Sitting of 2 August 1910

ACCESSION DECLARATION BILL.
Petitions against (2); of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CHINA AND TIBET.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he has any information to give us as to the accuracy of a statement which appeared in The Times to-day to the effect that a force consisting of a company of sappers and miners and the 48th Pioneers is to move to a station on the Darjeeling line, and that this station is to serve as a base should operations be undertaken in Tibet.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, in reply to the Question of the noble Marquess I have to say that, in view of the present disturbed condition of Tibet, the Government of India have thought it necessary to collect at the frontier a sufficient force to enable the trade agencies at Gyantse and Yatung to be speedily reinforced in case they should at any time be in immediate danger of attack. The force which is held in readiness includes one battalion of Native Infantry, two sections of mountain Artillery, and a section of sappers and miners; and also a battalion and a section of sappers and miners will be sent, if necessary, to hold the lines of communication. This force will not cross the frontier unless the protection of our officers renders it necessary, and it will in no circumstances intervene between Tibetans and Chinese, and if it should ever enter Tibet it will be withdrawn as soon as the situation permits.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is the usual one in the case of an adjournment of Parliament as distinct from a Prorogation. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess. (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

PORT OF LONDON (REGISTRATION OF CRAFT) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order): Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3.) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment.
[The reference is to Bell No. (77).]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out ("September") and insert ("November")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason—
Because it is not advisable to further extend the period during which claims under this section may be made.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be considered.—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on that Motion I desire to say a few words. Your Lordships will notice that there is no claim of privilege made by the House of Commons in regard to this Amendment, upon which your Lordships are to be asked not to insist. The House will recollect that when we were in Committee privilege was very distinctly claimed against the Amendment by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. The noble Earl did not condescend to argue the Amendment on its merits, and no reason was given us for the claim of privilege, in spite of every effort made to extract the reason from him both on that occasion and when I ventured to allude again to the subject on the Third Reading of the Bill.
In these days, I think, nothing should be so jealously watched as claims of privilege. It seems to me that they are liable to be extended beyond anything we have been accustomed to, and sometimes in a most irresponsible and unusual manner. I think we ought to be very careful ourselves not to invade the privileges of another place. There is nothing which I personally desire to be so careful about. But I think we should be at least equally careful that new precedents are not made against us in these tunes and that an extension of privilege is not asked for beyond what is in accordance with precedent. When I challenged the noble Earl on the Third Reading of the Bill he would not give me any answer, but made a good-humoured allusion to what he described as a Homeric contest.
I felt that the matter was of sufficient importance to be followed up, and I therefore took measures to ascertain whether it was likely that any question of privilege would be raised and I received a reply from the highest authority available that it was not considered that there was any privilege in the Amendment at all. I felt that if the claim made had been given effect to in another place it would have required great care in this House because it would have been, in my humble opinion, a distinct extension of the claim of privilege beyond anything to which we have been accustomed; and we should have found ourselves in the position, if we had even rejected the Amendment on its merits, of having made a precedent against this House.
There may be a great deal to be said against the Amendment on its merits.
644
Into that I do not enter. But it does seem to me that questions of privilege should not be raised in this rash and ill-considered way; and I have given the noble Earl private notice of my intention to raise the question and to ask him if he will now tell us on whose authority and initiative the claim of privilege was made on this Amendment. I am confident it was not the noble Earl's own idea, because on the Second Reading of the Bill he actually invited us in so many words to make the very Amendment which we made in Committee. I will quote his words—
"There is a proviso in Clause 2 that no compensation shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before September 1, 1910. To-day is July 14. That would leave only six weeks, and the Bill is not through yet. Therefore I think your Lordships will Probably be of opinion that the time given is rather short, and I shall be prepared—and I think it would be only right to do so, as we want to act perfectly fairly and justly to agriculturists—to give a longer time than that now stated in the Bill." [6 H.L. Deb.,5 s., col. 190.]
On that invitation a noble Earl on the Opposition side of the House put down an Amendment to extend the period by two months, and we were met then, not by any argument whatever, but by the simple statement that the Amendment was a breach of privilege. I think it is fair to ask who started the idea; whether it was upon the authority of the noble Earl's private secretary or of some under-strapper in the Department of Agriculture. It is quite clear that it was not done on the noble Earl's initiative, or he never would have made the suggestion on Second Reading. These are serious things. I desire to treat the other House with the utmost respect; but, at the same time, I do think your Lordships ought to maintain a guardianship over this matter and see that privilege is not extended against you.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords. I have no reason to complain of the noble Lord's action in bringing forward this question. He has quoted from the Official Report what I said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and by those words, of course, I am prepared to stand. The best of us make mistakes sometimes, and when on the spur of the moment I made the statement as to the shortness of the notice it did not occur to me that this Bill had been an agreed Bill between both sides of the House

645
of Commons. I think on reflection—and I suppose every one is entitled to reflect—that if your Lordships would assent to the suggestion it would be a pity to disturb the agreement which had been come to on both sides of the House, especially as the matter is not only retrospective but exceptional.
There will be no hardship on farmers in fixing the date as September 1, because as soon as the Bill becomes law the Board of Agriculture will of course at once call the attention of all county councils to the Act. Though it is perfectly true that the claim must be made before September 1 in this year, yet the tenant-farmer who makes a claim will not be required to make a full and detailed claim by that date. He has only got to give notice of his intention to make a claim, and he will have a good long time after that date to make out his detailed claim. This question has been mooted over and over again in Parliament, and has been known to all county councils for months and to every party who may possibly be entitled to make a claim. Therefore I think on the merits there is a good case for asking your Lordships not to insist on the lengthened period.
As to the question of breach of privilege, I was informed on the best authority that was at my disposal at the time that if the date was altered it would clearly be a question of privilege, and that that question would be raised in the Commons. How could I have acted otherwise than I did when I was told by a high authority—not a private secretary?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What authority?
EARL CARRINGTON: I will come to that in a moment. If a Minister is told on high authority that a certain question will be considered a matter of privilege in the other House, surely he ought not to remain silent. It was only courteous and fair that I should inform your Lordships what I believed was likely to happen. I have been asked what was my authority. I think my answer had better be that it was very high authority indeed; I will not say the very highest, because I presume the highest authority in these matters is the House of Commons itself. I entirely accept the responsibility in this matter. If I have sinned I am very sorry for it. I hope your Lordships will accept my
646
explanation and not insist upon your Amendment, but allow the Bill, which will be a great boon and relief to a most deserving and hard-working set of people, to go through.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to my noble friend who is acting as Chairman of Committees for having called attention to this singular episode. The question of the conflict between the privilege of your Lordships' House and the privilege of the House of Commons is a very serious one. I have on more than one occasion felt it my duty to call attention to the matter, and I share my noble friend's feeling that we ought to be extremely careful how we allow any new encroachment—there have been many old encroachments—on the privileges of this House. I hope the noble Earl opposite will not take it amiss if I tell him that we on this side of the House are not quite so well satisfied with his explanation of the occurrence as he appears to be himself.
The story is really a very singular and instructive one. In the first place, the noble Earl with great effect criticised his own Bill and pointed out that it was open to serious objection at a particular point. Thereupon a noble friend of mine who is not here to-night, Lord Dunmore, taking the noble Earl at his word, moved an Amendment designed to carry out the very suggestion which the noble Earl himself had made, and that Amendment was supported and found favour with your Lordships. The noble Earl, however, objected to the Amendment, not upon its merits—it was impossible for him to object to it upon its merits after his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill—but upon the point of privilege. He told the House that he felt certain that the Amendment would be objected to elsewhere on the ground of privilege. I must be allowed to say that whatever the authority by which the noble Earl was inspired he was rather premature in raising the question of privilege at that stage and in this House; and for this reason, that even if an Amendment made by your Lordships should happen to be clearly an encroachment of the privilege of the House of Commons, it does not in the least follow that the House. of Commons need insist on its privilege; and if in this case a question of privilege had arisen elsewhere it might

647
perfectly well have been pleaded that upon the merits, the Amendment being consonant with the suggestion of the noble Earl himself, the House of Commons ought not to insist upon its own extreme rights.
Now the Amendment comes back to us, and the noble Earl asks us not to insist upon it, not on the question of privilege, but he goes back on the question of merits, and I must say I was anxious to see what kind of a case he could make out against the Amendment upon the merits. His defence was, as I understood him, that this was an agreed Bill. But, my Lords, what agreement can there be elsewhere that would preclude this House from putting in a legitimate Amendment, an Amendment suggested by the noble Earl himself, and obviously on the face of it wholly unexceptionable? I am told that even in the House of Commons the question of the date to be inserted in the Bill was strongly raised, and that a member of His Majesty's Government suggested in that House that owing to the delay which had taken place the grievance of the farmers might be met if the Bill were amended in this House. That was a suggestion which, as I understand, was actually made in the House of Commons by Sir E. Strachey, who represents there the Department over which the noble Earl presides. What will happen if we do not press this Amendment? The agriculturists, who have found in the noble Earl opposite so stalwart a champion, will have something like three weeks only left them to put in these claims. That is, according to the showing of the noble Earl himself, very short shrift indeed; and I must say I have heard nothing yet to satisfy me that after all that has taken place we should not be right in insisting upon the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Dunmore.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl in charge of this Bill a question with reference to a statement he made this evening? He said that the date of September 1 would give the tenant farmer plenty of time because all that was necessary under the Bill was that he should give notice by that date that he intended to claim. Would the noble Earl kindly point out to me where words are to be found in the Bill to that effect? I cannot find anything about it.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I should also like to put a question to the noble Earl. He said that it is his intention, if the Bill becomes law, to at once communicate with all the county councils in England so that the claims to be raised can be brought forward. The county council over which I have the honour to preside meets the day after to-morrow, but does not meet again until November. I should be obliged to the noble Earl if he would tell us how he is going to communicate in such a case as that, which is not an uncommon one, with the county councils. I suppose his answer will be that any letter sent from his Department to a county council would be referred to the small holdings committee or to some other committee. At any other time of the year that might be a fairly satisfactory answer, but I beg to remind the noble Earl that committees of county councils, like other people, go for a holiday occasionally, and August and September are months in which it is most difficult to get committees together or to get any business done in connection with county councils. I do not think there could have been a time of the year or an arrangement more thoroughly inconvenient. I wish the noble Earl would intimate, if possible, how these difficulties are to be got over.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I should like to say a word on this matter, because I took part in the discussion in Committee, when I sat next to my noble friend the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think that justice has been done to my noble friend. What took place was this. The noble Lord the Acting Chairman of Committees has said that he received an intimation from a high authority that this was not likely to be regarded as a matter of privilege in the House of Commons. Very well; but my noble friend Lord Carrington had received—he showed it to me—a communication in a different sense.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: From whom?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess did not ask that question of Lord Balfour of Burleigh when he made his statement, and I really do not know why he is asking it of me. Having received the information to which I have referred, my noble friend the President of the Board

649
of Agriculture wished to avoid any action likely to result in a conflict on a matter which, after all, is not one of much importance. I do not think he expressed his own private opinion that it was a matter of privilege. Certainly when I supported him I did not do so. What I said was that I thought it a matter which was generally judged of by the House of Commons, and which was best left to that House. But I had reason for thinking that the question would be raised. The only motive the noble Earl had was a desire to prevent a conflict which no one wishes, and I am quite sure the House will do justice to the reasons which actuated my noble friend. There was no intention whatever on his part of infringing the rights and privileges of this House or of exaggerating those of the other, but simply to prevent a conflict.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have been asked two questions on this thorny subject, one by Lord Camperdown as to the words in the Bill. I am not a judge of English; I am not a literary man, and must rather plead ignorance. I believe, however, that the word "claim" does not signify the detailed claim, which can be sent later.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Where are the words in the Bill which say that the detailed scheme can be sent in afterwards?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is the action the Board of Agriculture will take under the Act. Then as to the question put to me by the noble Duke opposite as to the county councils and small holdings committees going on holiday, there will, I suppose, be some one to attend to business. The clerk or some deputy clerk will be there, or, at any rate, there will be somebody on the premises, and there would not be very much difficulty, I presume, in that person, whoever he may be, sending a notice to the county papers, which are published every week, to inform the tenant farmers of what had happened, and to tell them that they should send in their claims before the end of the present month.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I quite admit that I had no right to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to give us the name of his correspondent who has proved to be an unreliable correspondent in this instance.
650
For we have it on the authority of my noble friend who sits at the Table (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) that he knows from a very high authority indeed that this Amendment was not within the limits of a breach of privilege, and we have, beyond that, the authority of the House of Commons itself, which has, in fact, not raised the question of privilege. This practically decides that matter. I did not rise to prolong the discussion beyond saying that I do think it a matter of regret that those who are responsible for the honour and authority of this House should be the first to desire to diminish its privileges. I have been brought up to believe that those who have the great privilege and honour of leading this House should be the guardians of its privileges, and should be even more eager—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess allow me to ask him—Does he think that a Minister, when he has real reason for believing that there may be conflict between the two Houses raised by an Amendment, is not at liberty to tell the House that they had better decide not to pass that Amendment? Is that not acting loyally to the House of which he is a member?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not seen the terms of this mysterious communication to which the noble and learned Lord has alluded. Of course, if that communication came from the highest authority in the House of Commons and if it was an explicit statement that the Amendment would be regarded as a breach of privilege, no doubt the Minister would be justified in so informing this House. But if it is anything short of that I should hope that, at any rate in the future—I put it no higher than that—noble Lords who lead this House will be a little more anxious to defend its privileges.
I rose, however, not to prolong this discussion, but to respectfully ask the noble Earl who leads the House whether he will give us a reply upon the merits of this Amendment. The matter of privilege has now been settled, but there are the merits of the Amendment itself. Let me recall what the state of the case is on the merits. On July 14 the noble Earl who is responsible for this Bill made a statement in this House in which he said that the time which lay between that date

651
and September I was too short if we were to treat agricultural interests fairly. Does he think that the cogency of that argument has been diminished by the fact that we are now speaking on August 2? Does he think, if it was too short a time when it was six weeks, that it is quite sufficient time when it is very little more than three weeks? I mean, what position do the noble Earl and his Department and His Majesty's Government take up on this Amendment? Why should we not insist upon it? It is not a breach of privilege, we know. It is the proposal of His Majesty's Government both in this House and in the other House. There may be a reason, but what possible reason can there be for not accepting the Amendment? The noble Earl says there was an agreement. Between whom was it made? We cannot have all these mysteries. Where is the alleged agreement? Is it between noble Lords on that side of the House and noble Lords on this side?
EARL CARRINGTON: I was speaking of an agreement in the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Between whom was the agreement made? Was it between the friends of the noble Earl in the House of Commons and our friends in that House? If that is so, we dispense the noble Lord from that, part of the agreement. If it is the Unionist Party who agreed, we dispense the noble Earl—
EARL CARRINGTON: It is a great many years since I was in the House of Commons, but in my time agreements were often come to between both sides and were always respected.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Between whom was the agreement made? Was it between the Government and the Opposition in the House of Commons, or between the Government and the Irish Members. or the Government and the Labour Party?
EARL CARRINGTON: It was between the Government and the Opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We know nothing about such an agreement on these Benches. Unless the noble Earl can give, us something more specific than the kind of vague assurance that he has vouchsafed, I do not see that we can pay any attention to it. All we know is that by the consent of the Government itself
652
this Amendment is urgently called for, and unless we hear some good reason to the contrary what can we do except insist?
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Marquess has been good enough to address a personal appeal to me on this subject, although I do not, know' why I was singled out for the purpose. As far as this particular subject is concerned I occupy the position of the man in the street. I have only a hearsay knowledge of what passed. I am afraid I was not in the House when my noble friend made his original speech, and I am quite certain I was not in the House when the matter was considered in Committee. As your Lordships know, there have been circumstances which have caused me to be absent from my place somewhat oftener than I should have wished during the current session. Therefore when the noble Marquess asks me to defend the merits of the case I am afraid I must plead general ignorance of the subject, only modified by what I have heard fall from noble Lords on both sides of the House.
What I take to be the position is this. There was a feeling that the period of time given to the farmers for this particular purpose might not be long enough, but on consideration it appeared that the grievance, if grievance there was at all, was a very small one, and that, as a matter of fact, it was not easy to show that any farmer who desired to lodge this notice would not have, as a matter of fact, sufficient opportunity of doing so. That I take to be the argument that is used. Is that argument contravened? Is it maintained by noble Lords opposite that there would be any considerable section of people whose interests would be seriously damnified by retaining the earlier date? If not, I put it to the House whether it is worth while to enter into, I will not say a conflict because the matter is too small to justify the use of such a word, but into a difference of opinion with the House of Commons on a matter of this kind? I fully admit that it is entirely within your Lordships' right, if you desire to do so, to insist upon this Amendment. But in view of the fact that no substantial grievance is proved—if there were I should be the first to say by all means insist upon it—is it worth while? I do not put it higher than that.
I have no desire to engage in the separate controversy which was raised in regard to the question of privilege. I have

653
frequently stated—and I do not know that I am in entire agreement with all my friends on this matter—that my own opinion is that it is as a general rule inadvisable for Ministers in this House, to whichever Party they belong—and I do not expect agreement from either side in saying so—to call attention to what may be regarded. in another place as a breach of privilege if it is a doubtful case. There may be cases so obvious that it is the duty of anybody, Minister or not, to call attention to the fact; but in other respects I have always personally preferred, and I think I have been blamed for it, to leave the House of Commons to look after its own privileges, which it is thoroughly competent to do. Perhaps I might say a little more. I speak with caution. But I confess I shall he very glad if the day ever comes when the question of privilege between the two Houses, which has given rise to so many difficulties, and which has, perhaps, caused almost more friction between the two Houses than any other subject—I am speaking, of course, not of the rejection of important Bills but of our daily work—can be cleared up once for all. It is one which has given many of us in this House great anxiety from time to time, and I hope that it may not be beyond the resources of civilisation in time to arrive at some general agreement on the subject.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down seemed to be surprised that we should have appealed to him to give us his opinion on the subject, and he spoke of himself as occupying the position of the man in the street. We are accustomed to look upon the noble Earl in a different light from that. We have always looked, and never in vain, for guidance in difficulties and for fair and honest dealing at the noble Earl's hands. I should like to put it to the noble Earl that the position we are in with regard to this Amendment—I am not dealing with the question of privilege—is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory one if we do not insist upon the Amendment. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill on July 14, said that the date of September 1 would only leave six weeks, and he added that the Bill was not through yet. The noble Earl went on to say—
"Therefore I think your Lordships will probably be of opinion that the time given is rather short, and I shall be prepared—and I think it would be
654
only right to do so as we want to act perfectly fairly and justly to agriculturists—to give a longer time than that now stated in the Bill."
What is the reason for not carrying out that pledge? The noble Earl who has just spoken has given us no reason whatever. There is no statement that it will lead to inconvenience; no statement that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture was misled or made a mistake in the matter. We have the declaration from the President of the Board of Agriculture here and the representative of the Board in the other House that the extension now asked for, and which has been inserted in the Bill, is a satisfactory extension. If we are to act fairly and justly to agriculturists it seems to me that the answer which the noble Earl who leads the House gave us just now really makes it almost compulsory on your Lordships' House to adhere to the Amendment. What is the objection to doing so? Who is going to be injured? The noble Earl who leads the House told us that it has not been proved that a large section of people will be grievously injured if the Amendment is not insisted upon. But who is going to be hurt if the Amendment is put in? No human being can be injured if we retain this Amendment. The Bill is now a retrospective Bill. Even the notice to September 1 is a notice of retrospective claims for retrospective injury done to tenants. Therefore I think, on behalf of the agriculturists who are to be dealt with so fairly and justly by the noble Earl at the head of the Agricultural Department, we have a right to ask your Lordships to adhere to the Amendment and retain November as the date in accordance with what was practically the promise of the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be considered, agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move that the House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, resolved in the negative, and the said Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for insisting on the said Amendment: The Committee to meet forthwith.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
  CIVIL LIST BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. X.XXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.

ACCESSION DECLARATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved to insert after "I" ["am a faithful Protestant and that I"] the words—"do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever, and that the invocation of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are contrary to the Protestant religion in which I believe. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that. I do make this declaration and every part thereof unreservedly."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment to meet the view of those who feel that the words in the Schedule are much too indefinite in form. I do not know whether your Lordships will suggest
656
any different wording, but this is a form which received a certain amount of support in another place, and it was thought that it would meet the case without being in any way offensive to Roman Catholics, as were the words complained of in the old Declaration. It is felt by many that the position of the King, having taken the Declaration in the form originally introduced by His Majesty's Government, would have been a safer one with reference to the security of the Protestant Succession than the present form. The use of the word "Protestant" is not as definite as a declaration that His Majesty is a member of the Church of England, because by saying that he would be assenting to the 39 Articles, to the Book of Common Prayer, and also, I believe, to the Homilies. The petitions, couched in moderate language, which have been presented show that there is much anxiety on the subject. The noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday, referred to a petition he had received from Dublin signed by over 2,000 Protestants. I have received a petition which was signed in three days by over 3,000 persons in Dublin. I only mention that to show that the Protestants of Dublin are not entirely represented by those to whom the noble Earl referred yesterday. I have no wish to wound the feelings of those to whom the words in the old Declaration were offensive, but those words being removed it appears to me that there should be something further than the mere bare statement as printed in the Bill. Into the whole subject I will not enter, for it would take a long time, and I suppose noble Lords have made up their minds which way they will vote. In reference to what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said yesterday, I apologise to your Lordships for having, in making too much use of notes, unwittingly infringed a Standing Order. In doing so I was influenced by a desire to keep my remarks concise in their bearing on the matter under discussion. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
In the schedule, page 2, line 4, after ("I") insert ("do believe that in the Sacrament of the "Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation "of the elements of bread and wine into the body "and blood of Christ at or after the consecration "thereof by any person whatsoever, and that the "invocation of the Virgin Mary or any other saint "and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used "in the Church of Rome are contrary to the Protest"ant religion in which I believe. And I d

657
"solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, "and declare that I do make this declaration and "every part thereof unreservedly; and also that "I"), and leave out ("and that I will")—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, trust that the House will not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. I can assure him that I do the fullest justice to the reality of conviction and the earnestness with which he thinks it right to bring forward this Amendment, but I think it is not difficult to show that it would he undesirable to pass it. I think if it had occurred to the noble Lord during the reign of Queen Victoria, when probably not one person in a thousand knew of the Declaration which the next Sovereign would have to take, and certainly not one in 10,000 knew of its terms—if it had occurred to the noble Lord at that time to suggest an Amendment of this kind removing the offensive words, it is possible that it might have been carried. But a great deal has happened since then. There have been the long discussions of 1901 and since, and everything goes to show that a Declaration couched in the form of the noble Lord's Amendment would be unacceptable for two reasons. In the first place, it would be unacceptable because we now know that Roman Catholics, without exception, would take the strongest possible objection to the mention of the particular sacred doctrines set out in the Amendment. I think I am not going beyond the mark in saying that all the Roman Catholics within the Empire, for whom noble Lords here are qualified to speak, would not regard the alteration of the Declaration in this form as in any sense a satisfaction of the grievance under which they labour.
LORD BRAVE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That being so, it would seem hardly worth while to proceed at all on the lines suggested by the noble Lord. In the second place, we all of us feel, I think, that it is a slight to the Sovereign to make him declare, as a supplement to a solemn Declaration taken on a great occasion, that he is speaking without mental reservation. Consequently, both parts of the suggested Amendment seem to me, and will, I think, seem to your Lordships generally, to err—one in the sense of not satisfying those whom it is desired to relieve, and the other in placing an unfair obligation upon the Sovereign who is making the Declaration.
658
The noble -Lord alluded to the important resolution which I mentioned in the course of my remarks yesterday as coming from Dublin, and he has got, he says, a counter resolution or petition. The remarkable part of the resolution to which I alluded was not, in fact, that 2,000 people had signed it, but that they were 2,000 people of education, standing, and in some cases of great eminence. It was a remarkable list of names in every way. I am informed that the petition or resolution for which the noble Lord makes himself responsible was taken round and the signature of everybody over sixteen years of age who could be found and who was able to write and willing to put his name to it was accepted. In those circumstances it is not remarkable that 3,000 signatures were obtained. I have no doubt that in a little time a great many more could have been obtained on the same terms.
Then the noble Lord spoke of the moderate language in which the various communications were couched. I can only say I have received a great many conununications couched in most immoderate language, and I dare say many of your Lordships have had the same experience. But I repeat once more that except in the case of certain people whom it is impossible to reconcile to any change, because they really like the existing terms on account of their being painful to Roman Catholics—except in the case of those people, who, I hope, are not numerous, I believe that in the course of a very few months there will be a general agreement that the form of Declaration which we have proposed is satisfactory in itself because it does not give pain to a large number of His Majesty's subjects, and also because it quite adequately secures, if further security is needed, the Protestant Succession, as to which we are all agreed. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
LORD ASHTOWN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment is not quite satisfied that the Protestant Succession is safe. I agree with him to a certain extent, and I must cross swords with the most rev. Primate, who said last night that he regarded the word Protestant as amply sufficient. The other day I came across this ruling by a Jesuit—
"A man might live for months among heretics without making his Faith known.…Under certain circumstances it might be lawful to conceal

659
one's conversion to the Faith…A Catholic who, on being asked, denies he is a Catholic, does not necessarily deny the Faith."
I do not say that our King would deny his faith, but we have to guard against any danger of this kind in the future. A well-known Roman Catholic newspaper, referring to the Declaration in its old form, declared that it could not be denied that the Low Church section of the Anglican body and the Protestant masses generally had a great interest in demanding its retention, because in the form in which it then stood it could never be taken by a Roman Catholic. I support the first part of the Amendment; but I think the Amendment as it stands too long and complicated. I suggest that Lord Kinnaird should modify it so that it should run—
"I do not believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or in the invocation of the Virgin Mary, or of any other saint."
I think that would be quite sufficient.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I had not intended to intrude in this discussion, but, as the noble Lord who has just spoken is a fellow countryman of mine and a Protestant, I should like to dissociate myself from the only other Irishman who has spoken on this subject. I had the honour of signing the petition to which the noble Earl the Leader of the House referred, and I did so with great pleasure. I feel that it is absolutely unnecessary for us to put into the mouth of the King, not only words which are offensive to 12,000,000 of his subjects, but also words which enter into the discussion of the most delicate and most sacred subjects which it is possible to discuss. I feel that it is enough for the Sovereign to say, "I am a faithful Protestant." We have the Statutes to which reference was made on the Second Reading of this Bill. Personally I would have preferred no Declaration at all, but if a Declaration is deemed necessary I think the words suggested by His Majesty's Government are sufficient. The noble Viscount who spoke yesterday (Lord Halifax) did not think that he could properly designate himself as a Protestant. I am a humble member of the Church of England and of Ireland, and I can say that I am a Protestant and I am proud of it. I am delighted that His Majesty's Government have had the courage to come forward and settle what really was a difficult problem. Having met large numbers of Roman Catholics, not only in my own
660
country but throughout the Empire. I can say that the old Declaration was a sore festering in their minds. Let us have peace. Let us try and see if we cannot unite all the subjects of His Majesty, especially the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. Where it is necessary let us stand up for our own particular Faith, but where that is not necessary let us try and see if we cannot create peace between Roman Catholics and Protestants. It is, therefore, as a loyal member of the Protestant Church that I thank His Majesty's Government for the steps they have taken in this matter.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. The Amendment seems to me to weaken the Declaration. When the Sovereign declares that he is a faithful Protestant and you then single out for repudiation two doctrines, the question might be raised about the attitude towards other doctrines which are not included in the Amendment. Therefore my firm conviction is that the Declaration as drafted in the Schedule of this Bill is stronger and gives greater guarantees for the Protestant Succession than if the words suggested in the Amendment were added. I have a further strong objection to Protestantism being supposed to consist in the negation or repudiation of doctrines held by others. The strength of Protestantism is not rooted in negation, but is rooted in the affirmation of certain doctrines which are common to all the Protestant Churches, and in which, by this Declaration, the King declares his belief. I would point out to my noble friend that the Board of Education give grants to institutions in which the very doctrines to which he refers in his Amendment are inculcated. That is the natural result of liberty of conscience and freedom of worship which exist throughout the Empire, and which I consider to be essential to the maintenance of the Empire. From my own experience I can say that when I occupied functions of great responsibility in India I carefully abstained, as did my predecessors—and that course has been followed by my successors—from using any words which might give umbrage to any section of His Majesty's subjects in that great Empire, and I certainly do not think, in those circumstances, that the words in the old Declaration can be maintained, asking the Sovereign to pledge

661
himself in a way in which no official is asked to pledge himself either here or in His Majesty's Dominions. I sincerely trust, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh said yesterday, that taking into account the Christian ideals of Protestantism—and to my mind the honour of Protestantism is at stake—my noble friend will not press this Amendment, but will accept the form of Declaration proposed by His Majesty's Government, which gives the fullest guarantee for the Protestant Succession, and satisfaction to the Protestant feeling of the country which has been so clearly manifested.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I wish to remind the House that the words which appear in this Amendment were the cause of the then proposed alteration in the Declaration being shipwrecked some years ago. It was then proposed that these words should be substituted for the Accession Declaration as it now stands, and it was for that very reason that the Bill was rejected. To drag in without any apparent reason two of the most sacred doctrines of the Catholic Church as held by 200,000,000 of the human race seems to me simply outrageous. It cannot be defended on any ground whatever, except that these were considered test doctrines at the time when the old Declaration was framed. With regard to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Ashtown, I regret to say that I was not able to catch every word he said, but I understood him to quote from some Catholic theologian a passage which was very derogatory to the honour of Catholics generally. I should like to know whether that theologian was recognised or his works authorised in any way. I should imagine not. As to the Amendment now before the Committee, I earnestly hope that Lord Kinnaird will not press it to a Division. I do not think there would be any chance of your Lordships accepting his proposal, but I hope he will withdraw it. The matter has now been thoroughly discussed for years, and I am thankful to think that this is the last occasion on which it will ever be submitted for your Lordships' deliberation. I think we may now, without further discussion, remove the old form of Declaration from the Statute-book, and carry out its death and burial.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL.
  JURY TRIALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION (CHOICE OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to consult the convenience of noble Lords opposite with regard to this Bill. We read the Bill a second time last night, and I think those noble Lords who were present on that occasion and read the special rules which were made by the Board of Trade in connection with the Labour Exchanges and which I had placed upon the Table of the House for the information of your Lordships, were satisfied generally with the objects of the Bill. But I understand it is desired by several noble Lords that the further consideration of this Bill should be postponed. I would not under ordinary circumstances have asked the House to take the further stages so quickly, but your Lordships will realise that the Labour Exchanges are accumulating very useful information, and the purpose of this Bill is to place this information at the disposal of boys and girls who are going into the world to enable them to know which special avenue of employment is most likely to afford them a suitable opening. That information is accumulating, and it was thought that even during the next few months the Bill, if it were passed, would prove of service. If, however, there is a desire to have more time I would not oppose a postponement.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Earl say that if the House wish a little more time to consider this Bill he is disposed to fall in with that request. This is a Bill which met with very little consideration in the other House owing to the congestion

663
of business during the last week or two, and the noble Earl the Lord President, through no fault of his own, was obliged to ask your Lordships to read it a second time with very short notice. Personally I must confess that I had not looked at the Bill yesterday when the noble Earl proposed its Second Reading, but I have since looked at it and also at the special rules made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of the Act, and I venture to think that if your Lordships are to consider the Bill in connection with those regulations more time is required than we are able to bestow at the present moment. The Bill confers independent powers upon the education authority. Under the Bill the education authority would be able to act quite independently and without reference to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, from what I have heard, is doing very good work in regard to Labour Exchanges, and it seems to me that very good reason ought to be given for setting up any other authority, whether it be the Board of Education or any other, which could act without reference to the Board of Trade. Turning to the special rules your Lordships will see that there is only one case—that mentioned in Rule No.6—in which the Board of Education is obliged to consult the Board of Trade with reference to this Bill. The Bill is not so simple as it seems, and it would be to the public advantage if the noble Earl would postpone its further consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to make no criticism whatever on the merits of the Bill, for I have not read the rules which the noble Earl has laid on the Table. I think it is quite clear that this matter wants careful consideration. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the value of a wise initiation of a policy for obtaining proper employment for these children. Therefore it is of the greatest importance that Parliament should not make a mistake. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell will know that I was anxious to mention the matter in this House a few days ago, not with reference to it Bill but on a Question which might have led to discussion, but at the wish of the noble Lord and the Board of Trade I did not proceed further with the matter, and after that I am a little unwilling, to enter into a discussion of this subject on the very last day of our sittings. I therefore hope that
664
further time will be given for the consideration of this Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am interested to hear the words spoken from the opposite side of the House. I am sorry that any delay should be necessary as to bringing this Bill into early operation, but anything would be better than our bringing the Bill into operation without being sure that it is so worded as to ensure that it will work thoroughly well. The object is so indisputably good, the need is so real and so urgent, and the outline of the machinery seems to me so admirable that I should be very sorry indeed to see the Bill unnecessarily delayed. I support the Bill with all my heart, but if it be clearly understood that our desire is to expedite and to further the cause we are promoting rather than hinder it, I should join in the appeal that a little delay would be preferable to premature action, which might hereafter involve operative difficulties.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, after what has been said I will certainly defer the further stages of the Bill until after the autumn recess. Three months and a-half will elapse before we meet again, and in the meantime I hope that any Amendments that are to be moved will be sent in so that they may be circulated and considered before Parliament reassembles. I will put down the Committee stage for the first day on which the House meets after the recess.
Committee of the Whole House put off accordingly to Tuesday, the 15th of November next.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Report from the Committee, of the Reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on their. Amendment; read, and agreed to And a message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Reason.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISE MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Tuesday the 15th of November next) put off to Wednesday the 16th of November next.
House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Twelve o'clock.