Sitting of 14 April 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Gowerton Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Crystal Palace Company Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 28th April.
North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Bankers Guarantee and Trust Fund Incorporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment.
Mersey Railway Bill [Lords], Reported, without Amendment.
Wicklow Gas Bill [Lords],
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments.
Tipperary Gas Bill,
Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Aberavon, Farnham (Rural), Rochdale, and the Tewkesbury Joint Hospital District," presented by Mr. Lewis; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
TELEPHONES.
Return ordered, "showing the Telephone charges, the number of miles of Telephone lines in operation, and the revenue and expenditure of each country in Europe."—[Lord Claud Hamilton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Congo Free State.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government was at present engaged in negotiations with Belgium regarding the boundaries of the Congo; and, if so, whether he could state when the negotiations would be ended, and whether the annexation of the Congo Free State by Belgium would be formally recognised before the result of these negotiations would be announced?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative: the negotiations are informal, and the result, when reached, cannot be embodied in any formal agreement until the annexation of the Congo Free State by Belgium has been recognised. It is impossible to say when the negotiations will be ended. I have repeatedly stated that the recognition will not take place till the actual state of affairs reported from the Congo is satisfactory to Treaty obligations and the House has had the Reports before it. This seems to me to be the important condition on which recognition should depend, rather than frontier negotiations.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD (for Sir George White)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would lay upon the Table of the House the Reports which had been received from His

  1387
  Majesty's Consular staff on the Congo since the Congo was annexed by Belgium to the present day, together with the communications, if any, which had been exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government since June of last year?
  Sir E. GREY: The Reports received hitherto are not sufficient to form an opinion as to the effect of the change of Government in the Congo. I propose, in the first instance, to make a communication to the Belgian Government respecting the partial information which we have received, and when that is more complete to present papers which will enable the House to judge of the effect of the reforms promised.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked if the Belgian Government have been asked for an explanation with regard to the speech delivered by M. Renkin, in reference to the Congo and the rights of the signatory Powers of the Berlin Act therein, in the Belgian Senate on the 24th February last?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not ask for an explanation because I hold that it is the language which the Belgian Government hold to us which is the correct expression of their view, and not the version given in debate here of language which has never been addressed to us at all. I considered that the way I dealt with that point in my speech in this House was preferable to the course suggested in the question. But I have been assured by the Belgian Government that nothing in the speech of the Minister of the Colonies referred to warrants the contention that the Belgian Government means to withdraw from the international obligations which Belgium has inherited from the Independent State of the Congo, or which she has herself contracted in signing the Berlin and Brussels Acts; and that she has never contested in the case either of England or of any other Power the rights which the international Acts give to the Signatory Powers.

  Suez Canal Concession.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked how many of the directors of the Suez Canal Company were appointed by the British Government; if these gentlemen were consulted before the British Agent in Egypt notified his consent to the decision of the Egyptian Government not to extend

  1388
  the Suez Canal concession: and, if so, what advice did they give; and whether the Government were prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence that had taken place between Sir Eldon Gorst and the Egyptian Government on this subject?
  Sir E. GREY: Three representatives are selected by His Majesty's Government and proposed by the Board of Directors, after agreement, for election by the shareholders in general meeting. The official directors were not consulted before Sir Eldon Gorst assented on grounds of general policy to the decision of the Egyptian Government to abide by the vote of the General Assembly. His Majesty's Government are no doubt interested generally in the question of the Suez Canal, both as shareholders and on account of British shipping, but as far as the Egyptian Government are concerned it would not have been right that they should be pressed to extend the concession except on grounds of the interest of Egypt, and the attitude of His Majesty's Consul-General at Cairo has been that described in previous answers. I am not aware whether anything in the nature of written communications passed between Sir Eldon Gorst and the Egyptian Government respecting the vote of the General Assembly, and I cannot promise to lay any Papers on that point.

  Cotton Crop in Egypt.
  Mr. HARWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he would consider the advisability of sending out from this country an independent commission to inquire into the causes of the failure of the cotton crop last season in Egypt; and whether the necessary regulations were properly observed?
  Sir E. GREY: There does not seem to be any occasion of sending out a Commission, seeing that two are already at work. The administrative measures prescribed by the law of 1905 for the destruction of the cotton - worm were put in force throughout the country.

  British Consuls Abroad.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could give the number of British Consuls-General, Consuls, and Vice-Consuls at present serving Abroad, stating in each class the number who were British citizens?
  Sir E. GREY: The Consular Service is divided into two branches: the Salaried Service and the Unsalaried Service. The establishment of the Salaried Service on April 1st was: Consuls-General 50, Consuls 127, Vice-Consuls 117, Consular Assistants 81. A few posts may at any particular moment be vacant owing to the death or retirement of the holder. All the members of this Service of each class are necessarily British subjects. In the Unsalaried Service there are: Consuls-General 5, of whom 2 are British subjects; Consuls 61, of whom 40 are British subjects; Vice-Consuls 526, of whom 298 are British subjects.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Would the right hon. Gentleman grant a return giving the names of the Consuls and Vice-Consuls, salaried and unsalaried, throughout the world?
  Sir E. GREY: I should have thought the names of the salaried Consuls are to be found in the Estimates. I do not think that any object would be served by giving the whole list of names. I could give the proportion of foreign to British employed in the Unsalaried Service. The Salaried Service is entirely British.

  Brussels Sugar Convention (Duties on Raw and Refined Sugar).
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the total amount of the duties charged by the French Government on raw and refined sugar the produce of France, the French Colonies, and Foreign countries, respectively; whether the differentiation, if any, between Foreign and Colonial sugar was permitted by the Brussels Convention; and, if so, whether it would be possible for the British Government, consistently to the obligations under the Brussels Convention, similarly to differentiate between Home-grown, Foreign, and Colonial sugar?
  Sir E. GREY: All sugar other than candy, whether manufactured in or imported into France, is subject to an Excise Tax of 25 francs per 100 kilogrammes of its equivalent in refined sugar, and refined sugar is subject, in addition to refining and supervision taxes, which together amount to two francs eight centimes per 100 kilogrammes. No further duty is levied on sugar imported from French colonies and possessions direct, but on sugar imported from foreign countries an additional surtax is levied of five francs fifty centimes per 100 kilogrammes of raw
  1390
  and of six francs per 100 kilogrammes of refined sugar. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. It is open to the British Government to differentiate between home-grown and other sugar within the limit of six francs per 100 kilogrammes of refined sugar, but by the final protocol to the Sugar Convention of 1902 the British Government declared that no preference would be given to Colonial sugar as against sugar from the contracting States.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that it will not be necessary to put an Excise Duty on homegrown sugar?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the answer I have given, and if he has any further questions I should like him to put them afterwards.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of the rule that old age pension officers cannot themselves disallow a pension granted by a pension committee, but must refer the matter to the Local Government Board for decision, and in view of the importance of the Census Returns, and the promise that they would be examined in each case without expense to the applicant, if he will say on whose authority pensions so granted are disallowed in Ireland in cases in which the Returns have not been examined; and whether he will direct an examination in each of these cases?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Local Government Board are not aware of any cases of disallowance of pensions in the circumstances mentioned. If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any definite case it will be inquired into.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I and other hon. Members have letters from the Local Government Board stating that the Census Returns have not been examined?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I am not aware of it.
  Mr. GINNELL: I have them here.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of it. In every case the matter has been referred to the Census Returns. Sometimes upon examination the evidence has proved insufficient.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he could say on what ground the Local Government Board deprived James King, of Tulligoline, Templeglantine, county Limerick, of a pension, although the local sub-committee awarded it to him?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the Pension Officer's appeal in this case on the ground that the pensioner had not reached the statutory age. According to the Census Returns his parents were married in 1839 but had no children living in 1841, one daughter aged six months having died in 1840, and another aged three months having died in 1841.
  Mr. CULLINAN (for Mr. Scanlan)asked the Chief Secretary if he would state on what grounds the old age pension granted to Michael Kenny by the Carney subcommittee of the county Sligo pension committee had been withdrawn; and, if on the question of means, how the Local Government Board arrived at the calculation of the applicant's means?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The pension was disallowed in this case on the ground that the means of the pensioner exceeded £31 10s. per annum. The Local Government Board found that his holding was well cropped and carried five head of cattle and a horse, besides a pig and fowl. In addition to the profits of the farm, the pensioner makes several pounds a year from a post-car.
  Mr. GORDONasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that in January, 1908, an old age pension was granted to Mary Nelson, of Mullinabrow, county Derry; that this pension was recently objected to, and the local pension committee, after hearing the objection, confirmed the pension; and that the pension officer appealed to the Local Government Board, who disallowed the pension, though her name appeared on the Census Returns of 1841 as being then twelve years of age; and whether he could state the grounds upon which the Board disallowed the pension, and will he direct that a reinvestigation of the case should be held?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the sub-committee disallowed the question raised by the pension officer in this case because they considered their former decision as final. The pension officer then appealed to the Local Government Board, who upheld his appeal on the ground that
  1392
  the pensioner's family were traced in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, and that her age was recorded in the latter as being only ten years. The Board were satisfied from the Census records relating to the family and from the pensioner's own statement as to the order in age of her brothers and sisters that the name "Mary" in the Census Return of 1841 was a mistake for that of her elder brother Michael.

  Omagh Asylum Attendants (Hours of Duty).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that in the Omagh district asylum the attendants have to go on duty at six o'clock a.m. and remain until eight o'clock at night, having to work fourteen hours daily, in addition to which on two nights in the week they have to remain on duty until ten o'clock p.m.; whether these officials have frequently made representations to the committee but without effect; whether the inspectors have the power to insist on reasonable hours of service in consequence of the grant from the Government; and whether he will take steps to see that the inspectors insist on more reasonable hours being worked by the attendants in that institution?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the facts are practically as stated, save that the attendants' hours of duty are somewhat shorted in winter. The hours of duty in Omagh Asylum are not, as I am informed, longer than in most other asylums. The power of prescribing the attendants' duties is vested by law in the committee of management, and the inspectors of lunatics cannot interfere save in extreme cases affecting the proper maintenance of the inmates of an asylum.

  Chief Crown Solicitor's Office (Ireland).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state why the five clerical assistants in the office of the Chief Crown Solicitor, who are paid out of money voted by Parliament, are appointed by the Chief Crown Solicitor instead of being assigned by the Civil Service Commissioners; and whether in future, in the making of such appointments in this and similar offices, the Irish Government will see that the power of appointment rests with the Civil Service Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The arrangement by which the assistants in the Chief Crown

  1393
  Solicitor's Office are appointed by the Chief Crown Solicitor was sanctioned by the Treasury in 1888, and is common to all Solicitors' Departments in the public service. It is not proposed to alter it.

  Cattle Driving (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a drive of cattle belonging to a man named Hanley took place on Tuesday, 8th March last, near the village of Brockagh, about three or four miles from Gal way; whether he can state if any arrests were made; and what steps have been taken to prevent further occurrences of a similar kind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Three persons were arrested and bound to the peace in connection with this matter. It is hoped that this fact, together with the measures taken by the police may prevent further occurrences of the kind.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Saturday morning, 26th February last, a cattle drive on a large scale took place in the neighbourhood of Clonaster, Queen's. County, when fifty-nine head owned by Mr. Michael Hackett were found a, considerable distance from home, fifty-eight being in-calf cows; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrage; and what steps have been taken to prevent further occurrences of a similar kind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have been informed of this cattle-drive. No persons have been arrested in connection with it, but a claim for compensation is pending. The police will make every effort to prevent further cattle-drives.
  Mr. DELANY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such place as that mentioned in the question in East Down?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Irrespective of the proper geographical name of this place, the cattle-drive occurred somewhere.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on 14th February last thirty-seven head of cattle were driven, and that recently another very determined cattle-drive took place off the farm of Mr. Edward Wakefield, The Hall, Moate, Athlone, when a number of men armed with sticks collected the cattle and drove them out on to the road; whether anyone has been brought to
  1394
  justice for the outrage; and what steps are being taken to prevent further occurrences of a similar kind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that a cattle-drive took place on 14th February as stated. The cattle were driven home to the owner who appears to have known the offenders, but would not give their names to the police. Frequent patrols were sent to the farm in question both before and since the date mentioned, and no further drive has taken place.
  Captain CRAIGalso asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that an outrage took place on Sunday, 20th March last, on the farm of Mrs. Clarke, Craigabbey, about four miles from Athenry, when three sheep, the property of a grazier, were found dead, hanging from a tree, with ropes round their necks; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrage; and what steps have been taken to prevent further occurrences of a similar kind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the sheep were found dead as seated in the question. The police have not as yet been able to make any arrests, but they are taking every possible precaution to prevent any further outrage.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary (1) whether he is aware that four cattle-drives have taken place off several large grazing farms in the Ballyvaughan district, near Gort, between Sunday, the 13th, and Saturday night, 26th March last; whether the cattle were seen roaming about the roads miles from where the drives took place; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrages; and what steps have been taken to prevent further occurrences of a similar kind; (2) whether he is aware that on 25th March last a cattle-drive took place about two miles from Athenry, off the farm of Mr. Michael Murphy, of Ballinrobe, who holds a farm used for grazing at Gloves; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrage; and what steps have been taken to prevent further occurrences of a similar kind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Cattle have been driven off the grazing farms referred to as stated. The police have not been able to make any arrests, but they are doing all they can to prevent any recurrence of cattle-driving in the districts mentioned in the question.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the Land Bill of last year killed land purchase in Ireland, and did not stop cattle-driving?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It did not kill land purchase, and it has not, I am sorry to say, stopped cattle-driving.
  Mr. REDDY: Is all this not the result of the failure of the Land Conference?
  Captain CRAIG: Did the right hon. Gentleman not suggest that the Land Bill, if passed, would have an effect upon stopping cattle-driving?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. I did; and it has had a very considerable effect.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, with a view to stopping cattle-driving, of appointing Sir Robert Anderson to some new post in Ireland?

  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether it is possible for the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to establish a fund to assist clever pupils at national schools to continue their studies at secondary schools and also at universities; and, if the Commissioners do not possess the right to establish a fund for this purpose, will he introduce a Bill this Session giving them the necessary authority?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have no money at their disposal available for the purpose of establishing a scholarship fund as suggested in the question. In the absence of funds it is unnecessary to contemplate an extension of their powers.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether 17,944 tenants in county Cork have purchased their holdings under the Wyndham Act at a price of £8,346,257; and whether the average price paid was 21.3 years' purchase?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Purchase agreements have been lodged in direct sales under the Irish Land Act, 1903, for the sale of 18,184 holdings in the county Cork. The purchase money in such agreements amounts to £8,497,642, which works out at 21.2 years' purchase of all classes of rent.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether the allotment of untenanted land
  1396
  on the Caldbeck estate, Ballaoolla, Queen's County, made to John Drennan, under the inspector's (Mr. Booth) scheme of February, 1909, is now proposed to be handed over to the bailiff of the estate, named Guilfoyle; and, if so, will he see that the original scheme is adhered to in its entirety, as it was part of a compromise entered into by all parties concerned in the locality?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on the 12th instant.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether, in the scheme which is being drawn up for the distribution of the untenanted land on the Little estate, at Moorestown, Kilfinane, county Limerick, the claims of the town tenants for allotments have been gone into; and, in view of the fact that those people have not a place for even a plant of cabbage, will he recommend the Estates Commissioners to urge on the inspector in charge of the estate, Mr. Byrne, to carefully consider their position and thus avoid any trouble or confusion which doubtless will arise if their claims are not investigated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my answer to the question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 7th March.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that in some cases the Estates Commissioners perpetuate the ranching evil by sanctioning the sale of large grazing tracts to nonresident graziers holding only a grazing tenancy without power to build, till, or give employment, and who purpose continuing the same sort of farming, while uneconomic landholders and landless people in the neighbourhood are forced to emigrate for want of either land or employment; and whether, in view of the intentions of Parliament and the professions of the Government, he will state the sort of grazing tenancy, if any, in which the Commissioners, in their discretion, would not advance public money for the purpose of purchase?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of any ground for the allegation contained in the first part of this question. As regards the limitation or prohibition of advances, I would refer the hon. Member to Sections 15 and 16 of the Irish Land Act, 1909.

  "PARNELLISM AND CRIME."

    SIR. R. ANDERSON AND "THE TIMES" ARTICLES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary whether any documents bearing on the Parnell Commission are still preserved at the Irish Office, London, or in Dublin Castle; if so, whether he can state the general character of them; and whether any have been destroyed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There are a number of documents in Dublin Castle referring to the Parnell Commission and dealing with the attendance of officials on subpœna before the Commission, the transfer to London of prisoners who were required to appear as witnesses, applications on behalf of "The Times" and the respondents, respectively, for inspection of official documents and requests from the Commission for information and returns as to crime, and other matters pertinent to the inquiry. No papers on the subject belonging to the Chief Secretary's office have been destroyed.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there will be any objection to giving outsiders an opportunity of having access to these papers now?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know about that. I can assure the hon. Member he will find nothing in them.
    Captain CRAIG: If permission is given to anybody to have access to those papers, may we have access to the papers dealing with the dynamite outrages at that time?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether any of those papers have been destroyed or not.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; none of them have been destroyed. They are all there.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Are any of those papers in the private custody of any public official connected with Dublin Castle or Scotland Yard?
    Mr. BIRRELL: None at all.
    Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the total amount of money drawn up to date by Sir Robert Anderson from the public purse, including salaries, pensions, and Secret Service allowances?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to
    1398
    answer this question. Sir Robert Anderson as Secretary to the Prison Commissioners drew a salary of £600 a year from July, 1877, to August, 1888. His salary as Assistant-Commissioner of Police was at first £800 a year with certain allowances; but in October, 1899, it was raised to £1,350 without any allowances, except one of £100 a year. On his retirement in May, 1901, he received a pension of £900 a year, which he still draws. I can give no information as to any allowances he may have-received from Secret Service.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any check whatever on amounts expended under the Secret Service by men like Sir Robert Anderson?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes; the Ministers of the different Departments are absolutely and personally responsible for all these payments.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen an extraordinary statement by this Gentleman that the Home Office had at the time of the Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Victoria received complete information as to an alleged plot to blow up Westminster Abbey, and whether there are any records at the Home Office which support that statement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that. I do not think there are any records at all.
    Mr. FLAVIN: What amount of money out of the Secret Service Fund was placed at the disposal of Sir Robert Anderson, and how much money did he spend on procuring evidence for the Parnell Commission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect me, even if it were in my power, to answer that as a supplementary question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which the Prime Minister referred me to the Home Office for? What was the precise positions held by Sir Robert Anderson at the Home Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That does not arise out of this question. I will certainly give my attention to it if it is put on the Paper.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether any papers bearing on the Parnell Commission!

    1399
    were removed from the Home Office or destroyed; whether any were removed from Scotland Yard or destroyed; and whether he can state generally the character of any documents still preserved at either place?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as I can ascertain no papers relating to the Commission have been removed from the Home Office or from Scotland Yard, or destroyed. The Home Office papers relate to such matters as the appointment of the Secretary to the Commission, the supply of stationery, the treatment of Irish prisoners brought over as witnesses, and the presentation to this House of the Commissioner's Report. There is also an extensive collection of newspaper extracts. The Scotland Yard papers are equally miscellaneous and uninteresting. It must be remembered that the Government took no part in the proceedings before the Commission.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Irish witnesses were brought over at the expense of "The Times" or of the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow an outsider to have access to these papers, interesting or uninteresting?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I require notice of that question.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether there is any such post as that of Political Adviser to the Home Office; if so, whether it was ever filled by Sir Robert Anderson; and, if not, what was his precise position?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): A similar question was answered yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement of Sir Robert Anderson himself that he did occupy the position of Political Adviser?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If he says so it is a mistake.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Then will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, and say what was his precise position?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already described it.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: No.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Then he will be prepared to do so if the hon. Member will put a question to him.
    Mr. CULLINANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that Sir Richard Webster, now Lord Alverstone, denied in the House of Commons that Sir Robert Anderson had taken any part in the presentation of "The Times" case for the Special Commission, and that Sir Robert Anderson made a similar declaration in the columns of "The Times"; and whether, in view of Sir Robert Anderson's recent admissions, he will reconsider the question of having further inquiry instituted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think, as I have already said, that any sufficient ground has been shown for such an inquiry as has been suggested.
    Mr. CULLINAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statements contained in that question are not true?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no reason to think they are not true, but I have no means of information, other than every hon. Member has, whether they are true or not.

    Fermanagh Disturbances.
    Mr. LARDNERasked whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant had received a memorial signed by certain justices of the peace for the county of Fermanagh in reference to certain disturbances which took place on 29th February, 1910, and the petty sessions proceedings which followed thereon; if so, will he state what action the Lord Lieutenant proposes to take; and will he grant the request of the memorialists that a Commissioner should be appointed to inquire into the riot of 29th January and the disturbed condition generally of the districts of Maguires-bridge and Brookeborough?
    Mr. BIRRELL: His Excellency has received the memorial referred to, and has informed the memorialists that their request for a commission of inquiry cannot be granted.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary if he will state on what grounds His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant remitted

    1401
    three days in each case of the terms of fourteen days' imprisonment to which two men named Bowles and Boyd were sentenced, and discharged the rule of bail under which one M'Farland was bound to the peace, by the justices of the peace for the county of Fermanagh, sitting in petty sessions recently at Lisnaskea; whether this action was taken as the result of representations made to His Excellency; and, if so, will he state by whom these representations were made?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It would be contrary to practice to state the names of the persons who made representations to His Excellency in such cases, or the reasons which influenced him in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
    Mr. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when representations were made to have these sentences reduced a magistrate for the county of Fermanagh was sitting on the bench proposing to take part in the case, and he was compelled to leave on the representations of the solicitor defending the case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to give the name of any person who made representations in this matter.
    Mr. LARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why these people who were sent to prison were not allowed the ordinary remedy of applying to have their sentences set aside?
    Mr. BIRRELL: His Excellency thought the case was one which called for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.

    Insanitary Cottages (County Limerick).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary whether any further steps have been taken by the Irish Local Government Board in regard to the erection of the two cottages passed by the inspector, Mr. M'Caffrey, in the month of February, 1908, at Lisnagry, county Limerick, on the grounds that the houses in which Peter Sullivan and William Boyle and their families lived were condemned by the doctor as unfit for human habitation; can he say what has occurred since to prevent the cottages being erected; have the labourers made repeated application to the district council to proceed with the work and put them in possession of the plots; have the Local Government Board asked what was the cause of the delay, and what answer the council has given; and whether the Local
    1402
    Government Board will now take action in this matter and have the Act put in force?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As promised in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on 8th July last, the Local Government Board have called the attention of the rural district council to the duty imposed on them by the Labourers Acts of carrying into execution their improvement scheme as confirmed. Since then the council, who are building thirty cottages in a field at Annacotty, in the neighbourhood of Lisnagry, have offered two of them to Sullivan and Boyle, who, however, declined to take them. The council have represented that these thirty cottages are sufficient to supply the wants of the neighbourhood, and have adjourned consideration of the question of building the two cottages in Lisnagry pending completion of the cottages at Annacotty. In these circumstances there are no means at the disposal of the Board by which they can compel the council to immediately proceed with the Lisnagry cottages.

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts (Grants to County Down).
    Mr. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was the amount of the Exchequer Grant coming to the county Down for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in the last financial year prior to the Labourers Act, 1906, coming into force; and if he would state what was the amount of the same Grant paid to the same county for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Aces in the corresponding years 1908–9 and 1909–10, and since the Labourers Act, 1906, came into force?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The amount distributed in respect of the financial year 1905–6 was £6,217 3s. 6d., of which more than two-thirds was out of the reserve undistributed in previous years. The amount of the Grant for each year since the passing of the Labourers Act of 1906 has been £296 19s. 9d., and a similar sum will shortly be distributed in respect of the year 1909–10. In addition the reserve not previously, issued amounting to £3,264 15s. 5d., was distributed in July last, making a total of £3,561 15s. 2d. for the year 1909–10.

    Evicted Tenants, Ireland (Aughanish, Limerick).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say what

    1403
    steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to purchase the two evicted farms on the estate of Lane Joynt, at Aughanish, in the county of Limerick, with the view to reinstating the evicted tenants on them; and whether, seeing that these tenants have been out of their holdings for twenty years, the Estates Commissioners will now take steps to have them reinstated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not yet in a position to make an offer for the purchase of these lands.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not time, after twenty years, that these evicted tenants were returned to their farms? What is the cause of the delay? Is it due to any action on the part of the landlords?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will call the attention of the Estate Commissioners again to the matter.

    National Schools (Cookstown, County Tyrone).
    Mr. GORDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to a report of Dr. Beatty, senior inspector of national schools, calling attention to the number of small and unnecessary schools in the locality of which Cookstown, county Tyrone, is the centre; whether the Commissioners of National Education intend to take any, and, if so, what, action in reference to this matter; and whether the Commissioners intend to reconsider an application previously refused by them for the recognition of a new school at Orriter, within the area dealt with in Dr. Beatty's report?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in his general report for 1907–8 Dr. Beatty, formerly senior inspector of National Schools, called attention to the excessive number of small schools in Cookstown and its vicinity. The Commissioners are endeavouring to reduce the number of small or unnecessary national schools wherever possible. An application for aid to a school at Orriter has been under the consideration of the Commissioners, but they have declined to take it into connection with the national system. The allocation of national schools in the locality will be reviewed by the Commissioners at an early date.

    Parliamentary Franchise (Fishermen).
    Mr. FELL (for Mr. H. S. Foster)asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware
    1404
    of the hardship under which fishermen suffer, amounting to practical disfranchisement, if the polling in any Division takes place at the time when they are at sea in pursuit of their calling; and whether, in order to remove this hardship, the Government will be prepared to support a short non-contentious Bill, for the purpose of enabling fishermen to record their votes between the day of nomination and the day of poll, under suitable arrangements?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will carefully consider the matter, but I cannot at present undertake to promise legislation. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews Burghs has introduced a Bill dealing with the subject, but has not yet been fortunate enough to bring it to Second Reading.

    Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1909.
    Captain COOPERasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation amending the financial clauses of the Irish Land Act, 1909?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    Broadstairs Police Court (Case against Mr. John Fells).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. John Fells, of Broadstairs, was recently fined £25 and costs for selling adulterated food; whether there were two previous convictions against him; whether he is a member of the local bench of magistrates; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to have his name removed from the commission of the peace?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): I understand there is to be an appeal against the judgment referred to, and therefore I do not wish to say anything which might prejudice the case. With regard to the two alleged previous convictions, I am not yet fully informed. The matter will be brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SPRING RECESS.
  Mr. GOULDINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the date on which the Whitsuntide Recess will begin; and whether proper provision will be made for the continuance of old age pension during the time the House is up?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps with the indulgence of the House I may here make the statement which I have promised to make to the House to-day (Thursday). I do so, because I want to pay a tribute to the memory of an hon. Member of this House whose loss we all deplore.
  On Monday next, April 18th, we intend to take the Allocation of Time Motion relating to the Finance Bill, as passed through the House of Commons last Session, and the Eleven o'clock Rule will be suspended. There will also be a Motion on Monday to enable the Report stage of the Vote on Account to have precedence over private Members' Bills on Friday, 22nd instant. On Tuesday, 19th, and Wednesday, 20th, in accordance with the provisions of the Motion which we hope to secure on Monday, the first Order will be the Ways and Means Resolutions relating to last year's Budget, the Committee stage of which, if not previously brought to a conclusion, will terminate at seven o'clock on Wednesday evening, and will be immediately followed by the consequent stages of Ways and Means (Financial Resolutions).
  The proceedings on Wednesday are so arranged that the private Member's Motion set down for that day will be respected.
  On Thursday, 21st April, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Vote on Account, and
  On Friday, the 22nd, the Report on that Vote.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate, as far as I can, the business of the succeeding week.
  On Monday, 25th April, Tuesday, 26th April, and Wednesday, 27th April, we propose to proceed with the Budget, in accordance with the terms of the Allocation of Time Motion which appears on the Paper to-day.
  On Thursday, 28th April, we hope to move the Adjournment of the House for the Spring Recess. It may possibly be that a formal sitting may be necessary on Friday, 29th April, to receive the Royal Assent to the Finance Bill and other Bills.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand there will be no Consolidated Fund Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Mr. D. A. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will fee the length of the Spring Recess?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was going to ask the same question, fan the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the length of the Recess: and would he say whether it is a fact that the Government are now paying money without any Parliamentary authority for certain Services?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice as to the latter part of the question. With regard to the length of the Recess, I hope it will be a substantial one, at any rate extending over three weeks.
  Mr. GOULDING: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the latter part of my question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it calls for any answer.
  Mr. GOULDING: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that only sufficient money has been taken up to 13th May, and whether all authority for expenditure on old age pensions will not by that date expire?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Not at all. We shall take a Vote on Account next week.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has cut out the Bill of my hon. Friend dealing with Poor Law in Ireland, while he has given all his Radical friends a chance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If we get the Report stage of the Vote on Account reasonably early that Bill can go on.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for how long he is going to take the Vote on Account?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think for about six weeks.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Motion on Wednesday, the 27th, will be left to private Members?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat that question?

  All Red Route.
  Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee nominated to inquire into the scheme known as the All-Red Route has come to any conclusion, and, if so, what conclusion, as to the establishment or otherwise of the service advocated by the supporters of the All-Red Route; and what prospects there are of the scheme being pushed for ward to a practical result?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): I regret I am not in a position to add anything to previous answers on this subject.

  Eleven o'clock Rule.
  Mr. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he will take into his consideration the advisability of so arranging the business of the House that hon. Members may reap the benefit of the Eleven o'clock Rule?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Our object is always to avoid any interference with the Eleven o'clock Rule which is not absolutely in the interests of public business.

  County Cavan, Untenanted Land.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked what are the names and areas of the various denominations of untenanted land in county Cavan which have been acquired by the Estates Commissioners since 1st November, 1907, and the average price paid per acre; and will he fully state the names and areas of the various denominations of such lands in county Cavan in reference to which negotiations are at present pending?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have strongly urged upon me the view that to prepare lists such as the hon. Member asks for would occupy a considerable number of their staff and divert them from other and more important duties, and that it might not be fair to intending vendors to publish the fact that they have entered into negotiations. For these reasons I am not in a position to add anything to my reply to the non-oral question on the same subject asked by him on the 6th instant.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is it not the fact that similar particulars with regard to another county were given recently in answer to a question in this House; that it would not take more than five or ten minutes' work on the part of the staff of the Estates Commissioners to give the information asked for, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, supply me with the average price paid per acre?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is a fact that somewhat unfortunately an answer was given in the case of another county, but it does not seem to me a desirable plan to follow as it causes a great deal of trouble to the Estates Commissioners. I really must appeal to hon. Members not to put this great burden on the staff of the office.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the average price paid per acre?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will get an answer to that.

  National Schoolhouses, Ireland.
  Mr. GORDONasked whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have for some time past been obliged to suspend the making of grants for building and repairing schoolhouses owing to the inadequacy of the provisions made by the Treasury for this purpose; how many applications have been refused within the last year on account of want of funds; whether a large number of such applications were made for the purpose of providing sanitary and suitable buildings instead of those which are at present in use, and which are most insanitary and unsuitable; and what steps the Government intend to take to enable the Commissioners to meet such applications?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I informed the hon. and learned Member, in reply to the question asked by him on the 11th instant, the provision for building grants amounts to £240,000 for the period from 1st April, 1907, to 31st March, 1913. I understand that the Commissioners of National Education have already sanctioned grants to the amount of £235,000, and are therefore obliged practically to suspend further grants. They inform me that they have had to postpone the sanctioning of grants in ninety-nine cases owing to want of funds, and that they have many other applications before them. I am most anxious to secure that cases of urgency arising out of insanitary or dangerous conditions of buildings should be given priority of treatment, and am quite prepared to co-operate with the Board in securing that object, but it is manifest that some financial limit must be observed.
  Mr. GORDON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the sum of £70,000 for the Development Fund is secured to the Commissioners for this very necessary purpose?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The £70,000 was the capital sum put on the Development Fund, but that has become depleted owing to other reasons, and the sum of £240,000 was substituted.
  Mr. GORDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get a further grant made in view of the urgency of this question?

  Unrest in India—Mr. Arabindo Ghose.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary for India, if a warrant has been issued against Mr. Arabindo Ghose for an article which appeared in the "Kharmayogin" on 25th December; whether warrants have been issued against the publishers of the paper as well; if so, under what law these warrants have been issued; and whether a copy of the paper containing the offending article can be placed in the Library for the information of Members?
  Mr. REES: Before the hon. Gentleman answers, may I inquire if the seatless syndicate which supplies these questions has not shown that it has no desire that seditious persons should be brought to justice.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is it in order for one hon. Member to characterize questions put by another hon. Member as having been put by a secret—
  Mr. REES: Seatless.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Quite apart from the meaning of the adjective the offensiveness of the question is perfectly apparent, and I want to know whether any hon. Member is allowed to characterize the questions of another hon. Member in this way?
  Mr. REES: I withdraw the word "seatless" if it gives offence. I meant, of course, that they had no seats in this House.
  The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Secretary of State is not aware of the issue of any other warrants in this matter, and he is informed that the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Ghose has been issued under Section 124 a, Indian Penal Code. I may add that considerable delay occurs just now in obtaining information, and I must ask my hon. Friend to exercise some patience in the matter while the fullest information is being procured. At the present time the Secretary of State would rather not commit himself to the undertaking asked for in the last part of the question.
  Mr. REESasked whether the Secretary for India will consider the propriety of placing in the library copies of the last will and testament of still-surviving Arabinda Ghose, for whose arrest a warrant
  1410
  is said to have been issued in India, and copies of some of the numerous issues of the newspaper, for which he is responsible, containing articles hostile to British rule and British officials in India and encouraging sedition?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request. He must not, however, be taken to accept his description of writings the character of which is a subject for trial.

  Punjab Irrigation (Land Values).
  Mr. REESasked the average prices obtained for land sold in the Punjab irrigation colonies; and whether as much as £3,000 an acre was realised quite recently for market sites sold at Jaranwala?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The selling value of ordinary agricultural land in the irrigation colonies varies, according to situation and quality, from about £7 to £15 the acre. Land so sold would be subject to land revenue assessment and water rates. Land suitable for building or for market sites fetches higher prices, but the price of £3,000 per acre reported to have been paid for sites in the new town of Jaranwala in the Ghenab colony is, of course, exceptional.

  Education in India.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the Secretary for India is willing to appoint a Committee or Royal Commission to inquire into the system of elementary and higher education in India, with a view to ascertaining the extent to which it is at present adapted to the needs and social conditions of the native population?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The demand and necessity for an improved system of education in India call for comprehensive and urgent recognition. The Secretary of State is unable at present to give an undertaking as to the appointment of a Committee or Commission, but he recognises the probable advantages of proceeding by such means. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question when the Secretary of State has had an opportunity of considering further this important matter from practical points of view.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the latest writer of authority on this subject has not condemned the British Government for having rashly conceded university and secondary education before having taught the masses how to read?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. Friend will refer to the Debates which took place in the Viceroy's Council on the introduction of the Indian Budget, he will see the full references to this question.

  Orange River Civil Servants (Case of Mr. Gunn).
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked whether any communications have passed, by cablegram or otherwise, between the Government of the Orange River Colony and the Colonial Secretary with regard to Mr. Gunn's resignation of the directorship of education in that Colony; and whether the Secretary of State has any reason to suppose that the circumstances which led to such resignation were in any way due to administrative incompetence on Mr. Gunn's part?
  Colonel SEELY: The reply to both parts of the Noble Lord's question is in the negative.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Are the Government fully impressed with the fact of Mr. Gunn's appointment by the British Government, and that when responsible government was given no provision was made for the Civil servants, and therefore the responsibility rests on this Government for the well-being and future of Mr. Gunn?
  Colonel SEELY: That is a very general question arising out of a particular case. I, of course, fully accept the theory that this Government should do whatever it can to see that those officers who have been retrenched through no fault of their own are protected as far as possible by this Government. But as to Mr. Gunn's case, we know nothing officially or unofficially of the facts. As I have said, the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I know from Ministers that Mr. Gunn has always in the past shown great administrative competence and ability, but I think it would be undesirable in the interests of all concerned, and especially of Mr. Gunn, to make any statement as to this unfortunate disagreement.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Do the Government recognise their full responsibility?
  Colonel SEELY: We have recognised our responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by having found a great number of appointments for retrenched officials.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman telegraph out to the Governor for a full report of the circumstances which led to Mr. Gunn's resignation?
  Colonel SEELY: No. Sir. We shall receive full reports in due time. The whole matter is not concluded. A great deal of information has yet to come, and I do not think it would be wise to telegraph.

  Transvaal Natives (Increase of Crime).
  Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he can supply any particulars of the alleged increase of crime among the natives in the Transvaal in the past few months; and if he can give any figures of the numbers now confined in prisons there later than 30th June, 1909?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has no later information than that with which I have supplied the hon. Gentleman. I may add I should be glad of the return of the information that I supplied to him.
  Mr. FELL: May I say that the information reached me only yesterday, but, arising out of that reply, I would ask whether the Government has not an interest now in the condition of the natives in the Transvaal, and is not this a matter on which they should be informed, having an interest?
  Colonel SEELY: Of course, we have an interest in the well-being of everyone in the British Empire, but we have full confidence in the Transvaal Government, as we have in the Governments of all the other self-governing Colonies, to take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard the interests of the native races.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Have not His Majesty's Government a peculiar interest in the well-being of the natives in the Transvaal?
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. Gentleman himself has a still more peculiar interest.
  Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information?
  Colonel SEELY: If I can obtain the information I will certainly get it, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to return the information which I gave to him. It is so embarrassing when I do not get back documents again when I part with them.

  Ceylon Legislative Council.
  Mr. HICKS BEACHasked whether any representations have been received from His Excellency the Governor or from any responsible bodies an Ceylon protesting against the proposed alteration in the constitution of the Legislative Council; and, if so, whether the Colonial Office intend to modify the original proposals?
  Colonel SEELY: Representations against the proposed reforms have been made by the Chamber of Commerce and the Planters' Association on the ground that they would prefer to retain the privilege of nominating members of the Council. But His Majesty's Government having decided to introduce the elective principle so far as is possible, the retention of this privilege would not be consistent with the principles of the reforms, and the chamber and association have been informed accordingly.

  Political Pensions.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount of political pensions paid in the last completed financial year; the number of persons to whom they are paid; whether they were paid without regard to service, merit, age, capacity, or means; whether the only qualification known to exist in each case was relationship to wealthy persons; and whether it is proposed to hold any inquiry into those pensions?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The total amount paid in respect of political pensions in the financial year ended the 31st ultimo was £8,025 5s. 6d., and the number of recipients six. The answers to the last three questions are in the negative.

  City of Dublin (Revaluations).
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, though a revaluation of the city of Dublin is pending, and will be so apparently for some decades, it is being conducted in an unfair and irregular manner, that the valuation of premises occupied by members of the corporation as well as that of all licensed houses awaits the indefinitely postponed revaluation of the city as a whole; is he aware that houses in the Clontarf added area, let at £30 a year, are valued as high as some of the best shops in the city; that licensed houses are valued without any reference to goodwill; and will he supply the com-
  1414
  missioner with a sufficient staff and urge him to complete the revaluation?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The revaluation lists will, it is expected, be issued to the rating authorities within the next three years. The Corporation of Dublin do not make any selection of premises to be valued, but under the Act 17 Vic, Cap. 8., Sec. 4, every Poor Rate collector is required to furnish lists of all tenements the valuation of which requires revision, and these are forwarded to the Commissioner of Valuation. The valuation of Clontarf is made on the same basis as that of the rest of Dublin, but no doubt there are some old shops in the city the valuations of which have never been altered. The number of these, however, is small. Pending revaluation, the licensed houses are valued on the same basis as those in the other parts of Ireland, except Belfast, where, on the revaluation of the whole rating area, the value of the licence was taken into consideration. The Treasury have given the Commissioner all the staff he has asked for.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a revaluation of the city of Dublin was provided for by the Dublin Corporation Act of 1900, and that, in Committee, Sir John Barton, the Commissioner of Valuation, gave evidence that such revaluation was urgently necessary inasmuch as the city was undervalued, and particularly licensed property, while the areas added to the city by the Act were fully valued; is he aware that the Commissioner stated he could revalue the city in about eighteen months, and that the High Court, several years ago, granted a mandamus directing the revaluation; has the revaluation been opposed and delayed by the influence of the licenced trade; has the Commissioner been provided with an extra staff; if so, how many in number; and will he take steps to ensure that a revaluation ordered ten years ago by Parliament, and urgently necessary, shall be carried out promptly, even if it results in increased rates on public-houses?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The facts are as stated in this question, subject to certain modifications due to altered conditions since Sir John Barton's evidence was given. The fall in value of all classes of property, except shops and manufactories, in the best parts of the city, has had the effect of lessening the discrepancy in the relative values of the different heredita-

  1415
  ments, as has also the fact that nearly all the best property in the city has now been revalued. In spite of the fall in the rateable value of many classes of property, the total valuation of the city, without the added area, has increased 12½ per cent, during the past ten years. There is no truth in the statement that the work was delayed by the influence of the licensed trade. There are now some twenty valuers and surveyors employed on the revaluation work. A staff of five surveyors and one clerk is constantly employed on it, and in addition a great deal of work is done upon it by the permanent staff in overtime and during the three months when the valuation staff is at the head office. This staff could not be increased except by employing untrained men or English valuers unaccustomed to Irish work, which would be most undesirable.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the staff of the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland have already been making inquiries and valuations in Dublin for the purpose of assessments under the land value clauses in the Budget, 1909–10?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the negative.

  Miners' Homes (Middlestone Moor).
  Sir HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why occupants of pensionable age of the Miners' Homes at Middlestone Moor, in the county of Durham, are having their pensions reduced by the sum of 3s. weekly in respect of room-rent, coals, attendance, etc., seeing that the major portion of the upkeep of the said homes is attributable to the corporate contributions of the miners themselves?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Baronet will be so good as to supply me with particulars of the cases to which he refers, I will have inquiries made into the matter.

  Cost of Scotch and Irish Education.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how much (if any) of the amount available under the Local Taxation Act is given to Scottish education; and will he Bay what are the total sums spent respectively on Scotch and Irish education from rates, Parliamentary Grants, and all other sources for the last available financial year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As this question relates to education in Scotland and Ireland, I must ask the hon. Member to address his inquiries to my right hon. Friends the Lord Advocate and the Chief Secretary respectively, who are responsible for education in the two countries.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Votes that I ask for information about are under his own hand in the Estimates? They are signed by himself.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; the totals, but it is quite impossible, in order to obtain uniform statements in the House, for me to reply to these questions. He will get the information he seeks if he applies to the two Departments. He has only to put a question down to another Minister.

  Old Age Pensions (Repayment).
  Mr. CULLINAN (for Mr. Scanlan)asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will instruct the officials of the Board of Customs and Excise to desist from suits instituted in Ireland to recover from old persons sums paid to them under the Old Age Pensions Act in cases where the pension was once granted by pension committees without appeal by pension officers, and where the recipients of the payments have been in bonâ fide?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The only cases in which proceedings are instituted for recovery are those in which there is a debt due to the Crown under Section 9 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, and the Treasury has not felt justified in such cases in departing from the general rule that debts due to the Crown must be enforced in all cases in which the debtor is in a position to pay. The rule is, however, applied with all possible indulgence to cases of real hardship.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is it not the fact that in cases where old age pensioners have been paid for some time the pension has been stopped and a new application lodged and pension granted, but the pensioners are not paid anything until the money received has been refunded to the Government?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I think that is so in cases where the pensioner has not been entitled to the pension, and, therefore, has obtained from the Government sums of money to which he was not entitled, and which is a debt due to the Crown which has to be recovered.
  Mr. LARDNER: May I ask what authority there is for enforcing this counterclaim, legal or otherwise?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is to be found in the Old Age Pensions Act, and is not to be found in the general law, which relates to the recovery of debts due to the Crown.
  Mr. LARDNER: Are the pensioners on the second occasion given their pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like notice of that question.

  Cotton Spinning (Machinery).
  Mr. GILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many cotton-spinning firms in Oldham, Bolton, and Rochdale have fitted the whole of their carding engines with the automatic locking-cover over the cylinder?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The numbers of the firms, so far as I have been able to ascertain, are as follows: Bolton 7, Rochdale 12, Oldham 5. In each case the surrounding district is included. These figures, however, should not be taken as indicating the amount of work already accomplished in this direction; many other firms have provided lookers for a large proportion of their cards.
  Mr. GILLasked how many cotton-spinning firms in Oldham, Bolton, Rochdale, and Ashton-under-Lyne have fitted their cardrooms with new and efficient apparatus for taking away the dust caused by the stripping and grinding process on carding engines?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The numbers of the firms are as follows: Oldham 9, Bolton 7, Rochdale 4, Ashton-under-Lyne 6. In each case the surrounding district is included. I understand that a large number of firms have the matter in hand, and I propose to instruct the inspectors to press for the installation of efficient apparatus at an early date.

  Workmen's Compensation Act (Regulations).
  Mr. GILLasked whether it is in accordance with the Regulations relating to medical referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act for a doctor, who is in partnership with an official medical referee, to examine injured persons on behalf of an insurance company when
  1418
  such cases may be afterwards referred to his partner for final decision?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It would as a general rule be considered incompatible with the position of a referee for his partner to hold, as part of the partnership, an appointment for an insurance company in connection with workmen's compensation cases. The Home Office has not objected to the partner of a referee holding such an appointment outside the partnership agreement, so that the referee has no interest in it; and to do so would, I am afraid, militate against the Department getting the best men for the post of referee.

  Royal Commission on Mines (Report).
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked when the publication may be expected of the Report of the Royal Commission on Mines dealing with the question of pneumono-koniosis among ganister miners?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to make any statement at present. As I stated in reply to a question the other day, the Royal Commission on Mines is being reconstituted to deal with metalliferous mines and quarries, and this matter will be referred to them. I hope that their inquiry will be completed without any delay.

  Ganister Mines (Special Rules).
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked when the special rules applicable to rock-drilling in ganister mines were imposed, and what are the statements referred to which have been made by workers that the effect of the special rules have been most beneficial; and whether these statements were oral or in writing, and, if in writing, whether they are to be found in any published report or document?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The special rules were established in May, 1905. The statements referred to in my answer to the previous question of the hon. Member have been statements made orally by officials, and workmen at the mines to the inspectors during their inspections; none, I understand, were in writing.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table copies of the answers which have been made, together with the circumstances under which they were furnished?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the hon. Member give notice of that?

  Temperature of Workshops (Apprenticeship).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the provisions of Section 157 of the Factory and Workshop Ace, which exempts occupiers of workshops wherein only men are employed from the requirements to supply particulars of wages to piece-workers and to maintain a reasonable temperature, etc.; whether he has considered the effect this exemption is having in discouraging apprenticeship; and whether he will consider the desirability of applying the normal law to all workshops irrespective of the age or sex of persons employed therein?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; the attention of the Department has been directed for some time to the exemptions in regard to maintenance of a reasonable temperature, supply of particulars of work and prices to piece-workers, and other matters, which are allowed by Section 157 in the case of men's workshops; and the question of bringing such workshops more fully under the general law has been noted for consideration when further legislation is proposed. I have no information as to the effect of the exemptions in regard to apprenticeship, but the main point for consideration will be whether the application to these workshops of the provisions from which they are at present exempted is required in the interests of the workers employed there.

  Sentence on Hayward's Heath Boy.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the sentence passed by the Hay-ward's Heath Bench on a boy named Charles Bulbeck, aged twelve years, namely, six strokes with the birch, to be followed by seven years' detention in a reformatory school, during which time his father will have to pay 2s. 6d. per week for his maintenance, and the father also to pay £1 9s. 11d. costs, the offence being stealing a piece of coal value 5d.; if he is aware that the boy had not previously been charged: and if he intends taking action in the matter?
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary if he will give the names of the magistrates who, at Hayward's Heath, last Monday, sentenced a boy of twelve years to four years in a reformatory and other punishment for having stolen coal worth
  1420
  5d.; whether the boy's two parents are living; what is their character; whether their boy will be restored to them with some rational punishment; and whether the Lord Chancellor will be asked to reconsider the fitness of those magistrates for the commission of the peace?
  Mr. HUDSONasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the decision of the Hayward's Heath magistrates on the 11th instant, when a boy of twelve years of age, a first offender, was sentenced to receive a punishment of six strokes with the birch rod, and afterwards to be sent to a reformatory school until he reaches the age of nineteen years, a period of seven years, for stealing a piece of coal valued 5d., and his father, who pleaded for the boy, was ordered to pay £1 9s. 11d. costs, and also to contribute the sum of 2s. 6d. per week towards the boy's maintenance whilst in the reformatory school; whether the boy has been birched; and what steps, if any, he will take to mitigate this sentence?
  Major WHITEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the action of the Hayward's Heath Bench of magistrates in sentencing Charles Bulbeck, a boy of twelve, to detention in a reformatory for seven years, and to receive six strokes with the birch rod, for stealing a lump of coal value 5d., the father being ordered further to contribute to the boy's maintenance in the reformatory, and to pay £1 9s. 11d. costs; and, if so, whether he will take any action in the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received from the justices this morning a report in which they say that they desire to send the boy, not to a reformatory, but to an industrial school. The report does not fully explain how the case now stands, but it is clear that he has been convicted and has received the birching to which he was sentenced. In my opinion this is adequate punishment for the offence, and any further term of detention to which he may be sentenced should be remitted. I have accordingly given telegraphic instructions for his discharge and for his being returned to his parents this afternoon.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the Lord Chancellor be asked to reconsider the fitness of these magistrates for the commission of the peace?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I do not propose to address a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor.

  Local Rates (South Uist).
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Lord Advocate whether ho is aware that the total rates for local purposes in South Uist for the current year amount to £1 3s. 4.136d. per pound of assessable rental; whether he is aware that this high rate is mainly due to new schools being erected on new crofting townships, which were formed at the instance of the Congested Districts Board; and whether the increase in the rate so produced is part of the cost of creating these new settlements and in terms of the declared policy of the Government ought to be borne by the Congested Districts Board?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am aware that the sum of the owners and the occupiers' rates is of the nominal amount stated per pound of assessable rental; but, as I informed my hon. Friend on 2nd March, assessable rental is not in all respects a correct index of the real burden. The service of the debt incurred for new schools is a material part of the rate, and the need for the schools has doubtless arisen largely from the creation of the crofting townships referred to. I do not know on what authority my hon. Friend suggests that the increase in the rate ought to be borne, in terms of the declared policy of the Government, by the Congested Districts Board. Provision is made in the Education Acts for grants to necessitous school districts corresponding to the amount of rates levied in the preceding year. As my hon. Friend knows, the case referred to in my former answers between the school board and the parish council is still pending in the Court of Session.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the course of the Small Landholders Bill passing through this House it was repeatedly stated by the Secretary for Scotland and the Prime Minister that no part of the cost of making small holdings should fall on the landlord at all?
  Sir MARK STEWART: Are there not sufficient funds allowed to the Congested Districts Board to deal with all these special cases where the rates sometimes amount to 28s. in the £1?
  Mr. URE: No; the funds at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board will be quite insufficient.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Do the Government think this is likely to encourage landlords in making small holdings?

  Foula (New Pier).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked in what respect the Scottish Office do not accept as accurate the statements that as far back as 1883 the Crofters Commission recommended that Foula should be provided with a pier for the benefit of the islanders; that within the last few years the landlord subscribed to a fund which was being raised to enable the islanders to secure the grant intimated by the Congested Districts Board; that the landlord also was elected to the county council to further the scheme; and that, when the county council were prepared to undertake the work, the landlord refused the consent which it was implied was already given?
  Mr. URE: I am unable to accept any of my hon. Friend's statements as accurate.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he intends to spend the Whitsuntide Recess this time?
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect any one of these statements which are alleged as facts is in any way inaccurate whatever?
  Mr. URE: No. I really cannot.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (LADIES'GALLERY).
Mr. CLOUGH: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the fact that the militant suffragettes have abandoned their disorderly tactics, you can now see your way to so relax the regulations regarding the Ladies' Gallery that Members may procure the admission of their lady friends as well as of their relatives?
Mr. SPEAKER: The vision of the lady in the ventilating shaft crosses my mind. I do not know whether I can, under these circumstances, say that the militant suffragettes have abandoned their disorderly tactics, but I can assure the hon. Member that I am very anxious to return to the old state of affairs in the Ladies' Gallery, and I will endeavour to collect the views of Members of the House as to whether the time has now arrived when we might revert to it.

DOCUMENTS QUOTED BY MINISTERS(LAYING ON TABLE).
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The President of the Local Government Board yesterday at Question Time quoted from a Consular Report in reply to a question. Is it not necessary, in accordance with the Rules of the House, that the Consular Report should be laid on the Table of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. If what the right hon. Gentleman quoted was a verbatim quotation from an official Report it ought to be laid. If it was merely a summary it would not be necessary to lay it. That has always been the Rule of the House.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to the circumstance? The President yesterday said: "I will read from the Report."
Mr. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman did read from an extract quoting the Report. I rose yesterday to ask, but was not allowed to proceed with the question, whether under the circumstances it did not fall within the Rule that what a Minister quotes shall be laid on the Table.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have said so. If it is an extract, and not a summary, it will be necessary to lay the document on the Table of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I will communicate with my right hon. Friend on, the subject.
One other Member took the Oath and subscribed the roll.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
  HOURS OF LABOUR (SURFACEMEN) BILL.
  "To restrict the hours of labour of surfacemen at collieries called upon to work seven days per week of eight hours per day," presented by Mr. WILLIAM THORNE; supported by Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Clynes, and Mr. Johnson. (To be read a second time upon Friday, 22nd April.)
  POOR LAW OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896," presented by Mr. PARKER; supported by Mr. Barnes and Mr. George Roberts. (To be read a second time upon Friday, 27th May.)
  EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, and the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906," presented by Mr. TYSON WILSON; supported by Mr. Barnes, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Edward Dunn, Mr. Edwards, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Parker. (To be read a second time upon Friday, 27th May.)
  ASSAULTS ON WIVES (OUTDOOR RELIEF) BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to aggravated assaults on wives, and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. WEDGWOOD. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th April.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, "That the Proceedings on the Report of the Supreme Court of Judicature [Salaries, etc.] and upon the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill [Lords] be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AND DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.
[PROGRESS. 13TH APRIL.]
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AND DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.

  BILLS OTHER THAN MONEY BILLS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Question again proposed,
  " 2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords, as respects Bills other than Money Bills, be restricted by Law, so that any such Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive Sessions and, having

  1425
  been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, has been rejected by that House in each of those Sessions, shall become Law without the consent of the House of Lords on the Royal Assent being declared: Provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  " For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed upon by both Houses."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, after the word "than" ["as respects Bills other than Money Bills"] to insert the words "Bills affecting the prerogative, rights and powers of the Crown and."
  When business was interrupted at quarter-past 8 o'clock yesterday evening I was addressing to the Committee an argument which I will briefly summarise. It was to the effect that a very large number of rights and powers are vested in the Crown under the accepted form of the Constitution, that those rights and powers when they have been exercised have formed the subject of serious controversy on many occasions during last century, and also before then, that even now on occasion their exercise does lead to questions both of delicacy and importance, and that they are likely to give rise to more controversy in future. They are likely to give rise to more controversy in future for these reasons. When at present any persons or sections of the community are aggrieved by the proceedings of this House appeal, so far as legislation goes, lies to the House of Lords, but in future that appeal will not lie. It will lie only to the Crown. I endeavoured to show that great pressure might be put upon the Crown to exercise its powers, whether by the old right of Veto, whether by dissolution, or whether by dismissal of the Ministry, to put one or other of these powers into execution, and the result would be to place the Crown in a position of enormous difficulty—one great section of the community demanding the exercise of those powers, and another section extremely concerned at even the possibility of their being exercised. In short, there is a possibility, and not merely a possibility, but I submit a probability, that we
  1426
  might find ourselves in a conflict between the Commons and the Crown, exactly as we now find ourselves in a conflict between the Commons and the other House. If that was possible in. the case of some ordinary Bill which had passed through this House, and which after two years had necessarily been withdrawn from the purview of the House of Lords, it would be more likely to happen when some great constitutional measure was before the country. I will not go over the old ground about the omnipotence of Parliament. It was argued yesterday that in this country Parliament was omnipotent. If you take away the functions of the House of Lords you will not have in this country the safeguards which are found necessary in all other countries. I will not enlarge upon that, except to say that in almost every other country you have a double safeguard against any great constitutional change. In the first place you have the safeguard of two Chambers, and, secondly, you have the safeguard of a written Constitution. We hitherto have only had one safeguard, namely, the two Chambers. We have never had a written Constitution, and if we pass this Resolution we are going to throw away the one safeguard remaining to us without putting another in its place. As a result, the Crown will then have to be the safeguard against great constitutional change.
  The Home Secretary the other day made an exceedingly interesting and important speech, but he did not answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend asked what safeguard there would be against great constitutional change in the event of this Resolution being carried, and in the course of his interesting and brilliant speech the Home Secretary gave no answer to that question. It is true the right hon. Gentleman did speak of the difficulty of carrying legislation where great interests are involved, and, quoting the case of the Port of London Bill, he referred to the difficulties arising as to that measure in consequence of persons interested in a variety of ways desiring to be heard. That is quite true, but there are, under our procedure forms, different ways in connection with private Bill legislation of seeing that all interests are adequately represented.
  4.0 P.M.
  There is every endeavour to find an impartial tribunal. There are numerous Standing Orders that have to be complied with. The promoters of the Bills are

  1427
  subject to cross-examination. I wonder what the result would be if the promoters of some of these Bills in the last few years had not been subject to cross-examination? In short, every precaution that could be observed has to be taken that no Bill affecting private rights shall pass without the fullest, freest, and more exhaustive investigation.
  But in the public Bills there is nothing of the kind. There is more security for a man who has one right and one easement which is assailed than there is under our Constitution for all the great institutions of the country. Up to the present, as I say, there has not been any such great difficulty in practice because the Second Chamber has insisted that no great constitutional change shall take place unless it is perfectly certain that the people as a whole want it. But if you abandon that, which is the only check which we in our Constitution have, you have nothing left but the Prerogative of the Crown to depend upon. It may be said that I am sketching very unlikely future possibilities, but is it so very unlikely? Take the hypothetical case of a Government maintained in power by a certain group, dependent on the support of that group, and maintained in power for the sole purpose of passing some one constitutional change, and maintained in power for the necessary two years. Suppose during that time a controversy arises, and large bodies of His Majesty's subjects think themselves aggrieved and menaced in what they have the dearest regard for, in something concerning their liberty, their security against taxation, the practice of their religion, or some other matter very near to them, and suppose that during all that time it becomes apparent that a steady body of opinion is growing against that change, but the Government of the day ignore that body of opinion, as they are dependent not upon the opinion which is growing in the country, but upon the support of some group in this House, and perhaps they may know well that they are bound to lose the next election whatever course they adopt. Is it not certain that every effort would be made by such a Government to keep in power until the statutory two years and the statutory three Sessions have gone by, so that they may carry the measure which, if once passed into law, would perhaps be irrevocable except by the force of arms?
  1428
  Surely that is not an improbable case. Certainly it is not an impossible case, and when we consider the programme of legislation which was adduced by the Home Secretary as a programme to be put through by the use of this Second Resolution, I ask the Committee whether the case I am putting is at all a fantastic or even improbable one?
  Suppose that case to exist, suppose the Crown to exercise one of its prerogatives, whether of dissolution or dismissal—the latter of which I may remark there is a precedent for within the last eighty years —suppose public opinion or the opinion of a large or perhaps predominant party were greatly excited by this, then we might be in exactly the same position with regard to the Crown that we are now in with regard to another place, and a measure might be put through this House to limit the rights of the Crown itself. Can you conceive a more difficult position for the Crown to be in? It would not be a question of the personal feelings of the Sovereign; he would have to regard himself as the Trustee of the Monarchy and of the ancient Constitution, and yet he would either have to yield to the pressure, or he would have the feeling that he might be yielding some right which was essential to the future of the Monarchy. I submit it is absolutely necessary that there should be some power between this House and the Crown. The words of Cromwell have been quoted in this House, "I must have somebody between this tumultuous assembly and myself," and what was true in his day will be as true also in the future if this Resolution becomes law. The Home Secretary the other day, at the end of his speech, drew a moving picture of the difficulties that would result if these Resolutions did not become law. He seemed to think that if they did become law all difficulties would cease. But the possibilities which I have tried to foreshadow show that the course of any Government in power under these Resolutions would not be so smooth. On the contrary, the Government have embarked on a dark and dangerous course in which there is no finality. What begins in party bravado may end in national disaster. The Government may speak with respect of the Crown, but are they going to ask that same Crown for an unparalleled exercise of extraordinary power, which would put the Crown in a position whereby its ancient rights would be certainly prejudiced and possibly fatally impaired? I

  1429
  do trust that the position of the Crown may be in no wise affected by our threatening dissensions. If this Resolution passes I fear it is inevitable that there will be the tendency—nay, more, I am afraid even now a tendency is too apparent—to involve the Crown in the tortuous designs of the politicians of the hour. I trust that the danger for the time may pass. If this Resolution goes through I fear that that same danger will recur. But, at any rate, an this Amendment there lies some safeguard, and I ask the Committee to accept it that the ancient corner-stone of this realm may be kept inviolate from party strife.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that the answer of the Government to this Amendment must largely be a repetition of the answer which I have given to the proposals which have come yesterday and the day before from that side of the House to make special exemption from the scope of this Resolution. If one were admitted many others should be admitted, and the Government, as at present advised, do not propose to accept Amendments which narrow the full scope of the Resolutions which they have placed before the Committee. But if any exception were to be made on any grounds I conceive it would not be on the ground which has been urged in the speech of the hon. Member— a, speech of much diligent care. I do not think the unreal apprehensions of the party opposite have ever reached a higher pitch than in regard to this Amendment. We are asked to exempt the Prerogatives and the rights of the Crown from the procedure which would exist under these Resolutions when they are passed, and to secure for those rights and privileges the protection of which I venture to say they do not stand in need, of the Veto of the House of Lords. I should have thought that of all other subjects this was the one about which all sides of the House, would have felt the greatest amount of confidence. The great prerogatives of the Crown, peace and war, making treaties, dissolutions, prorogations of Parliament, and the creation of peers, are and have long been exercised upon the advice of responsible Ministers. They have been exercised upon the advice of Ministers who, as long as the House of Commons retains its control over finance, will be responsible to this House and to this House alone. I cannot conceive any party wishing to alter or affect those great prerogatives on which the efficiency of our Execu-
  1430
  tive Government depends. As to the rights and interests of the Crown, those too, I should have thought, would be safe with the British people. The Crown, the British Monarchy, has no interests which are not national, and no interests which are not the interests of the whole people of the United Kingdom, and I cannot conceive that they could stand on any more secure foundation than on the widest possible good wishes of His Majesty loyal subjects. For these reasons, and for other reasons which I venture to submit to the Committee, the Government must meet this Motion for narrowing the scope of the Resolutions by asking the Committee to oppose and reject it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman in his speech entirely missed the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment. Towards the end of his speech he expressed the belief that the rights and privileges and interests of the Crown should not have a more secure basis than in the opinions and wishes of the people of this country. I agree with that, but the whole point of my hon. Friend's Amendment was that those rights, privileges, and prerogatives should not be interfered with unless the people of this country are consulted. That is the whole essence of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, on this particular aspect of the case, as it presents itself to us, and has been repeated both in and out of the House in quite unmistakable terms, should not have thought it worth while in his speech to make some defence of the course the Government have taken in making the whole Constitution of the country, including the privileges and position of the Second Chamber, which do not come under this Amendment, but including also the privileges and position of the Crown—nay, the very existence of the Crown itself—all those parts of the Constitution, actually depend upon the accidents of Parliament in the first few years of some Government that comes into office. What reply has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make to that? He makes no attempt except this, and this only; he says it is very improbable that anything foolish will be done in the first two years of a Parliament after it has been elected by the constituencies. Let us grant that. Let us put our collective wisdom as high as we please; let us grant that the prudence of the House of Commons as representing the

  1431
  constituencies is proof against all access of temporary enthusiasm, never to be perverted by this or that current or crosscurrent of the play of party politics; granting that it is improbable, we have yet got to consider something which ought not to rest upon an improbability like that. We ought to consider the source of security which all nations have put as a bar to hasty changes in their constitution, and we ought to remember that in these Resolutions you are removing the only bar which we possess; against the aggressive attacks of any particular Administration. We really have some claim to a reply which we have never yet received. Do or do not the Government lay down this proposition, nakedly and without qualification, that any Parliament, howsoever composed, into whatever parties it may be divided—in other words, however it may be necessary for the party in power to depend upon this or that combination of independent parties, however the House of Commons may shield itself, is to have absolute control over every branch of the constitution, over the whole constitutional machinery, from the deepest foundation up to its latest and most recent battlements? Our complaint is that the Government have never faced this constitutional issue at all. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question with such great argumentative force, but he literally got no reply from the Government, nothing more than to say, "Well, now, is it probable that the House of Commons will do anything so very unwise in the first two years of Parliament? "
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I really did not say that. I said I could not conceive at the present time of any party legislating to alter the Prerogatives of the Crown. I certainly cannot, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will suggest what form he apprehends the legislation would take.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Happily for him, the right hon. Gentleman's memory does not go back so far as mine. Just conceive Mr. Gladstone being asked thirty or forty years ago whether he thought Resolutions like these we are discussing would be proposed by a responsible Government in this House. If he had been told thirty or forty years ago that without providing any constitutional safeguards a Government in this House" would come forward and say in the first two years of a Parliament, "The whole Constitution is to be placed
  1432
  in the control and in the keeping of a Cabinet and Administration," he would have said, "That is so improbable that I do not think I need be asked to consider the matter further."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Mr. Bright was a Member of a Cabinet which proposed a more drastic procedure. That was in 1884.
  Mr. BALFOUR: But 1884 is not thirty or forty years ago. Surely, it is all a question of time. My point is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the theory of progress as preached by him and his Friends. He cannot imagine what his successors are going to do. I cannot imagine what even the right hon. Gentleman himself is going to do. Our poverty of imagination—and I quite admit that mine is very inadequate—is no measure of the dangers which the Constitution may run in unforeseen circumstances, and all I ask in connection with this Amendment is that we should remember that these dangers may occur, that we are withdrawing the only safeguard that now exists against them, and that these dangers are thought so real by every other civilised community, in problems like that which now confront us, that they have put barriers compared with which the flimsy barrier which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, namely, his own common-sense and the common-sense of his successors, seems to me insignificant indeed.
  Mr. A. R. RAINY: I wish, in claiming the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, rather to convey what is the opinion in the part of the country from which I come with regard to this question. I observe that each of the Amendments which are being put down by the Opposition is in restraint of the powers contained in the Resolutions which the Government have brought forward. All those Amendments endeavour to limit in some way the force of the Resolutions. As one of those who fought the election on one question and one only, namely, the question of the relations between the Commons and the House of Lords, I come here for the Constituency I represent, to oppose these Amendments, because they are all in the way of restraint. I have noticed since the year 1894 that the tone and atmosphere of the House of Lords has been continually altering. We have heard from the other side speeches full of fear and anxiety. If I may describe the attitude

  1433
  of the Opposition it is one of fear and timorousness. We have had from several hon. Members quotations and citations to show that their fears have been justified, and, therefore, that the other place has legitimately interfered with our concerns. I wish to quote from an authority which I think still bears weight in this House— namely, a speech made by Sir Robert Peel, in 1831, which, I think, covers the whole case, and shows what was contemplated at that time:—
  " When once you have established the overpowering influence of the people over this House; when you have made this House the express organ of the public voice, what other authority in the State can—nay, what other authority 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? Even the discussions in which we are at this moment engaged afford an example of the probable power which any authority will hereafter possess to control the voice of a House of Commons much more popular in its origin than the present. Who asks now what course the House of Lords will take with respect to this Bill should it pass the House of Commons? It seems taken for granted that it must pass the House of Lords—that it would be vain to oppose a measure that extends popular privileges, and is said to be in conformity with the wishes of the people. The same impression will exist in a stronger degree hereafter with respect to all popular measures which a reformed House of Commons may offer for the acceptance of the House of Lords. The tendency on the part of this House will be to gratify their constituents by popular measures, and to increase their own power; and the countervailing influence of any other authority in the State will become gradually weaker, and ultimately owe its bare existence to its practical disuse."
  In my part of the country it is asked whether anyone at that time could have possibly conceived that such an attitude would be taken up in the other place as that which we have existing at this time. What I insist upon is that there has been in the other place a conspiracy against the powers of this House.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's observations are in order, and whether we shall be able to follow on the lines which he has taken, a very interesting line, of course?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is sometimes in order and sometimes out of order. At present he is certainly out of order.
  Mr. RAINY: I was going to develop it very slightly. I was merely generally trying to show why, in every respect, I am opposed to these Amendments, and particularly this one, with regard to the Royal Prerogative. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment very properly said that there were various instances in which
  1434
  the Prerogative of the Throne is exercised. It struck me as a little peculiar that he did not cite perhaps one of the most important of those occasions, when, in 1831, the Prerogative of the Crown was proposed to be invoked in order to create peers to pass the great measure of that day. I may be allowed to quote a very interesting document which did not see the light for seventeen years. I am refering to the Memorandum by Sir James Graham upon this particular question in the Cabinet of his day. It was published the other day. I cannot read you the whole of it, but I will quote two paragraphs from it in order that we may see what was in the mind of certainly the most remarkable statesman who ever adorned this House, who had the confidence of his colleagues, who was a great man of his time, although he did not accept one of the highest positions under the Crown. He is talking about the Bill, and he says:—
  "My conviction is, that this rejection would be followed by the most fatal consequences. No political evil I can contemplate appears to be more dangerous than a majority of the House of Lords obstinately opposed to the will of the King. In the votes of the House of Commons, and to the declared opinion of the nation."
  Supposing it be said that we are losing ground, which is what has been said just now, then, in the second paragraph, this is what Sir James Graham goes on to say:—
  "What, then, is our strength? And where are our weapons of defence? Our strength is in the confidence of the people, and the support of the House of Commons, which we cannot lose if we are true to the great principles of our measure. Our weapons are the exercise of all the powers and prerogatives of the Crown, which, if the King be with us, in this emergency we are justified in using without reserve for the benefit of his people: and if he be not prepared to trust us, our efforts are vain; we cannot save him."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What was the measure?
  Mr. RAINY: The Reform Bill. The next, quotation is this:—
  "My fixed opinion was that before we reassembled Parliament and launched for a second time our measure in the face of an adverse majority in the House of Lords, a distinct explanation with the King on this subject of making peers was indispensable."
  He goes on to say:—
  "Our position will be disastrous if we carry our measure through the House of Commons to the entire satisfaction of the nation, and stumble again at the threshold of the House of Lords."
  He sums up the position thus:—
  " I think the known possession of the power the surest means of averting the necessity of using it."
  The hon. Member opposite, as is usual with the other party, suggested to our minds the possible consequences of our action. The other day it was said that

  1435
  civil war might possibly arise. I would remind the other side that whenever civil war has occurred in this country it is because the absolute powers were being tried to be revived on behalf of the privileged classes. That was where the Stuart kings wrecked themselves, and I am not sure that the other place has a finer conception of constitutional law and order or how they might work for their our ends than the Stuart kings did persistently. If there is any danger of that sort it is their line of argument that will bring it about and not ours. With regard to this Amendment we are asked to say that, because of the safety of the Crown, we ought to divest ourselves of any means of interfering with the Prerogative of the Crown. I would say that where I come from we are as loyal subjects of His Majesty as any people in any part of his dominions, and we say that the foundation of his throne rests not upon Statute or Constitution, but upon the patriotic loyalty of those for whom he represents not party, but the genius and the essence of this great Empire to which we belong. I admit the point that there might be the temptation on the part of the other side to try to associate the Crown with this House, so as to make constitutional difficulty. That might be tried, and I admit there is that danger, and I do not think it is safe for this House to throw away the power, should the other House force it, to say, "We may for the meantime take to the House of Commons the Prerogatives of the Crown in order that the Crown itself shall not be involved in the question at issue," so that the country would have to quarrel with this House, and perhaps give judgment on them, and not on the Crown. That is far-fetched, but it is not nearly as far-fetched as the proposition of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I say in this great crisis, which is a constitutional war, do not let hon. Members opposite suppose this is merely talk. The House of Commons is fighting for its own existence. We are fighting under the disadvantage that hon. Members opposite are associating themselves with the conspiracy of the other place. Therefore I say that I will resist this Amendment, and every such Amendment, to the utmost of my power, because, without imputing anything to anyone who differs from me, I should otherwise be convinced that I am a traitor to the rights and liberties of the House of Commons.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I do not think that one could possibly listen to a better argument in favour of accepting the Amendment than the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Rainy). I do not say that I am a great student or authority on the history of this country, but I have always believed that the Constitution of this country consisted of the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons, and that that Constitution had grown up through a series of years, and that different portions of that Constitution had powers in greater or lesser degree at certain periods of our history. Undoubtedly at the present moment the House of Commons has got the greatest power and the Crown has got the least. We are now approaching, as the hon. Member (Mr. Rainy) has said, to a great constitutional Resolution, and we are going to alter our Constitution. How can that be done? It cannot be done by this House alone. I suppose the people in the past gradually framed our Constitution, and balanced the different powers and different parties in this country so that there should be some equilibrium, and so that the Constitution should not be overborne at the first gust of public opinion, or at the first breath of unpopularity against one portion of that Constitution. I may say, in passing, that that Constitution has furnished an example to the Constitutions of every country in the civilised world. What is going to happen if the hon. Member and the Government have their way. I believe a number of the supporters of the Government are pressing His Majesty's Ministers to ask for guarantees from the Crown, at all events if the popular opinion is in their favour, to create peers. I quite admit that if there is an alteration in the Constitution the only possible way in which I can see it can be effected is by the creation of peers. I cannot conceive that the House of Lords is going to commit suicide. There is no reason why they should. There they are, they are part of the Constitution until you can get them to vote to commit suicide. They will refuse to do so in all probability and there they will remain in very good health and strength. How can you get over the difficulty, and how can you kill the Lords, or lop off their right arms and left legs. You propose to do it by going to the Crown and asking the Crown to exercise the Prerogative of the Crown to create peers in order to swamp the Tory majority in the House of Lords?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see how this arises out of the Amendment. The Amendment is to a Resolution dealing with an alteration by law of the powers of the House of Lords over Bills passed through this House. The Amendment is to exclude from the restriction it is proposed to put on the House of Lords—"Bill? affecting the Prerogative, Rights, and Powers of the Crown." That has nothing to do with what the Noble Lord is saying.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I was perhaps rather verbose. I agree with the hon. Member that one of the Prerogatives of the Crown is to create peers, and if you leave this Resolution as it is, it is perfectly open to a future House of Commons to pass a Bill which shall limit the Prerogatives of the Crown as regards the creation of peers. That is the whole point of the constitutional question, and I cannot conceive why the Government oppose this Amendment. It is perfectly conceivable that a Tory Government in the House of Commons, with the Tory majority in the House of Lords, if yon do not have an Amendment of this kind, so altering the rights and Prerogatives of the Crown as to pass an Act which will say that the Crown shall no longer have the power to create peers. If I may say so, I think my argument as to that is very much to the point. If you once give the power to one House alone of dealing with the Constitution you have thrown the whole constitutional system to the winds. The Government, in order to bring about this change in the Constitution, are going to invoke the power of the House of Commons and the power of the Crown. There is to be two against one in order to crush the Lords. If you take away the power of the Crown to override the decision of the Lords it appears to me that the whole case which was so eloquently put by the last speaker entirely falls to the ground. I cannot conceive, after the extracts he has read, why he is not going to vote for this Amendment. He read out one extract expressing the opinion that the Crown should exercise the prerogative of creating peers in order to force through the Reform Bill. If you do not accept this Amendment it will be perfectly easy for a Tory majority to pass a Bill abolishing this prerogative, and you will find yourself in a great deal worse position than you are at present.
  There is a small point, but one we ought to consider in dealing with the great constitutional question, and that is the power
  1438
  which undoubtedly exists in the Crown of bringing about a Dissolution. It is a power which in recent years has almost entirely been abandoned, but I think it is perfectly possible to foresee circumstances which might arise, especially if the Second Chamber is practically rendered powerless, with either a Liberal, a Tory, or a Labour party in power, where the Crown might think that for the safety of this country and for the good government of this country, and acting on its own responsibility, that it would be only right and just that the people of this country should have the opportunity of recording their votes, and that it should not be left to the Ministry of the day to stay in for their five years. It is true we are promised a Quinquennial Act, but it is perfectly possible for a Government that wishes to remain in power longer to repeal the Quinquennial Act, if it ever comes into force. To my mind, to allow one branch of the Legislature absolute power to pass Bills through the House of Commons without any check whatsoever, and that such Bills should become law, particularly considering we are limiting the Prerogatives of the Crown, is most dangerous not only in the interests of the Radical party, but also in the interests of the Conservative and Labour parties; and, if I may say so, what is more important still, in the interests of good government and of the safety of everybody in this Realm. Therefore, even from the point of view of the Government, I cannot conceive why they are not willing to accept this Amendment. By doing so, it appears tome that they would make their position much stronger than it was before. It is generally accepted that there is the right in the Crown to create peers, and if you do not have this Amendment it will be perfectly possible for any Government in. the future to take away that right from the Crown.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: In discussing this question we have no reason to presume that the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland will not act with wisdom and with due regard for the feelings of the nations which comprise this Realm. Since 1832 it has been a common-place for Members on both sides in this House to say that they trust the people and believe in their loyalty and sense as the great security for good legislation. I admit there are times when we should pause, and when even the people should pause; but I submit that there are plenty of Parliamentary conditions to

  1439
  apply the necessary drag; and in these Resolutions, with their provisions for delay, there are sufficient safeguards to prevent anything like hasty or unreasonable legislation. If it is contended that those safeguards would not be sufficient, is the House of Lords a competent tribunal to supply that wisdom in which this House and the nation are presumed to be deficient? Prominent among the Statutes referred to in history as hasty legislation occurs the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, passed, according to historians, in a sort of panic because the Pope had divided England into dioceses. Yet that Act was never put into force, and some years afterwards it was repealed Was the House of Commons alone responsible for that piece of hasty legislation? Did they gain anything from the wisdom of the Lords?
  The CHAIRMAN: How does this bear on the Amendment?
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: I was speaking to the argument that the safeguards against hasty legislation are not sufficient.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to do that, he must confine his argument to the class of Bills dealt with in the Amendment.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: I will leave that part of the subject. When this great question of the Veto of the Lords was put forward at the last election, certainly in the county of Roxburgh no suggestions whatever were made as to limiting the effect of such legislation by excepting the Prerogative and powers of the Crown; and since then such information as I have received speaks of this as the supreme work of the Session and makes no suggestion whatever as to there being any need to limit the effect of the Resolutions in the direction proposed. I believe the country generally would regret any whittling down of the Resolutions, particularly in reference to the Prerogatives of the Crown, regarding which the settled doctrine is that they are exercised on the advice of responsible Ministers, and always for the good of the subject. I shall therefore have pleasure in voting against the Amendment.
  Mr. L. SANDERSON: We were told the other day that Members on this side of the House had totally failed to understand the real intentions of the Government in regard to this Resolution. To a certain extent, and up to a certain time, I am in-
  1440
  clined to think that that was correct. Speaking for myself, and I believe other Members on this side are in the same position, I failed to realise the real meaning of this Resolution or the extent to which it was intended to be pushed, as evidenced by the opposition to this Amendment. But considerable light has been thrown on the real intentions of the Government, and our thanks are due to the Mover of the Amendment for bringing that about. It has been said on the other side of the House that the object of this Amendment is to divest the House of Commons of some of its powers. It is nothing of the kind. We on this side are just as jealous of the powers of this House as hon. Members opposite. In fact, I am inclined to think that we axe more so. At all events, personally. I do not intend to diminish the powers of the House of Commons, of which I am proud to be a Member. One part of the Resolution proposes to give absolute power to this House to pass any kind of Bill within a certain time, and the object of the Amendment is to except from the operation of the Resolution a particular class of Bills, namely, Bills dealing with the prerogative and powers of the Crown. Why do we want to do that? Because we do not wish to leave it in the absolute power of a temporary majority in this House to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown, and we wish to retain some machinery by which it may be made certain that upon such a vital and important matter the will of the people shall be ascertained before it is finally dealt with. That is not a question between this House and the House of Lords at all. Our only desire is that we should have a Second Chamber which will be some check upon the temporary majority in the House of Commons and able to provide a means of ascertaining the opinion of the people upon legislation which may interfere with the Prerogatives of the Crown. If you reject this Amendment you will give power to the majority in the House of Commons, absolutely uncontrolled during a certain period of its existence, without consulting the people and without there being any means of ascertaining the wishes of the people, to pass into law measures which may vitally affect the Prerogatives of the Crown. The Home Secretary thinks that those prerogatives may be safely left in the hands of the people. I agree with him, and our object is to provide that the people shall have an opportunity of saying

  1441
  what they wish with regard to the matter. The Prerogatives of the Grown are at present dependent on the will of the people, and we desire that they should remain so. To secure that is the object of the Amendment. A distinguished American once said, "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." In regard to these Resolutions I cannot help thinking that a considerable number of the people of this country have been fooled; but as day by day passes and discussion follows discussion in this House light is being thrown upon the real intentions of the Government, and I now feel hopeful that a large majority of the people will not be fooled by the propositions under discussion. They are beginning to realise the extent to which a Resolution of this kind can be and is intended to be pushed, and the great and vast changes which it involves. If this Amendment is rejected, as I am afraid it will be, there will be made clearer than ever the great danger that threatens not only the Crown and the Constitution, but the whole community in the country.
  Dr. ADDISON: I think we shall all agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Sanderson) that a great deal of light is being thrown on this question. Nothing could have been more illuminating than the last two speeches from the opposite side as to the attitude and intentions of the Tory party and the House of Lords. It has been said that the power of the Second Chamber is not involved in this Amendment. I can hardly follow the logic of that statement, because the Amendment proposes that the Resolution shall read, "That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords in respect of Bills other than Bills affecting the prerogatives, etc." It is specifically addressed to the House of Lords. The Noble Lord the Member for the Horncastle Division (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) suggested that we should be removing the only safeguard against great constitutional changes, and he specified as a particular constitutional change that might occur the limitation of the Prerogative of the Crown to create peers. In the light of that illustration I take it that the argument of the supporters of the Amendment is that the House of Lords is the only safeguard that we at present possess against the infringement of the Prerogative of the Crown in relation to the crea-
  1442

  tion of peers. But, if I remember rightly, it is only within the last few weeks that a deliberate proposal has been brought forward in the House of Lords itself to limit this the most valuable of the Prerogatives of the Crown.
  5.0 P.M.
  I think the proceedings of the last few days have demonstrated that the House of Lords is no safeguard whatever against interference with the Prerogatives of the Crown. The real protection of the Prerogative of the Crown is the loyalty and devotion of the people of this country, and there is no other safeguard, and by no introduction of Amendments can we manufacture one. The Mover of the Amendment, in arguing that some power should exist between this House and the Crown for the protection of the Prerogative, referred to the statement of Oliver Cromwell, which was also referred to by Lord Rosebery in another place, but the Noble Lord and the Mover of the Amendment omitted to complete, the quotation from that illustrious person. May I be allowed to do so, as the Cromwellian idea has been referred to in this respect. He quoted these words:—
  "I made it a condition that in taking the supreme power that I would not undertake it without there might lie some other body to interpose between you and me on behalf of the Commonwealth to prevent the tumultuary and popular spirit. You granted that I should name another House, and I named it. With integrity I did it."
  But he did not give the remainder of the passage, which reads:—
  "I named it of men who shall meet you wheresover you go and shake hands with yon and tell you it is Slot titles nor Lords nor Parties that they value, but a Christian and an English interest, men of your own rank and quality, who will not only he a balance unto you, but a new force added to you whilst you love England and religion."
  No one can say that the House of Lords as at present constituted in any way approaches the Cromwellian idea, and I must say I think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment perhaps might have been a little more careful, when he did refer to it, to read the remainder of the sentence.
  The gravest feature, as it seems to me, which is involved in this Amendment is that it specifically or by inference proposes that the House of Lords should step in between responsible Ministers and, let us say, their power to advise a Dissolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] It is distinctly involved in the Amendment, and it must be so. Therein we see only another illustration of what is the most unfortu-

  1443
  nate feature in this Debate, namely, the uniform tendency of the Conservative party to deprecate the House of Commons. It has been sought, and it is sought in this Amendment, to suggest that the House of Commons is lacking in a certain measure of authority, and this argument is supported by pointing to the fact that in various respects it is to some extent non-representative. That it is so is undeniable in some respects, but, whatever its authority is, it is solely derived from the fact that it is representative. Surely it will be no remedy to the lack of authority which the House of Commons possesses through any deficiency in its representative character to give more authority to a Chamber which is not representative at all. There has been some talk of chopping logic, and it must be an argument of that kind.
  First we are informed that the House of Commons is deficient in authority because it is not sufficiently represented, and then, in order to complete the syllogism, we are told we should give more authority to a Chamber which is not representative at all. But, in order to further provide a basis for the argument to take away power from this House we have it pointed out to us that the Lords are justified in what they have done because it is imagined that a majority does not exist in this House for a certain particular measure. What does the argument then involve, supposing this is true? It surely involves that the House of Lords are justified for what they have done, because the House of Commons, which is representative, supports them in doing it. That is the argument; but the argument addressed to this Amendment and addressed to other like Amendments brought before us are based upon the deficiency in the representativeness of the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, it is manifest that when it suits the Conservative party they will use an argument which will make much of the lack of authority in the House of Commons derived from its not being sufficiently representative, and then they will take an argument of another kind, in which much is made of the fact that it has authority because it is representative. I must say, as a new Member of this House, who has at all times been inclined to worship its traditions, that the attitude towards this House does seem to me to be a feature which is likely in the future to
  1444
  stand as a degrading episode in the history of the party that is responsible for it. I am endeavouring to confine myself strictly to the Amendment which is before the House, and I think that every one of us, looking into the history of our country, realises that this House is the greatest safeguard of the Prerogatives of the Crown, and that any danger to these Prerogatives during the last hundred years has come from the House at the other end of the passage. I, for one, will be no party to give to that other House any power more than it has at present to interfere with the power of this House as expressed by responsible Ministers in regard to the Prerogative of the Crown.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the hon. Member who has just sat down has in the least understood the Amendment, and, really, I do not think any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have opposed the Amendment have understood it, and I will endeavour to show what it is. The hon. Member who has just sat down has told us that this Amendment is an interference with the traditions of the House of Commons, and that because he is against interference with the traditions of the House of Commons he cannot support the Amendment. This Amendment does not interfere in the least with the traditions or powers of the House of Commons. They will remain exactly as they are now. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I would ask him since when had the House of Commons any power to interfere with or alter the Prerogatives of the Crown without the consent of the House of Lords since the Long Parliament? If hon. Members want the Long Parliament repeated, and if they refer to that Parliament when they are talking about the traditions and powers of the House of Commons then, of course, I have nothing to say. I do not know whether that is the Cromwellian idea. From some of their speeches it seems to me that they have some such idea lurking in their minds. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs made along speech and read extracts from all sorts of books, and he told us first of all he was against the Amendment because he promised his people in Scotland to do certain things. That is not an argument against the Amendment. I do not believe there was any single elector whom he addressed who had any conception that an Amendment of this kind would be brought forward, or that if it was brought forward it would be refused. I never saw in any speech of

  1445
  hon. Members opposite any suggestion that this House had the sole power to alter or amend the Prerogative of the Crown. I do not believe the hon. Member himself ever alluded to it.
  Mr. RAINY: What I said was that all the powers which it now had should be preserved to this House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What he wanted might cover even the grant of a peerage to the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment only continues the present position of this House with regard to the Prerogative of the Crown, but he thinks the Lords might interfere with something he wants. That gives the whole case away, because he shows that the real object in the mind of the hon. Gentleman is that whatever he says is right, and should be immediately carried out, and that there should be no interference with it by anybody. That is not my idea. He makes a mistake, and I am not certain that his constituency did not make a mistake at the last election. Another hon. Gentleman said this Amendment restrains the powers of the House of Lords. I venture to say it does nothing of the sort. If it was carried it would not affect the power of the Lords, nor would it prevent the House of Commons from passing through the Bills which hon. Members opposite desire, and which they say the Lords have prevented them from passing. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite were to propose to the Crown— I do not want to say anything personal— that the Home Secretary should become Prime Minister—there is nothing improbable in it—it is at the option of the Crown to say that it would not send for that right hon. Gentleman. That has been done in many cases in the past, and if this Amendment is not accepted, it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman or his supporters to abolish that Prerogative, and make a new rule that if five Members of the Cabinet say a man should be Prime Minister he should be sent for by the Crown. Such a thing as that was never contemplated by any elector even in Scotland. We have had a speech by another Scotch Member, an hon. Baronet, of which the whole burden, except when he was being called to order, was that we must trust the people. That has got nothing to do with this Amendment. This is not a question of whether we should trust the people, but whether we should trust the Cabinet. Shall we
  1446
  put it in the power of any chance number of gentlemen who happen to form the Cabinet to exercise this irresponsible power? If this Amendment is carried, we claim it will not affect the right of the Lords, but it will affect the rights of the Crown and the powers that the Crown may use. I see the Chancellor of the Duchy has come into the House, and I am bound to say that I have listened to the speeches in favour of the Amendment and the arguments against it. I am sorry I did not hear the Home Secretary's speech against it, and I do not make my observation apply to him, but I think all the arguments they used were so weak that there must be some hidden reason behind the refusal to accept the Amendment. The idea that occurred to me, and I am sure it occurred to right hon. Gentlemen opposite also, is if there was an Amendment there must be a Report stage, and therefore they do not accept the Amendment, not because they disagree with it, but because they do not want a Report stage. That occurred before, and it may occur again, but afterwards I looked at the guillotine Resolution, and I saw there was not going to be a Report stage. I appeal, therefore, to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment. He is not going to do himself any harm in accepting it, nor will it delay the passage of this Resolution. If I may say so without offence, the right hon. Gentleman is a very good judge of character, and a still surer judge of how to get votes. Is it going to be popular through the country when the people are made to understand, as they will be made to understand, that the real object of those Resolutions is to make the Cabinet of the day the sole dictator and controller of the interests of the country above the Crown, above, the Lords, and above everybody? We are to have ten or twelve excellent gentlemen in their way no doubt, sitting on the Front Bench opposite, with absolute power over everybody in this country. When this is understood I am sure there will not be so eager a desire to return Gentlemen opposite again to the positions which they now occupy. An hon. Friend near me says especially if they are in the pockets of the Irish.
  Sir E. CARSON: What Irish?
  Sir F BANBURY: That, of course, may be only a chance, such as we, are suffering under at the present moment, but this is one of the most important questions raised under this Resolution. The non-acceptance

  1447
  of this Amendment means that the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are being thrown over, and that practically what we are now doing is setting up a system under which the Cabinet is to become the supreme authority in these realms.
  Mr. T. M. KETTLE: Nothing would have induced me to trouble the Committee with a few observations except for the opinions we have heard from Oliver Cromwell. I do not know on which side Oliver Cromwell would have stood in regard to this Amendment, but whatever aide he took I am for the other.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is it in Order, Mr. Emmott, to refer to an hon. Member by name?
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear any hon. Member referred to by name.
  Mr. KETTLE: I understood the hon. Gentleman has been dead for some time, and I trust that any observations of mine will not trouble his slumbers. In dealing with the Amendment with regard to the Prerogatives of the Crown, nobody has endeavoured on either side to outline what are the Prerogatives of the Crown.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If my hon. Friend was here last night he would know that I did, so for a quarter of an hour or more.
  Mr. KETTLE: I am very sorry I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I shall endeavour to complete my education on the British Constitution by reading it at my leisure and I shall be glad to avail of his expert authority in correcting my notions upon the Prerogatives of the Crown. Such as these Prerogatives are, everybody admits they are sham Prerogatives. What is the first Prerogative? The power of creating peers. The Crown does that upon the advice of the Prime Minister and the Government of the day. What is the next Prerogative? To reprieve murderers. The Crown does that upon the advice of the Home Secretary. What is the third Prerogative? The third Prerogative, which technically still exists, is to refuse the Royal Assent to Bills passed through both Houses of Parliament. That, I think, is something which, in the language employed by railway companies and other carrying companies, would be exercised at owner's risk.
  The Debate on this Amendment is just as unreal as most of the Debates that have
  1448
  taken place in the last few days. We have been told in connection with this Amendment as with the others that unless you carry out what the Amendment proposes you are in danger of revolution. We are told indeed that a revolution is now proceeding in this House. I had occasion to show a French newspaper correspondent through this building in the last few days, and in order to be courteous to a nation that had put in some rather successful revolutions I explained to him that a revolution was proceeding upon these Resolutions. "A revolution," he exclaimed. "My dear sir, it would be an excellent substitute for a sleeping draught." This Amendment shows there is no loyalty towards the Crown in either of the British parties. You both support the Crown as long as you are able to advise it to do what you think should be done upon any occasion. The object of the Amendment moved by the Tories is this: The whole theory of the Tories is that the Crown is naturally Tory; that it is a sort of proprietary article to be printed on election literature at election times in both Great Britain and Ireland—I have seen it myself —to be threatened by Ulster Orangemen and menaced with the prospect of being kicked into the Boyne whenever it does not please them. Therefore, I say the whole object of this Amendment is that both the great English parties are agreed that they are not going to deprive the Crown of such sham prerogatives as it now possesses. I suggest that the purpose of the Amendment is simply to employ the Crown, as it has unhappily so often been employed in these countries, for electioneering purposes, and to appeal to that popularity which the Crown undoubtedly does enjoy in these countries to influence opinion at Parliamentary elections.
  I should like to remind the Committee that we in Ireland have a special and a pathetic interest in the Crown. The late Mr. Matthew Arnold used to say that the last illision left to him was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Well, the last fragment of the Irish Constitution destroyed in 1800 left to us is the Crown. The holder of the Crown is the Sovereign of Ireland under the Irish Constitution, just as he is the Sovereign of these countries under the British Constitution. I wish simply to say that in our idea of the Crown it ought to be neither Tory nor Liberal, but it ought to be supreme and independent of all political parties, and the Crown would be fulfilling the function in the

  1449
  Constitution if the holder of it were a firm Home Ruler just as much as if he were a firm Tory.
  Mr. H. TWIST: The Amendment moved from the benches opposite appears to me to be a device to try to place the Government and those who are behind them in supporting their Resolution in a predicament of seeming to be opposed to the present Prerogatives exercised by the Crown, and placing themselves before the country as the only loyal party to the Throne. As far as I know the history of this country the Crown has been most in danger not only of disrespect at the hands of the people, but in danger of losing its power, when the Lords have been militant in their fight with democracy for the preservation of their privileges and their powers, and that love for the Crown and respect for the Throne has grown just in the same measure and ratio as popular liberty and power have been extended. The Throne was never so much in danger, the Royal power was never so disrespected as when the Lords held complete sway and power in this country. I hold at this moment if the Throne presumed to exercise the power which the Lords are presuming to exercise the Throne would immediately come into disrepute and disrespect. There would be a movement on foot for the curtailment of its Prerogatives, and it is well for the country and the Crown that in this crisis which is now proceeding the Throne has been significantly silent.
  Hon. Members opposite may think that the Crown will be on their side in this controversy, and not upon the side of the people. Speaking on behalf of the party with which I am associated, I am loyal enough to believe that the Crown would be on the side of the people in this contest, and not upon the side of the privileged classes. The King has not assumed to interfere with the growth of popular liberty and power, but the Lords have. The Lords resisted it at every step, and just as they resist it they bring into disrespect and disrepute the high authorities of this country, and just as they allow the will of the people to prevail, both the Throne and high institutions will increase in respect. A guarantee of love and respect for the Throne is that this Amendment should be resisted, and in voting against the Amendment no one is showing any disrespect towards the Throne or the power which the Throne possesses. If
  1450
  the King is to be called upon to exercise his Prerogative in this crisis, who will be responsible for the King having to be called in?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the point that does not arise now. The Amendment only deals with the question of whether, when the Resolution is passed restricting the powers of the Lords, their powers shall not be restricted in regard to Bills affecting the Prerogative, rights, and powers of the Crown. The interference of the Crown in the present crisis does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. TWIST: I am sorry to have transgressed. Personally I believe that the Prerogatives the Crown now possesses are safer in the keeping of the people's representatives than they are in the keeping of the House of Lords and of Noble Lords who, to preserve their power and privileges and omnipotence in the State, would resist either the Throne or the people. I submit that in these Resolutions we are not doing anything to endanger the Prerogatives and privileges and powers of the Crown. It is not by this Amendment that respect for the Throne will be developed in this country; it is, rather, by passing these Resolutions, which will confirm to this House the authority it has possessed for a number of years, and making this House supreme. When this House is supreme, neither the King nor the Throne will be involved in any other crisis. I submit that this Amendment is a device of the Opposition to raise a question which ought not to have been raised, and it is an attempt to place this side of the House in opposition to the Throne. This side of the House and the democracy throughout the country are as loyal and respectful and as much concerned as hon. Gentlemen opposite not only in regard to the continuance of the Throne, but also in the preservation of its prerogatives.
  Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I think it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Wigan has delivered the speech he has just made. No one has suggested that one side of this House is more loyal to the Crown than the other, or that the Crown has shown any leaning towards any party.
  Mr. WALSH: It has been said that by supporting these proposals a suspicion is thrown upon our motives in regard to the Crown.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I never said that the Crown showed any leaning towards either party.
  Mr. WALSH: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a new light had been thrown on our motives, and that on this side of the House we desired not only to get over the Lords, but the Throne itself.
  Mr. SANDERSON: My argument related to the temporary majority in this House, and I said that they intended to use their powers not only to create a Single Chamber but also to interfere with the Prerogatives of the Crown.
  Mr. CAVE: I am perfectly certain that my hon. and learned Friend would not suggest that there has been any leaning one way or the other on the part of the Sovereign, and there is no monopoly of loyalty claimed on either side of this House. In my opinion the real point has not been dealt with at all. The substance of the argument is that if you put the Crown into the position that there is nothing between the House of Commons and a Bill proposed in the House of Commons affecting the immediate Prerogative of the Crown and the Crown itself, then you do the Crown an injury. You may put the Sovereign in this position. This House may pass a Bill over the heads of the House of Lords directly affecting the privileges, powers, and Prerogatives of the Sovereign, and then the point for the Soverign will be whether he will give his assent to the Bill or not. The Sovereign would be in a very difficult position. If he follows the Minister's advice he will be giving away not only his own but his successors' Prerogatives. If the Sovereign considers the matter upon its merits, then he will be in a position of reviving, or being tempted to revive, that Veto which no one wishes him to exercise. I say it is not fair to put the Crown in that position. It was said by Mr. Gladstone that if you abolish the hereditary principle and abolish the real power of the Second Chamber, you will expose the Crown, unprotected, to the assaults of its adversaries. In this way you are putting the Crown in danger and in difficulty, and unless these matters which directly affect the Prerogatives of the Crown are referred to some institution with some power of Veto between this House and the Crown, you will be incurring a danger which no
  1452
  loyal man desires to incur. I think the greatest danger of all these proposals is that you are going to make not the people but this House supreme. I have always felt that if you are going to abolish the Veto of the Second House you must put some check in its place, and the check I would put is at least to substitute for the Veto of the House of Lords the veto of the nation itself. I have always held that if you are to have these proposals at all you must make it a condition that before a Bill, passed twice in this House, is passed the third time there should be an opportunity for an appeal to the country. I do not want to anticipate subsequent Amendments, which I am afraid we shall not be able to discuss, but the point arises indirectly here that in these matters, especially those affecting the Crown, we ought to provide some intermediate process either by the Veto of the Second Chamber or the veto of the people before you ask the Crown to assent to a measure. In view of the proposals affecting the constitutional power of the Second Chamber and the other matters dealt with on the Amendment Paper, you ought not to put the Crown in the position of giving a decision on a question before some other body— preferably the nation as a whole—has expressed its will. It is because I think the proposal of the Government without Amendment is unfair to the Crown that I strongly support this Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has expressed the opinion that these proposals may place the Crown in a position of great difficulty. May I point out that in the event of this House having any difference with the Crown we already have complete control over all Supplies, and we could, if we desired, wage war against the Crown at once in regard to money matters. The case which the hon. and learned Member put forward was that he thought it desirable that there should be some check, in the event of these powers we are proposing passing into law, of having an appeal to the country. On this side of the House we think that by giving the country two years to consider any proposals which have been brought under the discussion of this House, we are giving ample time for the people to make their views felt through their own representatives in this House. On this side of the House we believe so much in the repre-

  1453
  sentative principle and in the honour of the men returned by the constituencies that in our opinion it is absolutely impossible to conceive a situation in which a House of Commons representing a majority of the people after an election would act in the way suggested. Public opinion will make itself felt through the representatives of the people in this House.
  Mr. CAVE: In what way, except by a vote of the people, can public opinion be tested?
  Mr. PEASE: Hon. Members know very well whether they are representing the views of their constituencies on any particular subject or not. If an hon. Member votes against the wishes of his constituency he immediately receives a large number of letters expostulating with him and drawing his attention to it. In this way we are all subject to the views of our constituencies. When a Member ceases to represent the views of his constituents in this House they, ask him to resign his seat, and he frequently seeks re-election. I would point out that, with the exception of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of Lon don (Sir F. Banbury), those who have been most interested in opposing this Amendment are those who are rather open to suspicion. There is the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh), the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres), the Hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. William Peel)—
  Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: The right hon. Gentleman has no business to assume that he knows, without nay having spoken, exactly what I am going to say on this Amendment.
  Mr. PEASE: The arguments on this Amendment have been very similar to those on previous Amendments. What I was endeavouring to point out was that these Amendments have, to a very large extent, been supported by hon. Members opposite, who expect eventually to reach another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, I have already named a number of Noble Lords who have taken a most prominent part in these Debates, and it seems to me that they are actuated by a desire to maintain the privileges of the other House and strengthen it at the
  1454
  expense of the House in which they at present sit. There is only one other point which I desire to make. It is one which I endeavoured to make yesterday in connection with another Amendment, and I think it is a good one. Even in the event of this Amendment being accepted, it would really have no actual weight in securing the very object for which it is put forward. Let us conceive a House of Commons misrepresenting the people. I think they must be almost imbeciles who can imagine the situation, but let us imagine a House of Commons determined during its first two years to get rid of the Prerogative of the Crown, say, in regard to the creation of peers. All that Parliament would have to do would be first of all to repeal the section of a particular Act which gives the House of Lords power to prevent this change, and then they could at once proceed with the next and much more drastic step of abolishing the Prerogative of the Crown.
  Mr. CAVE: That would take two years.
  Mr. PEASE: It would, I agree, undoubtedly take two years, but, if we had these powers and you had an imbecile House of Commons prepared to act against the wishes of the people, you could get rid of the Prerogative of the Crown. In two years they could repeal this section, and also get rid of the Prerogative of the Crown. I think that this point is a good one, but for the other reasons given by my right hon. Friend and those I have already referred to the Government are, of course, unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I think everyone who has listened to the Chancellor of the Duchy must feel that his reply has not only been a very inadequate one but also a very remarkable one. During all these Debates, and for some little time, the House of Lords has been subjected to a very considerable amount of criticism, attack, and condemnation on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it has been left to the Chancellor of the Duchy to devise a totally different platform. He has discovered something quite fresh in the hereditary principle. The fact that a Member of this House has been born the eldest son of a peer, and therefore might one day expect to sit in the House of Lords had it not been for the proposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, apparently, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, is

  1455
  itself sufficient to prevent him taking anything like a useful part in our Debates upon a question like this. I have never heard a more amazing argument. Why did the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to go through the list of my Noble Friends on this side who have spoken in the Debate so far? He was not content to find fault with those who have spoken, but he actually included in his list those who have not spoken and assumed what they were going to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) interrupted the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. PEASE: He spoke yesterday.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: We are talking about the present Debate, and my hon. Friend has not taken part in it. He told the right hon. Gentleman that he did not know what he was going to say, and that it was not fair to assume that he was going to oppose the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say I cannot conceive it possible that any circumstances will arise which will make it remotely probable that my hon. Friend will support the Chancellor of the Duchy, and therefore I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for assuming that the unspoken speech would be opposed to the views he holds. All I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is not the fault of the eldest son of a peer; it is not the fault of the hon. Member for Taunton and others, but it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who holds views which we do not share, which are not shared by a great many other people, and some of which I will undertake to show him in a few sentences are not based upon any sound precedent of review of the past.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy, in discussing the merits of this Amendment, said it is impossible to conceive circumstances in which any Government or any party would try to force through this House any proposal covered by this Amendment or any interference with the Prerogative of the Crown. Why? Because, he told us, public opinion would intervene and prevent their doing so. This comes from a Government fresh from the experience of the polls, and with a fresh recollection of the last four years. What did the Government do without the aid of a Resolution and without the impetus which this Resolution must give? They persisted with two or three different measures, and, if
  1456
  this Resolution had been passed and had become part of our machine, they would, as the House knows perfectly well, have asked the House to deal with those Bills under this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman says public opinion would restrain them. He was asked, and properly asked, how public opinion was to express itself. There is only one way, and that is by by-elections; but by-elections may take place without reinforcing the Government with fresh authority for what they are doing. The Chancellor of the Duchy knows quite well that the by-elections in the last Parliament showed in some cases that the legislation of the Government was not popular. What did the Government do? In one case they radically altered the measure they had brought in. What happened then? What did the country say to that particular measure? They repudiated it. Yet the Chancellor of the Duchy asks us to believe, in the light of this experience, that popular opinion has so great a hold over the Government of the day that it is never likely to go contrary to public opinion. Under our present system popular opinion has practically no means whatever of making its force felt upon an existing House of Commons. Why do we ask that this Amendment, and one or two others which have already been dealt with, should be adopted? It is not because anybody here attributes to hon. Gentlemen opposite one atom less loyalty to the Crown or devotion to the occupant of the Crown than is felt on this side of the House; I am quite certain that no argument of that kind was intentionally used by any one of my hon. Friends; and I am convinced that, if anything they said could be so interpreted, they would be the first, to withdraw any language of the kind. We hold, as strongly as any hon. Gentlemen opposite, that loyalty is a possession of no particular party or sect. It is held by every individual throughout the country. We are all loyal to the Crown, and there is no suggestion on our part that hon. Gentlemen opposite are any less loyal than we are. We have not argued this question at all from the point of view of loyalty to the Sovereign. It has been argued from the point of view of those privileges which belong to and are described under the heading of "the Prerogative of the Crown." What is it you are doing now? You are making, by your own claim and admission, a change so far-reaching in our Constitution that

  1457
  it has in my opinion been justly termed a revolution.
  Everybody knows that our Constitution has been the gradual growth of time, yet you are trying suddenly, and in really only a few hours, to destroy it and to build up a fresh one. Is it unreasonable that we should ask the Government, in making this great change, to at all events reserve some questions and to let time show how their Resolution works—to exclude from its operations some of the most important, some of the most delicate, and some of the most difficult questions with which Parliament has to deal? In regard to that, the Chancellor of the Duchy has said nothing. He has not tried to justify the wholesale action of the Government. All he has done is to tell us that public opinion would prevent a Government doing anything of a very radical nature. He went on to say that our constituents will take care that we do not do that. Would our constituents do anything of the kind? Was not the Chancellor of the Duchy talking, if I may so without any disrespect, in the air? He was not talking as a practical Member of this House. He has been the Head Whip of a great party in this House, and no man knows better than the Chancellor of the Duchy what are the ordinary ways of conducting business in this House. We all know that when a Government brings in a measure which the electors do not like the constituents come to their Member and say, "We do not like this measure. It is not popular in our part of the country." What does the Head Whip say? Does he go to the Prime Minister and say, "This measure has got to be withdrawn; you cannot go on with it because groups here and there object to it." It is exactly the reverse which happens. He says, "The Government" have committed themselves to it; they must go on with it; their credit and honour are at stake." It is the duty of the Head Whip to try to convince the Members of his party. Let the Committee remember the confessions made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, when speaking the other day of his own experience. He carried the matter a great deal further than I am trying to carry it. I have never been a Whip, and I do not know what the secret influences are which govern them, nor do I understand the difficult part which they have to perform. I admire the ability and loyalty with which they do their work, but I know very little about it. The Noble Lord who, before he
  1458
  went to another place, was Head Whip in this House, went a great deal further than this, and said the business of a Whip is to put Members into the Lobby to do the Government business and to have no conscience in the matter.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think he magnified his office.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: That is the view of the Chief Secretary, who, like myself, has never been a Whip, but that is the description given by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. But do not let us accept the view of the Noble Lord that a Whip has no conscience; let us take our own experience. Do we not know that what would happen would be this: At the end of two years the Government would be bound to pass their legislation. The whole credit of the party would be at stake. There would be no effort to listen to public opinion. There would be no attempt to find out what the constituencies wanted. The Government would go on with their policy, because they could not go back. Legislation covered by this Amendment might be passed and irreparable mischief might be done. All we ask is that in certain cases you should make exception—that you should wait and see how your Resolution works, and proceed by degrees. I regret that this Amendment has been refused by the Government. I regret it all the more, because it seems to me the reasons given for their refusal are of the most inadequate character.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I should like to say one word on the point raised by the Amendment. It seems to me that, if we accept the Amendment we shall be committing ourselves to the statement that there is a danger of this House doing something to injure and limit the Prerogative of the Crown. I venture to say —and I hope it will not be taken in an unfair sense—that so long as the Liberal party is in a majority in this House there is no danger whatever. What is at the bottom of the present crisis? A serious attempt has been made by the Opposition to limit the Prerogative of the Crown.
  6.0 P.M.
  How did this arise? How is it affecting our position now? It is always understood that one of the principal Prerogatives of the Crown is to dissolve Parliament only when the Crown, on the advice of the Prime Minister, thinks fit. Is that the position now? In another place they claim to them-

  1459
  selves the power to compel the Crown to dissolve Parliament whenever they think fit. That is a most dangerous limitation of the Prerogative of the Crown. But it goes even further. Up till now the Crown has not been supposed to be called upon to consider the advisability of dissolving Parliament so long as the Minister of the day has a majority at his back. But that is no longer the case. It does not signify whether a Minister has a majority or not, the Lords can, by holding up the Budget, compel the Dissolution of Parliament, and when hon. Members opposite urge us to accept this Amendment to prevent the House of Commons from limiting and endangering the Prerogative of the Crown, I would remind them that it is exactly their action in supporting the Conservative majority in another place that does endanger the Prerogative of the Crown. A great deal has been said by hon. Members opposite as to the danger of the House of Commons doing something unconstitutional. I would ask any student of history —When has the House of Commons done anything unconstitutional? Has it done so in the period from 1688, when Parliamentary government was established. Those Gentlemen who refer to Cromwell and the Long Parliament in deprecatory terms should remember that if it had not been for Cromwell we should not have been here to-day; therefore to deal with the historical instrument in terms of reproach is unwise on their part. They ought rather to thank their stars that there were men of courage living in bye-gone days who were not afraid to go into constitutional conflicts with their necks in their hands. We have heard a good many speeches as to the power of the constituencies. I wonder how many hon. Members opposite have said to their constituents, "We ask you to return us to the House of Commons in order that we may give away the liberties of that House." Yet that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite are endeavouring to persuade the present House to do. In doing so they are acting falsely towards the interests of the constituents who sent them here. After all the privileges of the House of Commons are the privileges of the electors of the United Kingdom, and Members are sent here by the electors to preserve and maintain those privileges. We have often been charged with saying things derogatory to the House of Commons. For my part I have never entered into arguments of that kind. They are
  1460
  entirely beside the question. What we want to do is to arrive at some better and more expeditious way of carrying on the business of this country. We must arrange fair and just machinery between the two Houses of Parliament.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is speaking much too generally. So far he has said hardly anything about the Amendment.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I thought the Amendment raised the question how far the House was to be entrusted with privileges—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not the question at all. It is whether Bills affecting the Prerogative, rights, and powers of the Crown should be excluded from the Bills for which this Resolution proposes a new procedure in reference to the House of Lords.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I understand that hon Members consider that this House is not to be trusted, and fear that it will introduce legislation that may be dangerous to the Prerogative of the Crown. I only wish to urge that the whole course of history, from 1688 down to the present time, in no way whatsoever indicates that the House of Commons has been a danger to the Prerogative of the Crown. On the contrary, for centuries, its efforts have being devoted to making the interests of the people paramount, and so strengthening in every possible way the hold of the Crown on the affections of the nation.
  Mr. SEDDON: This is one of the most unfortunate Amendments that has been brought forward. I take it, it is meant to be more than a figure of speech to say that the stability of and love for the Throne is-based on the people's will. There appears to be a fear in the minds of hon. Members opposite of the omnipotence of Cabinets. It may be their own personal experience. They may think the Cabinet is a great power, but no one will doubt that the influence of the electorate is felt. Hon. Gentlemen say in one breath that the Cabinet is omnipotent and powerful, and in the next breath they complain of its weakness. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke referred to a statement made by the late Chief Whip of the Liberal party that he himself admitted he had to have no conscience, but he had willy-nilly to carry out the instructions of the Cabinet. Hon. Gentlemen say in one breath that the Cabinet is all-powerful,

  1461
  and in the next they declare it is so weak and so shilly-shallying that at the dictation of hon. Members from Ireland they alter their policy from day to day. In my humble judgment it is very unfortunate that the Crown has been brought into these Debates at all. I am strongly of opinion that the present attitude of the country towards the Crown, especially among the labouring classes, is one of deep affection, and it is an affection which is not influenced by the Prerogatives of the Crown, but which has been created and developed by the present illustrious occupant of the Throne and his illustrious mother; by their interest and sympathy in the joys and sorrows of the people and in the development of the nation. I cannot conceive any House of Commons being led away or so mad as to make an attack on the Crown for their own personal advancement. The Crown, as we understand it, is the result of experience. The people of this country recognise that a Monarchy is far better for their prosperity than any other form for the head of the State, and I cannot conceive for a moment a House of Commons so stupid and so blind to its own interests as to run counter to that deep-seated affection evidenced so far as the people are concerned. If ever the time does come when we on these benches, who are supposed to be the advanced, and probably the most extravagant members of the community—we may give expression sometimes to a phrase that wants a little bit of editing, but so do other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—but if ever the time should come when we get into power, I do not think, even in our wildest flights, there will be any intention of attempting to alter the head, so far as the Crown is concerned. I cannot conceive the time when the people will have changed the attitude they have at the present time of devotion to the Crown. Australia has certainly given us some indication that the day may come when the party with which I am associated will come into power, but I do not think that any Government—Liberal, Tory or Labour—will do anything to endanger the Prerogatives of the Crown. I for one deeply regret that this Amendment has been proposed.
  Major WHITE: There are one or two remarks I should like to make in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He said that constituents had always a controlling power without an election, and
  1462
  that Members knew well that if they gave an adverse vote they would soon be in. receipt of shoals of letters from their constituents, and that, in that way, they were susceptible to public opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that the effect of the shoals of letters would depend a great deal on what political party they emanated from, and whether they came from the Member's own supporters. If they did, they would naturally carry great weight; but if they came from people in the opposite party they would carry no weight at all. Then the right hon. Gentleman forgets that there is a great body of men—silent voters, who are not known as party men one way or the other. We know there was a case not so very long ago—in the last Parliament—in which the very same thing happened with regard to a question discussed fully in the House—the question of grocers' licences—there was a certain amount of pressure—it is an open secret—put upon Members on either side of the House with regard to these licences. The Government had to act, and probably did act, on the letters they received. I might respectfully ask whether, if those letters of protest had come from publicans, they would have received the same amount of attention as was granted to them, coming, as they did, from grocers. I think it is going outside the point altogether to say that without an election you can really know what the will of the people is in a case of that sort. It is certainly not correct to say that a Member of a Government can be influenced to any extent by protests offered in a private capacity by his constituents. A very large number of the constituents may protest, but unless the protests are actually uttered by some definite body of the Members' own supporters they are practically of no avail. The Chancellor of the Duchy told us that if he heard from his constituents, or any number of them, that he had lost their confidence, then he would at once take steps to alter his policy, but I do most respectfully put it with regard to that that unless it was a resolution passed by the Association or a letter from the chairman of the Association or some prominent member of the party—I do not care which party it refers to—no attention would be paid to it by the Government of the day. I therefore do say that it is essential in all these great questions that the matter should be referred to the judgment of the people at the General Election.
  Dr. W. A. CHAPPLE: I think it is unfortunate that this Amendment should have been moved, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not divide upon it, because the implication is that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House are in favour of the Prerogative of the Crown and we on this side of the House are assailing it. The suggestion is that there is a danger which exists if this Amendment is not carried that at some future time Members of this House will endeavour to curtail or limit the Prerogative of the Crown. There is no chance of that; we are all quite loyal, and I think the implication should not be made that we on this side of the House are not in sympathy with the Prerogative of the Crown. I think that we on this side of the House should not be forced to vote against this Amendment so that it would appear that we are voting against the Prerogative. The Hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has democratic views constantly upon his lips with which this side of the House are in hearty sympathy, and he said the danger was that if this Amendment was not agreed to Acts of Parliament might be passed that would not have the assent of the people. He suggested that we should have some means by which the will of the people should be known before any Act could come into operation and that any amendment of the Constitution on the lines that he suggests should be referred directly to the people; and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. H. Lawson) referred to this very subject yesterday when he pointed out that the Australian Constitution makes special provision for any similar alteration of the Constitution, and that every matter of this kind is referred to the people. That is to say, that in regard to any alteration of the Constitution it cannot be passed unless the people are consulted as to that reform?
  Mr. CAVE: That would not be so under these Resolutions.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: What we maintain on this side of the House is that while the House of Lords has power such as it has at present it is impossible to get any measure to the people because they stand in the way, and you will have to reconstruct the House of Lords on a democratic basis before you can bring your Constitution into line with those great new constitutions which are always being quoted on the other side of the House. If hon. "Gentlemen on the other side quote those new constitutions, let them take them holus-
  1464
  bolus; they cannot pick out part of them and reject the rest. Those constitutions are based upon the democratic will of the people, and the passage of a law depends entirely upon the direct verdict of the people taken upon the Bill. At the present time there is a conflict going on in Australia, and issues are being submitted to a plebiscite of the people. Measures have to pass the Lower House twice, and then they have to be passed by both Houses and then by the people; and if we were to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston and take away powers which now exist and place them in the hands of the people, then we must so remodel and reconstitute the House of Lords as to bring it into direct line with democratic ideas.
  Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
  House cleared for Division.
  Viscount HELMSLEY (seated, and with his hat on): Mr. Chairman, on a point of Order, may I bring to your notice the fact that some hon. Members have not been able to get into the Division Lobby owing to the crowd at the door?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Members in question have had the usual time.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (seated, and with his hat on): May I draw your attention to the fact, Sir, that the door was locked before you gave the order?
  The CHAIRMAN: If the door was locked before I gave the order, then it should be opened. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that that is the case?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was next to the door. The messenger was between me and the door, but he had locked it before you gave the order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that under those circumstances I will direct that the door be opened again to let these three or four Members through.
  Mr. JOHN WARD (seated, and with his hat on): Mr. Chairman, on a point of Order—
  The CHAIRMAN: Lock the doors.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I suggest that if the door is opened again the whole Division ought to be taken afresh.
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 217; Noes, 328.

  Division No. 29.]

  AYES.

  [6.20 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Adam, Major William A.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, John

  Nield, Herbert

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, James Augustus

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid).

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barnston, Harry

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Bird, Alfred

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  , Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon., Banbury)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Calley, Col. Thomas C. P

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Carlile. Edward Hildred

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cator, John

  Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cave, George

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Kerr-Smlley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Chambers, James

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

  Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Knott, James

  Storey, Samuel

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Thompson, Robert

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

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

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S).

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark. W.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham) '

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

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

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  M 'Arthur, Charles

  Willoughby, Major Hn. Claude

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mason, James F.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Moore, William

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

  Gastrcll, Major W. Hougton

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  James Hope and Mr. Peel.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mount, William Arthur

  NOES.

  Abraham, William

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland D

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Barnes, George N.

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

  1466

  1467

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Barton, William

  Hancock, John George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Muldoon, John

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Munro, Robert

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Muspratt, Max

  Boland, John Plus

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Neilson, Francis

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncatter)

  Brace, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nuttall, Harry

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ogden, Fred

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  O'Grady, James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hindle, Frederick George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)

  Hodge, John

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lanes. Heywood)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hooper, Arthur George

  O'Shee, James John

  Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Parker, James (Halnax)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Clough, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Philipps, Sir O C. (Pembroke)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Johnson, William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Werthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cowan, William Henry

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Keating, Matthew

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Crossley, William J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cullinan, John

  Kemp, Sir George

  Radford, George Heynes

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Dawes, James Arthur

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George

  Reddy, Michael

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness.)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rees, John David

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

  Leach, Charles

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dilke. Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Richards, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Doris, William

  Lewis. John Herbert

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Enoch

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Elverston, Harold

  Lynch. Arthur Alfred

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Field, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Laren. Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Gibbins, Frederick William

  Manfield, Harry

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Seddon, James A.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Marks, George Croydon

  Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. 8.

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Shackleton, David James

  Glanville, Harold James

  Meagher, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

  Glover, Thomas

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Shortt, Edward

  Grenfell. Cecil Alfred

  Middlebrook, William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Millar, James Duncan

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

  Molloy, Michael

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Gulland, John William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Cwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hackett, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  1468

  1469

  Summers, James Woolley

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Walton, Joseph

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Sutton, John E.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Waring, Walter

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Wing, Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Toulmin, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Twist, Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Verney, Frederick William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Vivian, Henry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Wadsworth, John

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Mr. CHAMBERSmoved, after the word "than" ["as respects Bills other than Money Bills"] to insert the words "Bills for the delegation of administration or legislative powers to subordinate Parliaments within the United Kingdom, and."
  I think this Amendment hardly comes within the description which was given by the Home Secretary when, speaking upon another Amendment the other day, he said that if we were going to accept anything which was of an extraordinary or highly important constitutional character you could not stop at provisions limiting the duration of Parliaments. The Amendment deals with a matter which is so high and so constitutionally important that it deserves the consideration of this Committee and its acceptance. As I understand the proceedings of this House during the last week, we are engaged in the process of reforming the Constitution, not of England or Scotland, but of the United Kingdom, and the idea which underlies this Amendment is that under that Constitution so reformed and so strengthened the other sections of this country, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, shall remain, unless the clear, emphatic and distinct voice of the people be heard to say that it shall be otherwise. In this reform of the Constitution Ireland has taken a leading part. Without the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) and his party, none of the Resolutions could possibly have been passed. And the assistance of Scotland has also been rendered generously, likewise the assistance and the support of Wales. While I have no right to speak with any great authority on behalf of either Scotland or Wales, I claim the right to speak on behalf of the Unionists and loyalists of Ireland that we may be permitted to live under this strengthened and reformed Constitution, and that all the benefits which are sup-
  1470
  posed to be likely to be obtained by it shall be shared by us.
  In this reformed House of Lords there will be, no doubt, representatives of Ireland and also of Scotland, and surely it will be important and most desirable and most essential on the part of each of those countries that in questions so vitally affecting them the opinion of that reformed House should have the opportunity of expressing itself and making itself felt. The separation of any portion of the United Kingdom from the Kingdoms themselves would be a matter of great seriousness, and would involve great constitutional changes. It would fundamentally alter the relations between Ireland and the rest of the Empire. If delegations of administration or legislative powers were granted to that country all the matters which are now controlled by this House would be placed in the hands of a Parliament sitting at home—legislation finance, tariffs, taxation, and all the other matters—and surely we have a right to ask that, in dealing with such a grave constitutional matter as that, the change should not be made unless the people, in the most emphatic and direct manner, have declared that in that particular respect a change should be made. The question arises, would the people have the opportunity of expressing their will and their opinion in respect of such an important matter if the policy foreshadowed in the Resolution were carried into effect and became a portion of the machinery of the State. We have, so far as this question of Home Rule is concerned, or the delegation of authority to a Parliament at home, a very recent illustration of how the matter might work out. In 1893 a Home Rule Bill was carried through this House. It was then supposed that the House represented the will of the people, and their determination that such a measure should

  1471
  become law, but a General Election followed, and in 1895 the people in the most emphatic manner declared it to be their opinion that the policy contained in that measure of Home Rule was wrong and that it was wholly and absolutely opposed to their wishes, and they swept from power the party which had introduced the measure. If these Resolutions had been carried into effect, and if this system of a measure being introduced in two Sessions and becoming law though rejected by the House of Lords in the third Session had been in existence in 1893, beyond all question this Home Rule measure would have been passed, and who could say, in the face of the facts of 1895, that that measure was carried with the approval and the sanction of the people of this country?
  The main point which I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee is this, that so far as I can form an opinion the machinery to be evolved out of these Resolutions would not, and could not possibly, on a question of this kind secure a satisfactory conclusion as to what the will of the people upon this question was. We have to recognise in these times that a great change has come over the House of Commons. In the old days we had in it two great parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and they were a body, on both sides, of temperate and judicious men. But these times are changed, and we have now not only, I was going to say a Liberal party, but in my judgment the Liberalism of the past is dead and gone. We have now a Radical party, we have also to reckon with a strong Labour party, whose policy in connection with this question is the utter and absolute annihilation of the House of Lords, and we have the Irish Nationalist party, everyone of them pledged to follow his leader and to exercise no independent judgment of his own. What would be the result, assuming that after another General Election the House met here constituted much on the same lines as at present? You would have a Cabinet framed without consultation with this House, you would have a Prime Minister endeavouring to frame his policy, and he would see that without the assistance of one or other of the sections of the House he would not be in a position to secure or retain a majority. Each of these sections of the House has its own definite and distinct policy which is foremost and
  1472
  uppermost. Above all, in order to secure the concurrence of the Irish Nationalist party, what would the Prime Minister have to do? No matter whether a Home Rule Bill had formed a portion of his programme before the country or not, or whether it only formed a minor portion of it, in order to secure the adherence of the Irish Nationalist party, such would be the pressure brought upon him, that the first Bill which he would have to introduce would be a Home Rule Bill. It would be rushed through the House, it would be sent up to the reformed House of Lords, it would be rejected, it would come back here again, and would be passed, and after going through the process a third time it would become the law of the land. But with a majority secured in such a way as that for a measure of that kind who could say that really the will of the people had been declared in respect to it? It would not only have been rejected by the House of Lords as at present constituted, but it would have been rejected by that reformed House, which is to be much more representative, which is to have a much wider foundation, and which, according to the proposals, as I understand them, is to be representative of a far wider section of the community than are represented by it now. In these circumstances it appears to me to be idle to suggest that a Bill so carried would be carried with the wishes of the people, and in respect of a measure of this importance dealing with a measure of this kind, the old safeguard which has always existed for securing that the will of the people shall be really spoken should be preserved, and the Resolution should be so amended as to secure that in a matter of this kind the old Veto should survive; and if the Bill is rejected by the House of Lords the people should again be directly consulted.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has made a speech supporting the Amendment to the Government proposals, and the object of his speech was to criticise and oppose those proposals, but in the whole course of his speech he paid, and I am conscious that the opinion was none the less sincere, a tribute to the excellence of the constitutional machinery which we are setting up by these proposals, for what is the hon. Gentleman's fear? His fear is that he, as a representative of an Irish constituency, may some day be cut off from connection with the constitutional system which will prevail in

  1473
  this country when the Veto Resolutions will have become law, and he is very anxious that every possible safeguard shall be preserved to make sure that his fortunes will not be in any way dissociated from the legislative fortunes of the British democracy in the days when the Veto Resolutions are the law of the land. What a contrast is presented by this speech, and what an excellent answer is given by this speech to all the lugubrious and bloodcurdling prophecies in which for the last two days Noble Lords below the Gangway have been delighting. According to them we have been leading up to the verge of civil war, there is to be anarchy in the land, every institution in the realm and every foundation of society are to be thrown into the melting-pot. These are the dangers which we are told will follow from our Resolutions. Here is an hon. Gentleman, a sincere Member of the party opposite, who, in spite of the perils of civil war, wishes to be in the midst of it all, and who does not wish in any way to be dissociated even in the most remote manner—
  Mr. CHAMBERS: I would rather be here than under a Home Rule Government in Ireland.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no doubt the hon. Member has an equally bad opinion of the majority of his fellow countrymen in both islands. On behalf of the Government, I have the same or a similar answer to make to this Amendment as it was my duty to make regarding similar proposals from the benches opposite during the past two days. We regard the safeguards in the procedure we are now setting up as adequate for the discussion of the measures which the hon. Gentleman seeks to exclude from the scope of the Resolution as well as all other measures of legislation. We consider that, if a Home Rule Bill passed through the House of Commons in three successive Sessions and over a period of two years, that immense and prodigious process of Parliamentary strength and sustained exertion of the national will through the only recognised channels and the only imaginable machinery by which the national will can be expressed, namely, through the elected representatives fresh from contact with their constituents—we consider that if all this process has been carried out, ample safeguards will have existed and that the measure which finally receives the assent of the Crown will embody the settled will and convictions of the majority of the
  1474
  people of the United Kingdom. I pointed out, when speaking on other Amendments to the Resolutions, that it is, after all, possible for the hon. Gentleman to be exposed to all the perils of single-Chamber government, or what he calls single-Chamber government, in respect of a Home Rule Bill; for I think whenever the party of which he is now a member is in power it would be quite possible—and it has been in a time within a generation past—for the Conservative party, if they think it wise or desirable, to give a measure of Home Rule or self government to Ireland, or to any other portion of the United Kingdom. It is quite certain if, for a party purpose and in order to secure an electoral advantage, the Conservative party on this subject made one of the great changes which have in former times characterised their political history as a party they would find no difficulty in procuring the accommodating assistance of their friends in the House of Lords. But there is another reason which induces me to urge the House to resist this Amendment by a great and substantial majority. I have thought it a very extraordinary, and at the same time a very lucky thing that we were able to give a Constitution to South Africa by Letters Patent under the Crown, which required indeed the assent of this House, which required an expression of confidence from this House in order that the Government might remain the paramount power, but in which the House of Lords had absolutely nothing whatever to say. If to-day over the wide area of the South African sub-continent there is peace and goodwill, a revival of prosperity, and the union of the two races who have to dwell together in that land, it is because in the mercy of Providence it was not in the power of the party opposite, although outnumbered and out-argued in this House, although disproved as they have been in all their contentions by the stern march of events, to use their great strength at the other end of the corridor either to prevent or to mutilate that Constitution which alone has secured the unity and the prosperous continuance of South Africa within the circle of the British Empire.
  Compared with that great step which we had the power to take dependent on this House alone, the grant of a Parliament to Ireland, subject to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, would be a less important and a less grave measure. I do not intend to pursue the parallel at length,

  1475
  but I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider carefully for themselves all the arguments for and against the two courses in respect of South Africa and in respect of Ireland, and to weigh them, not as the South African experiment looks now as a great success, but to balance those considerations as they were while the fortunes of the South African decision were unknown and unproved. If they do that honestly and conscientiously, I am convinced they will see that the step of giving a Parliament to Ireland is not so great or so far-reaching a policy on which the country could embark as the policy upon which they have successfully dared and triumphed in South Africa. Great changes have passed over Ireland since this question was fought out for the first time in 1886. Great changes have passed over English opinion on this subject. The new generation that has grown up in our country is not going to be frightened out of its wits by the nightmares and bugbears of a vanished past. Not only do we believe that the step would be one attended by circumstances less radical than in the case of the South African Constitution, but we also believe it will be one which will add even more enormous benefits to the strength, the unity, and the prosperity of the British Empire.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I do not think anybody in this Committee supposes for a moment that the Home Secretary will ever be frightened out of his existence by the nightmares and bugbears of his vanished past. But I think, in replying to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Mr. Chambers), which was a maiden effort of considerable ability, the right hon. Gentleman might, at all events, have attempted to give some serious answer, and not have attempted a mere travesty of the statements made by my hon. and learned Friend. The Home Secretary said that my hon. and learned Friend had given a fillip to these wretched Resolutions which we have been discussing for the last few days by the fact that he was still willing to remain in association with the united Parliament even after the Resolutions were passed, if they were passed. Well, it may be that the time will come when the Resolutions will become law. At all events, if we are to be between the devil and the deep sea we would rather wait and see whether we would choose the devil or the deep sea. I think an argument of that
  1476
  kind adds but little to the discussion, which is a very serious one—at all events for those of us who represent Irish constituencies, and who, I think, have a right to fee treated with serious arguments as well as any other section of the House. In my opinion this question which we are now discussing, and the resistance to this Amendment, is really the origin, if you come to investigate it, of the whole of the 'Resolutions. Why do I say that? The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that the Conservative party might be tempted by the single Chamber which, he says we have always had in the past, to bring in a Home Rule measure. Well, I have no doubt if the right hon. Gentleman ibad remained a Member of the Conservative party, and had seen any political advantage of any kind to be gained from the introduction of Home Rule or from opposition to Home Rule, he would have been equally willing to adopt the particular view that suited his political interests best for the moment. Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that at the present moment if the Unionist party were as corrupt as he seems to think they are—and nobody abuses their former friends so much as those who have, fallen out with them and are always attributing to them the lowest and basest motives—by a mere promise of a Home Rule Bill we could defeat his Resolutions, his Budget, and everything else.
  Mr. SIMON: Would the Lords pass it. if you brought it in?
  Sir E. CARSON: What I said was that by a mere promise we could defeat the Resolutions and the Budget.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: We would want-more than a promise?
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir E. CARSON: By a promise of acceding to a Home Rule Bill I say that we could have defeated the whole of these Resolutions.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: It is not too late to try it now.
  Sir E. CARSON: And I say once more that upon the eve of the last election the Prime Minister was driven to announce Home Rule as part of his policy without ever explaining what it was, and he never mentioned it again from the beginning to lithe end of the election. Everybody knows perfectly well now that unless the question of Home Rule was made a paramount question in the policy which the right hon.

  1477
  Gentleman proposed, and not an academic question, as the Prime Minister described it a few years ago, the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) would not for a moment accede to either the Budget or the Resolution. Therefore I say that this Amendment, and the opposition of the Government to it, go to show the very mischief that will arise the moment you constitute what would be in effect single-Chamber Government under the Resolution that is now before the House. For what happens? The Government go to the country on the Budget Bill. They come back here and find themselves in a position that they are not able to pass it without the Irish Members. Then, of course, they go to the Irish Members. The Irish Members say, "We will support your Resolution to get rid of the House of Lords," and they openly say, "We do so because we want to be in a position to pass Home Rule. And that is our sole reason."
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Not our sole reason.
  Sir E. CARSON: "Our main reason for supporting this Resolution." And, I do pray the House to look at the way matters will arise in the future when you are under procedure of this kind, and you can pass any Bills without any Veto of the other House. Why, every time a party is in power, and unable to maintain its power without the assistance of a particular group, you will have from day to day bargains made, not because you think they are the best thing for the Empire at large, but because you think that they are the best in accordance with the political exegencies of the moment. Look at the lengths that the Irish Nationalist Members —may I say in passing that I object to their being called the "Irish Members— are now prepared to go, apparently, as far as one can see. This, again, I say, illustrates what you are going to have under your new scheme. Irish Nationalist Members are prepared, in order that they may advance a step towards procuring Home Rule for Ireland, even to put their country into a state of bankruptcy. Everybody knows—I have heard it stated from that bench—that with the amount that is now given for old age pensions and the other matters which have been advanced to Ireland—and it is so—the revenue of Ireland does not pay its own way. If they are willing to take over Ireland as a burden of debt under which Ireland does not pay its own way, is not that to allow a state
  1478
  of bankruptcy to be put upon that country simply for the purpose of having a further step towards Home Rule? After all, I do not suppose that when we come to the House of Commons we leave our commonsense outside the doors, in the same way as the worshippers in the Eastern temples leave their boots. We all know what is going on, that the whole origin of the bringing up of this matter, as a preliminary to getting their Budget, has been at the dictation of the Irish Nationalist Members, and solely with a view to improving their position in regard to the great national question of the dismemberment of the Empire.
  But look at the circumstances from which that arises. You would not dare tomorrow to put Home Rule as a net issue before the country, and the only issue. No, you tried it twice, and you were twice defeated. [HON. MEMBEBS: "NO."] Once through the action of this House and once through the action of the other House; but in each case it was emphatically decided by the people that they would have nothing of it. [HON. MEMBEES: "NO."] I know what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite—that whenever there is a Unionist majority it does not represent the views of the people. It is only when there is a Radical majority that it does. You have had it twice rejected, and now, by your bargaining with the Irish Nationalists for the sake of your Budget, for the sake of remaining in office, you want to sneak this Bill through, breaking up the United Kingdom, without the people having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it, which they have expressed so emphatically on former occasions. After all, if ever there was a Bill which ought to be presented to the people, and allow me to say presented in a concrete form, it is a Bill which is to break up the Union between your country and mine. Why, we all know the argument that used to be advanced when the old Home Rule Bills were before this—at least, all of us who were through that controversy—and I regret to say that I am old enough to have been so. When you went down into a constituency where there was a narrow margin for the Liberals you used to tell them, "After all, it is only a Gas and Water Bill," and in Ireland, when Irish Members went over to speak there, they used to tell them, "It is absolute independence." And all through the whole of the controversy Home Rule became a phrase which meant

  1479
  anything between a Gas and Water Bill and absolute independence. What does it mean now? Nobody knows. It will be exactly the same thing when the controversy arises in a more acute form.
  I know myself when arguing this question in the constituencies I asked the question of an audience: "Are you prepared to entrust the question of Home Rule to a single Chamber?" And a gentleman in the audience very politely said, "I am." And I said, "Have you fully considered the details of the question?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Very well, is the Home Rule you are in favour of a Home Rule which will exclude Irish Members from the English House of Commons?"—because that is what Mr. Gladstone proposed in his first Home Rule Bill—and he said, "Yes." And I said, "Are you in favour of the second Home Rule Bill, by which they were to be kept m the House of Commons?" and he said, "Yes." Everybody who has gone through those previous controversies knows perfectly well that the difficulties that were raised in the course of those controversies have never been attempted to be solved by any of the arguments put forward at the time. There is another question—the question of financial relations under the Home Rule Bill. What is the burden you are going to put upon England? What is the burden you are going to put upon Ireland? What portion of the National Debt? What will be the contribution from Ireland for Imperial purposes? These are all questions of such magnitude that when you are talking of Home Rule, and saying you are in favour of Home Rule, you are giving really no indication to the constituencies, or to the people, as to what it is you really mean at all.
  I followed as far as I could during the last election anything said on this subject by responsible Ministers, among whom I include the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War, and I noticed that both of those said that in any Home Rule Bill there must be one financial system for the whole of the United Kingdom. Do you think you will carry that with the assent of the Irish? Do you not know perfectly well that the moment the Irish come to you they will have a word to say for it, and will probably dictate what you will do; but when you have said that to the constituencies, and before you alter it, do you not think it is a matter upon winch the constituencies might well be
  1480
  consulted? Of course, we know that finance now has become a very immaterial question in the hands of responsible Ministers. But I think the time will again arise when it will be looked upon as the most vital element in the administration of the country, and you will in all these questions, whether you like it or not, have to solve problems which Mr. Gladstone himself was never able to solve, and for which he had himself to bring in alternative proposals. This is a vastly serious question, and a vastly serious question cannot be solved by the kind of speech the Home Secretary was good enough to give us. It cannot be solved by thanking the Lord that we had no House of Lords in dealing with the South African settlement. We had no House of Commons as far as that goes. It was a purely Executive act, and not an act of this House, no more than an act of the other House, and I think that the Home Secretary might have known that much. What is the parallel with South Africa?
  Has South Africa ever had Members here? Has South Africa ever been part of the United Kingdom? Has South African finance become intertwined with the finance of this country, so as to make it almost impossible to disentangle and find out; where the finance of the United Kingdom was and where the other finance was? No; we ask the House to seriously consider this Amendment. I can assure hon. Members opposite that although what the Home Secretary says is quite true, that vast changes in England have occurred since the last Home Rule Bill, and many things, I think, for the good of Ireland, and some things, perhaps, not for her good, yet I can assure him that the moment he again makes Home Rule a part of the Liberal programme there will be found the same dislike to and the same determination to resist the proposal as there were in 1886 and in 1892, and all we ask and I think we have a right to ask, is that a Bill of this kind should not by any procedure or any process be smuggled through by a Resolution of this sort, but should be the deliberate will of the people of the United Kingdom.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not going to deal in any detail at this stage with the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which, indeed, comes to this, that however clearly the electorate of this country have expressed their opinion upon a scheme, however specific, laid before them at the General Election, and by how-

  1481
  ever large a majority they have approved of it, yet the House of Lords should still retain an absolute Veto on Home Rule as an excepted topic with regard to which the voice of the representatives of the people is not to be decisive, even after an election. That is the Amendment. Any such exception from the scope of this Veto Resolution would, of course, destroy its efficacy and value. I say so advisedly. This Resolution is intended to apply to legislation of all kinds without any limitation or exception in favour of this or that particular topic. The Resolution, under the Closure Rule, will, in the course of a very few minutes, be put to the Committee, and this is the last opportunity we shall have of saying anything about it before it seeks its fortunes elsewhere. I am not, I hope, going to travel beyond the Rules of Order. If I do I shall be at once reminded of my error from the Chair. But there are two or three observations I am going to make which I think are relevant to this Resolution and to this Amendment, or to any Amendment which may be proposed, because they refer to what I think it is only right, on behalf of the Government, I should now state, and which the House in all quarters should understand, namely, the procedure which we regard as essential to this Resolution, amended or unamended—unamended as we think it ought to be.
  When the Committee has given its assent—as I hope it will in the course of a few minutes—after negativing this Amendment to the Resolution as a whole, then, as far as this House is concerned, except in so far as it is the foundation of a Bill to be hereafter introduced, it will pass beyond our province. It will still have to meet its fortunes, good or bad, elsewhere. I do not know what those fortunes may be; I do not venture to predict them. But I do think it right to say that if the House of Lords fail, in regard to this or any of the other Resolutions—this, of course, is the centre and core of the scheme—
  Mr. BALFOUR: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order or not. That is not for me to say. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now beginning to discuss what is to happen if in another place this Resolution meets with what he calls "bad fortune." That raises, and must inevitably raise, a great Debate outside this Amendment altogether, and outside, as I think, the Resolution proposed by
  1482
  the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet finished his statement, and under the very peculiar system under which we are carrying on our Debates, I do not see that there would be any possibility [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order." "A speech."] I do not think hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are improving their own case. I will, however, put this direct question of Order: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in dealing with what is going to happen to this Resolution when it gets to another place?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have not yet arrived at what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, and I am not yet in a position to judge whether what he is going to say will be in order.
  The PRIME MINISTER: What I was going to say is this: If the Lords fail to accept our policy as embodied in these Resolutions—
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has now explicitly told us that what he proposes to present to the House is his view of the policy which the Government will pursue not in relation to this Amendment, but in relation to something that is going to happen, or may happen, in the House of Lords. He has distinctly said that, and I wish to ask whether that is in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: I should have preferred to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. So far as I can tell at present, it is not strictly in order. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends desire to stop the Prime Minister or not. I should not myself have interfered with the Prime Minister if he desires to make a statement which he thinks ought to be placed before the Committee, even if it were somewhat outside the strict Rules of Order. But I should only allow a privilege of that kind if it were generally accepted by the House. Therefore, if the Leader of the Opposition, having called my attention to the fact that the Prime Minister appears to be outside this Amendment, and desires me to rule in that way, then I take it that the leave of the Committee is not given to him.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am entirely in favour of giving all latitude to the Leader of the House, whoever he may be, to make a statement which may be for the convenience of the House; but I venture to point

  1483
  out, if I may, that it is not tolerable that it should be made unless there is an opportunity of debating it. The last thing I wish to do is to put a too rigid limit on what may be for the convenience of the House; but everybody who knows anything about procedure in this House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide"]—and the hon. Members who cry "Divide," do not—must be perfectly aware that never are such statements made of a controversial character, unless an opportunity of debating them is permitted.
  The CHAIRMAN: Clearly, that being the case, I must ask the Prime Minister not to proceed with his remarks.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, Sir, I defer to your ruling. I am sorry I have not been permitted the opportunity to make a statement, which would not have occupied more than two or three minutes, which I do not think necessarily or naturally would have led to any Debate on this occasion, and which I think would have been in the interests and for the convenience of the House. I will take the opportunity of making the statement on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 351.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES.

  [7.29 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Croft, H. P.

  Hills, J. W.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Baird, J. L.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Horner, A. L.

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

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duke, H. E.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Barnston, H.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

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

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

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

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Falle, B. G.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Fell, Arthur

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Keswick, William

  Bird, A.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Boyton, James

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Knott, James

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Brotherton, E. A.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Brunskill, G. F.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gordon, J.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Grant, J. A.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Cator, John

  Greene, W. R.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Cantley, H. G.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Cave, George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haddock, George B.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Mason, J. F.

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Colefax, H. A.

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Moore, William

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Morpeth, viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Hickmann, Colonel T.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Thompson, Robert

  Newman, John R. P.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Nield, Herbert

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Verrall, George Henry

  Orde-Powlert, Hon. W. G. A.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Whole., Granville C. H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Stanier, Beville

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stanley. Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Starkey, John R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Stewart, Sir M'T (Kirkcudbright)

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Storey, Samuel

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Strauss, A.

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Sykes, Alan John

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  J. Chambers and Captain Craig.

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hackett, J.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hancock, J. G.

  Alden, Percy

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Anderson, A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Armitage, R.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

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

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cullinan, J.

  Harwood, George

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Delany, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barnes, G. N.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hayward, Evan

  Barran, Sir i. (Hawick)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Healy, Timothy (Michael)

  Barron, A. W.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Beale, W. P.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Doris, W.

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

  Bentham, G. J

  Duffy, William J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hindle, F. G.

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards, Enoch

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Elverston, H.

  Hodge, John

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hogan, Michael

  Brace, William

  Falconer, J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Brady, P. J.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Field, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  France, G. A.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gibson, James P.

  Johnson, W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Glover, Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Jowett, F. W.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allsten

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Joyce, Michael

  Chapple, W. A.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Keating, M.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Kelly, Edward

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Clough, William

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gulland, John W.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  1486

  1487

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Grady, James

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S..)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lambert, George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Leach, Charles

  O'Shee, James John

  Summers, James Woolley

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutton, John E.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearce William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Low, Sir F. A. (Norwich)

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lundon, T.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Twist, Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wadsworth, J.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Manfield, Harry

  Radford, G H.

  Walton, Joseph

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Martin, J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wardie, George J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Waring, Walter

  Meagher, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rees, J. D.

  Waterlow, D. S

  Middlebrook, William

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Millar, J. D.

  Richards, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Molloy, M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robinson, S.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Muldoon, John

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Munro, R.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Muspratt, M.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Norten, Capt. Cecil W.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seddon, J.

  Wing, Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shackleton, David James

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shaw, Sir C. E.

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sheehy, David

  Yoxall, Sir James

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  O'Dowd, John

  Shortt, Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Ogden, Fred

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  And, it being after Half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of April, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Resolution to be
  concluded at Half-past Seven of the clock this day.
  Question put:
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 351; Noes, 246.

  Division No. 31.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Anderson, A.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Armitage, R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Alden, Percy

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Manfield, Harry

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Barton, W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Martin, Hon. J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hackett, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Bentham, G. J.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hancock, J. G.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Boland, John Pius

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Millar, J. D.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harmsworth. R. L.

  Molloy, Michael

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brace, William

  Harvey, T E. (Leeds, W.)

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Brady, P. J.

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Muldoon, John

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, R.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Hayward, Evan

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hazelton, Richard

  Muspratt, M.

  Cameron, Robert

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Neilson, Francis

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Chapple, W. A.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Nuttall, Harry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hindle, F. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hodge, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Dowd, John

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ogden, Fred

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoaffrey

  O'Grady, James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hughes, S. L

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Malley, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Shee, James John

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, W.

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, William

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Davies, M. (Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Keating, M.

  Phillips. John (Longford, S.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pointer, Joseph

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Doris, W.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Edwards, Enoch

  Leach, Charles

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Elverston, H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Falconer, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rapnael, Herbert H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough. Rt. Hon Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Field, William

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Reddy, M.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  France, G. A.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lynch,- A. A.

  Rees, J. D.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richards, Thomas

  Gibson, James P.

  Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ginnell, L.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Glanville. H. J.

  M'Cullum, John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Glever, Thomas

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robinson, S.

  Greenwood, G. G.

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  1490

  1491

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, J H. (Derby)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Twist, Henry

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Seddon, J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Shaw, Sir C. E.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Sheehy, David

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walton, Joseph

  Winfrey, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wing, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wardie, George J.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Waring, Walter

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Summers. James Woolley

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  NOES.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Arson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Baird, J. L.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Croft, H. P.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hickman, Colonel T.

  Banbury, sir Frederick George

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hills, J. W.

  Barnston, H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Hohier, G. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duke, H. E.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Horner, A. L.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Eyres-Monsell, . M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bird, A.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Boyton, J.

  Falle, B. G.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Fell, Arthur

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Brunskill, G. F.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fleming, Valentine

  Keswick, William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Knott, James

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Law, Andrew Sonar (Dulwich)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gilmour, Captain J

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Cator, John

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Cautley, H. S

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, J.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gouldinq, Edward Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Greene, W. R.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chambers, J.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Gwyrne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Haddock, George B.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Colefax, H. A.

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Hamersley, A. St George

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  1492

  1493

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Proby, Colonel Douglas James

  Storey, Samuel

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Sykes, Alan John

  Mason, J. F.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Thompson, Robert

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Moore, William

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Verrall, George Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Rutherford, Watson

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Nield, Herbert

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Winterton, Earl

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Stanier, Beville

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Worthington-Evans, L, (Colchester)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Starkey, John R.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir A.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Stewart, Sir MT. (Kirkcudbright)

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Resolved, "2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords, as respects Bills other than Money Bills, be restricted by Law, so that any such Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive Sessions and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, has been rejected by that House in each of those Sessions, shall become Law without the consent of the House of Lords on the Royal Assent being declared: Provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  " For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed upon by both Houses."

  DURATION OF PAHLIAMENT.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman)moved the third of the Ministerial Resolutions: "(3) That it is expedient to limit the duration of Parliament to five years."
  I rise to move the third Resolution on the Paper. The limitation of the duration of Parliament has always been an essential provision of the scheme originally brought forward in this House by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and it is now regarded as an essential provision of the
  1494
  scheme as extended by the present Government. The period of five years is chosen with the deliberate object of striking a compromise between, the old triennial Parliament advocated in Chartist days and the seven years' Parliament. Our object in limiting the period to five years is that there may be no risk run of the perils which have been enunciated with great vigour by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of a Government taking advantage of the powers granted to it under the second Resolution, outliving its welcome, getting completely out of touch with the country, and using its extended period of life, say of six years, for carrying through legislation of which the country does not approve. The five years named in the Resolution will in almost every case mean a four years' Parliament. It means therefore that if a Parliament divided its time in the manner described by the Leader of the Opposition, in the first two years doing the work for which it was returned, and in the second two years looking forward to the election about to come upon it, it would have filled up the whole of the four years' period for which this Resolution provides. Our only object in limiting the period of the duration of Parliament is that the House of Commons shall not get out of touch with the opinion of the electorate. I believe it will have other incidental advantages, not the least of which will be that the fluctuations of public opinion, which are shown from time to time by large swingeing majorities on

  1495
  the one side or the other, will be less pronounced under the Resolution than they have been in the past. If the period were shortened it would mean that we should be face to face more frequently with all the expense and turmoil involved by an election. Hon. Members know quite well that that expense is not limited merely to money. Indeed, if we shortened the period, it would mean that the Government would not be able either to develop its full policy or to get through a programme which would enable it to fulfil even moderately the mandate given at the General Election. Therefore, regarding this limitation as essential to the whole scheme, I beg to move.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: We are allowed but a short time to discuss so important a matter as the duration of Parliament, and the subject is brought before us in connection with the Resolutions which we have been discussing for some days past. That imposes very considerable difficulties in the consideration of the matter. If we were considering the question of quinquennial elections apart from other matters there would no doubt be something to be said for and against them. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the Debates which took place before the passing of the Septennial Act, which for those days lasted a considerable time, will see that some of the I reasons which actuated the then Parliament, apart from the political reasons to which I will refer later, were the continued irritation of public feeling caused by frequent elections under the Triennial Act; the political animosity engendered and kept alive by constant references to the electorate; the general dislocation of public affairs inevitably caused by a General Election; and, what is a consideration at the present time, the great expense thrown upon candidates by frequent elections. Whatever was said then it may truly be said now, that the House of Commons, under our existing electoral system, soon ceases to be in close touch with the; electorate, and, as by-elections during the j late Parliament showed, the House of Commons very soon drifts a long way apart from the opinions of those who returned it. That is an argument on the other side in favour of more frequent references to the electorate. On the whole, apart- from the questions of these Resolutions, I should be inclined to urge upon the consideration of the Government the increased expendi-
  1496
  ture involved by frequent elections. However much you may wish to keep the House of Commons in constant touch with the electorate, no one desires that access to Parliament should be made difficult for the poor man; and unless the Government were prepared to bring in some measure either contemporaneous" with or as a portion of a Bill for reducing the length of Parliament, I should say that they were bearing very hardly on a class of men whom we desire to see in Parliament, men of small means who cannot afford the recurring expense of frequent elections. On the whole I should be inclined to say-that the balance of opinion— other considerations apart— would be against the shortening of the duration of Parliament. It cannot be forgotten, however, that this Resolution is part of a series of Resolutions, and is meant to be a palliative, and nothing more than a palliative, against the autocracy of the House of Commons under the system of single-Chamber government which these Resolutions are forcing upon the country. If the House of Commons, and the Government of the day which controls the House of Commons, are to be absolute during the first three years of the life of a Parliament, then it may be well that it should be called to account every five years instead of every seven years. If the nation has to choose its masters without any prospect of an appeal to the electorate for a definite period of time, then it is better that the nation should only be cut off from a voice in its own affairs during five years rather than during seven years. But, under these Resolutions, for three years out of five this House will be absolute. Under these circumstances I should say that this remedial measure, for it is only a remedial measure, this palliative which is all you offer us, is a very insufficient remedy. For three years this House will be able to force upon the country any legislation it wishes. For the two remaining years the legislative proposals of the Government will have to be referred to the country before they can become law, and in five years the House will have to go to the country to render an account of its doings during this triennial period. The reason why I urge that this period is ineffectual as a remedy is because I am convinced that a new Parliament may go just as far away from the settled opinion of the country as an old Parliament. We have had instances of this within living memory,

  1497
  and even within very recent memory. Everyone knows—it has been referred to constantly in this Debate, and I will refer to it again only because it bears very closely upon what I am now saying—that when Mr. Gladstone's Parliament in 1893 came fresh from the polls, fresh from contact with the electors, it passed a Home Rule Bill which it was quite evident from the General Election of two years later the country would have nothing of. I see an hon. Member shaking his head, but I do not think he will dispute my facts or my conclusion, namely, that a new Parliament, elected upon a great variety of issues, may possibly go wrong upon one very important issue, and may put into legislative form some matter which the nation, as a whole, if it were put separately to the consideration of the electors, would cordially disapprove of.
  I come to an experience more recent, that of the Education Bill of 1906. This House of Commons was very fresh from the polls, so fresh that I really think it was rather hard that the Minister in charge of that Bill should have been set to deal with such a complicated subject before he had had two months' experience of his Department. Was that a Bill which the bulk of the electors had set their hearts on passing into law? The Bill broke down owing to the insistence of the House of Lords upon Amendments which were not acceptable to this House and to the Government. I am not aware of any explosion of public feeling when that Bill was lost. No doubt we were told the country would ring with the indignation of those who had been looking forward to this Bill, and had given a mandate to the Government, and were bent upon redressing the intolerable grievances of the Act of 1902. But nothing of the sort happened. The working of our educational system has gone on very smoothly, and not only was the nation not in love with the Bill of 1906, but the Government itself brought in a second Bill and a third Bill, and both of them were quite unlike the Bill which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary for Ireland. No one can say that the second of these two measures was designed to conciliate the opposition which had been kindled by the first. The second of these measures was infinitely more drastic than the first, but the Government failed to carry the second Bill, which they considered an improvement on the first, and then they brought in a third Bill, of which
  1498
  the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education was in charge, and which certainly obtained a larger measure of acceptance on both sides of the House than either of the previous Bills. But does not that show that here is a subject upon which Members came back with what they called a mandate, which was put into legislative form by a House of Commons fresh from contact with the electors, which failed to be carried owing to the opposition of the House of Lords, and for which the country evidently had no desire? I should be disposed to say that you cannot be sure, even in the first three years of a Parliament, that this House may not depart from the public will. It is idle to say that this House is always the exponent of the national will because the House of Commons is returned upon a great variety of issues, and then a number of the subjects which are thrust upon the Government are very often subjects which are dear to an active and energetic minority who are able to impress their views upon the Government of the day. Legislation prepared and carried through this House under those influences is not the legislation which the country, if the matter was referred to it in a concrete form, would approve of. Now these are two objections to the quinquennial period which are worthy of consideration. If you want to lessen the expense of Parliamentary life, if you want to lessen the difficulty of getting into Parliament, the quinquennial period is too short, and you should stick to the septennial period. If we are to look at that point of view all our tendency should be rather to extend it to nine years. If your object is to make Parliament accessible to poor men, then five years is too short. If you wish to secure that the House of Commons should never stray away from the will of the people, then five years is a great deal too long, and I have endeavoured to show by facts beyond all dispute that Parliament in the first year of its existence may bring in a Bill of which the country disapproves.
  There is a more serious objection to this Resolution, and that is that it is incomplete. There is no suggestion of finality about it. Why was the Septennial Act passed? It was passed with a weak Whig Ministry in power, in order that that political party which was then in a majority in this House and in possession of office should not run the risk of losing place and power owing to the fact that

  1499
  the country was not expected, if an appeal had been made to it—that was in the year 1717—to retain that Ministry in power. Then you must bear in mind that once you begin to meddle with the duration of Parliaments you are inclined to consider the matter from a party point of view. A few years before the Septennial Act was passed a Tory Ministry was in power and there was some talk of doing what was done a few years afterwards, namely, to extend the duration of Parliament. But people said it would be a monstrous Tory job, that it would be most improper to extend the period during which an existing House of Commons should retain its place, and that such a thing could not be entertained. I will not dispute what I take as a historical fact, that it was said to be desirable that the Hanoverian Succession should not be imperilled by a General Election, and the period was extended from three years to seven. But once you begin to meddle with this question of the duration of Parliaments, have we any security that a majority of the House of Commons and the Government which commands that majority will not, if occasion offers and if circumstances make it desirable, extend the duration of Parliament again? Is it inconceivable that a Government in its third year of power, after a number of by-elections and other indications of a change in public opinion, knowing that if it were to go to the poll at the end of five years it would probably receive very much reduced support, and its party might be returned in a minority—is it not possible that with the aid of the new Parliamentary machine that the Government is now constituting the leaders of the party would say, "We have still got three years, and we can run a Bill through without any reference to the country, and if we can extend our term of power and office up to the septennial period, something may turn up, or we may be able to suggest legislation which will secure the sympathy of the electors next time we appeal to them"?
  I really think the desire for place and power, which is inevitable with men who believe honestly, no doubt that their retention in office is for the country's good, may result in some such events as I have endeavoured to describe. If this quinquennial period is not accompanied by some further legislation, providing that it is not to be altered except as the result
  1500
  of an appeal to the people, then your safeguard, poor enough in any circumstances so far as any real effect goes, to prevent your omnipotent House of Commons departing from the will of the people during three out of five years of the terms of its existence, is worth really little more than the paper it is written upon. What these Resolutions are doing—and this is one illustration of it—is to remove every safeguard for the retention of our Constitution in the form in which we now find it. You are doing away with everything on which we have hitherto relied as a security for the permanence of the institutions under which we live. It is of some importance surely that a matter like the duration of Parliament should not be liable to change at the inclination of the Government of the day. It is desirable that so serious a question, and one which so much affects the political life of the country, should not be altered without, at any rate, the possibility of a reference to the people. But here, as in other matters that we have been discussing, during the last few days you have made a majority of this House omnipotent; you have created an autocracy, a single-Chamber Government, which is really the Government of the Cabinet of the day and the Ministers of the day with their obedient majority. When you are making a definite proposal of this nature, when you are creating a new feature in our Constitution as regards the duration of Parliament, it becomes evident at once that the safeguards which every great democracy intended to provide for itself against violent and sudden and interested changes will entirely be absent from this unhappy Constitution of ours. You will find, if you look round the world, and more particularly at the great democracies of the world, at the present moment that they have carefully provided that matters such as this should be fenced about with provisions which ensure that they shall not be rashly altered at the will of a chance majority or of an impatient Government. We alone in the nations of the world are destitute of that security. You have thrown our Constitution into the melting pot, and your little provision as regards quinquennial Parliaments will have no better security than any of the other matters you are leaving to the disposition of the majority of the day.
  Mr. T. WING: I should like to ask the leave of the House, as a new Member, to say a few words on this Amendment. I

  1501
  listened with great attention and interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, marked with considerable distinction and backed by very great knowledge upon this particular question. To the ordinary man in the street his speech presents many difficulties. In the first instance, he put before us a Parliament which under our new and suggested system might be too long on account of having exhausted its mandate and having got quickly out of touch with the electors that returned it. Then he spoke of Parliament in another instance as being too short, and thus presented us with two difficulties. We are bound to take some form of solution of this Question. I acknowledge the difficulties presented, but the right hon. Gentleman neither declares for the present nor for the new form suggested by the Resolution, and I think it would have been very much better if, with his extraordinary knowledge, he laid before the House some final opinion upon this Question. He gave us one or two instances which, as I think, rather tell against the argument which he developed. He alluded to the Government of 1906 getting clearly out of touch with the electorate even one year after its election. He gave as an illustration of that the introduction of their Education Bill, which he seemed to think had very few friends outside this House. But had the Government of that day stood by their own Bill as it was introduced, instead of having given to hon. Gentlemen opposite so much of their own way in Amendments conceded, the country would have been quite as enthusiastic over that Bill then as it was at the time when it moved the Government to introduce it, and I regard the right hon. Gentleman as the greatest sinner in the direction in which the enthusiasm for the Bill was cooled down. The error was largely due to the fact that the Government took out of that Bill those things which the electorate very earnestly and very enthusiastically struggled to attain. But there is this to be said. The Government which introduced that Bill has been returned again, so that the electorate has not passed an overwhelming condemnation upon the Government in regard to that particular matter.
  Let me call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the action of the Government in 1900. Their Education Act was introduced in 1902, and the hon. Gentleman himself was very closely and very
  1502
  honourably associated with it. What has been the verdict of the country upon that Government when next they presented themselves to the electors? They were swept from power. And if you are going to take the action of the electorate from, time to time as a condemnation in one case you must also take it in another. I take it that in the election of 1906 the Education Act of 1902 was very largely, at least in those spheres of influence in which I happen to move, instrumental in the destruction of the Government returned in 1900.
  There has been a growing feeling for a number of years that Parliaments should be short. I have no reason to emphasise that. The right hon. Gentleman is very much better acquainted with the Chartist movement than I am. The hon. Gentleman will remember that one of the five points of the Charter was the shortening of Parliament. I do not think the influence of that agitation has ever died down. The man outside, no doubt, has followed the discussion on these Resolutions which have been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, and has wondered why we have had so much of precedent which very largely governs the action of this House. Really the object of these Resolutions is a much more living matter than what it appears to the Parliamentarian who seeks out precedent in order that future Governments shall be fashioned somewhat therein. Throughout these discussions we have had the hand of the dead man on our shoulder continually. I think we are just as competent in the early part of the twentieth century to strike and create precedents as at any other portion of our history. While we must be very much influenced by the experience of the past, that experience should not be overwhelming to destroy the power of the people to express thoughts for the time being in Acts of Parliament, and in these Resolutions it seems to me that we are expressing very largely the will of the people.
  The length and duration of Parliament is an important matter. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is possible for Parliament to do certain things, but I do not think it is probable that we shall ever have in this country the dark picture which he drew of some despotic Cabinet sitting on this side of the House introducing measures which would very largely alter the Constitution in the direction to which he has alluded. It may be possible, but I do not think with the power of the Press,

  1503
  the power of the platform, and the power of the Opposition it is at all probable. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Resolutions as introduced by the Government. I support this Resolution because I believe it will bring the House of Commons more closely into touch with the people who create it. The Government desire to express the will of the people, and if that expression has any real meaning, then the Opposition ought to vote with us, because these proposals bring Parliament oftener before the people than under the present conditions. With regard to the period when Parliament becomes an active Parliament in feeing able to present measures to another place, if you do not accept the verdict of Parliament at the early part of its existence then in the latter years of its existence it must be less in harmony with public opinion. I take it that the first two years of a Parliament interprets the latest expression of public opinion at the ballot box, and that seems to me to be about the most practical thing that has yet been presented to this House. All the opposition to these proposals arises from a desire to support those in another place who never come into touch with the people, and who are regarded by the reformers of the country as the great burial board of reforms which go from this House from time to time. I trust that the Government will stand firm, and that the Bill they are going to bring in will be expressive not only of this Resolution, but also of the previous Resolution. I hope they will not diverge in the slightest. So long as the Government stand firm to these Resolutions in spirit and in word I feel they will have the support of the electorate outside this House.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: The hon. Member who has just sat down said his main reason for supporting this Resolution is that it brings Parliament into touch with the people of this country more frequently. May I suggest that to achieve this he should move an Amendment making it compulsory to have Parliaments once every three years. If he will do that I shall be very glad to support him and to tell with him. I shall certainly not support this Resolution, because I think it is giving a Government a great deal too long a time to do damage to this country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but on this side of the House we have just as strong feelings about certain measures as hon.
  1504
  Members opposite. I can conceive such a thing hapening as the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury at the present time introducing an Education Bill under which no religion would be taught in the schools of this country at all. Such a measure would become law according to these Resolutions, provided it was passed three times by this House, in spite of whatever another Chamber might say. I can conceive of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) bringing forward a Resolution taxing undeveloped land at 19s. 6d. in the £l, and some needy Chancellor of the Exchequer might be glad to support his Resolution. I cannot think that such proposals would be popular with the people, and yet with such a majority as that which the Government possessed in the last Parliament such measures might be passed three times. What redress have we against such measures as were brought forward in the last Parliament, going against the principles nearest to our hearts? We have no redress at all. When we were being guillotined and closured, and when we were not allowed to have free discussion—
  Mr. CLOUGH: You have got the House of Lords.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Very well, but now we are not to have the House of Lords, and we shall have no redress at all. The people of this country want some appeal from the exorbitant demands put forward by the Government. I hope that when the time comes when the Members of this House will change over to the other side the hon. Member who has interrupted me will go and say the same thing on public platforms in the country. By this Resolution you are putting in office for five years a Government whether it is in touch with the people or not. It stands to reason that you will not get hon. Members sent to support a particular Government when you cannot turn them out till five years, because they may pass measure after measure out of touch with the opinion of the people. Five years is a great deal too long a time, and I only wish the hon. Member who spoke last, who is so anxious to get the opinion of the country, would introduce a proposal limiting Parliaments to three years. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU do it."] All the mischief which is now proposed could not be done in the same way if Parliament was not going on for five years, because it would then be very

  1505
  difficult to pass measures against the feelings of the people three times if Parliament only sat for three years. The hon. Member for Oxford in his most interesting speech alluded to the Septennial Act. I know there are Members in this House who are deeper students of history than I am. May I remind the Committee, however, that in 1641 an Act was passed making it necessary to dissolve Parliament at least once in three years. This system went on until 1664, when it was repealed, and in 1694 the Triennial Act was again re-enacted. In 1716 the Septennial Act was passed in order to give security to the Government of this country. What is this Government now attempting to do? Instead of trying to give security to the country, they are trying to force through a revolution. According to the speech which the Home Secretary made yesterday, the Government have got a programme which they wish to bring before the people of this country which is a very tall order. It is practically a revolutionary programme, and, according to our notion of the opinion of this House, what the right hon. Gentleman proposed yesterday was a revolutionary programme.
  These programmes do not make for law and order, or the well-government of this country. You are trying to take away any check which exists at the present moment on any revolutionary programme which may be brought before Parliament. It is well known that on the other side of the House there are a number of Members who very much object to having a large Army or Navy. I recollect that before the election of 1906 the Army was to be very considerably reduced. One battalion belonging to my native county, Warwickshire, was reduced by the Government, and the Army was reduced to the extent of something like 24,000 men. There was also a large party who thought it waste of money to have a large Navy in order to protect our shores. I can conceive, after the country has been governed prosperously for so many years by a Unionist Government, that the electorate are beginning to forget the horrors of a Radical régime, a number of Little Englanders being in the majority in this House who like a small Army and an insufficient Navy. Possibly we might be in conflict.with foreign Powers, but. if you pass this Resolution, you might have that sort of Government clinging on for five years, and no power on earth could get them out of office, because they would stick to office like limpets stick to a rock.
  1506
  The Liberal party complained very much that when we got in power, on the subject of the war in 1900, we stuck in office a great deal too long. I make the confession that I personally think we did stay in too long, and that it would have been better for us as a party if we had ceased to hold office before we did. I think, just in the same way, it will be worse for the Liberal party if, after the chaos to which they are bringing the financial position of this country, they stick on to office by the intrigues with the Irish party, the Labour party, and other parties which are now going on. The country, when it begins to find out that they are clinging to office by subterraneous intrigues, will say, "We have had enough of a party like that; let us have a clean sweep and put somebody else in." I take it that hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House would like to see done to others that which they wish to have done to themselves. If that is so, let them put down an Amendment making it three years instead of five, and I will support them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it down yourself."] I will undertake to put it down, unless we are guillotined before there is time, if some hon. Gentleman will undertake to second and to tell with me in the Division. If they wish to do to us as we wish to do to them let them give us the power of testing the opinion of the country when they are in office after three years rather than after five years, and, in fairness to the electors of the country, do not let them put in this regulation practically giving themselves fixity of tenure and security of office for five years. It is a great deal too long, when there is no Second Chamber which can force an appeal to the country and give it the opportunity of showing whether their feelings are in touch or not with what the Government propose.
  Mr. CLOUGH: The time is very short for the discussion of this Resolution, and it may be inconvenient to move any Amendment, but perhaps one may be permitted to ventilate the first Amendment which appears on the Paper. The Resolution reads:—
  "That it is expedient to limit the duration of Parliament to five years."
  The Amendment is to alter the word "limit" to "fix" and the word "to" to "at," so that it may read:
  "It is expedient to fix the duration, of Parliament at five years."

  1507
  The meaning of that Amendment is that Parliament would sit for five years, no longer and no shorter, no more and no less. We should have a full five years' Parliament for each House of Commons. If a dissolution of this Parliament took place on 31st December next the following Parliament would be dissolved on 31st December, 1915, and the Parliament after on 3lst December, 1920, so we should have fixity of tenure as mentioned by the last speaker.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: With compensation for disturbance?
  Mr. CLOUGH: It is obvious they would get their compensation as they went along. I should like to invite the Government's consideration to this proposal in all its bearings before the Bill is finally drafted. There are many grounds to recommend this proposal to the House. Take the most mercenary to begin with—the matter of spending money. The expense of a Parliamentary contest is a consideration to most Members of this House. The majority of us are men of moderate means. Once in five years is quite often enough for our financial resources; in fact, there ought to be a number of years in which one can save up for the next General Election. If a contest costs £l,000 you have to save £200 a year for five years before you get the cash in hand to pay for the next. The Solicitor-General told us the other night that the cost of a General Election to individual candidates and associations amounted to £2,000,000. Take the case of the Skipton Division. Each candidate expended more than £1,400. The Tory candidate is a wealthy man, and the president of his association is a multimillionaire; £l,400 is a mere bagatelle to these gentlemen, and if the House of Lords were to decree quarterly General Elections these gentlemen would plank down £l,400 every three months, and they would never wince at it. It is quite otherwise with the Liberal candidate, and, indeed, with many other candidates—with probably the majority of candidates on both sides of this House; therefore for our pockets' sake let us fix the duration of Parliament at not less than five years. After all, five years is rather more than the average. It is very little more than the average of the last seven Parliaments. From 1880 to 1910 there were seven Parliaments, giving an average of a little over four years each. The Tories had three Parliaments
  1508
  averaging five and two-third years, and the Liberals four Parliaments averaging a little over three.
  If you fixed the General Election at every five years it would be a great boon to trade and trading interests. We are a nation of shopkeepers. This argument runs on the same lines, though on a grander scale. A General Election once in five years is as much as the ordinary commercial community can appreciate and enjoy. Take, again, individual contests. In the Skipton Division the fight lasts over three weeks. Employers and employed enter into it with the greatest relish and gusto. We have a counting day and a polling day. On these two days there is very little work, and what is done is not of very good quality. The workpeople's minds go woolgathering far away from the forge, the loom, and the spinning-wheel, and therefore it would be better for the whole business community if Parliament had a fixed life. If you did away with the present uncertainty it would lessen the dislocation of trade. I have another recommendation, and this is most important. It is only fair that each Parliament should be ensured a full innings of five years. Under the Septennial Act the Lords take advantage of that measure for party purposes. A Tory Government is always allowed to go without let or hindrance to its full tether Take, for instance, from 1886 to 1892, or from 1900 to 1906. But as soon as a Liberal House of Commons is elected the House of Lords spend all their energies and exercise all their wits to handicap, discredit, hobble, humiliate, bring to their knees, and force a dissolution upon the Liberal House of Commons.
  Mr. REES: The House need not dissolve.
  Mr. CLOUGH: It must dissolve when it has no money to go on with. Take the 1892 Parliament. Straight away the House of Lords murdered the Home Rule Bill; then they fatally mauled the Employers Liability Bill, so that the present Prime Minister, who was in charge of it, had to drop it; and, finally, they very seriously mutilated the Parish Councils Act.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Government did not dissolve for any of those reasons. They dissolved when they were beaten in this House.
  Mr. CLOUGH: That is so, but if the Lords could have forced them to dissolve they would have done so. Take the 1906

  1509
  Parliament. Session after Session the Lords rejected a first-class measure without being able to force a dissolution. They then hit upon the master-stroke— the fatal stroke of refusing the Crown Supplies to carry on the King's business. Now they have discovered the key you may depend upon it they will use it in the future in order to bring Liberal Houses of Commons to an end. It requires neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet to foretell that if after the next General Election a composite, conglomerate coalition of groups at present in opposition came in with a majority of only twenty—we need say nothing of a majority of 120—if they had a conglomerate majority of twenty Tory Free Traders, Tariff Tinkers, Tory Democrats, and Tory Aristocrats, there would be nothing to bring the Government to an end except the Septennial Act. The House of Lords would never say that they must consult the people on any measure that may be brought in. But, on the other hand, if after the next General Election a reformed House of Commons should be returned with a majority of 320, the House of Lords will set its wits to work so as to bring about another dissolution within twelve months. It must be universally admitted —indeed, it cannot be denied—that this piebald, grotesque, harlequin procedure will only be brought into operation against a Liberal House of Commons, and never against a Tory House of Commons. A Tory Government will never have to pass its measures through this House twice, but a Liberal Government will have to pass them through three times, and such a prospect is appalling to a great many more besides the Chief Secretary for Ireland. We want fixity of duration of the House of Commons. We want a guarantee that a Liberal House of Commons can go on for five years, and then a progressive House will be under no necessity to introduce all its controversial measures inside its first Session. It will give them three years during which they can introduce their controversial measures, and they will always have the encouraging prospect that they will place them upon the Statute Book before the end of the quinquennial period. In limiting and reducing the duration of Parliaments there are two objects that we should strive for. The first is, to curtail and curb the powers of mischief of a bad House of Commons, which has misused its opportunities in order that it may not outstay
  1510
  its welcome or its mandate. The 1900 House of Commons was the worst that ever sat inside these walls. Its body was dead and unburied for years after its soul had fled. The next object that we should strive for is to secure a full innings and an equal opportunity for a good House of Commons. The 1906 Parliament had the best House of Commons that ever sat, and it was little less than a crime to destroy it, as the House of Lords did, prematurely, for its body and soul were both quick at the end of the four years, and it had then two years of really good work in it. The recommendation to have a fixed duration of Parliament would be acceptable to all Parliamentary candidates, and would mean a great retrenchment in expenses. It would be a boon and a blessing to the business interests of the country as a whole, and it would be the fairest for all Parliaments and for every House of Commons to have an equal innings, whatever its party complexion may be.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I do not rise with the object of supporting the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I should just like to make one or two observations with respect to his speech. He says fixity of duration of Parliaments would be commendable to various interests in the country, but I have to enter a caveat on behalf of one large industry which does not suffer at the time of an election, because I am a member of the printing trade. Therefore the more frequent elections are the better it suite those whom I represent as a trade in this House. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last on the other side of the House treated us to a very interesting dissertation. He opposes the Resolution of the Government and at the same time he is anxious to limit the duration of Parliaments to three years. The Government have been charged with contemplating a revolution in the procedure that they have adopted in dealing with the House of Lords question, but the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House is much more of a revolutionary than anybody on this side; in fact, I think he has earned for himself the title of being a constitutional anarchist. But emerging from the speeches which have been delivered on this particular Resolution, we have Gentlemen on each side of the House taking very frankly purely partisan views. An hon. Gentleman on the other side first of all suggested that it was

  1511
  utterly impossible for the country to have too much of a Unionist Government, but subsequently he modified that to the extent of declaring that the last Unionist Government held power far longer than he desired. Evidently it suddenly dawned upon him that even a Unionist Government may err, and that the destinies of the country are not always safe with them.
  He sought to cast some aspersion on those who occupy these benches. He feared it may be possible on some subsequent occasions that members of the Labour party may be here in strong force, and they may advocate an abandonment of the British Army and the reduction of the British Navy. I have a lively recollection of the fact that attention was directed to that subject during the ten years' duration of Unionist power, and that all was not well with the British Army under their control. I think some of the revelations of the South African War clearly proved, after all, that the administration of the Army affairs on capable and efficient lines is not a monopoly of any one particular party in the State. I support this Resolution because I believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of these Resolutions stated, this is the inevitable corollary of the two previous Resolutions that the House has adopted. Undoubtedly we aim at restricting the power of the House of Lords, or at any rate at reversing the extension of power that they have recently arrogated to themselves. I do not contemplate these Resolutions as anything in the nature of a revolution, but rather they are, I think, aimed at undoing the revolution which the House of Lords has recently created. It is nothing new, and I believe that the people of the country are fairly familiar with the question of the limitation of the duration of Parliaments. I am able to recall the time when I first made my juvenile entry into local politics, and I know then, as one hon. Gentleman has observed, that this point was very often urged by political reformers even in those days. But of this I am certain, that those who made references to the Campbell-Barrnerman Resolutions in the recent Parliamentary contest also coupled with those Resolutions the necessity for some such restriction of the length of Parliaments as is laid down in this Resolution. Therefore if we are justified in saying that the question of the Lords Veto—the abolition of the Financial Veto and the restriction of the Legislative Veto—was
  1512
  the issue at the recent election, it is equally competent for us to urge that this third Resolution was also before the electorate, and the fact that we have a majority in favour of the two previous Resolutions is also, in my opinion, an argument for saying that we have a majority also in favour of the restriction of the duration of Parliaments.
  The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench treated us to a most interesting speech, but like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) he is always apprehensive of any change what-ever. He seems to think that the Constitution was made for all time, that it is never to be modified, and therefore that it is always a crime to lay human hands upon it I decline to regard the Constitution as it exists at present as entitled to rank alongside, say, the law of gravitation, as part of the fixed, unchangeable framework of the universe. After all, Parliament is elected by the people—and I am prepared to admit that the election should be broad-based upon true democratic principles—and has a right to adapt the Constitution from time to time, as circumstances may show to be necessary, in the interests of the nation as a whole. Having regard to the recent crisis that has been created owing to the conflict between this and the other House, we have now an occasion for a modification of the British Constitution, and therefore, as this Resolution hinges upon the other two, we have a thoroughly good case made out in favour of the change. I admit that the question of expense is one that every Member is bound to consider. I was pleased to observe that the hon. Baronet (Sir William Anson) was greatly concerned lest anything should be created tending to make it more difficult for poor men to get into the House. I had hoped that the Members of this party held that view widely and that they might have made provision during the lengthy years in which they have been in office to make it easier for men to get into this Assembly. Therefore I am able to appreciate to the full the weight of' such an argument. Nevertheless, as it works out at present, with a House of Lords that precipitated a General Election, we have no safeguard against ever increasing expenditure on General Elections. But I am convinced that much of the money expended during an election is absolutely unnecessary. The parties set far too high a standard, and others, of course, have to do something

  1513
  similar in order to make an equal show in the constituency, but I am hoping that with the increasing education and better knowledge that our people are securing on political matters, it will be unnecessary to resort to this very high expenditure, and that after all the limitation of Parliaments and the more frequent appeals to the people may do something to minimise this item, and therefore need not be apprehended as a great obstacle.
  I realise that too frequent appeals to the country dislocate business and create disquietude and therefore there is something to be urged on behalf of the case submitted by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. But I feel that if we are able to effect the modifications in the Constitution which are now proposed by the Government, of which I regard this Resolution as a consistent part, I believe we shall be doing something to give greater security to Parliament, because the people will have more confidence in it and they will know that a Parliament cannot last longer than five years, and therefore a General Election will not dislocate business more than it does at the present time. I have no desire to see general elections taking place too frequently. I know what they mean. Nevertheless, we have no security even under the Septennial Act against this apprehension. It is quite true that, as things stand at present, the Conservative party can hold office even although the country is dead against it. We had the case of 1900 to 1906, when all the by-elections most emphatically proved that the country was thoroughly sick and tired of it. But with the aid of the House of Lords they were able to retain office until the Septennial Act came into operation and they appealed to the country, too late, as an hon. Gentleman opposite admitted. We on these benches ought to make it perfectly plain that we have no fear of trusting the people; in fact, in the last resort, democracy has to bear the whole of the responsibility, of the good or ill that is enacted by this House. If democracy does make a mistake in the class of people it sends to this House it ought to bear the responsibility. At any rate, I am certain that the House of Lords, no more than the common people in the country, are competent to decide actually what is best at any particular period. On the other hand, I believe that the people, as well as the.House of Lords, are quite capable of guiding their own destinies and working out their own salvation. Certain it is that this House, elected and bound to appeal to the
  1514
  people at least once in five years, can claim to be more in touch with the democracy of the country than the House of Lords can ever be, because they move in an entirely restricted circle and I believe, in the main, never really understand the actual life, aims, and aspirations of the common people.
  Captain SPENDER CLAY: It seems to me that both the hon. Members who have last spoken seem to wish for fixity of tenure. They seem to wish to be in power for five years uncontrolled by any force whatever. I admit that the hon. Member (Mr. G. H. Roberts) said it would be a great benefit to his trade, and I think we have all had experience of printers' bills. I oppose this Resolution from an entirely different point of view. The logical conclusion which ought to be drawn is that, instead of its being for five years, the duration of Parliament ought to be three years, because they admit that, by shortening the length of Parliament, the will of the people is not always represented in this House after a short period of time. If you carry this Resolution further, a far more reasonable time would be three years, because at that period, at any rate, the House would be within closer touch of the last election. Parliament ought to last for three years, because, owing to the two previous Resolutions, we have seen that a Bill which might possibly be absolutely against the wishes of the majority of the people, such as the Home Rule Bill, might be passed into law at the end of the third or fourth year. If we limit, the duration of Parliament to three years, there would be only a greatly reduced possibility of the House passing some Bill into law which has not had a mandate from the people at the General Election.
  Everyone must admit that a General Election is fought on a complexity of issues. You cannot fight on one question. In one part of the country it may be Tariff Reform and Free Trade, and in another part of the country it may be some other question. There are always so many causes before the country at the same time, and for that reason I suggest it would be better and safer for the country at large if the duration of Parliament was reduced to three years. I admit if they had put into these Resolutions some mention of the Referendum I should have supported the Resolution, because we should then be certain that the people would have an opportunity of deciding

  1515
  whether they wish a measure or not, but I venture to submit that the whole case against the Resolution is given away by the Government wishing to have shorter Parliaments. By that they admit that the majority in this House does not represent the voice of the people. But when a majority, here does not represent the majority of the people, what is to check its action? I think it is plain for all intents and purposes that the majority remains the same, and that is the reason, I suppose, why the Government suggest that we should have quinquennial Parliaments. I would suggest that they should go further and have Parliaments for three years. I cannot see why a Government, after they have lost touch with the electorate for two or three years should continue to hold office. With respect to the j present Government which is supported by various groups, I venture to think that after it had been in office four years not many people would be very certain that the majority made up of those groups represented the majority of the people. I would say, Heaven help the country if the present Government, kept together by various arrangements which we need not go into at this moment, are to remain in power for five years. All I can say in that case is that I think the future of the country would be in an extremely parlous condition. Having heard all the speeches on this point, I would suggest that the Government should limit the period to three years. It is because I disapprove of the longer period that I oppose the Resolution.
  Mr. T. LOUGH: I must confess that I do not see the exact connection between this Resolution and the two other Resolutions which we have been discussing during the last fortnight. It seems to me that this Resolution has been thrown in as a sort of sop to please our opponents, and that those who think the first two Resolutions may be a little strong meat for the Tories here, and in another place, believe this one will help to soothe them and induce them to accept the others. I do not quite agree with these compromises. A large matter of this kind should be considered on its merits, and not with a view to soothing the criticism of our adversaries who, I know, whatever we may do to please them, will be ready to give us a stab in the dark at any time. My right hon. Friend opened this discussion in an excellent short speech—I always ap-
  1516
  prove of short speeches from the Front Benches—and I do not wish to make him unhappy by leading him to think that I have any serious difference with the Government on this point. I would say that, having entirely approved of the first two Resolutions, I shall be absolutely loyal on the third Resolution, and my right hon. Friend may rely on any support I can give him. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad to hear an expression of opinion, and I believe that nothing is more clear than that the opinions of the democracy with regard to this business of short Parliaments are tending rather to change. There used to be a time when I believed that Parliament should only last three years, just as the hon. Gentleman opposite says, or half says, that he believes at present, and I used to go the length when I had not so much experience of thinking that annual Parliaments might be practicable. But I admit my views in this respect have tended to change. The effort to carry out any serious reform in which we are engaged is so grave and serious now that I think it is a questionable thing whether the length of Parliament should be altered. We have had a most remarkable example of what is going on in the world in a speech made by the French Premier on Sunday last. I understand that there, where they enjoy the blessing of a four years' Parliament, the present Socialist Prime Minister, as he is called by "The Times," though I do not rely on that description absolutely—
  Mr. REES: He is a very high-class Socialist.
  Mr. LOUGH: He is a very high-class Socialist, I hear from my hon. Friend, whose opinion I never accept on anything, but whether he is a Socialist or not, he is the Prime Minister of France. I see he has now introduced a project to change the duration of Parliament, not to three years, but to nine years. The arrangement proposed is that it should be re-elected as regards one-third of its Members every three years. It is an extraordinary fact that an intelligent nation like the French should be tending in this direction at the present time. I am extremely sorry that I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Clough), who was going to propose an Amendment. When I asked whether he had done so I was told that, although he made an interesting speech, he did not propose the Amendment. I should have liked him to

  1517
  propose the Amendment, which was that Parliament should be fixed to last five years. I would like any Parliament where I was in the majority to last not merely for five, but for seven years, and if it carried out the policy I approved of I do not think a longer term would be too great. I have had a most melancholy experience of short Parliaments. I believe that no one on these occasions can render better serivce than by stating his own experience. So far as my experience goes, we have had the most shamefully and absurdly short Parliaments within a period of twenty years that any great party in history has been able to boast of.
  When I fought my first political battle we had a splendid majority of 160 Liberals, a composite majority like this. I always think a composite majority is best. But for some reason or other the wise, astute leaders of my party, in whom I have always got the most profound confidence, dissolved the Parliament at the end of six months. That was in 1886. Then the country elected an entirely different Parliament at the end of that time. That was a most absurd thing for a nation to do. There should not be such a complete change as that at the end of six months. In the next Liberal Parliament, which was the first one that I was in, because I only fought a contest at the previous election, my leaders again suddenly dissolved at the end of three years, when they had done most excellent work, and it was quite evident that three years remained before them in which they would have added much to the legislative wealth of the country. Then came the third in which is took an interest, the last Parliament. I thought that that would have gone on for six years. I never could see why we dissolved in December last. Yet for some reason my right hon. Friends dissolved the Parliament prematurely. That is a very sad experience. Look at the present situation at the moment. We had not been elected for a single fortnight before several Ministers who adorn that bench commenced to talk about another dissolution of Parliament. This business of short Parliaments in this country is becoming a farce. As far as I can see of hon. Gentlemen opposite — even on the Tory Benches you can occasionally get a little sense from some of the Members if you take them aside privately—they do not approve of a dissolution now at the end of three or four months after Parliament has been elected. They say that there
  1518
  should be stability in our institutions; and I do think that our ideas as Liberals ought to tend rather in the direction of stability and longer Parliaments, in which we shall have time to give effect to some of our ideas, rather than prematurely and unnecessarily as I think limiting the time during which Parliament may sit.
  I would have been quite satisfied if the Government had accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I want to see this Parliament last five years. I believe it is a most admirable Parliament, and we have got a splendid majority, and I am quite sure we are supported by the will of the people outside. We have got to remember with regard to this thing that it is always assumed that if you have an election you test the will of the people, and that the result of the election shows what the will of the people is. My experience tends in an entirely opposite direction. You have got to have favourable circumstances in which the people may express their opinions or the result of the election may not in the least express the stable opinions of the people on which they would like the country to be governed. I think that that is an axiomatic statement that might be accepted by everybody present without giving any illustration. But if an illustration is required, look at the difficulty in which the people were placed at the last election. The subject of the election was supposed to be the Budget. But the Budget had been rejected by the House of Lords, and that made the House of Lords the subject, and it was doubtful whether the real subject on which the people were expressing their opinions was hostility to the House of Lords or admiration of the Budget. That was the situation. What occurred to simplify it? Then in came all the Opposition, with one consent, to say, "You shall not pronounce an opinion on either of those subjects; we will start a third hare." Then they started Tariff Reform, and so the people, whose will we all assumed we would hear at the General Election were perplexed between these three questions of a far-reaching Budget on the one hand, the tyranny of the House of Lords on the other and the question of upsetting our Free Trade institutions which have lasted for two generations on the other hand. On which of these did the people express their will?
  That is a question of considerable difficulty, and I need not give another illustration, but I will say this much, that at

  1519
  almost every election—I think the only exception I make was the election of 1906 —there is the same difficulty in ascertaining what the will of the people is. For example, take the election of 1900. The will of the people with regard to that was that the war should be brought to a conclusion, and that the people who started it should end it, but the country did not give any expression of opinion with regard to domestic government, at that time, so, as I firmly believe, the country had to suffer under something like tyranny for six years after that at the hands of the Gentlemen who were elected on the sole issue of the war. I only mention these points to show that we must not assume that whenever we have a General Election we get a clear opinion as to what the will of the people is. I always support broad, humane, and, above all, liberal measures. I have drawn from the most adverse election in which I have ever taken part a sincere conviction that if the thing had been properly placed before the people they would have returned an almost unanimous verdict in accordance with the opinions which I myself have. I only mention these difficulties which surround this question to show that you ought to seek, if you touch such a large matter as this, the duration of Parliament, some great principle on which we might rely with regard to fixing a time. On the whole, I have come to this conclusion, that the best thing would be that Parliament should last for a fixed time, and that it should always end by the efflux of time. I believe that, on the whole, that would make the mind of the people easy. We have that now in our municipal institution.
  The County Council of London lasts for three years. Our other municipal institutions last for that time. The people do not worry much about it. They say, "We put these fellows in; let them have their run for the three years." At the end of that time they are not excited about the particular question. They know that the council has died by the efflux of time, and that they will have a fair opportunity of putting in wise men in the place of those who misused their opportunities. On the whole, I am inclined to think that that would be the best plan. I am very sorry that my hon. Friend did not move his Amendment. I would appeal to the Government even now. I would ask the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Runciman) to treat that Amendment with
  1520
  some seriousness, and, if he can see his way, to provide that this Parliament shall last for five years, and all future Parliaments. That would give great relief in reference to all this talk about elections and the question of expenditure which was mentioned by my hon. Friend opposite, and we should be able at once to address ourselves to the imporant work which the country expects us to do. I will not move any Resolution myself. I do not want to disturb the proceedings, which are going on in quite an amicable way. I will give the Government all the support in my power, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will admit that I have expressed my opinion with much candour on the subject before us, and I would ask him to give what consideration he can to the matter.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I find myself in some difficulty in reference to the last speech and some speeches which preceded it, because I find that some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side are attacking the Government proposals, while it seems from some speeches on this side that the Government proposals do not go far enough to satisfy some hon. Members on these benches. I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) and a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough); but there is one thing which the last hon. Member who spoke clearly brings out— and his opinion is a very valuable opinion —and that is that the expression of what the people's will was at the election is to be by no means relied upon. The pretension of the Coalition in this House that they represent the opinion of the people to the extent of a majority of 124 votes against the House of Lords—in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, at any rate—has no foundation whatever. That is the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The reason why I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and others who have spoken on that side is that they really wish to increase the length of Parliament. Since the time of the Reform Bill the average length of Parliaments has been only four years and one month. The arguments of hon. Gentlemen are perfectly unanswerable as to expense, the general upset of business, and the general disturbance of trade. Nobody can deny that the cost of a series of elections must

  1521
  be great, and must cause a general disturbance of trade and business. Besides all the inconvenience, the great cost which is incurred on an election is an absolutely unproductive expenditure which might very easily be avoided. If you are going to have this period of five years instead of seven, if you are going to do away with the Septennial Act, under which the duration of Parliament averaged a little over four years, then, in the same proportion, under the quinquennial period, you would get an election at least every three years. I say it is a monstrous and ridiculous proposal that we should at repeated intervals be called upon to incur this vast expenditure, which no less an authority than the Solicitor-General has told us amounts to £2,000,000 of money for each General Election—an absolutely unproductive expenditure every three years. If for no other reason, on that ground alone, I strongly object to this proposal. Besides the disturbance of trade, there is the general heating of political feeling which arises in the course of a contested election, and it takes the country some months to recover its ordinary calm. Again, everybody knows that these frequent elections would not tend to the proper continuance of business nor to the general prosperity of trade.
  In addition to that, there is the paralysis of the Government of the country which would arise from these recurring contests. It is well known that the permanent officials cannot carry out the operations of the Government with the same freedom that they would otherwise enjoy, when they realise that at the end of every short period there may be a change of their superiors and the whole course of administration altered. That must be bad for the government of the country. It is obvious that a large number of arguments can be used against this system of constantly recurring elections. I cannot resist referring again to the Preamble of the Septennial Act, which gives the reason for the passing of that enactment. It was quoted last night, but I think it is well worthy of quotation once more. This is what the Preamble to the Septennial Act says: "And whereas it will be found by experience that the said Clause "—that is, the Clause in the Triennial Act for three years—" has proved very grievous and burdensome by causing greater and more continued expense in the election of Members to serve in Parlia-
  1522
  ment, and more violent and lasting heats and animosity among the subjects of this Realm," and so forth. That suggests in a short space the whole of the objections that can be raised to the principle of shortening the length of Parliament and making elections more frequent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not read the whole of the Preamble?"] The point which I wish to illustrate is sufficiently served by what I read. Another thing which has been urged very strongly in regard to this Debate is that it shows there is no reality in the profession that these Resolutions are to be followed by a reform of the Constitution of the Second Chamber. We know that a number of hon. Members opposite wish to do away with the House of Lords, and that is a logical position. But how can hon. Gentlemen tell us that they are going to reform the House of Lords and make it into a body which to their mind would be fairly representative of all the elements in this country so long as they continue to base their arguments on the constitution of the House of Lords as it exists at the present time. From the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite argue in regard to Reform of the House of Lords we get a clear proof that the great bulk of them do not think that these proposals mean anything; and in that they coincide with us on this side, who do not believe that they really are unanimous in regard to this reform, of which we have heard so much, and of which, I think, we shall see so little. We know well enough that a series of sudden elections will mean destroying the continuity of Government altogether. What happens at the end of a Parliament? Both sides go down to the constituencies and they say, "Look at this miserable Government; they have been in office all those years; they have had all those opportunities, and what have they done?" The elector says, "They have done nothing." This is what is called the swing of the pendulum. It is a well-known fact that the average elector of this country has not time or inclination to go seriously into the study of politics, and he votes very largely for the man to whom he desires to give a chance; this time in preference to the man who has apparently neglected his opportunities in Parliament. Therefore you cannot get continuity of government if the country is to have this constant series of changes. I am perfectly certain that—as shown in local elections—you will find the swing of the pendulum is very considerably altered, and this will largely tend

  1523
  to destroy that continuity of government which you get under the duration of Parliament for a longer period. I will give an instance of one question that is a controversy of the past, and that is the Rabies Order of some years ago. If there had not been a considerable number of years of office of the Government of the time, the great scourge of rabies, which has now been stamped out, and as to which much gratitude is felt by all classes, might not have been effected. At the time the order was issued every lady in the country who had a pet dog sent up heartrending letters to the Executive to get the Order taken off. I select that instance which is not perhaps of great importance, but as illustrating the larger questions. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite really mean that they are going to have some measure of reform in the future this is absolutely unnecessary, and if, on the other hand, they do not intend to have any measure of reform, then there is a good deal to be said for it. It is because I believe that hon. Gentlemen have no idea of reform, and that in the swing of the pendulum there will be the opportunity of carrying out this reform, and that the alteration with the Second Chamber is bound to come through this change; therefore, I think this proposal is mischievous, harmful, and will do infinite damage to the country, and is unnecessary, and for those reasons I will oppose it.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The Resolution we are now discussing differs from the others in this way, that the others involve fundamental questions of principle, while this involves the question of the precise time of the duration of Parliament. I am surprised hon. Gentlemen opposite object, since the Resolution is not in the nature of increasing the effect of the other Resolutions, but rather tends to modify their effect, and in that way we look upon it as a concession. This Resolution contains no new proposal, because it had been put forward by the late Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman and also by the Prime Minister in his speech in the Albert Hall last December.
  The hon. Member (Mr. Lane-Fox) quoted the Preamble of the Septennial Act, which referred not only to the cost of frequent elections, but also "more violent and lasting heats and animosities among subjects of this Realm." We may congratulate ourselves that those have certainly died
  1524
  down, and we have seen a great deal of change in the time that has passed since the Septennial Act was adopted. I think a proposal like that would tend to make things go a great deal more easily than they do now, because the difficulties of Septennial Parliaments, as we found repeatedly in the Parliament which came to a termination in 1906, is that a Parliament, after having lasted a long time, tends to get out of touch with the feelings of the country, which becomes indignant and brings about those violent oscillations of the political pendulum which so many Members on both sides deplore. If we had shorter Parliaments, such as quinquennial Parliaments, there can be little doubt that this House would be in closer touch with the electorate than it is under the present conditions.
  The hon. Member who spoke last referred to continuity. I venture to think that continuity does not lie in having Parliaments last as long as they do now, but in shortening them in order to keep in closer touch with the electorate. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said as to the question of expenses, and I think hon. Members on both sides are agreed that the expenditure on Parliamentary elections is far too great. That, however, is not to be met by keeping Parliaments a long time in existence, but, rather, by narrowing the ambit of election expenditure, having the elections on one day, and other electoral reforms, which I hope may before long be put before this House. In local government we have now the triennial system. I do not suggest Parliament should be triennial, but, assuming that seven years is too long —and we may assume it is, as in fact septennial Parliaments do not last that time—and that triennial Parliaments are too short, I venture to think that the suggestion which the Government have put forward of quinquennial Parliaments is as near the happy medium as we can possibly hope to reach. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that if these Resolutions became law those with whom I have the honour to be associated might perhaps have fixity of tenure for the statutory duration of Parliament. Another hon. Gentleman spoke of this party being uncontrolled by any power whatever. I would like to know what power should there be to control those whom the people send to arrange their affairs. If you want fixity of tenure and a Parliament uncontrolled by any other power, you have only to take the case of a Unionist Government. I need hardly

  1525
  remind the House that they are under no such power as we suffer from. They get support from another place. The result is, that so long as they have a working majority in this House they can remain in power until the last month of the last year that constitutional practice allows. With this side of the House it is very different. To vary the poet's lines:—
  " But the fair guerdon when we hope to find,
  And think to burst into a sudden blaze,
  Comes the backwoods men with th' abhorred shears.
  And slits the thin-spun life."
  Our plea is not merely for shortening the duration of Parliament, but for fair play in the duration of Parliament, and we believe that the quinquennial period would secure that end. If Parliaments were shortened there would be far less justification for the "backwoodsmen" or anyone else to try to slit the life of a Parliament in which the Liberals had a majority, because that Parliament would be in close touch with the people, it would soon have to face the people again, and the verdict of the people would be given. We should then have a true continuity, and there would be no need even to pretend to ascertain what the people thought, because in the ordinary course that would be ascertained more regularly than it is now. These proposals, if carried out, would tend to combine stability with progress in a most desirable way. Hon. Members opposite speak as if this were designed to give fixity of tenure to this side. It will give no fixity of tenure at all. It will simply give a maximum duration. We think that maximum duration is something which should be combined with the other proposals. Taking the three proposals together, we regard this Resolution as a desirable part, which in. a sense is a concession to hon. Members, and which, I am sure, will commend itself to the country as a whole.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) told us that he was going to give free expression to his opinions, but he also stated that he was going to vote for his party in the Lobby. That is what hon. Members opposite call the free expression of their opinions. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Parliament of 1900 did not represent the will of the people. What, then, is the foundation of the argument of hon. Members opposite when they say that whenever the people return a Parliament, that Parliament represents the will of the people? What they mean is that whenever the people return a Radical majority the Parliament represents the will of the people, but then, when they return a Unionist majority it does not. All the fears which have been expressed on this side of the House have been justified, because the party opposite, out of their own months, have proved that the will of the people is not always expressed. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that when he first entered the House of Commons in the same year that I did he was of opinion that the shorter Parliaments were the better, but that now he has changed his opinion. Why? Because he thinks that by muzzling another place he can preserve for ever the Parliamentary life of himself and his friends.
  And, it being Ten of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of April, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Resolution to be concluded at Ten o'clock this day.
  Question put, "(3) That it is expedient to limit the duration of Parliament to five-years."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 334; Noes, 236.

  Division No. 32.]

  AYES.

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leads, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. G. R.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Burl, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Barton, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Beale, W. P.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

  Anderson, A.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Armitage, R.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ash ton, Thomas Gair

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

  Boland, John Plus

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Chapple, W. A.

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Brady, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brigs, Sir John

  Clough, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Pearce, William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Johnson, W.

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Philipps Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Keating, M.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Kelly, Edward

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Crosfield, AH.

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, George

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Delany, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Leach, Charles

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Doris, W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, Michael

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Edwards, Enoch

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rees, J. D.

  Elverston, H.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lundon, T.

  Richards, Thomas

  Falconer, J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Kerens, T. R.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Firench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  France, G. A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robinson, S.

  Gelder, sir W. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Gibson, James P.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Gill, A. H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Lelcs.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Glover, Thomas

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Runciman, Kt. Hon. Walter

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scanian, Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meagher, Michael

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Culland, John W.

  Monies, Sir Walter

  Seddon, J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Gatway)

  Middlebrook, William

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Hackctt, J.

  Millar, J. D.

  Shackleton, David James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Molloy, M.

  Shaw, Sir C. E.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sheehy, David

  Hancock, J. G.

  Mend, Alfred Moritz

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Shortt, Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Simon, John Alisebrook

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.]

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Muldoon, John

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Harwood, George

  Munro, R.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muspratt, M.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Sutton, John E.

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hazelton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kindle, F. G.

  O'Connor, T. P, (Liverpool)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Toulmin, George

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Twist, Henry

  Hooper, A. G.

  Ogden, Fred

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hope. John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Howard, Hon. Ceoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hughes,: S. L.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Shee, James John

  Walters, John Tudor

  Illingworth. Percy H.

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Walton, Joseph

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  1528

  1529

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wardie, George J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Wing, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Master

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

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

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Dunn, sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Archer-Shee. Major M.

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

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Falle, B. G.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Baird, J. L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droftwich)

  Barnston, H.

  Foster, S (Suffolk, N.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Foster, J. K, (Coventry)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Mason, J. F.

  Bird, A.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boyton, J.

  Gordon, J.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

  Grant, J. A.

  Moore, William

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Greene, W. R.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Morrisan, Captain J. A.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Brunskill, G. F.

  Haddock, George B.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hail, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Butcher, S. Henry (Cambridge Univ.)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Nield, Herbert

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Cator, John

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.

  Hickmann, Col. T.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hills, Sir Clement

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Chambers, J.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Proby, Colonel Douglas James

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Hills, J. W.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Hohier, G. F.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Colelax, H. A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Horner, A. L.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Courthope, G Loyd

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Renaldshay, Earl of

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Croft, H. P.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Rutherford, Watson

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Keswick, William

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootie)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Duke, H. E.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanier, Beville

  1530

  1531

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Starkey, John R.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Winterton, Earl

  Stewart, Geraham (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

  Verrall, George Henry

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Storey, Samuel

  Wairond, Hon. Lionel

  Worthington-Evans, I. (Colchester)

  Strauss, A.

  Ward. Arnold (Herts, Watford)

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

  Sykes, Alan John

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

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes, Southport)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir F.

  Terrell, H (Gloucester)

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

  Banbury and Captain Jessel.

  Thompson, Robert

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  The CHAIRMAN,pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of April, Reported the Resolutions to the House without Question put:—

  MONEY BILLS.
  " 1. That it is expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by Law from rejecting or amending a Money Bill, but that any such limitation by Law shall not be taken to diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
  " For the purpose of ths Resolution a Bill shall be considered a Money Bill if, in
  the opinion of the Speaker, it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament; Supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them."
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 241.

  Division No. 33.]

  AYES.

  [10.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Gibson, James P.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Gill, A. H.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glanville, H. J.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Anderson, A.

  Clough, William

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Collins, G. P. (Greeneck)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Gulland, John William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hackett, J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, H.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Barton, William

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Belloc, Hillars Joseph Peter R.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harlam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Gee.)

  Delany, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Bentham, G. J.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bethell, Sir J. H

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Black, Arthur W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Boland, John Plus

  Doris, W.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, M.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furnets)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brady, P. J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Dunn, A. (Camborne)

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Enoch

  Henry, Charles S.

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Elverston, H.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Falconer, J.

  Hindle, F. G.

  Buxten, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Firench, Peter

  Hodge, John

  Buxton, Rt. Hen. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  Byles, William Pollard

  France, G. A.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Cameron, Robert

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shaw, Sir C. E.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Sheehy, David

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nussey, Sir Wilians

  Shortt, Edward

  Isaacs, Sir Rutus Daniel

  Nuttall, Harry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrlm, S.)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Summers, James Woolley

  Joyce, Michael

  Ogden, Fred

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Keating, M.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommen, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kemp, Sir G.

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  O'Shaughnessey, P. J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Sultivan, Eugene

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Lambert, George

  Pearce, William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Toulmln, George

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Leach, Charles

  Philippe, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Twist, Henry

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, F. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Vivian, Henry

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pollard, Sir George, H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lough, Rt. Hen. Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Low, Sir F. A. (Norwich)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lundon, T.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walton, Joseph

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wardle, George J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Weir, James Galloway

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Reddy, M.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Reamond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Mailet, Charles E.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Richards, Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Menzles, Sir Walter

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Middlebrook, William

  Robinson, S.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. Hull, W.)

  Millar, J. D.

  Robson, Sir William Snowden

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

  Molloy, M.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Montagu, Hon. C S.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Winfrey, Richard

  Morqan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wing, Thomas

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthel)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Muldoon, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Munro, R.

  Scanian, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Muspratt, M.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Seddon, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

  Nellson, Francis

  Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Dencaster)

  Shackleton, David James

  NOES.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bird, A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Barnston, H.

  Boyton, J.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, H.)

  Baird, J. L.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, H.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Brotherton, E. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Brunskill, G. F

  Balfour, Rt. Men. A. J. (City, Lend.)

  Bentinck, lard H. Cavendles

  Bull, Sir William James

  1534

  1535

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Butcher, J G. (York)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Butcher, S. Henry (Cambridge Univ.)

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravetend)

  Carllie, E. Mildred

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Carton, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Catlereagh, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Cator, John

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cave, George

  Hickmann, Col. T.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Anton Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chambers, J.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Colefax, H. A.

  Homer, A L

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsal)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Rutherford, Watson

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Croft, H, P.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Daleymple, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootie)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Stanier, Seville

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Duke, H. E.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Starkey, John R.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

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

  Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)

  Storey, Samuel

  Falle, B. G.

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

  Strauss, A.

  Fell, Arthur

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sykes, Alan John

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Thompson, Robert

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Verrall, George Henry

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Mason, J. F.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  White, Major G- D. (Lanes, Southport)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Mildmay, Francis Birgham

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gordon, J.

  Moore, William

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Winterton, Earl

  Grant, J. A.

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Greene, W. R.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Hall. E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Nield, Herbert

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  BILLS OTHER THAN MONEY BILLS.
  '" 2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords, as respects Bills than Money Bills, be restricted by Law, so that any such Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive, Sessions and; having been sent up to the
  1536
  House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, has been rejected by that House in each of those Sessions, shall become Law without the consent of the House of Lords on the Royal Assent being declared: Provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in

  1537
  the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  "For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments
  only as may be agreed upon by both Houses."
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 346; Noes 243.

  Division No. 34.]

  AYES.

  [10.39 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C R.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Alden, Percy

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnson, W.

  Anderson, A.

  Doris, W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Armitage, R.

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Dunn, A. (Camborne)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Elverston, H.

  Keating, M.

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kelly, Edward

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Falconer, James

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Ferguson, R. C. Hunro

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  France, G. A.

  Lambert, George

  Barton, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Beale, W. P.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Gibson, James P.

  Leach, Charles

  Bentham, G. J.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

  Glover, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Boland, John Plus

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Low, Sir F. A. (Norwich)

  Brady, P. J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lundon, T.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gulland, John W.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hackett, J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon Lewis (Rossendale)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Cameron, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Carr-Gomm, H. W

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Harwood, George

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Chapple, W. A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Clough, William

  Hayward, Evan

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Middlebrook, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Millar, J. D.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Molloy, M.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hindle, F. G.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hodge, John

  Muldoon, John

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Munro, R.

  Cullinan, J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hope, John Deans (Fite, West)

  Muspratt, M.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Neilson, F.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rees, J. D.

  Twist, Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Richards, Thomas

  Verney, F. W.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Vivian, Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walton, Joseph

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wardle, George J.

  Ogden, Fred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waring, Walter

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Shaughnessey, P. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Shee, James John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seddon, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Pearce, William

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Shaw, Sir C. E.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southmampton)

  Sheeny, David

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Holl, W.)

  Fonsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilson, w. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wing, Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Taylor, Theodora C. (Radcliffe)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Radford, G. H

  Tennant, Harold John

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Reddy, M.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Matter

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Toulmin, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood. Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Butcher, S. Henry (Cambridge Univ.)

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Duke, H. E.

  Archer-Shee, Major H.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Baird, J. L.

  Cator, John

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Cautley, H. S.

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cave, George

  Falle, B. G.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Barnston. H.

  Chambers, J.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fleming, Valentine

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Colefax, H. 'A.

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bird, A.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Boyton, J.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Croft, H. P.

  Gordon, J.

  Brotherton, E. A.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Brunskill, G. F.

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Grant, J. A.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Greene, W. R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastburne)

  1540

  1541

  Haddock, George B.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Lonsdale, John Brown de

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droftwich)

  Rutherford, Watson

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Harrison-Broadley, H, B.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootie)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mason, J F.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Stanier, Beville

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hickman, Col. T.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Starkey, John R.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Moore, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Hills, J. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Storey, Samuel

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Strauss, A.

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Horner, A. L.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Nield, Herbert

  Thompson, Robert

  Hunt, Rowland

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Verrall, George Henry

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Wheler, Granvilie C. H.

  Keswick, William

  Perkins, Walter F.

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes, Southport)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Winterton, Earl

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

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

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Valentia and Lord E. Talbot.

  DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.
  " 3. That it is expedient to limit the duration of Parliament to five years."
  Question put, "That this House doth
  agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 347; Noes, 244.

  Division No. 35.]

  AYES.

  [10.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Beale, W. P.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Addlson, Dr. C.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Chapple, W. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Alden, Percy

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clough, William

  Anderson, A.

  Boland, John Pius

  Clynes, J. R.

  Armitage, R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brady, P. J.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cowan, W. H.

  Barlow, Sir John E.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Barton, A. W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Denman, Hon. R. O.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Lambert, George

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Doris, W.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Leach, Charles

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lehmann, R C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Edwards, Enoch

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Elverston, H.

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon David

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Falconer, J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Reddy, M.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Low, Sir F. A. (Norwich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lundon, T.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rees, J. D.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  France, G. A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas

  Furress, Sir Christopher

  Macdonald, J M (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Gibson, James P.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Robinson, S.

  Glover, Thomas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Manfield, Harry

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gulland, John William

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Hackett, J.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Scanian, Thomas

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Middlebrook, William

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Millar, J. D.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Molloy, M.

  Seddon, J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Shackleton, David James

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Shaw, Sir C. E.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sheehy, David

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shortt, Edward

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Simon, John Ailsebrook

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Haworth Arthur A.

  Munro, R.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Muspratt, M.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan. Joseph

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Sir Wilians

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.).

  Hindle, F. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles C. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

  Hodge, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolvarhampton)

  Hooper, A. S.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  O'Dowd, John

  Toulmin, George

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ogden, Fred

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Twist, Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Malley, William

  Verney, F. W.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shee, James John

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Walsh, Stephen

  Johnson, W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jones, Sir D. Prynmor (Swansea)

  Pearce, William

  Walton, Joseph

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Waring, Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Phillips. John (Longford, S.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Keating, M.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Kelly, Edward

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  1544

  1545

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Winfrey, Richard

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)

  Wing, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Matter

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N. E.)

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Arson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

  Lewlsham, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Falle, B. G.

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Baird, J. L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm, Edgbaston)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droftwich)

  Barnston, H.

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mason, James F.

  Bird, A.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boyton, J.

  Gordon, J.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

  Grant, J. A.

  Moore, William

  Brassey, H L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

  Greene, W. R.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Guinness, Hon. Walter E.

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Brotherton, E. A.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Brunskill, G. F.

  Haddock, George B.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Butcher, S. Henry (Cambridge Univ.)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harris, F. L. (Stepney)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cator, John

  Heath, Col. A. H.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Cautley, H. G.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hickman, Col. T.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Chambers, J.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hills, J. W.

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Coates, Major E. F.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Colefax, H. A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Horner, A. L.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Rice, Hon Walter F.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Croft, H. P.

  Jardine, E. Somerset, E.)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Rutherford, Watson

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Keswick, William

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootie)

  Duke, H. E.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  1546

  1547

  Stanier, Beville

  Thompson, Robert

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

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Winterton, Earl

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Starkey, John R.

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Verrall, George Henry

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

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

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Storey, Samuel

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Strauss, A.

  White, Major G. D. (Lines., Southport)

  Sykes, Alan John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Valentia and Lord E. Talbot.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  PARLIAMENT BILL, 1910.
  Bill "to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the House of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliament," ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Joseph Pease, and the Attorney-General.
  Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time.

GOVERNMENT AND HOUSE OF LORDS.

  PRIME MINISTER'S DECLARATION OF POLICY.
  The PRIME MINISTERmoved, "That this House do now adjourn."
  In moving "That this House do now adjourn," I hope I may be allowed to make a short statement—which I would gladly have made earlier in the evening, and which, I think, could have been made at that time with much more regard to the general convenience of the House—concerning the future intentions of the Government. It is not usual for the Government to make a statement of policy in regard to contingencies which have not yet arisen, but we are confronted to-day, I venture to think, with an exceptional and perhaps a unique case.
  The three Resolutions which you, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, put from the Chair, have two special characteristics. In the first place, having been approved in principle by the late House of Commons with an enormous majority, it will not, I think, be anywhere denied that they were prominently, if not predominantly, before the country at the recent General Election; and they have, during the last fortnight, been supported in every stage of their progress in this new House of Commons by majorities which have rarely fallen short of a hundred. In the second place, to us, who sit on these benches, the passing of the principles of these Resolutions into law by means of
  1548
  statutory enactment is a condition, not only of our usefulness, but even of our effective existence. Speaking at the Albert Hall on behalf of my colleagues and political friends in December last, before the election, I said—and I have not a word to withdraw or explain—that it was idle for us here to hold office unless we could secure safeguards—the safeguards which experience had shown to be necessary for the legislative utility and honour of the party of progress. Those safeguards these Resolutions, if they are put on the Statute Book, would provide. But until they take their place there, there is no legislation except the Budget, and substantially non-contentious matters which we can without risk of futility, and even of ridicule, undertake.
  It is for these reasons, and on behalf of the Government, that I think it not only convenient, but necessary, to give notice to the House and to the country, now that these Resolutions are passing into the control of other people, of our future intentions. If the Lords fail to accept our policy, or decline to consider it as it is formally presented to the House, we shall feel it our duty immediately to tender advice to the Crown as to the steps which will have to be taken if that policy is to receive statutory effect in this Parliament. What the precise terms of that advice will ibe—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ask Redmond. ") —I think one might expect courtesy when I am anxious, as the head of the Government, to make a serious statement of public policy — what the precise terms of that advice will be it will, of course, not be right for me to say now; but if we do not find ourselves in a position to ensure that statutory effect shall be given to that policy in this Parliament, we shall then either resign our offices or recommend the dissolution of Parliament. Let me add this, that in no case will we recommend a dissolution except under such conditions as will secure that in the new Parliament the judgment of the people as expressed at the elections will be carried into law.
  Mr. BALFOUR: After what has been said by the Prime Minister, I hope the House will listen to a very few words from me. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that under the Rules of the House you will be obliged to interrupt these proceedings in a very few seconds from now.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to interrupt the proceedings at eleven o'clock.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I move, "That the House do now adjourn."
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, and while I am on that point I hope the House will allow me to say that the very last thing I ever desire is to prevent the ordinary liberty which is given by leave of the House to travel somewhat beyond what the strict Rules of Order demand. My complaint was not that the right hon. Gentleman went beyond the strict and narrow Rules of Order, but that it was done on an occasion which made it practically impossible, as the House will agree and everybody will admit, for any reply to be made at all to the observations he might make. I know that I need not inform the right hon. Gentleman that to him personally he is the last person to whom I should think of offering any discourtesy. Whoever had been Leader of the House, I should have quite honestly felt, within the limits of time when the gag was to fall, that that was not the proper moment for a very important statement of public policy to be made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House.
  The statement which the Prime Minister has just made everybody will admit to be of the very first importance. It represents, I presume, the culmination of those long negotiations which have gene on between His Majesty's Government and other groups, or another group in this House, or a group or groups in this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]—and the Budget was to be the price of the agreement arrived at. The prize to be fought for was the Budget, and the question how much could right hon. and hon. Gentlemen give on that side, and how much was required by the negotiators below the Gangway. It really is a very interesting reflection now to weigh in the balance what is to be given
  1550
  and what has been received by the two parties to this transaction. As I understand, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and his friends have agreed to swallow the Budget, their aversion of which they have not concealed, which is a growing aversion, as the feeling in Ireland makes more and more manifest. It will hardly be maintained by the most enthusiastic of the Nationalist representatives that the Budget is more popular in 1910 than it was in November, 1909. The right hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, had to consider his constitutional position as the Minister and Adviser of the Crown. He had to consider what the traditions of his high office were, and what the proper course was for him to pursue, if he was to maintain the character of his great office. I am bound to say that this negotiation, like some other negotiations, appears to me to have left both parties to it rather poorer than they were.
  The Irish party are going to accept a Budget they dislike, and are going to accept it because they think that that policy conduces to that larger object they have in view, namely, Home Rule for Ireland. They are going to get what they do not want in the shape of the Budget, but I am not sure that they are going to get what they do want. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see."] That is their position. The Government position is that they get the Budget on which they had staked their reputation, which was the peoples' Budget, which was to be passed without the alteration of a comma, and in order that it may be passed without the alteration of a comma, they have paid what seems to me an extravagant price. What has the right hon. Gentleman done? He made a speech on the very first day of the Session, in which in eloquent terms he described the policy which a Minister of the Crown, having to advise the Sovereign, ought to pursue in that delicate and difficult position, and we all heard him with interest and with a large measure of agreement. What expression has the right hon. Gentleman now given? In what position has he put the Crown by the statement he has made to-night? I am not going to dogmatise on the Constitution, and say that no circumstances can within the imagination of man arise in which it might not be the duty of the Prime Minister to go to the Sovereign, and ask for what are euphemistically called guarantees, which I believe translated into plain English means the nomination of 500

  1551
  unfit gentlemen for the honour of seats in the House of Lords. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Why unfit?"]
  But while I do not dogmatise as to the conditions under which it might be right for a Prime Minister in extreme circumstances to destroy the Constitution, of which he ought to be the guardian, I say quite clearly that the idea of anticipating such advice by months, by clearly announcing to the House of Commons and the country that in certain unknown, undefined contingencies he is going to suggest that which is nothing short of the destruction of the Constitution, is, I think, beyond the idea of duty, which any predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman has held. He has bought the Irish vote for his Budget, and has bought it successfully. The price he has paid is the price of the dignity of his office, and of all the great traditions which he, of all men, ought to uphold.
  Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  War Loan (Redemption).
  War Loan (Redemption).
  Finance Bill, 1909–10 (Irish Memorials).
  Finance Bill, 1909–10 (Irish Memorials).
  Home-Made and Foreign Spirits (Duty Paid).
  Home-Made and Foreign Spirits (Duty Paid).
  Wages of Customs Watchers.
  Wages of Customs Watchers.
  Secondary Education Grants.
  Secondary Education Grants.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Collis Sandes Estates, Brosna, County Kerry.
  Collis Sandes Estates, Brosna, County Kerry.
  Limerick County Council.
  Limerick County Council.
  Flax-Growing Industry (Departmental Committee).
  Flax-Growing Industry (Departmental Committee).
  Blennerhassett Estate, County Kerry.
  Blennerhassett Estate, County Kerry.
  Ventry Estate, County Kerry.
  Ventry Estate, County Kerry.
  Intermediate Education Examination, Ireland (Jewish Holy Days).
  Intermediate Education Examination, Ireland (Jewish Holy Days).
  Evicted Tenants Reinstated, County Monaghan.
  Evicted Tenants Reinstated, County Monaghan.
  Cappa Farm, Lyster Estate, Queen's County.
  Cappa Farm, Lyster Estate, Queen's County.
  National School Teachers, Ireland (Civil Rights.
  National School Teachers, Ireland (Civil Rights.
  National Board of Education, Ireland.
  National Board of Education, Ireland.
  Untenanted Lands, Ballynorth, County Limerick.
  Untenanted Lands, Ballynorth, County Limerick.
  Repairing Warships (Dry Docks).
  Repairing Warships (Dry Docks).
  Portsmouth Muster House.
  Portsmouth Muster House.
  Royal Dockyards (Recording Staffs).
  Royal Dockyards (Recording Staffs).
  Royal Naval Reserve (British and Foreign Steamship Companies).
  Royal Naval Reserve (British and Foreign Steamship Companies).
  Admiralty Harbour Works, Dover.
  Admiralty Harbour Works, Dover.
  Protection of Food Supply (Time of War).
  Protection of Food Supply (Time of War).
  Sheerness Dockyard (Petition).
  Sheerness Dockyard (Petition).
  Stoker Ratings (Royal Navy).
  Stoker Ratings (Royal Navy).
  Army Chaplains (Pensions).
  Army Chaplains (Pensions).
  Army Pensions (Rates of Wages).
  Army Pensions (Rates of Wages).
  Island Bridge Barracks, Dublin.
  Island Bridge Barracks, Dublin.
  Army Ordnance Department, Dublin.
  Army Ordnance Department, Dublin.
  Regular Army and Special Reserve (Men under Twenty).
  Regular Army and Special Reserve (Men under Twenty).
  Lord Mayor of Dublin (Perpetual Annuity).
  Lord Mayor of Dublin (Perpetual Annuity).
  Militia Ballot Acts.
  Militia Ballot Acts.
  Army Special Reserve (Officers).
  Army Special Reserve (Officers).
  Army Motor Cycles Abroad.
  Army Motor Cycles Abroad.
  Volunteering for Foreign Service.
  Volunteering for Foreign Service.
  Breeding Army Horses.
  Breeding Army Horses.
  Foreign Wagons at Aldershot.
  Foreign Wagons at Aldershot.
  Military Service Abroad.
  Military Service Abroad.
  Grants to Secondary Schools.
  Grants to Secondary Schools.
  Elementary Schools (Ten Square Feet Rule).
  Elementary Schools (Ten Square Feet Rule).
  Police (Weekly Rest Day) Bill.
  Police (Weekly Rest Day) Bill.
  Sir Robert Anderson.
  Sir Robert Anderson.
  Protection of Ministers.
  Protection of Ministers.
  Metropolitan Police Holidays.
  Metropolitan Police Holidays.
  Manx Workmen and Compensation.
  Manx Workmen and Compensation.
  Justices and the Licensed Trade.
  Justices and the Licensed Trade.
  Cigarettes for India.
  Cigarettes for India.
  Anglo-German Agreement.
  Anglo-German Agreement.
  Railway Concessions in China.
  Railway Concessions in China.
  Pension Application (Sowerby Bridge).
  Pension Application (Sowerby Bridge).
  Guardians and Local Applications.
  Guardians and Local Applications.
  Vaccination Officers' Superannuation.
  Vaccination Officers' Superannuation.
  County Rates.
  County Rates.
  Contracting Out.
  Contracting Out.
  New Japanese Tariff.
  New Japanese Tariff.
  Radio-Telegraphy.
  Radio-Telegraphy.
  Chinese Exports and Imports.
  Chinese Exports and Imports.
  All-Red Route.
  All-Red Route.
  Stanhope Gate.
  Stanhope Gate.
VISCOUNT GLADSTONE.
The Right Honourable HERBERT JOHN GLADSTONE, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief designate of the Union of South Africa, having been created Viscount GLADSTONE of the county of Lanark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Camperdown be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Gorell, and that the Earl of Camperdown be chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

HAVANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 21st of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
WATER SUPPLIES (PROTECTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee of Five Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' message of Monday last, to consider the Water Supplies (Protection) Bill [H.L.]: Then a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room 2, on Tuesday next at half-past three o'clock.
WARDEN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
PERJURY BILL. [H.L.]
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the Perjury Bill [H.L.] be referred to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to which the Licensing (Consolidation) Bill has been referred (The Lord Colebrooke); agreed to; and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

SMALL HOLDINGS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether it has been finally decided that Mr. Clark, whose farm at Welwick was taken for small holdings, is not to receive compensation for disturbance out of the Small Holdings Fund; and whether they intend to bring in a Bill to prevent similar cases of hardship in the future.
I must apologise to your Lordships for bringing this question before the House again, but unfortunately it is one that has not yet been settled. I may, perhaps, very briefly remind your Lordships of what happened, for I think it is rather a typical and not an isolated case. This farm was Crown property, and the whole of it was taken away from the tenant, who, it is true, held other land, but the question is whether he was entitled to receive any compensation for disturbance. My noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture expressed great sympathy, as he always does with any person who suffers hardship, and he hoped that it would be possible to give some compensation to Mr. Clark for being dispossessed of his holding. I suppose that after careful examination on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown and other Government Departments it was found that there was no power to give any compensation to this dispossessed tenant, and as far as I know he has not received, from Government sources at any rate, any compensation.
I received only a day or two ago a cutting from the Yorkshire Herald in which the following passage occurs—
"We are informed that the President of the Board of Agriculture gave Mr. Clark £50 out of

657
his own pocket, with an expression in something like these terms: 'For God's sake don't let us hear any more about this Welwick business!'"
That may or may not be correct, but from what I know of the noble Earl I strongly suspect that it is absolutely true. It is just the sort of kind, good-natured thing the noble Earl would do; but in the words of the French officer at the charge of Balaklava—C'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre. What we desire is that when persons are dispossessed of their holdings in this way they shall be entitled to receive compensation out of Government funds, and not be dependent on the generosity of the holder for the time being of the office of President of the Board of Agriculture.
I understand that the Prime Minister has given an undertaking that a measure to make some provision to meet these cases will be introduced, provided he can be satisfied that it will be treated as non-controversial. An association with which I am connected, the Central Land Association, passed a resolution yesterday, which has been forwarded to the Prime Minister, assuring him that so far as they are concerned—and there are 104 Members of the other House of Parliament connected with the association, of whom eight Unionist and nine Liberal Members are upon the Committee—they will make every effort to secure that if the measure is introduced it shall be treated as non-controversial. In those circumstances I very much hope that we may learn from the President of the Board of Agriculture that that which has been up to now looked upon as a great hardship will be removed, and that the compensation will be a charge on the Small Holdings Fund and thus not result in increasing the charge to the small holder.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, before my noble friend answers the Question I should like to put a supplementary Question about a case which has not yet arisen, as the compulsory sale has not yet taken place. In this case the County Council of Northumberland propose to purchase compulsorily a farm near Morpeth. The present tenant took the farm from me a year ago in order to provide for his deceased brother's children, his brother having long been tenant of the farm. Supposing his nephews, for whom he took the farm, had been put in as joint tenants, they would each have a very small holding,
658
but as it is he is the tenant, and very strongly objects to give up the farm. I wish to know- whether, in case compulsory powers are taken, this man will have compensation. In the county council itself a member protested against this act, as he thought that to turn orphan children away from the land on which they expected to make their livelihood would be a hardship and an injustice. I myself should be very sorry to see this done, not so much because I care for keeping the farm in my possession, but because it seems to me that it is likely to do great discredit to the working of this Act, certainly unless the tenant can get compensation. I shall be very glad to know what is likely to happen in that case.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has put to me two Questions. He first asks whether it has been finally decided that Mr. Clark, whose farm at Welwick was taken for small holdings, is not to receive compensation for disturbance out of the Small Holdings Fund. The answer is in the affirmative. It has been finally decided that this gentleman is not to receive any compensation out of this Fund. The noble Earl went on to ask, as I understood, whether it might not be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown to know whether such a thing was possible. I think the noble Earl must remember that in the Small Holdings Act, which your Lordships were graciously pleased to allow the Government to pass through this House, there was no provision of that sort at all.
I need not go into the whole story again, but in the Land Tenure Act, which was also permitted to pass this House, there was no provision for compensation to be paid by individual landlords, and therefore it was considered that it would not be quite fair to take out of the public purse money for compensation in cases in which it would not be given by private owners. But a good deal of water has flown under the bridges since then, and small holdings are now, I think, an acknowledged fact, and are supposed to be to some extent a success. In two years we have got 75,000 acres of land in England, and we have only had to take 11,000 acres by compulsion. I think that is very satisfactory, and it shows that not only noble Lords opposite but landlords all over England do recognise

659
what a great boon small holdings are to the working population, and that they have most generously and handsomely done their duty as far as lay in their power.
As regards Mr. Clark's case, it has, as I have said, been finally decided that it is impossible to compensate him out of the Small Holdings Fund. This was one of those extreme cases which always happen in the carrying out of any fresh legislation, and it was a case in which I honestly thought that compensation might very fairly be paid. I therefore asked the Treasury if it could be given, but there were reasons—I acknowledge that they were very strong and good reasons—why such a departure could not be made. I therefore wrote to Mr. Clark telling him the facts, and regretting that nothing could be done. I would not mention this had it not been for the speech of the noble Earl. I went down to Hull in December of last year and had a farmers' "At Home," which was very numerously attended. Between 100 and 150 Holderness farmers were kind enough to smoke a cigar with me after the farmers' ordinary, and I need not say that the case of Mr. Clark, of Welwick, was the chief topic of conversation. I do not know whether the noble Earl knows Mr. Clark.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No.
EARL CARRINGTON: He is one of the best representatives of the Holderness farmers. I do not think I can put it higher than that. He is a capital fellow in every way, a man much respected in the countryside and easy to deal with. We had a conversation which lasted nearly three hours, and at last we came to an agreement. I said to him, "There is going to be an election next year, and nobody knows how the election may turn out. I should be very sorry that any body should be left on the Crown Estate with a nasty taste in his mouth so far as I am concerned. I honestly think you are entitled to compensation, and I have tried to get it from the Treasury. But as I cannot get you £100 out of the Treasury, and as I suppose I am morally responsible for your displacement from the farm, I shall be very happy as a Crown Commissioner to make you a present of £50 myself, and I hope it will be accepted in the same spirit in which it is offered." The Holderness farmers are a very gentlemanly lot of men. They said: "Oh, no; we will not stand that.
660
Will you get him another farm when another farm comes in, and give it to him for his son?" I may say that the farm we had to take for small holdings was in time to come to be farmed by his son. I replied that that was all settled; that I had promised him the first chance of occupying another farm, and that I hoped my successor in days to come would bear the matter in mind. Later I received a very pleasant letter from Mr. Clark. He accepted my offer in the same spirit in which it was made, and so the matter is happily concluded so far as Mr. Clark is concerned.
I always was of opinion that something ought to be done in regard to the compulsory taking of land from tenant farmers who were on private estates, and as we have to be very particular in these days, especially about commas, perhaps I may be permitted to read—it will not take a moment—what I said in the House of Lords on May 17 of last year [†] in answer to a Question put by Lord Onslow. I then said—
"Perhaps I may be permitted to say that whatever are the equities of the case as between a private landlord and a tenant, there is great force in the argument that a tenant has special ground for compensation where land is acquired for small holdings by county councils under the Act. In furtherance of a great national policy, which we hope will keep the people on the land, machinery has been set up which must inevitably bring prematurely to an end tenancies which must otherwise have existed for years to the satisfaction of owner and occupier. It is said—and I will admit the truth of it—that we have introduced a new and disturbing element into rural life. I repeat that I believe that is perfectly true; but, at the same time, I am convinced that what we have done will stir up the sluggish waters of rural life and convert them into living streams. This, of course, may entail changes and movements which may put farmers to some inconvenience and expense. It follows, therefore, that this class are the strongest critics of the Small Holdings Act. They are reluctant to see it put into force, not only on their own farms, but on the farms of their neighbours; and, naturally, they enlist the sympathy of the landlords, some of whom are unwilling to bring tenancies to an end for the sake of what they probably consider to be a problematic advantage to themselves and others."
That is what I thought all along, and to that opinion I still adhere. As regards the noble Earl's second Question—namely, whether His Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill to prevent similar cases of hardship in the future—the answer is Yes.
[†] 1 H.L. Deb.5 s. Cols.943–4
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Hear, hear.
EARL CARRINGTON: We intend to bring in legislation on this subject as early as possible, and I rejoice in the knowledge that it is to be treated as non-controversial on both sides of the House. I am given to understand that that is the case. I hope it is true, and I trust that this will pacify to some extent the opposition felt to the Act by some tenant farmers. No doubt it is a disagreeable thing to have a portion of one's farm taken away. Still, we have been told that we must make sacrifices for the public good, and I hope, with this concession, that we shall not have any serious opposition to the principle of small holdings, which I believe is a policy appreciated and approved of by both sides of the House and by all classes of His Majesty's subjects.
LORD STANMORE: Is the noble Earl going to return no answer to Lord Carlisle?
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot carry every case in my mind. If the noble Earl will give me particulars of the case to which he refers—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It has not happened yet.
EARL CARRINGTON: If we get this Bill through I hope that proper compensation will be paid to any tenant of my noble friend whose land is taken for small holdings.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: May I ask the noble Earl if he will go down and have a conversation?
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Can the noble Earl tell us when the Bill is to be introduced?
EARL CARRINGTON: Good heavens! I cannot.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I hope it will be introduced in your Lordships' House. In spite of these touching accounts of convivial meetings held on the eve of a General Election, this is felt to be a very grave injustice. I know that objection is taken to the word "injustice" in connection with this matter, but it is nothing short of a very serious injustice,
662
and it is a very doubtful policy with regard to agriculture. We are told this evening that 11,000 acres have already been acquired compulsorily. It seems to me that the stirring up of the sluggish waters of rural life and converting them into living streams by means of compulsion has been going on at an alarming rate, because last December we were told that 8,000 acres had been acquired compulsorily for this purpose. The agricultural community of this country have found it very difficult indeed to understand the attitude of the Government towards the sitting tenant. First of all, soon after they came into office they adopted a Bill which certainly would have had the result of sitting tenant against landlord and landlord against tenant to a very undesirable degree. That Bill left Parliament in a very different shape from that in which it entered it. But the point I wish to make about that is that the one reason we were always begged to accept that Bill was that it would do good to agriculture because it would remove from the tenant the chance, which we say was an entirely illusory one, of being capriciously evicted by his landlord. Everybody knew that the number of cases of capricious eviction of ten ant farmers was hardly worth mentioning, and certainly not sufficient to justify a Bill of a highly controversial character. The next thing we are told is that in order to for ward the Small Holdings Act carte blanche is to be given to take as much land as you like, and that the men dispossessed are not to have recourse to the ordinary remedy which other subjects of His Majesty have when their property is taken away from them by force. Therefore I thank the noble Earl very much for his promise to bring forward a Bill, and I hope we shall have some assurance from His Majesty's Government this afternoon that as we are still able, I believe, to take part in the legislative business of the country, we may have an opportunity of dealing with this subject before our existence is put an end to.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I rise merely to reply to the question with regard to the introduction of the proposed Bill. I think it will be generally recognised that this Bill, which is a Bill for the payment of compensation, is of a character which is invariably introduced in another place.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will have appreciated very highly the noble Earl Lord Carrington's clever manner of getting over difficulties in exceptional cases with reference to this Act, but I think it would become a tedious operation if it had to be carried on for long and in connection with many cases.
EARL CARRINGTON: Hear, hear.
EARL CAWDOR: The consumption of tobacco at these gatherings and the wearisomeness of three-hour conversations with tenants who had complained would be a serious task to put on any noble Lord who might hereafter hold the post which the noble Earl now occupies. Therefore I think we are all glad to hear that there is a prospect of this matter being dealt with in a satisfactory manner by legislation. The noble Earl said a good deal about the great boon it was to those who had obtained small holdings, but we should guard very carefully against injury being caused to any individual in giving a boon to somebody else. If it is thought necessary to take away a man's land or interfere with his farm, the burden and cost of it should certainly not be placed on the individual, but on some proper fund sanctioned by law. As far as I am concerned, and I think I may speak for those who sit with me on this side of the House, we shall give every consideration to such a Bill as this, and I hope the Government will bring the measure forward at an early date.

WATER SUPPLIES (PROTECTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House on the Water Supplies (Protection) Bill (H.L.) do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Committee Room 2 on Wednesday next at half-past Three o'clock as proposed by this House.

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House on the Licensing (Consolidation) Bill do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Committee Room A on Wednesday next at Two o'clock as proposed by this House.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.