that is perfectly ludicrous. We have Reports of an endless number of Commissions declaring that the month's training was not sufficient to make the Militia into a force able to face the picked troops of foreign nations, but here you propose to cut down that exiguous training to a fortnight. I do not think the increased recruits' training will anything like make up for the diminution of the annual training.
  Then there is another point. At present there are 12,000 recruits a year who go from the Militia to the Regular Army. If the Militia disappear, then the 12,000 troops will also disappear. How is that wastage to be made good? Will it be from the new third battalion? Are they to be permitted to enlist in the Regular Army? If not, where are you going to get your 12,000 men? If they are, what happens to the Reserve which these 500 men battalions are supposed to be going to give you? With regard to the establishment of these battalions, what number of men fit for foreign service does the War Office imagine that one of these third battalions, with an establishment of 500 men, is going to produce? The bulk of these men will be boys under twenty years of age; there will be more young recruits than in the present Militia battalion of the same kind.
  There is one point upon which I should like to offer the Under-Secretary of State for War my hearty and sincere sympathy. That is when he comes to decide the battalions to be reduced. I remember when there was a question of reducing a Militia battalion which had very nearly reduced itself. It had got down to three officers and 120 men, and it was considered advisable to reduce it. If we had proposed to abolish the Crown and Constitution there could hardly have been more row created; and when the Secretary of State for War and his military advisers begin to tackle this delicate question, I think they will wish they had never touched it at all.
  There are three favourite fallacies which appear to be indigenous in the War Office. I had hoped that on moving into the new buildings some of the obsolete microbes might have been left behind, but I do not think they have. All these old
  1306
  fallacious are being trotted out again. The first is the love for changing names. We have an instance of that in this new so-called Territorial Force. The second fallacy is that it is possible to lengthen a blanket by cutting a piece off one end and sewing it on the other. That is an idea which has been prevalent at the War Office for many years, but the present régime is responsible for the first time for suggesting that you can cut off a foot from one end and by sewing six inches on the other make a longer article. The first fallacy is very innocuous, if somewhat silly; the second is so evidently wrong that sooner or later it is bound to be found out; but the third is a very serious and grave danger, namely, that it is possible under a voluntary system to dictate to men the terms on which they shall join the Auxiliary Forces. That belief dies very hard in the War Office, and is apparently very prevalent there now. No warning from those who have a right to consider themselves experts and no amount of experience appears to make any difference. One of the greatest dangers of this scheme is to my mind that it appears to consider it possible to induce men to enlist on your own terms. I do not believe that you can, and I regret to see it in the forefront of the Ministerial proposals. Schemes are all very well, but, after all, the whole thing boils down to this: will Tom Smith or Bill Jones join these particular forces? They care nothing about schemes, or Army corps, or divisions, or third battalions; what they want to know is what they are going to do, whether they will have a pleasant time, and what they are going to get. You must consult the feelings and the sentiments of the people. I will not touch upon the Yeomanry, as many of your Lordships are better acquainted with that force than I am.
  With regard to the Territorial Army, as my noble friend Lord Donoughmore says, it is the Volunteers under another name, with the same organisation, the name system, the same training, the name numbers, and the same feelings. But it will be deprived of its regular adjutants, which I can hardly think is a good move. It will be instructed by those peripatetic gentlemen of whom we have heard so much, who are to go

  1307
  riding about the country on bicycles. I think they will have a pretty busy time, as they have to train the third battalions, the recruits in the depot, and buzz about on bicycles to train the Territorial Army. I do not think there will be much competition for posts on the staff. There is to be no increase of liability whatever on the Volunteers. All the beautiful arrangement as to enlisting, purchasing discharge, and so forth, has disappeared, and the only thing that remains is that the scheme is to cost more than the old Volunteers did.
  Then I come to the County Associations. If there is a class which is anathema to His Majesty's Government it is the country gentlemen. They have been threatened by Ministers of the Crown with all sorts of dreadful fates, and now this great democratic Government comes hat in hand and says, Will you be so good as to come and help us? In old France it used to be said that the nobles fought for everybody, the priests prayed for everybody, and the people paid for everybody. In the new England the classes will fight for everybody, because all question of training the children of the masses as cadets has been dropped out of the Bill; they will pay pretty heavily for everybody in taxation, and they will pay for everybody over again in subscriptions; the masses are apparently not to be trained to fight; they are not to pay any particular taxes, and they are not to be taught to pray for their country. I do not think that that is exactly the way in which the working classes should look at a question of this sort.
  Just one word with regard to the "Duma." The noble Viscount who presided over the "Duma "was also a Member of the Defence Committee. I wish it were possible for him to tell us what the "Duma" recommended with regard to the Auxiliary Forces, why it was recommended, and what the Defence Committee think of those recommendations. You take 30,000 out of your Regular Army, you abolish 90,000 Militia, you think you may possibly get 50,000 or 60,000 for the new force—which I do not believe; all the lest that we have heard is mere vague generalities; everything will have to be modified when the details
  1308
  are gone into. I believe the details have never been thought over; I am sure that the financial arrangements have never been considered. I think this House ought to be very careful in a matter of this sort. It ought to require a full and clear explanation of all the details and a frank exposition of the reasons for the adoption of this scheme, so that we may have a thorough understanding of it.
  LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I share with my noble friend Lord Elgin the desire to point out to the House some of the inconsistencies which appear in the speech of the noble Viscount who led the debate last night. The noble Viscount spoke in very laudatory tones of the large increase of our Regular Forces which took place during the administration of the noble Marquess opposite in the period 1895 to 1900. Then he said, "You have done away with all that increase; what can possibly justify that reduction?" That was all very well, but later on in his speech when referring to the financial aspects of the question he turned round altogether, and said that no one had any doubt as to the mandate which the Government had received to reduce expenditure on the Army and Navy. I do not think that anybody who recollects the events of the last general election will disagree with that statement. Every Liberal candidate declared that he would vote for a large reduction of expenditure on the Army at any rate, and when we remember that Army expenditure has increased by £9,750,000 in eight years we cannot be surprised that the country is determined upon that point. The noble Viscount also stated that he had again and again told the House of Commons that if they wanted to reduce the Army Estimates it could only be done by reducing the strength of the Army. I quite agree with him. Like the noble Viscount, I have been engaged in the duty of preparing Estimates for the House of Commons, and I am positive that you can never make any substantial diminution in the Army Estimates unless you considerably reduce the number of men. It is not only that there is a large reduction in the Vote for pay, but other Votes, such as for transport, clothing,

  1309
  and medical services, all depend upon the number of men. Consequently I cannot conceive how Mr. Haldane could carry out the mandate of the country and the wishes of the Liberal Party unless he took the only possible means in his power of reducing the Estimates by decreasing the number of men. Mr. Haldane took that view. He has reduced the Army Estimates by £2,000,000 and the Army itself by not 20,000 or 30,000 men, but by 14,000 men—from 204,000 to 190,000.
  The only question that occurs to my mind is, that reduction being inevitable in our position, was it carried out in the most advantageous manner? The reduction affected both the Foot Guards and the Line. Up to 1896 the whole of the duty of the Foot Guards was performed adequately and satisfactorily by seven battalions. The noble Marquess opposite increased the establishment of the Guards by two battalions, and he added afterwards a third battalion by creating the Irish Guards. He did that for a particular purpose— a very laudable purpose; he intended to send them to garrison the Mediterranean, but they never went. Consequently they were entirely redundant to the establishment in London, there were no barracks for them here, and they were sent down to Aldershot, for a long period. That was most unpopular with the officers. They did not object to being there during the drill season or when they could learn the duties of their profession, but to be kept for a long time away from London seems to be very hard. There is no other country that does this. If you go to St. Petersburg, Vienna, or Berlin, you find the Guards employed about the person of the Sovereign and quartered in the capital. The Inspector-General of the Forces informed me that so short was service in the Guards and so long the time they were kept at Aldershot that many of the men never did any London duty at all. This told upon the officers, and there was no longer that number of competitors for commissions that there had been before. Various things were tried. Probationers were appointed, but the experience of the Scots Guards did not show that the experiment was very successful. The fact remained that by
  1310
  no manner of means could the number of commissions be filled up. The Scots Guards were never able to replace the numbers they ought to have until one battalion was reduced, and the Grenadier Guards are not full now. Only the other day at a great meeting of the old officers of the regiment Col. St. Aubyn informed us that there were absolutely not sufficient officers to go round. That being so it is perfectly clear that so far as officers are concerned no diminution, but rather an increase, of efficiency will be caused by reduction.
  Then with regard to the rank and file. Here is the report about recruiting for the Foot Guards in 1896—
  "Recruiting for the Foot Guards, while showing a decided increase over the numbers taken for the corresponding period last year, hag not been sufficient to bring the several regiments up to establishment."
  The report for 1907 says—
  "Recruiting for Foot Guards shows a decrease over the numbers during the preceding year."
  Therefore neither in officers nor in men can you fill up these ten battalions.
  I maintain therefore that for these and other reasons Mr. Haldane was fully justified in carrying out his reductions. He found that they were redundant to the home duties, and they were not to be included in the striking force. It must be remembered that the Guards at all times have a very large reserve from their short-service system from which to fill up their battalions when going on service, but they are incapable of finding drafts for the Indian battalions, and they can never be used in that way until they have longer service.
  Another point was the reduction in the line. Last year in this House it was said, and not at the moment denied because the debate ended, that we were denuding Malta of troops. I wish to show how far that is from the truth. The garrison in Malta for many years had not been more than 5,300 men. At the close of the last Administration it had been brought up to 9,352. The hygienic state of the garrison was so bad from the crowded state of the barracks that I brought the question before the House of Commons, and asked Mr. Arnold-Forster what he was going to do

  1311
  about it. He said he could not give an affirmative answer in regard to withdrawing the troops, because the whole question of the Mediterranean garrisons was before the Cabinet. Mr. Haldane as soon as he had the power reduced this garrison, and it now stands at 7,500, which is considerably more than it was in olden times, although considerably less than during the mischievous period which caused so much loss among the troops. But at the very moment when we were withdrawing these 1,700 men from Malta, we were finding 1,700 men to increase the garrison in Egypt. So that the one balances the other, and so far from denuding the Mediterranean garrisons we are leaving those two garrisons in precisely the same position us before. With regard to South Africa, although the third and fourth battalions which were raised for the war have been withdrawn, we have replaced them with an entire regiment of cavalry and raised by seventy or eighty men every battalion in the Colonies, so that the nine battalions in South Africa together with their increase make up another battalion. Ceylon loses a wing of a regiment of about 500 men, but receives an increase of a whole native battalion of considerably greater strength. So that the reductions come to this—that one battalion only is withdrawn from Gibraltar.
  With regard to this particular Bill, I think it is an honest attempt to make out of the heterogeneous forces of the Crown one homogeneous body. At present there is no connection whatever between the Militia, the Volunteers, and the Yeomanry. They are not under the same regulations, they are not paid the same rates, they are not exercised together, they are not under the same command. In future, at any rate, a great deal of this will be remedied. It must surely be a good thing that we should divide them in fourteen divisions with their own Brigadier-Generals and Brigade-Majors, going out at the same time so that they can be exercised together, and be trained to a certain extent alike. I cannot help thinking that this will be satisfactory so far as it goes. The noble Viscount the other day said that Colonel Pollock, who has had a great deal to do with drilling these new
  1312
  recruits, had expressed himself very unfavourably, saying he would not lead them into the field. I read what he said the other day; it may not have been the same occasion, but what he said then was this—
  "I taught 100 men a good deal that a soldier ought to know, but it is ridiculous to believe that because 100 men or 100,000 or 1,000,000 men have learnt their work, you can call them soldiers unless in time of peace they are organised in the unit in which they will have to proceed to the front when wanted."
  That seems to me to be an entirely different statement. We are endeavouring to put them into units, and to give them the drill that Colonel Pollock-gives them, to place them in units, and utilise them as a Regular Army.
  Just one regard with regard to the County Associations. The noble Marquess who addressed us to-day on the Militia said that he did not understand how their budget was to be framed, and he thought they would be very extravagant. If he will consult Mr. Haldane's speeches he will find that every year the County Association is to form its own financial budget. That will be gone into very carefully on the spot, and afterwards sent up to the War Office, where they will have to prove before the staff that there is no excess on any particular point. When the budget is approved the War Office will issue the money, but the whole will be carefully audited by civilians in the same way as the Local Government Board audits now.
  As many other noble Lords desire to speak, what I should like to say of the County Associations had better be said on Clause 2 of the Bill. All I will do now is to touch upon one point, viz. the reserve of officers. I sincerely hope the Government will undertake to carry out the scheme of Sir Edward Ward and offer to all the public schools and universities the opportunity of sending their young men into these Auxiliary Forces. I firmly believe that this scheme is an honest attempt to make a homogeneous Army of our Auxiliary Forces. I earnestly trust that the Lord-Lieutenants the Deputy-Lieutenants and all of us who are landowners, will do all we can to assist the Government to achieve the object which is so laudably attempted in this Bill.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I do not, intend to make a speech; I have not come prepared to do so. But there are two things I must say. One is to remove a possible source of misunderstanding, and the other is to enter a protest. There is an impression abroad that something in the nature of a compromise has been arrived at in regard to the Militia. Whatever understanding there may be among other Members in this House, there are a number of us who do not admit that there has been any sort or kind of compromise. Under the Bill the Militia disappear, and that is a state of things which we cannot regard without; the gravest apprehension. What I wish to say, therefore, is that if there is any notion of a compromise, there are some of us— I speak for a good many— who cannot admit it, and we shall consider ourselves free to act accordingly when the Bill goes into Committee.
  The other thing I wish to say is by way of protest. I regret that the noble Marquess against whose words I wish to protest is not here; but I should feel indeed cowardly if I did not take the first opportunity of standing up to defend the noble Earl, Lord Roberts, against the most unfair attack which the noble Marquess made upon him. The whole burden of the remarks of the noble Marquess was that Lord Roberts was an advocate of conscription, and then, having conjured up a purely imaginary picture of a vast conscript Army which he declared Lord Roberts wished to establish, he proceeded to pour ridicule upon it. Nothing could be more unfair or more inconsistent with the facts. I challenge anybody to find any word uttered by the noble and gallant Earl which will bear the interpretation that he is an advocate of conscription or; anything resembling a conscript Army. What the noble Earl is advocating — he has said it over and over again in the clearest and most unequivocal language— is universal military training. It would be just as illogical and just as absurd to say that it would be a mistake to teach every child in the country arithmetic because we do not want to have a nation of accountants, as to represent the scheme of the noble Earl as one for establishing a nation of con-
  1314
  script soldiers. I am proud to be a follower of the noble Earl in this matter. I am one of those who believe that we can do nothing with the voluntary system, and that we shall have sooner or later— I only hope it will come before it is too late— to resort to a system under that which is recognised and proclaimed by every statesman in the country to be a duty is enforced as a duty. If I had the time I could quote to your Lordships words on the part of the greatest statesmen of the country on both sides declaring it to be the absolute duty of every citizen to bear arms in defence of his country. A duty is necessarily that which is done under some form of compulsion, and if that is so, surely the only reasonable, consistent, and honest thing to do is to see that the duty is performed— the duty of learning to bear arms. I said I would not detain your Lordships, and I will resist the temptation to go on; but I could not allow the opportunity to pass without defending my noble and gallant friend who is absent from the misrepresentation of his remarks, which, although it was made by another noble friend of mine, I am bound to say I consider most unfair and extremely mischievous.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, one can look at this Bill from two points of view, firstly as a plan by which a definite amount of money is expended to the best possible advantage; secondly as to whether the nation obtains in this plan a full and final arrangement of the military problem. Looking at the Bill from the first point of view— Is the scheme a good one; does the nation get full value for its money?— I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion the organisation proposed to be effected by the Bill is a great improvement on that which exists at present. But I do not suppose that any Bill connected with the Army presented to your Lordships' House has ever depended so much on administration for its success or its failure as does this Bill.
  With regard to the sufficiency of the Expeditionary or Striking Force proposed by the Government, it seems to me impossible to get what we may call

  1315
  a "sealed pattern" size of force by logic, unless we have a very large force indeed to provide against all contingencies. There are so many considerations to be thought of, the most important being the part that the Navy would take against our possible adversary. The size of the force has therefore evidently been settled on the basis of providing as large a force as the nation can afford without too much taxation.
  Does the scheme before us provide the Expeditionary Force on the cheapest possible basis? I think it does. By use of Militia trained soldiers to supplement the first line when called out we get such a force as it would be impossible to get in any other way.
  I will not weary your Lordships with detail, but I see no reason against supplementing the First Line artillery with ammunition columns manned by men trained on a Militia basis. I think it quite possible in certain localities and by recruiting the right type of man trained by good officers to provide men on the non-Regular basis to serve in the ammunition columns of the Expeditionary Force. I do not believe that a large number of first-rate men can be obtained in this way, but some with special aptitude, perhaps encouraged by an extra bonus for efficiency, will no doubt be forthcoming to replace casualties.
  As regards Yeomanry serving as divisional cavalry in the First Line, it appears to me that if the men who enlist for first-line service in regiments of Yeomanry are only enlisted for a year, no invidious special class can be formed in a regiment; and the extra training of the men who belong to the special contingents for a year will permeate and improve the whole regiment. Some of the officers and non-commissioned officers might easily get more training over a longer period, As regards the capability of the Yeomanry to do divisional cavalry duty, I should say that their high level of intelligence, their knowledge of scouting and horse mastership will make them invaluable for the purpose.
  Turning again to the scheme, will the Militia which is to back up the Army by enlisting for foreign service under
  1316
  new conditions of enlistment be able to do what is asked of it? It will probably get its officers if the advice of men like the Duke of Bedford is taken, and the sentiments and traditions of the force are respected; for in that case the powerful class who have always supplied officers for the Army and Navy will send their sons into it and give it their support.
  The next point is, Will the force get its men? I desire, however, to raise a note of warning on this point. For many years this country has taken full advantage of the necessities, spirit of adventure, and want of business habits in making a contract of that unique and best product of these isles—the British private soldier. For a trifle— a sovereign— which he spent at once, he has agreed when in the Militia to join the Army Reserve; and at the time of the South African War many thousands of these men who agreed to take upon themselves all the risks of war for 20s. were sent out to South Africa, in many cases never to return. But, because we have got the Militia in the past so readily to take upon themselves war service in a foreign country, is it certain that we shall get men to join the Militia as reconstituted and with a liability to foreign service to the extent and at the price contemplated by this scheme? Personally I doubt it, and why do I doubt? I will tell your Lordships why. The success of our recruiting, both for the line and the Militia, has depended largely on the state of the labour market. Is the labour market, especially the unskilled labour market, going to be as favourable to recruiting in the future as it has been in the past?
  Within the last few years— few months I may almost say— the vast lands of Canada are becoming known to our labouring population. The man with a stout heart and strong arms who has been our cheap fighting-man is daily, by the advance in the science of shipbuilding and transport, being brought nearer and nearer to the land where he can found a comfortable home for himself and his family. My Lords, the day of brave, cheap, willing, patient Tommy Atkins is passing, slowly, if you will, but it is passing away; while the day of the unskilled labourer with

  1317
  a stout heart and strong arms is coming in the great dominion of the West. Let old-age pensions be commenced by giving them as a reward to our soldiers for standing in the First Line of our defences. Let this be the first charge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's old-age pension scheme. I strongly advise the Government to be just and generous to men who undertake liability for Reserve service, whether they join the Militia or the Army, remembering that the contract entered into is between a powerful Government and those who are not of mature years, and that this contract hampers the man in civil life.
  Turning to the new Territorial Army scheme, the point that occurs to one first is, Will the men be obtained? On this point I have grave doubts. Even if the ranks are filled at first, will they continue to be filled? Will this force furnish that great reservoir of men trained to arms that the country ought to have? Even supposing the scheme gives us 300,000 men, this is not the nation in arms. This number represents only a little more than ¾ of 1 per cent. of the population of these islands, and imposes on the people, with all the forces of the Crown taken into consideration, only about one-sixth part of the military liability which the colony of Natal imposes by law on its inhabitants after they have arrived at the age of manhood.
  If your Lordships do not mind listening to the experience of one who has had to do on a large scale with the very class of Army proposed to be created by this territorial scheme, I will repeat what I have already stated on several occasions, that it is not in my opinion possible to form any large unpaid citizen army without the military training of the youth of the country in cadet corps. On 10th July last year the Government appeared to be of the same opinion, for the noble Earl who represents the War Office in this House stated that—
  "We at the War Office, although not in favour of compulsion, because we do not think it will he necessary, are in complete sympathy with any measure that would tend, not only for military, but for physical purposes, to promote the drilling of youth.? both in secondary and in elementary schools."
  Anyone who read this statement will naturally search in the Bill for evidence
  1318
  of the complete sympathy promised by the noble Earl; and will find that this complete sympathy has been shown by the insertion of a clause which provides that no school in receipt of a Government grant can be assisted by public money in the formation of cadet corps of youths under sixteen years. I shall be interested to hear what the soldiers on the Army ' Council think of this clause.
  In conjunction with the provision of leaders and their efficient training which forms such an important element of this scheme, it would be possible to have a very fair Territorial Army even with the small amount of compulsory annual training of the rank and file contemplated by the Bill, provided the men were taught military formations, habits of discipline, and a knowledge of the rifle in their schoolboy days before they take up seriously the business of their lives, i.e., before the age of sixteen. Without this early training in their schoolboy days, neither sufficient men will be found to form a great reservoir of military strength for our requirements, nor will the number of days training contemplated by the Bill be sufficient for the purposes of efficiency. If more days training are exacted the men will not be forthcoming, so that, look at the matter how you will, one thing is certain, that if we are to avoid the risk of disaster on the one hand or compulsory training of the adult on the other, we must be driven to a very large training of the youth of the country before they arrive at the age when they enter upon their various civilian occupations.
  If the country imagines that in passing this Bill into law, good as it is in many respects, a final settlement of the military problem has been arrived at, they will be much mistaken. This Bill will not satisfy our military requirements, for it will not give us that large number of trained men necessary for our security. Anyone who travels about the world knows that there are forces that make for peace; there are also other forces that make for war. Some of these are not ready yet. Now is the time to prepare —to make our country safe, and our Navy free to leave our shores; the time to make our great Colonial possessions

  1319
  certain of getting large reinforcements of trained men. This can only be done by dealing with this great question, but not in a half-hearted way that spells delay and may spell disaster.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, the Government have already heard from more than one Member of your Lordships' House that we do not look at this measure, at all from a Party point of view. It I rise to-night as one of those who have taken a modest part in the defensive forces of the country, and as a Member of the Yeomanry, I do so with the feeling that the case of that particular force might well be left where my noble friend Lord Scarbrough took it. But since the meeting that was held some time ago a large number of concessions have been made by the Secretary of State. Those concessions have largely met the points that we placed before him, but I would venture to urge that the concession of what has been called the period of grace should be extended to the men of the force. I cannot believe that it would make any great difference to the scheme of the right hon. Gentlemen. but it would make all the difference to the satisfactory maintenance of the force, It might lead to a certain expense, but that cannot be avoided in making great changes like this. The additional expense, however, would not be much, as the period is only three years, but it would enable us to get a large number of men who by then will prove themselves useful to the defensive forces of the country.
  The difficulty of dealing with this measure is that it is entirely a skeleton measure, and that the concessions that have been made both to the Yeomanry and to the Militia are practically outside the Bill. But there is one matter to which I wish to allude from another point of view. In looking at Clause 1 of the Bill I am filled with feelings of disquietude. We have been told by the Secretary of State that it was his intention to call upon the lords-lieutenant to take an active part in the organisation of this Territorial Force, but in reading the clause which establishes the Associations there seems to be an idea of appointing other persons to the position which I certainly gathered it was intended that
  1320
  these gentlemen should fill. I hope it is the intention of the Government to ask those who occupy the position of lord'-lieutenant to take up this matter, and I hope when we get into Committee they will accept an Amendment making the point perfectly clear. I would further urge that when they are so appointed the position should not be a purely honorary one, but that the lord-lieutenant and president of the Association should have distinct powers. I should like to know what is the position of the chairman and vice-chairman when taken in conjunction with the presidency of the Association. You seem to have two officials each of whom is going to perform the same duties.
  Speaking for myself, I am sure we shall be fully prepared as a body, whatever may be our opinions as to the probable future of this scheme, to do our best. To work the Associations we must have complete power and opportunity to do so. While, as I have said, I do not approach this measure with any Party feeling, I have a fear as to what its effect may be. You are destroying the old order of things without knowing what is to take its place or whether it will succeed, but I hope that, as has happened so often in the history of this country, that we shall muddle out of it somehow.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in regard to this Bill, which I think will depend very largely for its success upon the manner in which it is administered. I would compliment my noble friend Lord Portsmouth upon the clear, concise, and patriotic manner in which he introduced the Bill. The scheme seems to me to be the only alternative to either compulsory training or conscription. It gives power to every young man to serve his country and do his duty by it. It gives him three alternatives. It enables a man if he chooses to go into the striking force, or he may go into what I call the relief force, or he may become a useful member of the Territorial Army. I was struck by the fact yesterday that my noble friend Lord Midleton apparently neither blessed nor condemned the Bill, and when I heard his speech I looked back to the years when the Party opposite were in power. I do not wish to introduce any Party

  1321
  tone into the debate which has been so thoroughly patriotic and common-sense, but if one looks back to those years and to all the schemes that were brought forward one remembers what was said by the Regulars, by the Yeomanry, and by the Militia. It was, What are they doing? — and the general reply was: ''They are messing the Army about." That is exactly what I think this scheme is not doing. There is a strong, clear, distinct striking force, there is a relief force, and there is a Territorial Army for home defence. You have in the striking force what has been an historical factor in all English history. In the history of Great Britain throughout the Army that has gone forth from this country has been a striking force. It has gone perhaps to other lands, where it has been amalgamated with or utilised by the Army of the part to which it went, and it has effected its work by being a striking force. The South African War was more or less an exception, such as I hope will never occur again. Then you have the factor that the Army Council has apparently said that this striking force is the type of force we require, and that the numbers are sufficient. We have to look to the Army Council for expert advice in this matter.
  Perhaps, as the only representative in this House of the Irish Militia battalions, I may say a few words upon the Militia side of the question. I speak with a certain amount of knowledge, having served in the Regulars, in the Yeomanry, and in the Militia, and I believe I retire from the Militia this year on account of my time being up. My noble friend the Duke of Bedford, whose knowledge on this subject is so very extensive, I think dotted the is when he said that one serious point in the Bill is that it was requisite for some force or another to fill up any depletion there might be in the Regular ranks, and he asked how that was to be done. As I understand the Bill, the third and fourth battalions are to do a certain amount of this work. I would appeal to my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State to think over what I am about to say. I can endorse in many respects what Lord Raglan and the Duke of Bedford said with regard to the Militia. If the Militia are to keep on drafting men as individuals, you will
  1322
  find the value of the drafts deteriorating and becoming deficient. My noble friend brought forward a magnificent example of what I am afraid is not in this scheme. He quoted a few words from General Sherman on the Wisconsin Regiment, explaining how it was filled up by Wisconsin men and with Wisconsin officers, and how that regiment by the fact of being filled up with men who were locally known to those with whom they were side by side in the fighting line, governed and commanded by officers whom they knew, came by degrees to be considered as being as valuable as a brigade. That, is a most valuable example and factor of the whole question. May I put shortly before the House what happened in the South African War in exactly the opposite direction? It happened to the battalion which I have the honour to command, therefore I am speaking what I know. About 170 men were taken from that battalion and sent to South Africa—I think by mistake—without their officers and non-commissioned officers, and they were practically hurled about in different parts of South Africa among other regiments and men they knew nothing of. The result was that these men came back absolutely cowed by the life they had had to live, and it took us two or three years to get them to come back into the ranks and work with us. I think that shows the difference between working by units and working by individuals.
  I have a profound belief in the great change that the Secretary of State made when he allowed the English Militia to come in on the same lines as the Irish, and I would ask him to go one step further, that he should work the Militia on the lines of the scheme as it is provided on the understanding that they shall be treated as units and not as mere individual feeders of the Regular Forces. I have had long experience and have seen what has been going on during recent years in regard to the Militia and. the Regular Forces. I make this statement with some diffidence and a certain amount of regret. Speaking as an old Regular I cannot understand why the Regular Forces will not try to work with the Militia. Why will they not work with us and for us? We are as anxious to help feed the Regular

  1323
  forces as they are anxious for our assistance, but they look down upon us either with suspicion or, I was going to say, contempt. I attach no blame in this matter to the Secretary of State for War, because he must get his advice from the Army Council who are experts. I attach no blame to him at all, but I do attach blame to the men who must know that the only way that you can make a real fighting force is to make these forces absolutely homogeneous— they must work together for one end, and every force, whether it be the striking force, or the Militia or the relieving force as I call it, or the Territorial Force, must be effective and work one with the other.
  I believe the scheme is a very valuable one, and that if worked sympathetically and well, and with a desire to make it work—I lay stress on that—it will prove the best scheme that is possible for this country as we are circumstanced. I will not go into the question of compulsory training. The only people who could make compulsory training a necessity are the people themselves. When they ask for it, the Government will have to give it whatever the Government then may be. I do not share the distrust of my noble friend as to the County Associations taking up this question and not being able to manage it. Surely the County Associations can work up and look after the men in their own districts; you can hardly expect laymen and volunteers to be patriotic if the lords lieutenant, deputy lieutenants, and others do not take a deep interest in their work. I would like to endorse everything my noble friend Lord Raglan said on the subject of the Militia; I believe he agrees with me that the scheme is a valuable, able, clear, and distinct scheme, but I think he hopes, as I hope, that some assistance may be given to make it more workable by bringing in the Militia as the real relief force, not of the Regulars, but of the Empire.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, notwithstanding the confidence of my noble friend opposite in this scheme, I think even those who officially have to be confident of its merits must feel from the speeches which have been made that there is a very grave element of
  1324
  doubt in the minds of those who are most experienced in the recruiting, in the officering, in the commanding, and in the administration of what are still the Auxiliary Forces. There is a very grave element of doubt in their minds as to whether this Bill is going to do any of them any good. I am perfectly certain of this, that if it is going to do any good to the Regular Army or to the Militia and the Volunteers, it is not going to do any good to the Yeomanry, and it is to that point that I propose to direct my remarks. First of all, I should like to say a word, as an old War Office official, on the speeches of Lord Newton, Earl Roberts, and Lord Milner. I am sorry they have left the House, as I would rather say what I have to say before them than in their absence. I do not understand what is meant by this compulsory service idea. Do they mean compulsory enlistment for serving abroad? If so, I imagine that there is no precedent for it in any military system in the world.
  A NOBLE LORD: Did not Napoleon's Army go abroad occasionally '?
  LORD HARRIS: I am not talking about 100 years ago; I am talking about the present day, and if the noble Lord can refer me to any case of compulsory recruiting on the Continent for foreign service, I shall be corrected.
  A NOBLE LORD: The Germans crossed the Rhine in 1870.
  LORD HARRIS: When they were at war. But I am speaking of recruiting for foreign service. And after all, how can that be compared with our case? Did the French compulsorily recruit for service in China?
  A NOBLE LORD: Yes.
  LORD HARRIS: I am told not. I believe they depended entirely upon voluntary enlistment for Chinese service.
  A NOBLE LORD: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he will find that the marine troops of France provide nearly all their colonial garrisons.
  LORD HARRIS: Certainly, they are marines.
  A NOBLE LORD: They are recruited by compulsory service.
  LORD HARRIS: They are a part of the Navy, and of course they have to go abroad: they are not true land forces. How did the Germans recruit for the South West African campaign? I am told by the help of marines and volunteers. Where is there a system at work on the Continent where they recruit compulsorily for foreign service? I am doubtful whether there is one. But as far as our service is concerned, we have to find garrisons for India, and for the fortresses and coaling stations abroad, and it is no answer to suggest that the scheme now propounded—that the Militia should be recruited with an undertaking that on embodiment they will be willing to serve abroad—gets over the difficulty that confronts every Secretary of State when he, possibly absolutely new to the whole of our military system, arrives at the War Office, where he finds on the doorstep the stumbling-block that the British Army exists for the purpose of garrisoning India and the coaling stations: That is the stumbling-block which every Secretary of State finds on taking office, and which some enthusiasts and persons of great experience in military matters do not realise unless they have had the advantage of serving inside the War Office.
  I sympathise entirely with my noble friend Lord Newton in this respect. The noble Lord appeals to your Lordships on the ground that he has had twenty years experience of the Militia. But I have had thirty-five years experience of the Yeomanry, and I confess it fills me with indignation when I see young gentlemen with ample time and means putting in not one solitary hour's work in the whole year for their country. I was for twenty years a troop and squadron leader, and I have metaphorically gone on my knees to these young gentlemen and implored them to come into the Yeomanry, feeling that those who were patriotic were taking far more than a double tide of duty in consequence of
  1326
  these young gentlemen refusing to put in the very moderate service asked for under the Auxiliary system. I am as indignant as my noble friend can be; but compulsion for home service is not going to help us out of our difficulty of finding garrisons for India and the coaling stations. I would gladly see compulsion for home service if it was only to get hold of these young gentlemen to whom I have referred. I would be only too glad to compel them to serve, and I only wish I could get some of them in my regiment; they would have a double tide of duty then.
  I pass to what is really more germane to the service of the Yeomanry. I repeat that if any advantage is going to accrue from the Bill to any other branches of the Auxiliary Services, I am certain that none will accrue to the Yeomanry. In the first place we are degraded. We are at present the mounted branch of the Militia; we are under the Militia Act; we were put so by my noble friend after the war. Now we are to be removed from the branch to which we felt it an honour to be attached; we are to be taken out of the Militia and attached to the Volunteers, in whom we have the utmost confidence, but with whose service our service his never been akin. Our service has always been akin to that of the Militia, but now we are to be taken out of the Militia and we are not to be given the opportunity—of which we should have been proud— which has been given to the Militia, of attempting to recruit for foreign service in case of embodiment, notwithstanding the fact that last year we voluntarily offered to try and do so. In the second place, we are to be put under a body partly civilian, partly military, after having been for decades under the War Office. We are to be put for purposes of supply under a semi-civilian body upon which we shall be easily outvoted by the colonels of Volunteers who will be our colleagues. In the third place, our pay, which has been unaltered for nearly l20 years, is to be cut down. What is there in these three alterations likely to make the service more popular? Some of us have been disestablished; regiments have been reduced altogether because it was said they were not required in aid of the civil power. Within two years the.

  1327
  Government had to come and implore the old officers to raise those regiments again, and they did so. Then we suffered when the horse tax was taken off. Our men had the advantage of the £1, being released from the tax because they were in the Yeomanry. I do not think a single thing has been asked of the Yeomanry for more than a century that they have not undertaken and carried out. They may have grumbled a bit at times, but they have never refused to do anything they were asked, and their reward now is to be degraded and worse paid. We have put in these services in the face of much obliquy from Parliament and great indifference on the part of the War Office, but when the crisis came we were very useful. I remember a Secretary of State for War asking me at the bottom of St. James' Street whether I really thought the Yeomanry were any use at all. I do not know whether it was the result of my argument, or of the march of events— my argument only lasted to the top of St. James' Street—but at any rate we were not done away with. If during the war the same system had been followed with regard to the second contingent of the Yeomanry that was adopted for the first—that is that the colonels agreed to raise and train men—the second contingent would have been, if not as good as the first, certainly infinitely better than it was, because it was taken away from the colonels and the cadre and handed over to the authorities at Aldershot who took no interest in it.
  That is the simple history of what the Yeomanry have done during these 100 years, and I submit that no consideration whatever has been given to their traditions or to the character of the service they have rendered. Under these circumstances is it possible for us to view with satisfaction the proposal of the Secretary of State, who knew so little about us that when he introduced his Bill he was actually under the impression that the pay we are now getting was something absolutely novel, whereas it is precisely the same pay as we have had for 100 years. What is new is that my noble friend gave us something for the horse, but that does not come under the specific term pay. I am glad of this opportunity of saying that what revived the force was what my
  1328
  noble friend did for us after the war. I was one of the four Yeomanry officers who had the honour of being summoned by the noble Marquess in the black week that followed our most serious disasters in South Africa, and as we went out of the room, one of my friends said to me, Is this going to make us or break us? As it turned out, it made us. But it was not the service we had given; it was not such credit as we had gained; the tradition of that would by degrees have died down, certainly in the minds of recruits. What made us was the fact that we showed we were worth something in the war. My noble friend below me realised this and introduced changes which, as chairman of a Committee, I had the honour of suggesting to him, which enabled us to get the men, and what helped us more than anything else was the £5 for the horse.
  The Secretary of State for War has been going round the country preaching patriotism. To whom? Apparently he has been preaching it to the patriots themselves. He has been going round to the Volunteers and other branches of the service, but these are the very men who are doing the patriotic service. Does he really think that these County Associations will be able better than the colonels to persuade men who have not one atom of patriotic feeling in their breasts to be officers? Does he really think that they will be able to persuade to come into the ranks, men to whom we who have been troop and squadron officers have gone on our knees? Why should they be able to do it? Why should they be more successful than we have been? But, after all, patriotism does not come before a man's bread and butter. A poor man who has to think of his family puts patriotism a little in the background, and when the Secretary of State cuts down the pay of the Yeomanry it is a somewhat extravagant, idea of human nature to suppose he is going to make that force more popular and get either as many or the same class of recruits as we have been getting for 100 years.
  But, after all, the important thing is to get officers. If you get the officer you may get the men. If you do not get the officers I do not think you will get the men. I very much fear that

  1329
  a demand is going to be made on the time of the officers which will not make it any the more easy to fill their ranks. Lord Lucas, to whose speech we listened with so much interest, and who showed a mastery of detail upon which I sincerely congratulate him, read out a portentous list of classes which officers in the future will be expected to attend. That is what has been going on since the war. My work as a commanding officer has since the war been increased quite 50 per cent. by correspondence. Not a single day passes during which I am not doing Yeomanry work of one kind or another. Since last night I have spent seven hours in the train for the purpose of doing Yeomanry business. There is a tendency to demand more and more. Inspecting officers ask more and more at the annual training, and officers are being asked to give more and more time to classes in order to get the instruction which they ought to have. I quite admit that they ought to know all these subjects. and I sincerely wish that many of our young officers knew more than they do. But one has to deal with facts. The class of officer who has been so much decried by certain Members of the Party opposite— the monied country gentleman of leisure — has practically disappeared. Nearly every country gentleman now, at least in my part of the country, has to work for his living, and, being young men— junior partners, for instance—they are unable to give the time which is asked for all these classes. The noble Lord's list yesterday was far longer than anything I had previously heard suggested, and I am afraid the Secretary of State is under a delusion if he supposes that the young gentlemen whom we get will be able to find the time. It is not a question of will. They would do it gladly, but they cannot afford it. If he is disappointed in getting the officers, I am afraid he will find great difficulty in getting the men.
  Then I should like to say a word as to the degradation to which we are to be subjected. We are left in the Bill, but the Militia is taken out. Why should we be so treated? Why should we not be taken out of the Bill also 1 Why should we not be put upon our trial and asked
  1330
  whether we are ready to recruit for foreign service on embodiment? As I have said, we offered last year to do that. Why should we not be given the opportunity of trying? I believe there are a great many men whom we now recruit who would be willing to join on those terms. I realise there is a difference in the men of the Yeomanry and the men of the Militia in this sense: there are amongst them a great many employers of labour for whom it is difficult to undertake a liability for foreign service, seeing that they might be sued for breach of contract or for neglect of the business in which they are engaged. But there are a large number of young men who would not be deterred by that feeling, but would be ready to undertake the liability.
  The third point I referred to was the question of pay. Noble Lords opposite are making a serious mistake if they suppose that the change of pay will not make a grave difference in the class of men they get. I have seen since the war a very marked change in the class of men we are getting. They are an excellent class, but there is one class we are not getting at all, and that is the real yeoman, the man who owns and farms land. They are most civil when I speak to them on the subject; they say they have so many engagements or something of that kind, but I know what is making the difference. When in camp they have to live in a tent with other men, and they will not run the risk of having to put up with men who are not accustomed to their manner of life. You expect to get for something like half the pay the same class of men. You will not get them. Why should you? I calculate that my men put in twelve hours a day during their training, and their horses five hours. Does the Secretary of State hope to make the Yeomanry more efficient or to get more work out of the men and horses for half the pay? That is really too great a strain upon human nature. You may get a Yeomanry, a mounted Territorial Force, but you will not get the class of man for which the Yeomanry has been noted for so many years. The Secretary of State has laid great stress upon the necessity for having the same rate of pay all through. The infantry must be on

  1331
  the same scale as the Regular infantry, the Yeomanry on the same scale as the Regular cavalry. I admit he has thrown in 1s. for messing, but he started upon the basis of the Yeomanry receiving the same pay as the Regular cavalry. That is a mistaken idea altogether. The Regular is a man who has had difficulty in finding work in civil employment; he is a half-a-crown a day man in the country or a 4s. a day man in London, whereas the men I am getting earn from 40s. to 50s. a week. Why should you expect to get that class of man for the same rate of pay as the man who can earn 2s. 6d. a day in civil life. It is a practical commonsense question based upon human nature. For these reasons I am afraid the Secretary of State is under a delusion in supposing that, three years hence if this scheme is applied to the Yeomanry—a great deal may happen in three years; the scheme may not be applied; I sincerely hope it will not be; but if it is, he and the country will suffer a serious disappointment as regards the class of men they will get. They will not get the present class who are accustomed to horses for the greater part of the year, and therefore are to a certain extent horse masters; they will have to take a class of men who know nothing whatever about horses, and teach them horse mastership as well as all the other matters necessary for a horse soldier.
  I am one of the oldest officers in the service, and on the ground of my experience I venture to appeal to noble Lords who have the question officially under their hands at the War Office to reconsider this Bill as regards the Yeomanry. As far as I can see, it is just as easy to leave us out as it was to leave out the Militia, and, being the mounted branch of the Militia, we are entitled to claim that we should be treated in the same way as the infantry branch. There is this argument to be added. The Secretary of State hopes that this scheme will provide for the expansion of the Army for foreign service in time of war. I hope it may do so. I hope the Militia will consent to recruit for foreign service on embodiment, and that thereby the infantry portion of the Army, perhaps the artillery, will find that it has a reserve. But where is your reserve for the cavalry? Why is not one as necessary
  1332
  as the other? Why should you not treat us as you have treated the infantry branch of the Militia? Remembering that there is not a single thing that you have ever asked from the Yeomanry that they have declined to do, give us an opportunity of doing something more for the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, when the Lord President rises presently to close the debate I shall be surprised if he complains of the manner in which the Government proposals have been dealt with on this side of the House. My noble friends have been critical—it would have been strange if they had not —and they have been inquisitive—I do not think we can blame them for that, for the Bill suggests many questions, some of which have been put and not replied to. But there has been throughout this discussion nothing which can fairly be described as unreasonable opposition to the Government proposals. I believe I may say that all of us who sit here realise to the full the great difficulties which any Minister must encounter who addresses himself to the difficult task of Army reform. I remember a discussion which took place early during the present session on the subject of London traffic, when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who had been, I think, a member of the Traffic Commission, told us that the reason why the London traffic was, as he described it, in a tangle, was because the thoroughfares, the tramways, and the railways of this great city had all been, in the first instance, constructed in a haphazard fashion. That is, I think, not untrue of the British Army system, which has been constructed—one might almost say has grown—in a haphazard fashion; and that is why it is so difficult to introduce anything like system or order into elements which are themselves confused and indistinct.
  I think I may say that we are all of us in the main in agreement with the objects which the Secretary of State desires to attain. He wishes to provide this country with an efficient striking force. He wishes to provide means of expanding that force outside the limits of the Regular Army, and ho desires to provide us with an efficient Army for home defence. These are all in themselves commendable objects; and the

  1333
  only questions we have to ask are whether the striking force which we shall get under the Government Bill will be a stronger and better organised striking force than that which this country has hitherto been able to command, whether it will be easier than it has been hitherto to expand that force, and whether a better organisation is forthcoming for the unwieldy mass of auxiliary troops which are to be found in this country. I wish I could say that the whole of these questions could be confidently answered in the affirmative.
  This Bill has been spoken of as a very elastic Bill. It is the most elastic Bill I have ever had the opportunity of perusing. It is elastic to the point of elusive-ness. If you strike out of it that which we can do without the Bill, if you leave out of account what depends not so much on the Bill itself as upon the discretion of the Army Council and the bodies which will be created under the Bill, there is not very much remaining. A good example may, I think, be drawn from what has happened lately with regard to that part of the scheme which affects the Militia. I will not, after what has been said by noble Lords on the back Benches, speak of the compromise which has been arrived at, but the fact remains that lately a considerable modification was made in the Government proposals with regard to the Militia; but yet we were told that that modification, important as it was, could be effected without altering a single line of the Bill. Under these circumstances, we are driven to look rather at the acts and the declarations of His Majesty's Government than at the provisions which are to be found within the Bill itself.
  The noble Earl who has charge of the Bill referred in terms of commendation to the scheme of Lord Cardwell. I was glad to hear him do so, because I am one of those who believe that the foundations laid by Lord Cardwell were truly laid, and that, if we have been able to achieve anything since, it has been in a great measure due to the great work done by Lord Cardwell at the outset. I remember that Lord Cardwell was very fond of quoting a very often quoted passage in Horace, in which the poet, describing the happy life of the old-fashioned Roman farmer, draws a picture of him vigorously
  1334
  pruning his fruit trees, amputating the useless boughs, and inserting in their place grafts of a happier growth. Lord Cardwell used to say that that should be the motto for a Secretary of State for War, and I must ask your Lordships to consider a little the manner in which, on the one hand, that process of amputation has been carried out by the Secretary of State, and, on the other, what His Majesty's Government have done in the direction of making good that which they have themselves taken away from the British Army.
  I do not think it will be contested that the amputations have been, not merely of a courageous, but I should almost say of a ruthless character. One battalion of Guards is gone, a second is doomed, and eight battalions of infantry are reduced—the strength of the battalion is reduced by 100 men. My noble friend behind me suggested that a good many of these reductions involve the wiping out of the increases which had been made to the Army during the Government of the late Lord Salisbury, at a time when I had the honour of being connected with the War Office. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, commenting on my noble friend's observations, said that that was, perhaps, not an unfair way of putting it, but that, at the same time, there was another way of putting it, and I think he said that, in spite of all that had happened, the strength of the Army was still 27,000 men in excess of the strength of 1895. That may be perfectly true, hut, to the best of my recollection, our additions to the strength of the Army amounted to something like 50,000. It may be the case that the whole of those large increases have not been taken away; but I still maintain, and I shall continue to maintain unless I am corrected, that the reductions which His Majesty's Government have decreed do involve a very serious diminution of the fighting strength of the British Army. But, my Lords, during the course of his statement, the noble Earl let fall one observation which I hope I did not misunderstand: it was, I think, to this effect. He said that, although the strength of the battalions had been reduced to 700—
  *THE EARL OF ELGIX:720
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That although the strength of the battalions had been reduced to 720, it was intended, he did not say when, but ultimately, if possible, to revert to the higher strength. That is a very important admission, and I am glad to have elicited it from the noble Earl. As to the reduction of the Royal Artillery, the noble Earl made a statement which was, if we have not misunderstood it, eminently satisfactory. He told the House that the Government were not prepared in any way to weaken the strength of the Royal Artillery. That is an observation of the utmost importance, for that statement appears to qualify in a very important manner the statements which have been made upon the same subject by the Secretary of State for War. We were certainly under the impression that the Secretary of State had announced that His Majesty's Government did propose a reduction of horse and field artillery by something like 3,700 men and sixty-seven officers. If that idea has been abandoned, all I can say is that the uneasiness which many of us felt on this subject will be to a great extent removed. I should like to know whether it is not the case that the Garrison Artillery has already been reduced and is now from 3,000 to 4,000 men below its former strength.
  We have had explanations of the circumstances in which these reductions have been made. I understand that they are defended partly on financial grounds; but Lord Lucas, in his maiden speech, which showed so much ability and promise, spoke evidently not without authority when he suggested to the House that these ten battalions had been struck off because they were redundant to the scheme of organisation which found favour with the War Office. All I can say is that I cannot conceive the circumstances in which it could be a matter of congratulation to the War Office to find itself deprived of the services of eight or ten fighting units. Even if it be the case that they do not fit exactly into the scheme of the Government, we who have had anything to do with Army administration know that the difficulty has always been the shortage in the number of fighting units; and that if by any chance you found yourselves with one or two
  1336
  to spare, it would be a matter of congratulation rather than the contrary.
  With regard to these reductions, there is also this to be said—that they involve a very serious loss to the Army owing to the number of officers whom we lose in consequence of them. The dearth of officers has always seemed to me to be one of the most serious difficulties that we have to face. A trained British officer is, after all, the most valuable military asset that we possess; and it fills me with despair to think that so large a number of such officers should be sacrificed in this manner. I believe I am right in saying that the Army Estimates of this year show a falling off of no loss than 500 officers and of something like 1,000 non-commissioned officers as-compared with the strength that formerly obtained.
  There is another point to be considered, the effect of these reductions on the Army Reserve. That effect is twofold. If you weaken the numerical strength of your units you want a larger number of Reservists to fill them up; and even if the amended figures given by the noble Earl are accepted, it will still be the case that the Expeditionary Force will contain relatively a far greater number of Reservists and a far smaller number of men serving with the colours than the expeditionary force which could have been sent and was sent from these shores a few years ago. Besides that, you have to remember that by reducing the number of these battalions you diminish the output of Reservists. That is incontestable, because each unit is, so to speak, a machine which manufactures Reservists. There is, I understand, a conflict of opinion as to the precise extent to which these changes will, in fact, weaken the Army Reserve. I will not attempt to discuss so intricate a question at this hour of the night. I never doubt the arithmetic of the actuaries, but I always remember that they have to make their calculations on certain assumptions which are given to them by those for whom they act. But I maintain that it is absolutely inconceivable that if you diminish the number of your units and also diminish the strength of each unit you will not in the result have a much smaller Reserve than you would have with a greater number of units, and

  1337
  a higher strength; and when you consider in addition that the length of men's service with the colours has been increased, it seems to me to stand to reason that the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government must be one which tends to diminish the strength of the Army Reserve.
  The noble Earl said that, in the opinion of the Army Council, the men who would be taken from the Special Contingent to be placed in the fighting line are men every bit as well qualified for a place in the fighting line as the ordinary Reservist. That is a statement which fills me with surprise. I should have thought that any commanding officer would prefer to have his battalion filled up with Reservists who had served their seven or even their three years continuous service with their regiment, who had been properly trained, properly disciplined, men who can be described as formed soldiers, rather than by youths taken from the Special Contingent, recruited at the age of seventeen, trained for a few months at the outset, afterwards for a few days at irregular intervals, and who can have no esprit de corps, no knowledge of their battalions, and no acquaintance with their officers. I think that the noble Earl said such men would compare with the Militia Reservists of old days. I do not know whether it is the case, but I would remind the noble Earl that it has not been our custom to put the Militia Reservists in the fighting line at the outset.
  The noble Earl in charge of the Bill explained that under this scheme practically the whole Reserve would be absorbed by the Expeditionary Force at the outset of hostilities, and that these men from the Special Contingent would therefore have to be taken at the outset of hostilities, and, before any time was available to give further training, placed in the front rank to meet the disciplined troops of a foreign enemy. I can only come to the conclusion that the amputations to which the Government have resorted will have a very serious effect in weakening the fighting efficiency of the Regular Army.
  One word with regard to the Militia. No point in the Bill was to my mind more obscure than the original intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Militia. We were told that the
  1338
  continuity of the Militia tradition was to be preserved, that the distinctive character of the belongings of each regiment was to be maintained, that they were to pass from one side to the other of the Line without feeling the change in any material degree. But, my Lords, to most plain folk the original proposal of His Majesty's Government seemed to involve something very like the complete obliteration of the Militia as we know it. I might say it involved putting into the melting pot everything except perhaps the regimental plate. The original proposal has been considerably modified. My noble friend Lord Salisbury expressed his gratification at the change which has been made. It was not quite so cordially received on the Benches behind him. Noble Lords behind me have a practical acquaintance with the Militia, its history, its traditions, the composition of the force, to which I cannot pretend. I agree with them that on many points even the modified proposal seems to bear hardly upon the Militia, but in spite of that I am bound to say that to me it seems satisfactory that under the scheme as. we now know it the Militia does at all events remain apparently in existence as a separate and distinct force, instead of being as it would have been under the original proposal merged with the Volunteers in the Territorial Army. When we get to closer quarters in Committee, I have no doubt my noble friends will press upon the House proposals designed to obtain for the Militia some of those concessions for which they have so earnestly pleaded this evening, some of which at all events seem to me not at all unreasonable demands. I cannot for the life of me see the object of setting up an arbitrary distinction between the third and fourth Militia battalions—a most invidious distinction,, and one which I should think the Secretary of State for War will do well not to insist upon. I feel however convinced that I am only expressing the opinion of all the noble Lords in this House who are connected with the Militia when I say it is their desire to accept in the most loyal spirit any changes which His Majesty's Government deem indispensable, and that it will not be for want of their co-operation if His Majesty's Government are not successful in keeping alive and turning to good account the old constitutional force which has done such

  1339
  excellent service to the country in the past.
  With regard to the Territorial Army, we understand that it is to be maintained for the double purpose of securing the safety of these islands and of acting as a kind of reservoir for the Regular Army. Both these functions seem to me to be essential. I am certainly not one of those who underrate the importance of providing an adequate garrison for the defence of these islands. I have often regretted the attempts which are made to divide us into those who belong to what is called the blue water school and those who do not. In my belief there is much less divergence of opinion on this subject than many would have us believe. I have never met a reasonable man who did not admit that sea power was only one branch of our national defence, and that behind the Fleet it was absolutely necessary that this country should have an adequate land force for the protection of these shores. It is indeed obvious that we require such a force to secure the mobility of our Fleet, and because the strength of our defensive force really determines the strength of the force with which the enemy can hope to invade these shores. The larger the invading force the greater the difficulty of the task which the invader will set himself to perform. For that reason, in order to deter an enemy from invading these islands it is absolutely necessary that we should have at home a force of sufficient strength and organised in such a manner that it is capable of meeting cither a raid or an attempt at an invasion on a larger scale in an adequate manner at whatever point the attack may be delivered.
  Nor do I deny the necessity of a home Territorial Army for the purpose of supplying a reservoir from which the needs of the Regular Army may be supplied. Like my noble friend Lord Milner, I cannot forget the events of the South African war, nor how soon after we had supplied the force which we had been led to suppose was adequate for the purpose of dealing with our South African difficulties—and not only that force, but a very much larger force—we found it necessary to appeal to the patriotism of the country. We all know how greatly our difficulties were increased owing to the fact that although
  1340
  men were forthcoming in abundance, they were to a great extent men unfamiliar with military discipline and organisation and training.
  I pass now for a moment to the County Associations. I am not sure that the obscurity of the Bill does not lie thickest at this point. That part of the Bill really is little more than an embodiment of an aspiration for a closer union between the local Army and the local authorities. That is an admirable aspiration. There are obviously many points of contact between the local authorities and the local Army—the pro vision of ranges, buildings, and land for the use of troops, questions affecting the relations of Volunteers with their employers, questions connected with rifle clubs, with the care of discharged men and their families, questions concerning camps and manœuvres, all of which are clearly matters which can be most advantageously dealt with by bodies of men of local experience and representing different aspects of public life in our country districts: but there is a great amount of uncertainty with regard both to the composition and to the duties of these Associations. I was very glad at the outset of this debate to hear my noble friend Lord Fortescue ask a number of pertinent questions with regard to the position of the Lieutenants of counties. I do not think those questions have yet received the answers to which they were entitled. We have been told that the lord-lieutenant will be the constitutional head of the Association, and will not be excluded from the chairmanship; but we want to know a little more than that. The president will have rather a motley team. There are to be officers of all arms and branches of the Territorial Force, representatives of county and borough councils, co-opted members representing employers of labour and trade unions, and, where universities are within reach, one or two dons from those universities. In addition there are to be general officers of His Majesty's Forces who are to be entitled to speak but not to vote.
  We should like to know whether the lord-lieutenant is expected to drive this team or whether he is to be in the position of, as it were, a kind of patron—the kind of position he would occupy with reference

  1341
  to the Toxopholite Association of the county or other institutions of that kind. There is to be, not only a president of the Association, but a chairman and vice-chairman. I do not think I do the Secretary of State an injustice when I say that on one occasion he explained that they were to be men of business—a sort of suggestion that Lords-Lieutenant were not necessarily men of business, and that their shortcomings were to be supplied by these other officials. Then we should like to know whether, in all these cases, the procedure is to be by vote, and whether the president is liable to find himself left in a minority, and outvoted by the other members of the Association; or whether, on the contrary, he is really to be in the position of the Secretary of State at the War Office, with an advisory council, of which he is primus inter pares.
  Then there is an amount of uncertainty as to the duties of the Associations. They to are give advice and assistance. That is obviously right, but they are also to be entrusted with the organisation, administration, and recruiting of the Territorial Army. It is, I think, pretty clear that these Associations are really miniature War Offices, which are to be spread all over the country and which are to have very extensive powers and very vast responsibilities. I cannot imagine a more difficult or a more responsible position than that of a Lord-Lieutenant of a county who finds himself called upon to preside over one of these bodies and to decide how the Exchequer grant, which, I understand, is to supply the financial requirements of the Associations, is to be distributed amongst the innumerable claimants who will, no doubt, importunately demand a share of it. But until these points have been further considered and explained, I am quite willing to suspend my judgment with regard to these Associations, and to accept them without demur as an indication of the desire of His Majesty's Government that the local army and the local authorities should be drawn together as closely as possible.
  With regard to the Territorial Army itself, I think those noble Lords are perfectly correct who have said that, after all, it is the old Volunteer Force under a new title. It is, so to speak, the old dog in a new doublet. The Territorial Army
  1342
  is to be collected by "the enlisting of such persons in such manner and subject to such regulations as may be described." There is a delightful vagueness in that description, which is rather characteristic of the rest of this part of the Bill. In dealing with the Volunteer Force His Majesty's Government have to deal with the immemorial difficulty of reconciling the demands of military efficiency with the obligations of civil life, and I wish I could say that I found in this Bill anything to show that these conflicting interests have been thoroughly reconciled.
  With regard to the Yeomanry, I may be allowed to express my entire concurrence with what was said by my noble friend Lord Scarbrough. He said, speaking, I believe, on behalf of a large number of Yeomanry officers, that the force was contented as it was, and that it was in a satisfactory state. I do not think that will be denied by anyone, because I believe there is no part of the British Army which has made more extraordinary progress or gained more in public confidence than has the Yeomanry Force within the last few years. I entirely agree with what fell from my noble friend Lord Harris on that subject. What we are doing with regard to the Yeomanry Force is, as has boon truly said, to ask them to do more work for less pay, and that, I am afraid, does not seem to be a very promising outlook.
  My noble friend Lord Midleton dealt so fully with the financial aspects of the Bill that I will not travel over the ground which he traversed last night. It is impossible to represent this Bill as being one which effects a large saving of public money. My noble friend gave the figures to your Lordships. He showed that the saving that could be claimed for the Bill did not exceed £885,000, and of that £200,000 is prospective only; and he showed that this saving was due entirely to those reductions in the Regular Forces of which I have already spoken, and which I so greatly regret. In these circumstances we can scarcely regard this Bill, if we consider its financial aspects, as a triumphantly good bargain for the country. As to its destructive effects, there can be no doubt. As to its constructive proposals, there is much that must remain uncertain. We cannot yet judge what its results will be, but I trust that, worked courageously and with the

  1343
  loyal co-operation of the local authorities, the Bill may do much to increase the efficiency of our Territorial Forces. I am afraid, however, that I must add that it seems to me altogether too much to claim for the Bill that, as it stands, it is a complete and thoroughly-considered scheme of Army reform, or that the passing of it will at once render this country, for purposes either of offence or of defence, stronger and better equipped than it was a few years ago.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I greatly regret that it falls to me to wind up this debate instead of to my noble friend who leads the House, and who unfortunately is not able to be here this evening, I have to ask the indulgence of the House in comparison with many of the noble Lords who have spoken, owing to the fact that the War Office is one the inside of which I have never seen. I have only, as one of the public, watched it from outside with a certain amount of terror due to the peculiar reputation which it has enjoyed, sometimes, I think, rather unfairly attributed to it.
  I heartily concur with what fell from the noble.Marquess when he said that he was sure that we on this side of the House would not make the slightest complaint of the manner in which this debate has been conducted. Our proposals have been subjected to a great deal of criticism, and a great many questions have been asked, but we complain of neither. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seemed to think that my noble friend Lord Elgin had complained of the interrogative turn of the Opposition. That was not so. When questions are asked in the course of a speech by what I may call volley firing we do our best to answer them, but my noble friend only protested against what I may call the sniping habit of some noble Lords in rising to ask a single question, as was done rather frequently in the course of my noble friend Lord Lucas's speech.
  This House is certainly distinguished for the number of those who can speak with authority on this subject. Both its Leaders on each side have been Secretaries of State for War. One very distinguished Member of the House, whose
  1344
  absence and the cause of it we so deeply deplore—the Duke of Devonshire—was also Secretary of State for War, and in addition to that we have the new and welcome presence of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton. I hope he will allow me, as an old friend, to say how much we welcome him here. His father was a very familiar and a very highly respected figure in this House, and, though we cannot say that either the Benches opposite generally or the Front Bench needs any accession of strength, still we welcome the noble Viscount none the less heartily on that account. In addition, there are six noble Lords in. this House who have been Under-Secretaries of State for War and other noble Lords who have held positions at the War Office; and I hope I maybe allowed to congratulate my noble friend behind me, Lord Lucas, on the very pleasant reception which his maiden speech, full of knowledge as it was, was received in all quarters of the House.
  Now, my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War has found, as other Secretaries of State for War have found, that his path is not strewn with roses, but rather resembles one of those caravan routes across the African desert, strewn with whitened bones which show the disasters of those who have passed that way before. I cannot help thinking how difficult it is for any Secretary of State for War to tackle the Army question at all. There is no subject in this country upon which change has been so often attempted, and upon which change is regarded with so much suspicion. I very well remember in 1881, when the territorial names were substituted for the numbers of the regiments, the excitement that was caused by what seemed to outsiders a reasonable process, but which was regarded by many of the senior officers of the Army and by others as marking one more milestone on that progress to the dogs which apparently the Army has been taking ever since we have had an Army at all.
  It would not become me to pay any compliment to the ability with which my right hon. friend has tackled this question, but I can speak for the unwearying thought and pains which he has given to the production of this Bill. As noble Lords on both sides of the House have

  1345
  said with perfect truth, this measure is an attempt to carry on, and so far as possible to crown, the work which was initiated by the greatest of our War Ministers of recent times—Lord Card well; and I think an examination of the Bill will show that in no particular has it departed from the principles which Lord Cardwell laid down. It is in pursuit of the plan of Lord Cardwell that my right hon. friend has adhered to the system of linked battalions and has not attempted the experiment of large depots, which, I think, the noble Earl Lord Donoughmore regards with favour, as some other distinguished authorities do, but has preferred, I believe with the general approval of the great majority of military authorities, to stick to Lord Cardwell's system.
  Before I say anything about the various criticisms which have been levelled against the Bill, I desire to say a word upon the subject which was introduced by the noble and gallant Earl (Lord Roberts) on the cross benches, whose opinions we naturally regard with respect, and carried on by Lord Milner and by Lord Newton—I mean what may be called either universal service for home defence, or, as I think noble Lords on the front Bench opposite more correctly described it, a system of conscription. That system has to be viewed, not merely as regards the Army alone, but in connection with the whole system of national defence. When you speak of a nation in arms as an abstract conception, it may, or may not, be an admirable thing. That entirely depends upon the purpose to which you wish to apply the arms. Now, Lord Milner—I regret the noble Viscount is not in the House—wanted to see a large Army of this kind, because, as he said, this country is not safe from serious invasion, and he asked how it was that the country was perfectly willing, apparently, to go any lengths to secure a paramount Navy, but was not willing to take similar steps in regard to the Army. Surely the answer is simple.
  We are the strongest naval power in the world, and so long as there is a shot in the locker and a sixpence left in the purse we mean to remain so. But we do not pretend to be the strongest military Power in the world, or even one of the strongest military Powers. As I said, the question is one of the whole system of national defence, and if it really is
  1346
  necessary to keep in this country a trained army which is able to repel, not merely a raid, but what I may call a continuous invasion—that is to say, the pouring into this country of largo numbers of troops belonging to some Continental Power—then we have a land frontier. We are no longer, for any practical purposes, an island. If that is so, if we have a land frontier, you may be perfectly certain that the country will not consent to keep up an Army on a Continental scale, and at the same time to maintain the Navy at its present strength. If we have a Continental Army the country will insist upon a very large reduction in our Navy Estimates, because, if our Navy cannot protect us from invasion, undoubtedly we spend far too much upon it at the present moment.
  The noble Lord opposite, Lord Ampthill, protested very strongly against the force referred to being spoken of as a conscript force. I confess I do not know what the difference is. I understand that the proposition is that a very large number of the youth of the country should undergo every year or two years, as the case may be, military training. The particular men who at that time are undergoing the training will be the people who are to repel this invasion. It is not proposed, I take it, to keep another fully trained Army also in this country for the purpose, and therefore they will be, it seems to me, precisely in the position which the conscript army of such a country as France is in when it is out for its training, and, of course, with the same immense reserve to call upon which continental countries have. But I also ask, like other noble Lords, what is this great army to do? I remember a speech which the noble and gallant Earl made, I think last year, in which he seemed to contemplate the possibility of our desiring to place a very large force of men at some time or other on the continent of Europe. If that is so, all I can say is, on behalf of the Government, that we do not contemplate any possibility of the kind. All that we contemplate that the British Army, in case of war, can do is to send out the striking force, and, of course, we should use such an Army as we have in combination with the Fleet in that kind of operations of which there have been so

  1347
  many examples in our past history. If this question of invasion is considered in the way that the noble Vi scount regards it, the whole view of our national position undoubtedly has to be altered. But, if not, I am perfectly certain that the people of this country will not consent to anything of the kind. I think it was Mr. Balfour who said— and said with great truth—that the country would not agree to pay a double insurance premium for a singe risk, and either the Navy is sufficient to guard us against the possibility of invasion on a large scale or it is not. The example of other countries was spoken of. Of course, we all know of the great muster of men in continental armies. The whole standing army of the United States, with its vast population and its vast area, consists of some 60,000 men; consequently it surely is necessary to consider all the conditions of the case, and not to attempt to form analogies for which no foundation really exists.
  Much has been said on the question of the reductions which noble Lords state have taken place in the Army. We do not attempt for a moment to deny that financial considerations have operated, and as we maintain are bound to operate, considerably in determining what the size of the Army is to be; and, for this reason, that if it is to be the national rule that the expenditure on the Navy is not to be closely checked, the people of this country will certainly insist on the Army expenditure being very closely checked; while, if any Government attempts to forget this fact, and to spend money too lavishly on the Army, there is risk of a very dangerous reaction in the country, and a determination to cut down military expenditure on a scale which none of us would wish to see done, but which, if that reaction really took place, no Government in this country could possible resist.
  Some noble Lords—not noble Lords who have had official experience—talk in a very light-hearted manner about the cost of the Army. The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, for instance, said that several millions more might properly be spent. Anyone who speaks in that tone seems to me to be in the position of a guest who goes to stay at a country house, and says to his host, "I wonder
  1348
  you do not cut away that hillside and make a series of Italian terraces." It is a light-hearted and irresponsible manner of talking of expenditure for which one has no responsibility. Of course, if we had an unlimited sum at our disposal it would be easy enough to provide an Army of almost any kind you might desire. It was a great Italian Minister who said that any fool could govern in a state of siege; and anyone could preside at the War Office if he had the purse of Fortunatus at his disposal. But the Secretary of State is tied down by restrictions, and his desire is to give the best he can for the sum at his dispssal.
  Lord Midleton threw a tolerably heavy douche of cold water on our Bill, but he did not make any positive suggestions of a material character as to its improvement. He spoke specially, I think, of the Field Force— the first Line—and regarded the interests of the fighting Army as having been sacrificed to the Territorial scheme. Much has been said, and I think my noble friend has replied to it pretty fully, as to the reductions in the Army. But my right hon. friend claims that, in spite of those reductions, he is able to put into the field a larger organised striking force than has ever before been at the disposal of any War Office in this country. So long as he is able to state that, and to state it without contradiction, it appears to me that he is in a strong position; and the mere fact that certain battalions existed before which do not exist now was of no real service to the country so long as those battalions wore not available, as they were not for the purposes of mobilisation.
  Several noble Lords have asked about the Artillery, and my noble friend behind me, Lord Elgin, made a statement which has been commented upon by two noble Lords opposite, and on which I wish to say a word, because it is important that before the debate closes we should be quite clear that we mean exactly the same thing. Now, my noble friend said that the strength of the Artillery would not be reduced. I am anxious to explain exactly what he meant by that. It is not the case that the peace establishment of the Artillery will necessarily remain, or indeed probably remain, at its present figure. Certain brigades

  1349
  will be utilised for the purpose of training the Special Contingent, and therefore the peace establishment will be lower. But these reductions in numbers will be compensated for in this way, that a certain proportion of the remaining brigades will be replaced by men engaged for three years, so that noble Lords will see that with the Reserves thus available the total will work out to a similar number of men existing at present, when the batteries are placed on a war footing. In addition, there are the men of the Special Contingent who will be employed for the ammunition columns, and those, of course, are a pure addition, because the work which they will do would under present circumstances have to be done by the more highly-trained men. Consequently the gain in men is represented by the ammunition columns of the Special Contingent, and the loss on the peace establishment is replaced by the greater number of men who will come forward from the Reserve when the batteries are placed on a war footing.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Will the number of Regular Artillerymen now serving be decreased?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, they undoubtedly will. The number of men serving with the field force will be decreased when it is on a peace footing.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Can the noble Earl give us the figures? I make that request because there has been so very much misunderstanding about this matter. The noble Earl the Colonial Secretary told us that it was not proposed in any way to weaken the strength of the Regular Artillery.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes. I think the number is about 2,000 who are transferred for the purposes of training. My noble friend was quite accurate in saying that the Artillery would not be weakened, because, when the Reserves are called up, the number will be equalized with the present number by the addition of the Reserve men who are available. As regards the Garrison Artillery, that has been reduced by 3,000 men, consequent on the withdrawal of some of the garrisons of the West Indian stations. The noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, complained that these reductions were
  1350
  undertaken from policy and not from military necessity. That seems to me to be almost a contradiction in terms. I cannot conceive how a reduction in any army can be made by a military necessity. All persons connected officially with an army would like to see it made as large as possible. We admit that the reductions are due to policy.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think I said political pressure. At any rate, that is the phrase I meant to use.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I would point out that, be these reductions right or wrong, they do not in any way affect the character of the scheme as a whole. The general substitution of the system of two lines for three remains altogether unaffected by these temporary changes which my right hon. friend has made. We have heard a great deal from the most competent authorities on the subject of the Militia. The position of the Militia, as I understand it, in the view of my right hon. friend is this, that given that he desired to create two lines of defence for this country, the Militia must either in practice join one or join the other. It might have become simply a part of the Territorial Force. That, as we know, was one proposition, and the number of men who were required for replenishing the line battalions in time of war would have been supplied by the Special Contingent; but under present circumstances the Militia becomes in practice part of the first line, and that, of course, involves distinct alterations of its position as it exists now under the Act of 1882.
  The Duke of Bedford, and I think some other speakers, complained of the construction which had been placed upon what passed at various interviews between them and the War Office authorities. I am quite certain that nobody had the faintest intention of accusing the noble Duke, or anybody else who could speak for the Militia, of any unpatriotic refusal to do what he could on behalf of the Force. What, as I understand, the noble Duke and his friends did was simply to state their opinion of what was possible, and what would be the result of certain action taken or not taken by the authorities. But my right hon. friend, in stating what ho did, simply put in a terse form the fact

  1351
  that, in the opinion of the noble Duke, he as commanding a Militia battalion, and other Militia colonels, would not be able to supply the men for drafts abroad.
  The noble Duke, unlike the noble Viscount, did make a series of positive suggestions. He asked that the Militia should be allowed to have charge of their own recruiting, and he pledged himself, if they were allowed to do that, to keep the Army going through the Militia. In fact, the noble Duke really asked for a blank cheque from the War Office to keep the Army going; but I am bound to put it to him in this way. He must see that before the War Office could undertake to hand that responsibility over to the noble Duke and other Militia colonels they must necessarily be convinced that the thing would answer, because the whole of the responsibility would rest, not upon the noble Duke, but upon my right hon. friend and the War Office.
  The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who also speaks with great authority on the question of the Militia, made various suggestions which I am quite certain my right hon. friend will consider. The noble Marquess, of course, will not expect me to say off-hand whether it is possible for the War Office authorities to entertain any of them or not. He specially desired, I think, in the first place, that the concession which was made to existing Militiamen, that they should not be drafted to any battalion but one of what I may call the superior battalions of their own regiment, should be extended to all Militiamen for all time. It certainly has been the desire and intention of the War Office that that course should, as far as possible, be invariably followed; "but it is, of course, possible to conceive a case in which it might be difficult to maintain it. If you were to take the case of two battalions engaged in a foreign war, one of which was almost cut to pieces and the other of which had never been under fire at all, it surely would be inconvenient if the drafts belonging to the second and more fortunate regiment were obliged to remain at home and could under no circumstances be used to replenish any other battalion. I am perfectly certain that the noble Marquess and all other Militia officers in this House, although they have been obliged very properly to
  1352
  state their own case strongly, do recognise that the well-being and the necessities of the Field Force are bound to be the first consideration, and that, although my right hon. friend would desire to meet them in every way, yet he is bound to consider that the necessities of the Army in the field must be paramount even over the desires and prejudices of those who serve in the Militia.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Earl is bringing forward the accusation that we Militia commanding officers are looking at this matter from a personal point of view. We regard it just as much from the point of view of the country as any Regular officer, and we tell these exceedingly foolish people that their scheme will not be successful.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I made no kind of accusation against Militia colonels; but it seems to me absurd to suppose that the noble Louis' views can fail to be some what coloured by what they conceive to be the interests of the branch of the service to which they belong. Lord Raglan has had a large military experience outside the Auxiliary Forces, and therefore e very thing which he says is listened to with respect. He thinks that the Army Council are wrong in this matter, and, of course, he is perfectly right to hold his own opinion. With regard to the question of supplying drafts, I would ask the House also to consider what a very remarkable step in advance is taken by the new arrangement for training the drafts before they go out. Noble Lords who remember what happened when drafts were sent out to South Africa will recollect that at that time everything had to be improvised. It was not the fault of those who were at the War Office, because nobody imagined that that kind of strain would be placed on the War Office. Ac any rate that provision is now very definitely provided for in this Bill.
  The Yeomanry have been very fully dealt with by Lord Harris and also by Lord Scarbrough, and certainly I am not going to say a word of disrespect towards that very remarkable and very efficient force. But I should like to ask noble Lords to consider this. Is it quite certain that the impulse which was given to the Yeomanry by the South African

  1353
  war, and by the fine service which it did there, will not somewhat tend to diminish as peaceful years go on? A great and very deserved glamour hangs now about the Imperial Yeomanry, but those of us who remember what the force was before the war, cannot but consider that the kind of enthusiasm which now makes that force so popular can hardly be expected to be quite permanent after what we all hope will be a long series of years of peace.
  I confess I did hear with some astonishment the suggestion that the Yeomanry should be taken out of the Territorial Force and placed in the Special Contingent. In the first place, is it really conceivable that the type of man who now joins the Yeomanry will be content to be drafted into a cavalry regiment in the manner which would take place in the infantry 1 In the second place, I would remind the noble Lord that to do what ho proposes would involve the destruction of the Territorial Army as an Army. It would leave the Home Defence Army with no cavalry at all. If the noble Lord thinks that a desirable state of things, that is his affair; but it is entirely foreign to the notion of my right hon. friend, who desires to make the Home Defence Army a real Army and not merely an aggregation of aimed men.
  The County Associations have come in for considerable criticism, very largely of a merely jocular character. I do not exactly know what there is in these bodies which should appear to excite the amusement of noble Lords opposite, any more than there is in a county council or in any other organised body for local purposes. Lord Harris also compared the prospect that these Associations will attract men, at any rate to Yeomanry regiments, very unfavourably with what he and other Yeomanry colonels are able to do.]t is not every commander of an Auxiliary regiment or battalion who, like the noble Lord, has boon the captain of a very successful county cricket eleven, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord's powers of personal persuasion in Kent are quite equal to those which any Association could exercise. But I certainly should have thought that nobody would be found, in this House or out of it, to deny that it is a desirable thing to associate county fooling with national defence. I am sorry,
  1354
  therefore, that so many sneers have been levelled in the course of this debate at the idea of these Associations, and I confess it seems to me scarcely fair. I think it is obvious that, if you can get the Lord-Lieutenant, the country gentlemen, the trade union officials, and all those classes of people who are mentioned, to take a combined interest in that share of national defence that belongs to their county, you will achieve desirable work. I was sorry to hear Lord Raglan hint that it was likely that country gentlemen would sulk because they dislike some of our legislation or consider that the death duties are too high.
  LORD RAGLAN: I said nothing of the kind.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Even if that class had been unjustly attacked, which I do not admit, I do not believe that any feeling of chagrin would prevent them from exercising the patriotic influence which they are able to bring to bear in their own neighbourhood, and I believe they will combine heartily and fully with all other classes in the county for this purpose. The noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne complained of the excessive elasticity of our suggestions with regard to the County Associations, but I cannot help reflecting that if we had attempted to lay down hard and fast rules of conduct for these Associations all over England we should have been condemned on that account for not making allowances for different localities. If this thing is to work at all, and I trust it may—it is, of course, an experiment—it can only be done by varying the conditions according to the needs of the locality, and although I admit that our proposals in this relation may appear to be of a skeleton character, they may have been made so because we conceived it to be absolutely necessary.
  The noble Earl Lord Donoughmore said that, after all, there was really no change. It was simply a matter of leaving the Volunteers and Yeomanry alone. But he went on to say that some proposals of my right hon. friend, which he most heartily welcomed, did, in effect, weld together into a solid weapon the scraps of the Auxiliary Forces as they exist in different districts. He quite admitted—and I think noble Lords generally will be

  1355
  disposed to admit—that it is a very desirable thing that the various branches of the Auxiliary Forces, instead of standing entirely apart and in no relation whatever to each other, should become an organised corps, with guns, with army service, with medical service, and all that go to make up a complete army. If that is so, whatever force there may be in the different criticisms which have been levelled by various noble Lords at these proposals concerning the Territorial Army, we do maintain that we are giving the Second Line a higher standard of military efficiency to aim at; and consequently in certain cases we do ask particular branches of them to give up certain things, in consideration of becoming an infinitely more serious body for the purpose of national defence than singly they can possibly be said hitherto to have been. It has been said that this whole scheme is speculative, but we are entitled to ask in reply, Are you absolutely content to remain as you are? Do you think that the present Army, the Militia, the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, really represent the last word of perfection for an Army of such a country as this?
  LORD NEWTON: No.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend Lord Newton, who is nothing if not candid, has, I believe, washed his hands of this Bill; but he admitted, with the utmost candour, that there was an extraordinary absence of positive suggestion on the part of the critics of this Bill.
  LORD NEWTON: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am glad to hear my noble friend cheer that. Consequently, I think we are entitled to say, not that we have made an ideal Army, because we have to take things as we find them and do the best with the materials we have at hand, but that the suggestions which we have made, subject, of course, to any criticism of detail which noble Lords may make, are the ones which are before the country, and we are, I think, entitled to assume in the absence of others that they are the best that can be put before the country.
  I repeat once more that we have no complaint to make of the character of the criticism which has been levelled
  1356
  against this Bill. We do not think it entirely reasonable in all cases, but it has certainly not been unfair, and it has been expressed uniformly with the greatest courtesy towards my right hon. friend and the Government generally. I can equally assure noble Lords that we shall desire to give the most patient consideration in the Committee Stage to any Amendments which they may propose. I am also quite certain that noble Lords opposite will rejoice quite as much as we do if, when this Bill becomes law, as I trust it may, it proves to be a real step forward—I quite admit that much must be left to future years—towards the solution of what, after all, is one of the most difficult problems affecting our whole national life and the security of the Empire.
  On Question, Bill read 2a
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I propose, subject to the general convenience of the House, to put the Bill down for Committee on Monday and Tuesday, 8th and 9th July. I also ask most respectfully that noble Lords will put their Amendments down as soon as possible. It is our earnest desire to consider all the Amendments most fully, and to treat them with every consideration.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 8th of July next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.