Sitting of 14 March 1910

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (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, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill,
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Glasgow Gas Consolidation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Mallow Gas Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill,
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Tipperary Gas Bill,
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Wishaw Burgh Extensions, etc., Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Kingstown Urban District Council Bill,
Order (10th March) that the Kingstown Urban District Council Bill be read a second time upon Thursday next, read and discharged—Bill withdrawn.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
Sir FREDERICK LOWpresented a Petition containing 1,375 signatures, from Norwich, in favour of the extension of the franchise to women.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Flogging Naorobi Natives.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Undersecretary for the Colonies whether he could state the nature of the injuries inflicted upon the natives who were illegally flogged at Naorobi, East Africa, during a riot in 1907; and whether compensation was paid to any of the injured natives by anyone concerned in the affair?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): My hon. Friend will find a statement of the injuries on page 32 of the Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 3562, 1907). There is nothing in the papers in the Colonial Office to show whether or not compensation was paid to any of the injured natives.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Has the hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to whether any compensation was paid?
  Colonel SEELY: We have no information on that point. I am not prepared to say whether it was or not. This all happened three years ago.

  Information for Emigrants.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked whether His Majesty's Government had in operation any effective scheme for directing the attention of emigrants who, from necessity or choice, were leaving the United Kingdom to the opportunities afforded for settlement in our overseas self-governing Possessions, with a view to the continuance of these emigrants as subjects of the Crown, to the maintenance and strengthening of the man-power of the Empire, and to the development of the resources of the daughter nations, whose productions were largely consumed in this country.; and, if so, whether he would state what the scheme was?
  Colonel SEELY: His Majesty's Government maintain the Emigrants Information Office for the purpose of giving information and guidance to intending emigrants. The work and publications of the office are mainly concerned with the self-governing Dominions. An account of the history and functions of the office will be found in a Memorandum presented to Parliament in May, 1907 (Cd. 3407), in which it is pointed out that the influence of the office has as a matter of fact been exerted in the direction of specially en-
  4
  couraging emigration to the great British Colonies because the Committeee have felt that with their close similarity of institutions, kinship of race and identity of language, and with their large areas of available land, they offer the best openings for the emigrant from this country. The annual Report of the office is also laid before Parliament.
  Mr. MACMASTER: Is the Report referred to the Report of the Inquiry Officer?
  Colonel SEELY: It is the Report of the Emigrants Information Office. If the hon. Gentleman will call at the office they will give him the information.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is there any reason to believe that a very large number of people take advantage of the information supplied by this office, and does the office give any facilities to intending emigrants?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, it issues leaflets and an immense number of persons get information.

  Malta Constitution (Reform).
  Mr. POINTERasked whether the Government are prepared to lay upon the Table of the House all the correspondence regarding the question of the reform of the Malta Constitution; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to so reform the Legislative Council of Malta as to put the elected members in a majority, in accordance with the desires expressed by all the elected members and by other bodies and individuals who have addressed communications to the Secretary of State on the subject?
  Colonel SEELY: His Majesty's Government, as at present advised, does not propose to introduce any change in the Constitution of the Legislative Council of Malta. Papers on the subject of the recent reform by which two elected members of the Legislative Council have been given seats on the Executive Council will shortly be laid.

  Northern Nigerian Land System.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Northern Nigerian Land System, which sat in 1908, will be in the hands of Members?
  Colonel SEELY: If my hon. Friend will repeat his question on Wednesday I shall be able to give him the precise date when the Report will be issued.

  Sleeping Sickness Investigation.
  Mr. REESasked whether the King of the Belgians had provided money for investigation into, and preventive measures against, sleeping sickness; and whether the British authorities engaged in the like investigation and measures were co-operating with the Belgian authorities in this behalf?
  Colonel SEELY: I understand that after consultation with King Albert the Belgian Minister of the Colonies has decided to organise an expedition to go to the Congo to study sleeping sickness, and to find means, if possible, to remedy it. I have no doubt that the British authorities engaged in the investigation and prevention of the disease will be ready to co-operate as far as is practicable with the Belgian expedition.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the King of the Belgians has not himself made a large grant to this end. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the amount?
  Colonel SEELY: I have no official information as to the precise amount. No doubt it will be forthcoming in due course.

  Putomayo Abuses.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had yet approached the Peruvian Government with reference to the abuses in the Putomayo; whether the Peruvian Government was making every effort to correct the abuses; and what steps were actually "being taken by Peru?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): We have not yet made representions to the Peruvian Government, as we have been awaiting the result of a communication which we have made to the Government of the United States of America on the subject. We understand, however, that the Peruvian Government have of their own accord instituted an inquiry into the allegations of cruelty, and, if there should be any foundation for them, will adopt remedial measures.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will they send us the result of, the inquiries or must we make our own inquiries?

  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked what reply had been received from the United States
  6
  Government as to the information supplied to them by their consul at Iquitos with reference to the Peruvian Amazon Company's treatment of natives?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We are informed by the United States Government that they have received no special report from their Consul at Iquitos on the subject. The Consul appears merely to have dealt with the question of the ill-treatment of Messrs. Hardenburg and Perkins while travelling through the Putamayo district.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is there any chance of the United States Government taking this question up, or are they interesting themselves in it as a mere formality?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We have had no reply on the subject as yet.

  French Tariff.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay before the House any instructions he may have given to His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris as to representations to be made by the latter to the Government of the French Republic with regard to the new French tariff, and any despatches he may have received from the Ambassador on the same subject?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Communications are still proceeding, and we are not yet in a position to decide what Papers, if any, can be laid eventually.

  Thessaly.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Six Great Powers, on handing over Thessaly to Greece, stipulated for the preservation of the then existing landlord system; and whether, in view of the present political situation in that country, he would intimate to the Greek Government that, so for as His Majesty's Government was concerned, no objection would be raised to any action the Greeks might take to emancipate themselves and destroy the landlord system?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Treaty of 24th May, 1881, contained certain stipulations intended to secure the rights of the owners of land in the territory which was transferred to the Greek Kingdom by that instrument. No request has been received from the Greek Government to be relieved from the obligations imposed on them in this matter by the Treaty of 1881;
  7
  nor could His Majesty's Government take any decision as to such a request, if received, without previously consulting with the other Signatory Powers.

  Lunacy Act (1890) Administration.
  Mr. BYLES (for Mr. Pickersgill)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of making inquiry, by means of a Select Committee or otherwise, into the working of the Lunacy Act, 1890?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): Much evidence on the working of the Lunacy Acts was given before the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded; and their recommendations for the amendment of the Lunacy Law as well as various amendments recommended by the Lunacy Commissioners will be brought forward for consideration when there is an opportunity for legislation. The Secretary of State is not at present advised that there is occasion for further inquiry.

  Pauper Lunatics.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked in how many cases had the Lord Chancellor empowered the chairman of the board of guardians of a union (in lieu of a justice of the peace) to sign orders for the reception of persons as pauper lunatics in institutions for lunatics, in pursuance of Section 25 of the Lunacy Act, 1891; what are the names of the unions in which this has been done; and in how many cases has such an application been made to the Lord Chancellor and refused?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Secretary of State is informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has given authority to chairmen of boards of guardians, under Section 25 of the Lunacy Act, 1891, on thirty-four occasions since the Act came into force. The names of the unions in which this has been done are as follows:—South Stoneham, Leek, North Bierley, Penistone, Hartismere, Carnarvon, Blaby, Leighton Buzzard (two orders made), Wolstanton and Burslem (two orders), Chorlton-upon-Medlock (six orders), Isle of Thanet (two orders), West Ham (eleven orders), Thetford, Preston, Sculcoates (two orders). In thirty-four cases, on inquiries being made, the application has not been proceeded with, or the Lord Chancellor has been satisfied that there was no sufficient reason for giving authority under the Section.

  Inspection of Mines.
  Mr. GLOVERasked whether, in view of the 1,445 fatal accidents in the mines during 1909, and 5,859 non-fatal accidents reported to the inspector, the Home Secretary can state when more inspectors of mines will be appointed?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Secretary of State has the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this subject now under his consideration, and he proposes, as a first step, to carry out the rearrangement of the districts and the reorganisation of the existing staff which the Commission recommended.

  Birching Boys (Sittingbourne).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Home Secretary if his attention had been directed to the exceptional circumstances under which three little boys were birched, by order of the magistrates at Sittingbourne, for trespassing in the grounds of the Roman Catholic Convent, where they had proceeded to recover a toy; and whether he will take any steps to discourage the use of the rod for such trivial misdemeanours?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Secretary of State has made inquiry in this case, and ascertained that the boys pleaded guilty to a charge of committing wilful damage to growing shrubs. They had been abusive when remonstrated with by one of the sisters for climbing the wall and trespassing in the convent garden, and wilfully broke the shrubs. There was evidence before the Justices of the annoyance and injury that had been repeatedly caused to the convent by boys from the neighbourhood. In view of the circumstances the Secretary of State cannot think that exception can properly be taken to the decision of the Justices.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Were any magistrates present at the birching?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That I do not know.
  Mr. REES: Can any equally appropriate punishment be devised for the punishment of small boys?
  Mr. BYLES: Is there any Return which shows how often the birching of boys is ordered by magistrates or can any Return be granted?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like notice of that question?

  Fair Wages Resolution.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many Government Departments have representatives upon the Advisory Committee appointed to ensure that contractors for Government work, in the carrying out of their contracts, comply with the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons; and whether the Members of the Advisory Committee meet periodically to consider all contracts before they are entered into, for the purpose of verifying the bona fides of the persons tendering, or whether they meet only after complaints have been received regarding the non-observance by any contractor of the terms of such Fair Wage Resolution?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The Departments represented on the Fair Wages Advisory Committee are the War Office, Admiralty, India Office, Post Office, Office of Works, Stationery Office, Irish Board of Works, and the Crown Agents for the Colonies. The Chairman of the Committee is the Comptroller-General of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. The Committee meets from time to time, and the subjects for consideration are best indicated by the terms of reference, which are as follows: "To advise the Departments of Government ealing with contractors as to the form of clauses in contracts by which the Resolution of the House of Commons of 10th March, 1909, can best be carried into effect, and as to the methods of securing observance of such clauses, and generally to make such recommendations as they may deem advisable to promote uniformity of administration and co-operation between Departments in dealing with the question of the payment of fair wages by Government contractors "The general procedure with regard to complaints of non-observance of Fair Wages clauses is substantially that laid down in paragraphs 121–124 of the Report of the Fair Wages Committee, which was presented to Parliament in 1908 (Cd. 4,422)."
  Mr. BOWERMAN: May I ask whether, in addition to the employés of the War Office, those of the Naval and Victualling Yards will be able to apply to this Committee for redress of their grievances?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I imagine so, because the Admiralty are represented on the Committee.
  Mr. H. S. FOSTER: Is there any power to enforce the Fair Wage Resolution in the case of foreign contractors doing work for our Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  Old Age Pensions (Withdrawal, Revision, etc.).
  Mr. GEORGE FABER (for Mr. Stanier)asked whether old people who are qualified for old age pensions may receive outdoor poor relief during this year and still be able to receive old age pensions on 1st January, 1911?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the law as it at present stands the receipt of poor relief will after the 31st December next only operate as a disqualification while such relief is actually being received. A person who has received poor relief at any time during 1910 will not therefore be subject to disqualification on that account, provided that he has ceased to receive relief by the end of the year.
  Mr. HUGH LAW (for Mr. Cullinan)asked whether the instructions issued to pension officers in Great Britain were the same as those issued to pension officers in Ireland; and what were the general grounds on which pensions were withdrawn in Great Britain?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The same general instructions have been issued to all pension officers throughout the United Kingdom, but special instructions have necessarily been issued from time to time on points peculiar to each country. The withdrawal of pensions is governed by the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, and the rules affecting such withdrawal are uniform throughout the United Kingdom. In practice the most frequent grounds for withdrawal are that the statutory conditions as to age or means have not been fulfilled, or that disqualification has been incurred on account of the receipt of poor law relief.
  Mr. HUGH LAW (for Mr. Cullinan)asked whether it is the Local Government Board of Ireland or the Customs and Excise authorities who are responsible for the revision of pensions; the framing of regulations on which cost of maintenance is calculated; the system by which pensions are refused to claimants who appeal; and the refusal to accept the decisions of pension committees as against the opinion of pension officers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: 1. The initiative in raising questions with a view to revoking pensions already granted, or reducing the rate of pension, rests with the pension officer. The responsibility for deciding on questions thus raised rests with the local pension committee, or with the Local Government Board, in the event of an appeal by the pensioner or pension officer against the committee's decision. 2. The value of the privilege of free maintenances falls to be determined by the pension authority upon the facts in each case, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. It is not governed by Regulation. 3. It is within the power of the Local Government Board as Central Pension Authority to determine whether a claim which has been the subject of appeal shall be allowed or rejected, and this power is derived from Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act. 4. With regard to the fourth part of the question, the responsibility rests with the Local Government Board.
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN (for Mr. Scanlan)asked the total number of persons at present in receipt of old age pensions in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland respectively, the total sum payable per year in pensions in each of these countries, the total number of applicants for pensions whose applications have been refused by the Local Government Board in each country since the commencement of the Act, and the number of cases in each country in which pensions granted and for some time paid have been withdrawn by the Local Government Board in each of these countries?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In answer to the first part of the question, the total number of persons in receipt of old age pensions in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and the total amounts payable to them on 31st December last, the latest date available, were as follows:—

  Number.

  Amount.

  £

  s.

  d.

  England.

  …

  405,755

  …

  5,043,331

  16

  0

  Scotland

  …

  76,037

  …

  966,370

  12

  0

  Wales

  …

  26,972

  …

  337,253

  16

  0

  Ireland

  …

  183,976

  …

  2,335,764

  12

  0

  It should be noted that the amounts given represent the amounts payable on a given date, and vary from day to day. Inquiry as to the last parts of the question should be addressed to the respective Local Government Boards.
  Mr. YOUNGER (for Mr. Gretton)asked whether, in consequence of the short provision they have made for the necessary Supply, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make any special arrangement for the continuance of old age pensions after the middle of May; and what steps will be taken by the Government to warn old age pensioners that there may be some delay in the payment of their pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was not aware that the hon. Member was interested on his own account, nor do I know whether he is acting on behalf of old age pensioners who may be alarmed as to the due payment of their pensions. There is no necessity to make any special arrangement for the continuance of old age pensions after the first week of May, which will be paid, as heretofore, on the sole authority of the House of Commons.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it his intention to bring in a further Vote on Account and a further Consolidated Fund Bill in May?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That question had better be postponed until the occasion arises.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Does not the deliberate policy of the Government constitute a serious danger to those people of delay in receiving their pensions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should have thought that the matter was so obvious that there was no necessity to put the question.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, some months having intervened since the last reference, he will again direct his attention to the case of Mrs. Maria Burns, of Labasheeda, West Clare, who has applied for an old age pension, and on behalf of whose claim strong local testimony is available?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A fresh claim was received from Mrs. Maria Burns on 5th December last, in support of which she produced a document which she stated to be a record of her baptism made many years ago by her father. In view, however, of the evidence obtained from the Census Returns, 1851, as given in my reply to the hon. Member's question on 5th October last, the Pension Committee on 10th February last disallowed the claim.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is there no escape from the Census of 1851, which is obviously inaccurate, as can be proved by comparison with that of 1841?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that, in relation to both the Census of 1841 and that of 1851, although it is true that some persons have lost their pensions in consequence of differences in them, there are a great number of doubtful cases in which they have gained pensions in consequence of perhaps equally erroneous entries in them.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes, to take any steps to allay the fears of old age pensioners as to the safety of their pensions by reason of the refusal of the Government to provide themselves at this time of the Session with the necessary money for the customary period?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not aware of the existence of any such fears as the Noble Lord imagines.

  Education Administration (Bursaries).
  Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Education if, in the interests of education, he would urge education authorities to exercise the power given to them by Section 11 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act 1907, to grant maintenance bursaries to the children of the poor to enable them to continue at elementary or higher elementary schools beyond the age of twelve?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Charles Trevelyan): The desirability of using the powers conferred by the Section in question necessarily depends upon local conditions, including local organisation of education. My right hon. Friend would, therefore, feel considerable difficulty in attempting to influence local education authorities in the exercise of their discretion in this matter.

  Ballot Act (Prevention of Evasion).
  Mr. SUMMERSasked the Home Secretary if he will intimate to the returning officers at Parliamentary and other elections that it is contrary to the intention of the Ballot Act to permit representatives of the different political parties to inspect ballot papers when they are being checked and before being mixed as provided by the Act; and, since they are thus able to ascertain how many votes for each party have been recorded in each polling district in the constituency, will he give the returning officers instructions to prevent in future this evasion of the Act?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not aware of any authority for the issue to returning officers of instructions of the kind referred to.

  Educational (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907.
  Mr. LEACHasked how many educational authorities have taken advantage of Section 11 of The Educational (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, to grant maintenance bursaries to the children of the poor to enable them to remain in elementary or higher elementary schools from the age of 12 up to the limit of age fixed for the limit of instruction in a public elementary schools?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: No information is at present available. It must be remembered that the Act in question has been in force for little more than two years. The Board's only source of information on this subject is the audited accounts of the Local Education Authorities. They have not, as yet, received the accounts of all the Local Education Authorities for a complete financial year since the Act came into force.

  Non-provided Schools (Meetings).
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked whether, in the case of an application for the use of a non-provided school for an evening meeting, the whole body of managers are the proper authority to grant or refuse the application and not the foundation managers only?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board of Education have no authority to interpret the law; but they have always held—and my right hon. Friend has no doubt that they have rightly held—that the responsibility for the due performance of all the duties of the managers of a voluntary public elementary school under the Education Acts must be shared by the whole body of managers, and that there can be no division of responsibility between different sections of that body. It may sometimes happen, however, that the managers' tenure of the school premises is such that they have not the absolute control of the premises at all hours of every day. In such cases it might be necessary to apply for permission to use the school premises at a particular time outside the school hours not to the

  15
  managers but to the owners of the premises, whether they are private owners or trustees.

  Easter Holiday (Telegraph Offices, Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that Easter Monday is observed as a general holiday in the North of Ireland; and whether, under such circumstances, he would allow postal employés in rural telegraph sub-offices a half-holiday on that day?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Every application for a half-holiday on Easter Monday in rural telegraph sub-offices will be dealt with on its merits, and acceded to if this can be done without serious public inconvenience.

  Submarine Cable (Canada to England).
  Mr. LAWSONasked whether any proposals are now under consideration in reference to a submarine cable direct from the Dominion of Canada to this country; and whether the Canadian Government have taken any action in the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No proposals are at present under the consideration of His Majesty's Government with reference to the provision of a submarine cable between Canada and this country; and, so far as I am aware, the Canadian Government have taken no action in the matter.

  H.M.S. "Swift" (Cost).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what had been the actual cost of H.M.S. "Swift" up to date; what were the estimated amounts voted for her construction for each year since her commencement compared with the actual amounts expended each year; what had been the reason for the protracted delays in her construction; and whether it was intended to build any more vessels of the same class?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The actual cost of H.M.S. "Swift" up to date is £229,102.
  Estimated amounts voted for her construction:—

  1905–6

  …

  …

  …

  £8,857

  1906–7

  …

  …

  …

  123,296

  1907–8

  …

  …

  …

  211,240

  1908–9

  …

  …

  …

  74,076

  1909–10

  …

  …

  …

  33,695

  Actual amounts expended:—

  1906–7

  …

  …

  …

  £33,313

  1907–8

  …

  …

  …

  150,027

  1908–9

  …

  …

  …

  24,468

  1909–10

  …

  …

  …

  9,909

  1910–11

  …

  …

  …

  11,385

  The protracted delays in the construction of this vessel have been due to failure on the part of the contractors to realise the very high speed stipulated for, a speed going considerably beyond the current experience at the time of making the contract, and the persistent and long-continued efforts on the part of the contractors to realise that speed. With regard to the last part of the question, no vessels of the same class are included in the Estimates for 1910–11.

  Naval Construction (Great Britain and Germany).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many battleships and armoured cruisers are under construction in Great Britain and Germany, respectively; and how many, according to present arrangements, will be laid down for each country as part of the programme of the year 1910–11?
  Mr. McKENNA: The German ships now under construction are eight battleships, including two preparing for commissioning, and three armoured cruisers. The following vessels will be laid down in the programme of the year 1910–1l:—Three battleships, one armoured cruiser. For the British figures, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked, in view of the fact that the British destroyers of the 1909–10 programme are to be so expedited as to be completed by April, 1911, how many of the German destroyers provided for in 1909 are now launched and completed, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: Seven German destroyers of the 1909–10 programme have been launched. We have no official information that any of these are completed.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked what is the amount proposed in the Navy Estimates of the United Kingdom and Germany for new construction and armaments in 1910–11, calculated on the same basis as the figures officially given for Germany, namely, £12,177,000?
  Mr. McKENNA: The sum named by the hon. Gentleman appears to be based on

  17
  the assumption that the mark is equivalent to a shilling in sterling value; and it appears to include items for renovation of ships, etc., which would not appear in a statement of British new construction. Taking the total of the headings of new construction, gunnery armaments, and torpedo armaments, the comparison is as follows:—

  United Kingdom

  £14,957,430.

  Germany

  £11,670,743.

  Battleships (Effective).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what is the total number of battleships considered by the Board to be effective; how many of those ships are manned with full complements, and how many with nucleus or reduced nucleus crews?
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards the first part of the question, I can ony refer the hon. Member to the Dilke Return, as the precise degree of effectiveness of the older ships must be a matter of opinion. The numbers are:—With full complements, 28; with nucleus crews, 12 (including the '" Revenge "; with reduced nucleus crews, 15 (including the "Nile" and "Trafalgar ") The last figure includes also two ships which, being more than twenty years old, are not shown in the last Dilke Return.

  Torpedo-boat Destroyers (Effective).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many torpedo-boat destroyers are considered by the Board to be effective; how many of these are manned with full complements; and how many with nucleus or reduced nucleus crews?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is the same as to the corresponding part of the previous question. The numbers are:—With full complements, 65; with nucleus crews, 73, exclusive of 36 first-class torpedo boats which form part of the destroyer organisation. Some of these 73 have full crews while acting as tenders to gunnery and torpedo schools. There are no destroyers in commission with reduced nucleus complements.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now nearly a year since the Dilke Return was last issued, and can he hold out any hopes that it will be issued very shortly?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, immediately. I will ask my right hon. Friend to place a notice on the Paper.

  13.5 Ammunition.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether there is an adequate supply of 13.5 ammunition for the seven ships of the "Royal Sovereign" class at Devonport; and whether, owing to the shortage of ammunition, 10-inch tubes have been placed in the 13.5 guns?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

  Ex-Sailors (Civil Employment).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the Government have considered the recommendations of the Committee on the Civil Employment of Ex-Sailors in regard to emigration, and more especially the suggestion that it should be possible to make arrangements with the Governments of the great self-governing Colonies to advance the moneys necessary to meet the expenses of transportation by insuring repayment from reserve pay or pension; and what steps, if any, have been taken to carry out this proposal and to ascertain the views of the Colonies on the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: This recommendation of the Committee of 1905 on the Civil Employment of Ex-Soldiers and Sailors has been considered by the Board of Admiralty, but so far as it affects seamen pensioners they are of opinion that the adoption of the Committee's proposals at the present time would not be consistent with the interests of the naval service.

  Naval Training (New Schemes).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked when the first cadets under the new scheme of training will commence their sea service; whether they, or any of them, will serve in the engine-room; and whether they will in that case be under the orders of the first engineer?
  Mr. McKENNA: The first cadets were under the new scheme of training commenced their sea service in May, 1908. All of them serve in the engine-room; while in the engine-room they are under the orders of the senior engineer officer. The first officers qualified as lieutenant (E) will go to sea in 1915.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will any of these sub-lieutenants, under the new scheme, go to sea earlier than 1915 for their course before they specialise?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, they will be qualified as lieutenants in 1915. The new scheme entrants will go to sea as sub-lieutenants before that time.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Whom will they be under in the engine-room as sub-lieutenants?
  Mr. McKENNA: Just as they are now.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that first lieutenants under the new scheme will go to sea for the first time in 1915?
  Mr. McKENNA: They will go to sea as lieutenants in 1915. They are, as midshipmen, at sea now.

  Engineers (Royal Navy) (Status).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the engineer officers of the Royal Navy in reference to their status; and whether their Lordships intend to grant to such engineer officers the military position and powers of control which will be actually possessed by their juniors in the engine-room now entering on sea service under the new scheme?
  Mr. McKENNA: The time referred to by my hon. Friend will not arrive till 1915. The Admiralty will keep in mind the considerations referred to in his question.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not proposed to make any change in the status of the existing engineer officers in 1915?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not say in the year 1910 what may or may not be proposed to be done before 1915.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: But are the Admiralty proposing to make any change in the status of the existing lieutenants?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not make any statement on the subject at the present moment. The question is not immediately urgent, and I would ask my hon. Friend to defer any question.

  Navy (Deserters).
  Mr. TWISTasked how many men and boys deserted the Navy during the year 1909; how many of such have been recovered, and what is the usual punishment for desertion?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of men and boys (including Royal Marines "afloat") who deserted during 1909 was 1,503. The total number of men and boys (including deserters from the Royal
  20
  Marines "afloat") recovered from desertion in 1909 was 513, but this figure may include deserters of previous years. With regard to the last part of the question, there is no fixed punishment for desertion; the proper punishment depends on the circumstances of each particular case.

  Navy (Manning).
  Mr. TWISTasked whether the number of officers and men now serving in His Majesty's Navy are sufficient for fully manning the whole of His Majesty's ships in the event of war at sea?
  Mr. McKENNA: The whole of His Majesty's ships could not be fully manned without having recourse to reserves.

  Budget, 1909–10 (Unemployed and Social Reform).
  Viscount DUNCANNONasked the Prime Minister whether last year's Budget provided £3,000,000 for the unemployed and £18,000,000 for social reform; and if he will specify the items composing these two sums and the exact services involved?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): In framing the Budget of last year, as I explained in my Financial Statement, my aim was to provide both for immediate requirements in respect of social reform and unemployment, and also to select such taxes as out of their growing produce might be expected to secure a surplus for the further schemes which we had in mind. In respect of unemployment, I had to provide for unemployment insurance, which will cost some £1,250,000, and for Labour Exchanges, at an annual cost of about £250,000 I also provided £600,000 for the Road Board, and, further, for an annual charge, after the present year, of £900,000 for the Development Fund. Of the remaining £15,000,000, I provided about £11,000,000 for old age pensions and towards the cost of removing the pauper disqualification. The balance of £4,000,000 I proposed should be utilised in the initiation of a scheme for contributory insurance against sickness, invalidity, etc.
  Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he "provided" are we to understand that he counted on the growth of all the taxes in the Budget? Was some of the provision which he has spoken of based upon future expectations in respect, for example, to the new Licence Duties and the land values?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was based rather on growth, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the White Paper which I issued last year, on taxes like the Death Duties. For instance, Legacy and Succession Duties will fall due this year, and would not be collected last year at all. It depended partly on the Land Taxes, but mainly on the Succession and Legacy Duties.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is any more able now than he was when that Return was made by the Treasury to state what, if any, will be the increase in the new Licence Duties and the new Land Duties?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said a word about Licence Duties, but with regard to the second part of the question, I think the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate my Budget statement for the year.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Budget containing all these inestimable blessings will be before the House?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should have said that it is not merely the Death Duties but the Super-tax, Income Tax, and Death Duties. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the growth is mainly in these three items—upon the growth of which I depend for the purpose of paying these charges.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Am I not correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to form any Estimate in addition to the Estimate given in the White Paper—an estimate upon which he said it was impossible to depend?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall certainly be able to form an Estimate for the coming year, when the time to do so arrives.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he Estimated that he would receive the full amount of the Excise?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is cross-examining me now about a matter which does not strictly arise. He is examining me on the Budget statement for the coming year.

  Emigration to Colonies (State Aid for Selected Men).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the
  22
  advisability of bringing in a Bill which will allow this country to set aside a sum of money with the object of emigrating at the Government expense a limited number of men to be selected by the various Labour Exchanges throughout the country and sent to Canada, Australia, or other domains, the money so advanced to be repaid over an extended period?:
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Under Section 2 (1) of the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, power is given to advance, as a loan, the travelling expenses of men for whom situations have been found through a Labour Exchange. Such loans are not necessarily restricted to situations in the United Kingdom. I do not at present contemplate fresh legislation on the lines suggested.

  Budget, 1909–10 (Procedure).
  Lord HUGH CECILasked the Prime Minister whether it is still the intention of the Government to pass the Budget and get it through before this House adjourns for the Spring Recess; whether it is the intention of the Government to ask the House to proceed continuously with the Budget after its introduction until it is either rejected or passed through this House; whether the Government intend to propose any resolution abbreviating procedure on the Budget, or whether it will be passed through the usual stages; and whether the Government's intentions relating to the Budget are in any degree contingent, and, if so, how far, on what may happen to the Veto Resolutions in the House of Lords?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the answer which I am about to give, I beg the Noble Lord to observe that I am expressing intentions, and not giving undertakings. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second and third, that it would be premature, at present, to say more than repeat what I have said already—that it will be necessary to resort to some form of more or less summary procedure. In regard to the last part of the question, the Government's intention to obtain the assent of this House to the Budget is not contingent on anything that may happen elsewhere.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: In order that there may be no misunderstanding—I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to

  23
  repeat what he has already said—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Budget will pass through all its stages before the Spring Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not say how many stages there will be.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: But will it be finally disposed of in this House before then?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered the question quite explicitly.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: With great respect, I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know whether he means that the Budget will be disposed of before the Spring Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: What the Noble Lord asked was, whether "it is still the intention of the Government to pass the Budget and get it through before this House adjourns for the Spring Recess." My answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: May I ask whether the statement of the Prime Minister that the Budget will be passed through the House of Commons before the Spring Recess will affect the date of that recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Budget Resolutions or the Finance Bill to be founded upon them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I mean the Budget.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the Budget?
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: May I ask whether the Government in this matter intend to resort to any party tactics?
  Mr. HARRY SEYMOUR FOSTERasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to take steps to carry out the pledge which he gave to this House on 2nd December last, that, in the event of the Government being fortunate enough to enjoy the confidence of this House after the General Election then impending, the first act of his Government would be to reimpose as from the dissolution of Parliament all the taxes and duties which were embodied in the late Finance Bill
  24
  and to validate all past collections and deductions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made on 21st February, and to the answers given on the subject during the past fortnight to the hon. and learned Member for York and others.

  House of Lords Reform.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that there are upon the Parliamentary registers of the United Kingdom little more than half the adult male population, and that approximately only half of such population recorded their votes at the last General Election, he will consider the desirableness, before proceeding with proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, of introducing legislation with a view to making this House more representative of the people?
  The PRIME MINISTER:I quite acknowledge the importance and urgency of making this House more representative of the people, but beyond that general statement I am not prepared at the present moment to go.

  Veto Resolutions.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government not to pass the Budget of 1909 through its final stage in this House before the acceptance of the Veto Resolutions by the House of Lords?
  On the question being called the hon. Member said: I presume I may take it that my question has been answered by what the Prime Minister has just said in reply to the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to place upon the Paper the text of the Resolutions to be submitted to the House with reference to the functions of another place, the duration of Parliament, and kindred matters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to name a date at present.

  X-Rays Operations (Injured Experimenter's Pension).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the sad condition of Mr. H. W.

  25
  Cox, an inventor of and experimenter with apparatus for the application of the X-rays in surgical operations; and whether he will consider the question of advising the grant of a pension from the Civil List?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A substantial grant from the Royal Bounty Fund was awarded in the case referred to last April.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: In view of the fact that since the grant was made another operation has been performed, involving, I believe, the amputation of an arm, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will give the amount of the grant further consideration?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will give the most careful consideration to any representation that may be made.

  National Schools (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant facilities for the passage of the Irish National Schools (Heating and Cleansing) Bill, in view of the fact that in its present shape it meets with the approval of all classes and creeds in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot promise facilities for any private Member's Bill.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the annual cost of this much-needed reform, as stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, is equal to the exact amount the Government are losing each week by their present muddling finance?

  Army and Navy Estimates.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that Votes A and 1 of the Army have been reported to the House, and that provision is consequently made for at least four months of 1910–11, he will recommend the Admiralty to take Votes A and 1 for the naval services of the year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will reply in a few moments to the question in answering a question, of which I have received private notice, from the Front Bench opposite.

  Royal Navy (Choking of Condensers).
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked whether in the "Vanguard," "Collingwood," "St. Vincent," and other recently-
  26
  built vessels, the cause of the choking of the condensers with ashes is the placing of the ash outlet at some depth below the water line; whether the cure of this defect is to be attempted by raising the height of the condenser water inlet; whether this, as now proposed, will have the effect of emerging the water inlet at a small angle of inclination of the ship; and whether the Board of Admiralty consider that a vessel the working of whose engines would be stopped at a small angle of roll is seaworthy?
  Mr. McKENNA: Ash ejectors discharging at some depth below the water line have been fitted in several warships previous to their installation in the "Vanguard," "Collingwood," and "St. Vincent." In the latter vessels, however, the inlets are at a lower level than in the previous ships, and difficulty has been experienced through a small proportion of the ashes ejected entering the condenser inlets. In these three ships the inlets are now being placed in similar positions to those in the ships in which the ashes from the ejectors have been found not to enter the inlets. The angle of inclination at which the new inlets would emerge is not a small one. From experience in the older ships it is not considered that any difficulty will be found in working the engines in the "Vanguard," "Collingwood," and "St. Vincent" as regards rolling.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: What would be the angle of inclination?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be a very large one, much larger than any ordinary roll, or even any roll would give rise to.

  St. Helens Labour Exchange.
  Mr. GLOVERasked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to open the Labour Exchange in St. Helens?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I regret that I am not in a position to state the date upon which the Labour Exchange at St. Helens will be opened, but I will inform my hon. Friend as soon as a definite date can be fixed.

  French Duty on Twist Drills.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce strenuously protesting against the proposed increase of duties on twist drills by the French Senate, multiplying by three

  27
  the duties which the Chamber of Deputies have already multiplied by five, making them fifteen times as great as under the present tariff; whether he is aware of these proposals; and what steps he proposes to take in order to avoid injury to British trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received a communication from the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce on this subject. As regards the remained of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on Thursday last.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reply from the French Government with regard to the representations which I understand have been made?
  Mr. BUXTON: No reply has yet been received.
  Mr. H. S. FOSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do anything except make an ad misericardiam appeal to the French Government?
  Mr. JOSEPH POINTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that in Germany, although they have the weapon of retaliation in their hands the manufacturers have complained just as loudly as the British manufacturers?

  Townley Station, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Fatality).
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fatality on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway at Townley station, on Sunday, the 6th instant, whereby a woman and child lost their lives; and if he will direct that a footbridge or subway should be constructed so as to prevent the recurrence of such accidents?
  Mr. BUXTON: An inquiry into this accident will be held by an inspecting officer of railways, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Bradford Woolcombers' Strike.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing that 3,000 woolcombers in Bradford, Yorkshire, recently decided to cease work for fourteen days because a firm of employers in Bradford engaged three
  28
  men through a Labour Exchange instead of through the men's society; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am glad to say that the recent dispute, to which the hon. Member refers, terminated on Friday. So far as I am aware there was no foundation for the statement that the strike was due to any action on the part of the Labour Exchange.

  Coasting Trade (Foreign and British Ships).
  Mr. SANDERSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of foreign ships engaged last year in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom and the number of British ships engaged in the coasting trade of European countries?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no information as to the number of individual foreign vessels which engaged last year in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom, but the number of such vessels (including their repeated voyages) which entered with cargo in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom was 542, with an aggregate tonnage of 156,161 tons, and the vessels which cleared with cargo numbered 505, with an aggregate tonnage of 143,217 tons. The records of coasting trade in other Continental countries are somewhat scanty, but such incomplete figures for these countries as are available show that in the last year to which they refer 192 British ships of 231,849 tons entered with cargoes in the coasting trading of certain European countries, the corresponding figures for clearances being 215 ships of 306,781 tons. All the above figures are exclusive of vessels in ballast.

  High-speed Tool Steel Exports to France
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the amount and value of twist-drills, and also of any other form of high-speed tool steel, exported from this country to France, which will be adversely affected by the new French tariff?
  Mr. BUXTON: Exports of twist-drills and of high-speed tool steel from the United Kingdom are not separately recorded in the official trade returns, and I regret therefore that I am not in a position to furnish the information required.

  Importation of Chinese Pork.
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has information regarding the further importation in the near future of foul-fed Chinese pork; and whether he has taken, or intends to take, steps to prohibit such importation?
  Mr. BURNS: I have no information as to the arrival of further consignments of Chinese pork in the immediate future. The suggestion that the pigs which have hitherto composed these consignments are foul-fed is not in accordance with the information which I have received on the subject. All carcases of pigs arriving from China are dealt with in accordance with the Foreign Meat Regulations, and no reason has so far been found for imposing further restrictions.

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Medical Relief.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the dispute between the New-castle-under-Lyme Rural District Council and their late medical officer, whether he will institute an inquiry as to the difficulties that have arisen, and take steps to secure the continuance of an efficient performance of the functions of medical officer in that district?
  Mr. BURNS: I have at present no information as to this matter, but I am making inquiries of the district council on the subject.

  Street Trading (Children).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant a Return showing the numbers of boys and of girls licensed for street trading under the Employment of Children Act, 1903 (by-laws), in each of the towns of the United Kingdom of over 20,000 inhabitants?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: A Departmental Committee has been inquiring into the subject of street trading, and is expected to report shortly. The report will, no doubt, contain information as to the number of children now licensed. In these circumstances my hon. Friend will perhaps be content to wait until the Report is issued in order to avoid the expense of preparing and publishing a separate Return.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Shall we have it this Session?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think so.

  Midwives and Baby Farming.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a report by the clerk to the parish of Glasgow calling attention to the manner in which the establishments of midwives are used for the encouragement of baby farming; and whether, in order to deal with the evils described in the Report, and to ensure the protection of infant life contemplated by the Children Act, he will introduce a Departmental Bill requiring midwives to notify the authorities in all cases where they place a child in the care of a person other than its parents?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the report referred to by my hon. Friend. Inquiries are being made on the subject. Meanwhile I cannot promise any legislation.

  Post Office Savings Investments.
  EARL Of RONALDSHAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to widening the area of investment open to the Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank Funds by including in that area municipal securities?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must refer the Noble Lord to the reply on this subject which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley on the 28th ultimo.

  Assessment of Agricultural Lands.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difference between the proportion of the then current rate payable by an occupier of agricultural land under The Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and the proportion of the existing rate now payable by him under the Act of 1905, he will, in any re-enactment of the latter, adopt the unanimous recommendation contained in the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression in 1896 to the effect that agricultural lands should be assessed at one-fourth only of their rateable value?
  Mr. BURNS: I may refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave last Thursday to a somewhat similar question put by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: In view of the anxiety which prevails among farmers as to the re-enactment of the Agricultural Rates Act, will the right hon. Gentleman make some statement on the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: Perhaps I had better give the answer which I gave on a previous occasion. I will not undertake to promise legislation with a view to extending the operations of the Agricultural Rates Act on the lines indicated.

  Finance Bill (Loss of Revenue).
  Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how he arrives at the loss of £28,500,000 to the Revenue of the current financial year, owing to the stoppage of the Finance Bill in another place, and of what items the said sum of £28,500,000 is made up; and whether he can give an estimate of what portion of that sum would have been collected within the financial year if the Finance Bill had become law on 1st March, 1910?
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £28,500,000 which he estimates will be lost to the Exchequer during the present financial year would have been saved if Resolutions authorising the collection of the Income Tax on the basis of last year's Budget had been passed immediately after the conclusion of the Debate on the Address?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it would be desirable for me to anticipate my annual review of the financial situation by giving the detailed information asked for by the hon. Member. As regards the last part of the question, there are not adequate data for forming an estimate.

  Income Tax Rebates.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether persons who have paid their Income Tax during the present financial year will be granted a rebate in order to place them upon an equality with those who have not paid their Income Tax, and who are therefore reaping the benefit of their money?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir.

  Income Tax Demand Notes.
  Mr. SANDERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether demand notes for Income Tax, under Schedules A, B, D, and E, have been issued since 1st January in the county of Somerset; whether he is aware that no such demand notes have been issued in Lancashire and Yorkshire; and what is the reason for this preferential treatment of the latter counties?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I stated in my answer of the 7th instant to a question by the hon. Member for Thanet, the issue of demand notes is primarily a matter for the decision of the local Commissioners of Taxes, with whose discretion I have no power to interfere.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are these demand notes issued by the local Commissioners of Inland Revenue? Is not it a fact that the assessment is made by local Commissioners of Taxes and the demand notes are issued by the collectors of the Inland Revenue?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would not be quite sure. My impression is that it is perfectly correct to say that they are issued by collectors of the Inland Revenue, but I think it is under the instructions of local Commissioners. That is the explanation given by the Inland Revenue to me why in some districts demand notes are circlated and in others they are not. I understand that these demand notes are issued by collectors, but under instructions from local Commissioners.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Whilst collectors of the Inland Revenue cannot issue demand notes until the Commissioners have made an assessment, it is not in the power of the Commissioners to direct collectors whether they should issue demand notes or not. That is entirely for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the practice. I may remind him that the whole set of documents is in the nature of instructions to collectors. The assessment —and there are other documents besides— and those constitute a complete set of instructions to the collectors to proceed by means of demand notes, and not merely by means of demand notes, but by means of distress.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the money which I and my constituents have paid is deposited
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope that I have got hold of some of it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Arising out of those answers, is it the fact that the Treasury are refunding Income Tax to people who are entitled to a refund, but that the Treasury itself has not received

  33
  the money from the people who have collected it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question. If he can give me any instances I shall certainly make inquiry.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a sum of money is now lying at the Bank of England in respect of Income Tax?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I gave an answer to that question last week. There is a considerable sum, I think, £200,000.
  Mr. YOUNGER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of ascertaining whether, and, if not, why not, the assessment made by the Special Commissioners has not yet been demanded, and which has nothing to do with the local assessment at all?

  Industrial Assurance Companies.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked wheher the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been directed to the depreciation of the home investments of industrial assurance companies; and whether, having regard to the fact that the policy holders in these companies mainly belong to the working class, he intends to modify the Budget proposals of last year before submitting them again to the House of Commons?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My information is that land values, to which, I presume, the hon. Member principally refers, have tended to appreciate rather than to depreciate since the introduction of the Budget.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that upwards of £1,500,000 of the Prudential Assurance Company's reserve fund has been applied to writing down the home investments, the depreciation of which is attributed to taxation, or fear of taxation?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That may be a fear of Tariff Reform.

  Duty on Spirits.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what amount of revenue was realised from duty on spirits for the eleven months up to 1st March, 1910, as compared with the preceding corresponding period; whether he estimates there will be a deficit for the
  34
  financial year ending March, 1910; and what amount?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The particulars requested by the hon. Member in the first part of his question are as follows:—

  1st April, 1909, to 28th February, 1910 (including deposits)

  £16,712,000

  1st April, 1908, to 28th February, 1909

  19,055,000

  As regards the second part of the question, I am afraid I cannot at this stage anticipate my review of the revenue for the year.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if the new Spirit Duties will continue to be enforced until the end of the present financial year; and at what rate the duty will be payable during the portion of the year 1910–11 prior to the passing of Resolutions upon the subject?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The rate of duty which is being enforced on British spirits at present is the rate in force before 30th April, 1909, namely, 11s. a gallon. The additional duty of 3s. 9d. a gallon imposed by the Resolution of the House of Commons on 29th April, 1909, has not been enforced since 3rd December, 1909. Public notice was given on that day that if Parliament should thereafter retrospectively confirm the said duty of 3s. 9d. it would become legally enforcible; and that meantime the Commissioners of Customs and Excise would receive the 3s. 9d. as a voluntary deposit from all who were ready to pay it. This position continues unaltered up to now, and will continue until the House of Commons passes a Resolution dealing with the matter. The particular date (31st instant) on which the present financial year ends has no bearing upon the situation.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I infer from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the higher rate of duty will be charged until the new Budget is introduced?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think the Noble Lord quite understands. It is not being charged now.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is it the intention to charge it?
  Mr. YOUNGER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is entitled to

  35
  call these payments voluntary payments, and whether there were not proposed bond guarantees demanded by the Excise?

  Duty on Beer (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked how the sum of £2,406, which he gave in reply to the hon. Member for North Meath, as representing the increased duty on beer realised in Ireland from May, 1909, to February, 1910, was arrived at?
  The HON. MEMBER further asked what amount of revenue would the increased duty on beer proposed in the Budget of last year yield on the output of all the breweries in Ireland for the ten months, May, 1909, to February, 1910; whether the proposed increased duty was accepted as a deposit; and if he will state the amount so deposited?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The only increased duty on beer proposed in the Finance Bill of last year was an increased duty on imported beer, namely, from 8s. to 8s. 3d. a barrel at the standard gravity of 1,055 degrees, with proportionate increases in the rates on certain strong beers. The figures which I gave to the hon. Member on the 9th instant represented the amount paid in Ireland at the increased rates of 8s. 3d., etc., during the ten months in question.

  Income Tax (Annuities).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked whether a number of persons in this country who, by the exercise of thrift during their working years, have saved money out of their earnings and invested it in stock or annuities to provide for their old age, and that the Income Tax when payable on the income received from such sources is payable at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £ as if the income was unearned; and whether, in view of the hardship thus caused, he would be willing, subject to a suitable limitation as to the amount of income derived from such source, to propose such amendments in the existing law as would permit of such income being assessed for Income Tax as earned income?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This suggestion was carefully examined when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister introduced the differentiation between earned and unearned income for Income Tax purposes, and was then found to be impracticable. I have no objection, however, to giving it my full consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in moving to take the time of the Navy, and that in the outline of ruary last he is reported in the daily Press to have said that the business to-morrow and the next day would be Votes A and 1 of the Navy, and that in the outline of business officially supplied to the Opposition by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury on that occasion Vote 1 of the Navy was specifically mentioned, and whether under these circumstances he will adhere to the programme of business then announced and accepted by the Opposition when his Motion was put to the House? I ought in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman to say that the OFFICIAL REPORT does not mention specifically any Votes, but my own recollection is that he mentioned Vote 1. I find his speech so reported in "The Times," and I find it was also in the typewritten copy which the Patronage Secretary handed to us.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what he called the typewritten copy, because that represented a private undertaking, about which I think it is better to say nothing at this moment. With regard to the business, I have no recollection of having named any specific Navy Votes, and the. OFFICIAL REPORT represents me as simply using the phrase "Navy Votes." It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman calls my attention to the fact, that in "The Times" report, which is usually accurate, I am represented as having expressly referred to Votes A and 1. I think it is always desirable to avoid anything in the nature of a Parliamentary misunderstanding, and, under the circumstances, I will accede to the right hon. Genteman's request to substitute Vote 1 for Vote 10.

VETO RESOLUTIONS.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the extremely fair way in which he, has met us. May I ask him one other question? He announced very early in the Session that the Resolutions about the House of Lords will be laid on the Table at a very early date. Can he now say when those Resolutions will be laid, and will he at

37
the same time say whether the intentions of the Government are correctly represented by the Press when it is announced that the discussion of those Resolutions will be proceeded with on the Tuesday after Easter. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me to say that it is not for the convenience of the House that we should take such important business on the day after Easter Monday. It means that a number of Members will have to travel back on the Easter Monday in order to be present here.
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot deviate or depart in any way from the determination already announced that these Resolutions will be taken on the Tuesday. We shall have an adjournment on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, and I hope that may be time enough for Members to make arrangements to come back for what is, after all, the most important business of the Session. With regard to giving notice of the exact terms of the Motion, I am not able to say at this moment the precise day, but certainly it will be within a reasonably ample time before the discussion is taken.?
Mr. H. S. FOSTER: Before the House rises?
The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, certainly.

MEMBERS SWORN.
Mr. Rufus Daniel Isaacs, for the Borough of Reading, on re-election after acceptance of office under the Crown as Solicitor-General.
Mr. Percy Illingworth, for County of York (Northern Part of the West Riding) (Shipley Division), on re-election after acceptance of office under the Crown as a Lord of the Treasury.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
EARL OF RONALDSHAY—Easter Offerings (Exemption from Taxation)—Bill to provide for the exemption of voluntary Offerings to clergymen and ministers from Taxation. (To be read a second time upon 18th March.)
Mr. CLELAND—Police Superannuation (Scotland)—Bill to amend The Police (Scotland) Act, 1890. (To be read a second time upon 17th March.)
Mr. ALLEX—Norwich Charities—Bill to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of various charities in the city and county of the city of Norwich. (To be read a second time upon 21st March.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Education (Girls) —Bill to extend the duties and powers of educational authorities with regard to the training of girls. (To be read a second time upon 15th April.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Offences against the Person—Bill to amend the Law relating to Offences against the Person. (To be read a second time upon 15th April.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Marriage Law Amendment—Bill to amend the Law of husband and wife. (To be read a second time upon 27th May.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Married Women's Property—Bill to amend the Law relating to the succession of property and to the earnings and property of Married Women. (To be read a second time upon 27th May.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, Amendment—Bill to amend The Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. (To be read a second time upon 20th May.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Working Class Women—Bill to improve the conditions of life of women of the working classes. (To be read a second time upon 27th May.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Factory and Workshop—Bill to amend certain provisions of The Factory and Workshops Act, 1901. (To be read a second time upon 27th May.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Civil Service (Women)—Bill to open various branches of the public service to women. (To be read a second time upon 27th May.)
Sir CHARLES M'LAREN—Women's Disabilities Removal—Bill to remove certain disabilities attaching to the political status of women. (To be read a second time upon 16th May.)

SUPPLY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
  4.0 P.M.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The practice has now

  39
  become well established that the opportunity should be afforded, on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, for the introduction of the Navy Estimates of the year. No man who stands at this Table can present Estimates of such a gigantic total as £40,600,000, without a very serious sense of responsibility. Nothing but the imperative needs of safeguarding the security of our country could justify such a total, but if that justification be made I am sure that both this House and the country will be as willing to make the sacrifice for the coming year as they have ever been willing in the past. I do not for a moment expect to escape criticism. I expect to have to meet criticism from two opposite quarters. There are some who think all expenditure upon armaments superfluous. [An HON. MEMBEE: "No, no"; and an HON. MEMBER: "Who are they?] There are others who never think the expenditure upon armament sufficient. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is right enough."] In my observation it has always appeared to me that so far as answering representatives of those two schools of thought is concerned it is immaterial what the amount of the Estimates may be. There is nothing new in this. I came across the other day, in reading some correspondence of Sir John Hawkins, then Treasurer of the Navy, in the year immediately before the Spanish Armada, in 1587, a very remarkable letter. I shall venture to trouble the House with a quotation from it, because its terms are so perfectly apposite to modern conditions. The letter was written by Sir John Hawkins, and the passages I quote are as follows:—
  "There hath been great services abroad these two years past, and the ships mightily supplied from time to time with many provisions. The expenses extraordinary have been great, and such as before this time hath seldom come in use; for the Navy is great and men more unruly and more chargeable than in time past. So as it doth not only amaze me to answer everything, hut I do grieve at the charge as such as if it were to proceed from myself. I have been careful to replenish the store, but I found it not worth £5,000; and now I think with this year's issuing it is worth £16,000. So likewise the ships, I found in weak estate, and now they are, as your Lordship doth see …yet I am daily backbited and slandered. But your Lordship doth know what place this is to hold that I am in. Many there are to receive out of this office, and among a multitude there are some bad and unreasonable. And although I endeavour myself to pay and satisfy all men with order and equity yet some be displeased."
  Here you have in the year before our greatest naval deliverance the Treasurer of the Navy having to confront exactly the two opposite kinds of criticism which I have to meet—those who said that his prepara
  40
  tions were excessive, and those whom he described as backbiting and slandering him because he had not done enough. Between those two schools I hope to be able to recommend these Estimates as neither excessive nor insufficient. It is unnecessary for me to say that these Estimates have been the subject of the most anxious consideration by the Board of Admiralty. The responsibility of the Board of Admiralty may be viewed in three different aspects. They have a responsibility to the country for the safeguarding of our shores, our Empire, and our trade. They have a responsibility towards the Navy. It is their duty to see that the equipment, the matériel, of the Navy is of the best quality, and that a sufficient number of men are enrolled and properly trained. They have a third responsibility, a very peculiar responsibility to this House. It is the duty of the Board of Admiralty to see that their Estimates are framed with due regard to economy, and that, while they are sufficient, they shall be no more than sufficient for the purpose for which the Navy is maintained.
  I can understand criticism coming from hon. Members of this House with a view to showing that the expenditure is excessive. It is only reasonable, as it strikes me, that hon. Members here, who are the guardians of the taxpayers' interests, should cross-examine me as to the absolute necessity of every item for which I ask them to pay. It is quite reasonable that anyone should address me and say, "You live in an atmosphere which is altogether professional. Your naval advisers, admirable as they may be, are nevertheless so much associated with war that they are apt to believe the danger of of war greater than it really is, and their sense of responsibility may very likely make them take precautions which are beyond the true needs of the occasion." It may be said to me that my naval advisors being professional men have a natural desire to aggrandise their own profession. I may be reminded that I have to take full responsibility for every penny which I ask the House of Commons to spend. I may be asked, Have I examined with the care which is my duty the information which I receive, and am I able to assure the House that these Estimates have been framed with the most absolute regard to economy when the needs of the Empire are borne in mind? That criticism I can understand, and I hope I shall be able to answer it. But there is a criticism of the opposite kind, which, I confess, I do

  41
  not know how to meet. I do not expect to have to meet it in this House. I do not in the least anticipate that there will be said in this House anything like what has been said upon the platform. I have no belief at all that I shall have to meet the charges of criminal folly, of recklessness, of waste of the taxpayers' money, of having let down the Navy to such a degree that our safety is imperilled. I do not suppose I shall have to meet one of those charges; but if I do, let me remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite how the Navy is administered. The Navy is administered by a Board of Admiralty, the Members of which are Members of the Government of the day; but, unlike other Members of the Government, the naval Members of the Board of Admiralty do not go out of office on a change of Government. They do not hold their positions on political grounds. Every Government, no matter what its political constitution, desires to secure the best naval advice which it can obtain. I am happy to say that the present Government have been most fortunate in the ability and zeal with which they are advised by their Sea Lords. Is it to be supposed that the naval advisers of the Government are less well informed as to the development of foreign navies, or as to the state of our own Navy, than the man in the street? Can it be believed that, so long as the Board of Admiralty signs the Estimates for the year—and it must be remembered that the Estimates are signed by every Member of the Board of Admiralty—these reckless charges that have been made upon almost every platform in the country have the smallest foundation in fact? There are many questions of legitimate discussion and criticism—questions of naval policy upon which there is wide room for difference of opinion; but charges which amount to nothing more nor less than mere reckless abuse of the Admiralty ought not to be made, I submit to this House, in the interests of the country, in the interests of the Navy, and in the interests of the peace of the world.
  The great bulk of the increase in this year's Estimates is due to the additional charge for new construction. The increase is from a little more than £8,750,000 during the current year to £13,250,000 fox the year 1910–11. I may as well here make an explanation of the figures for the new construction Estimates, which appear to have been a little misunderstood. It must be remembered that these Estimates of ex-
  42
  penditure on new ships are framed in the winter of one year, and are to last for a period covering close upon fifteen months. I see three hon. Gentlemen opposite who have had experience of the Admiralty. As they know, it is always a difficult matter to secure the payment of all outstanding liabilities by 31st March. If payment is not made before 31st March the money has to be surrendered. In framing the Estimates for 1910–11 we had to anticipate that in the first three months of the year we should have a very large amount of construction work in hand. Consequently, unless we were to increase our permanent staff, the staff who give the necessary certificates before payment can be made, we should probably not be able to pay before 31st March, 1911, as large a proportion even as we have been able to pay in previous years in respect of work in hand. It will be observed that only a small amount is taken for each of the new ships to be laid down in the new programme. From that it has been inferred that possibly three out of the five ships would not be laid down in the course of the next financial year. The fact is quite otherwise. Two of the ships will be dockyard-built ships, and therefore they are stated in the statement which I have issued to the House as being laid down on a particular date. But for the three others, they being contract-built ships, the actual date of laying down cannot be named. All that we can give is the date of the order, the date of laying down, of course, being in the discretion of the contractors. Having regard to the difficulty which, I have said, we always meet with at the end of the financial year in making the payments then due, and knowing, as we do, that that difficulty will be largely increased in March, 1911, we have not ventured to take more than a comparitively small amount of money in respect of these ships, not because they will not be begun before March, but because we do not expect to be able to get the accounts through. That is the reason why no comparison can possibly be made between one year and another as to how far a ship will be advanced, according to the amount of money which is provided for it. With dockyard ships a comparison can be made, because we pay for our dockyard ships week by week; whereas, contract-built ships we only pay for periodically as an instalment becomes due, and the date at which an instalment will become due is not easy to determine in advance. I fear that my explanation is a

  43
  little complicated, and not easy to be understood by those not familiar with Admiralty matters, but I hope the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have understood the explanation.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The right hon. Gentleman stated that the date of laying down the two dockyard ships was given in the Estimates. It does not appear to be here.
  Mr. McKENNA: I thought I had given it in the statement. The two dockyard ships which are to be built will be laid down in January. The orders for the other ships will also be given in January, and they should be laid down then. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the date of laying down is determined by the contractor.
  Let me remind the House that in the Estimates no mention, naturally, is made of the two ships which are to be built by the Australian and New Zealand Governments. Those two ships will be very shortly under construction, and they will be completed about the summer of 1912. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating once again the gratification which the Government feel at this co-peration of our two great dominions in Imperial Naval Defence. We feel not only the great advantage of this addition to our world naval strength, but we also recognise the evidence, if that were necessary, of the unity of our Imperial sentiment. The scheme of the Australian and New Zealand Governments, and the details of the new ships have already been stated to the House, and I do not propose to go further into the matter. I will only remind the House that in the summer of 1912 these two ships will be in European waters, and they will not leave European waters until the late autumn, certainly the autumn, of 1912. When they do leave, the five new ships of this year's programme will be approaching completion. The actual state of our Navy in home waters as regards ships and cruisers of the "Dreadnought" type will then amount to this: In March, 1912, we shall have twenty of these ships, and in the course of the summer of that year the Australian and New Zealand ships will be added to our twenty. By the time the Australian and New Zealand ships leave our waters we shall have the five new ships of the present programme approaching completion, so that we may rest satisfied that through-
  44
  out the year 1912, and down to March 31, 1913, our absolute superiority in these, the latest type of ships, is secured. I hope the House will notice this fact. We shall have, at one and the same time, under construction eight ships which have been laid down or ordered in the course of the present financial year. Further, we shall have the Australian and New Zealand ships, and we shall have at the end of this next year at the same time the five ships of the new programme under construction. Thus, fifteen of these vessels will be in course of building at the same moment in the British yards. I hope that fact will reassure those who are under the impression that Great Britain is falling behind in its power of construction. Beyond this, of course, we shall have an incomparable fleet of ships of an earlier type. I do not think it necessary now to go in detail through the list of our large battleships and cruisers, but I can say this, that these earlier ships of ours are equal, if not superior, to the fighting power of any foreign ships built in the same period; they are much more numerous than the corresponding ships in any foreign Navy, and no matter what life you choose to give the battleships, no matter what the number of years after which you are going to declare these battleships and cruisers obsolete—at any dace which you like to choose—you will find that the British Navy maintains, in the strict sense of the term, the two-Power standard laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I hope that that is an assurance which will be accepted by the House as a sufficient safeguarding of our present and future security.
  If the House will bear with me I should like to make a comparison with a period of forty or fifty years ago. I find that if you take a period of ten years when ironclad vessels first came into use, from 1861–71, that the total amount that was then spent upon new construction was £1,480,000 a year. In the ten years 1900–10, the average expenditure was £9,222,000. That is to say that in the forty years the cost of shipbuilding has increased more than sixfold. Bearing that comparison in mind, let us turn to the cost of the personnel. The average (Vote A) from 1861–71 was 68,000, and the cost of their pay amounted to near £3,000,000. In 1900–10 the average (Vote A) was 124,500, and the pay £6,600,000. Thus, while the cost of new construction was multiplied more than sixfold, the personnel was not doubled, and the pay was only just a little more

  45
  than doubled. I recall these facts to the House, because I regret to say that they teach their lesson. That lesson, from the point of view of expenditure is not at all satisfactory. The development of mechanical power has enormously increased the efficiency of the individual seamen, but that development of power is only attained at great cost. It cannot be supposed that the last word has been said in mechanical improvements. The British Navy dare not be left behind in adopting the very latest inventions; the latest improvements in machinery, armour, and guns. It is true that we reap the advantage of these improvements, and that we do not have to increase our personnel at the same time as we should otherwise have to increase it. But the cost to the British people is enormous, and so long as these improvements are made the cost will inevitably increase. I fear that I cannot hold out any hope of a decline of any serious amount in the Naval Estimates. So long as foreign Powers avail themselves of the best material I do not think that Great Britain can allow itself to fall behind. Modern ships, modern machinery, and modern guns, which are daily becoming more effective are, I regret to say, daily increasing in cost.
  A charge has been made against the Admiralty, not that they lagged behind in taking up foreign improvements, but that they have been too hasty in adopting improvements, and in setting the pace in expenditure. It has been said that the introduction of the "Dreadnought"—
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The advertisement.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord says the advertisement of the "Dreadnought" I prefer to say "the introduction of the 'Dreadnought," The "Dreadnought" was not a ship which could be built under a bushel. The introduction of the "Dreadnought," it is said, is the illustration in support of the charge. I hope the House will bear with me for one moment while I endeavour to clear up a certain misapprehension in regard to the supposed extravagance of the Board of Admiralty in hastily rushing into new expenditure. The "Dreadnought" was laid down in October, 1905. She is a ship of 18,000 tons, and a material advance on the "Lord Nelson," which at that time was the largest ship, having a tonage of 16,500. Size means expense, and it is supposed that Great Britain, in laying down the "Dread-
  46
  nought," led the way in expenditure. As a matter of fact, in May, 1905, five months before the "Dreadnought" was laid down, the Japanese had laid down the "Satsuma," a ship as much larger than the "Dreadnought" as the "Dreadnought" is larger than the "Lord Nelson." So that so far as the question of mere size went—and it is size which involves expense — it is the Japanese who have led the way and not the British Admiralty. It must be remembered that the Japanese had at that time the experience of their own war, and from that war they learned certain lessons which justified them, as they believed, in concentrating strength in the big ship. The British Admiralty were not behindhand in learning the lessons of the Russo-Japanese War—the "Dreadnought" was started. The "Dreadnought" was not like the "Satsuma." It was not as big a ship. The essential qualities of the "Dreadnought," an all-big-gun ship with turbine machinery, were not to be found in the "Satsuma." The British Admiralty may, I think, legitimately claim that perhaps it learnt some of the lessons of war as rapidly as the Japanese themselves. The British Admiralty certainly did not lead the way in expenditure. The bag ship had become a necessity five months before the "Dreadnought" was laid down.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Not before she was ordered.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, before she was ordered. The "Satsuma" was laid down in May, 1905, which was before the "Dreadnought" was ordered. I do not think the question can be disputed, but while the "Dreadnought" has all the elements of novelty which we admire, the mere question of size, which involves expenditure, was settled by the construction of the "Satsuma," built by the Japanese. I turn now to the smaller programme. As I have said, the larger vessels are five in number, all to be laid down and three to be ordered in January, 1911, and to be completed by January, 1913. Now I turn to the smaller vessels of the new programme. We propose to lay down five unarmed cruisers of the "Bristol" and "Boadicea" types. We had six in our programme last year, but the House will not have forgotten that the British Imperial Navy is being strengthened by the building of three cruisers of the "Bristol" type by the Australian Government. We shall have a total Imperial addition of

  47
  eight cruisers, and our estimate for only five falls due. When the three Australian cruisers are completed, some of our cruisers which are upon the Australian station will be relieved, and will be able to come home for service in home waters. In the coming year five "Bristols" and one "Boadicea" under construction will be added to the existing fleet. In 1911–12 a further number of four "Bristols" and two "Boadiceas" will be provided for, and in the summer of 1912 five of the present programme will also be ready for commission.
  As regards destroyers it is proposed to lay down twenty in the course of the coming financial year for service in home waters. I regret in the statement furnished to the House I did not refer to the three other destroyers we are building which are for service in New Zealand waters. They appear properly in our Estimates because we pay for them, but in our arrangements with the Australian Government we propose to send these three destroyers to the Pacific, and they will not be replaced by any corresponding boats from the China station. In consequence we are to regard these three destroyers as not an addition to our Home strength, as we can, in the case of the three "Bristols" which the Australian Government are building, because when they go out to the Pacific we shall get other cruisers of our own back again for service in home waters. The period allowed for construction for our destroyers is eighteen months, and the order will be given in June next. By the end of June, 1911, we shall, in consequence, have the whole of these 200 destroyers completed.
  The Admiralty has to meet from time to time a considerable amount of criticism upon the subject of destroyers. [Cheers.] I notice that hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer that and I hope to claim all their attention while I endeavour to explain to them that much of the criticism has been founded upon insufficient data. The Admiralty have a certain difficulty in meeting that criticism because every critic has his own idea as to the type of destroyer or as to the age of the destroyer, which alone would justify its being included in counting the boats. We have destroyers of many types varying in size, in speed and in design. Now I would like to get upon common ground with hon. Members opposite upon this subject. I think it is common ground that destroyers with a high
  48
  freeboard forward and good fuel capacity are alone suitable for service in the North Sea under all conditions. I hope hon. Gentlemen will observe that I use the words "under all conditions." It is also true that destroyers which do not satisfy the conditions as to high freeboard forward and as to fuel endurance, may, nevertheless, provided that they are good sea-boats and have a good speed, serve a very useful purpose even in the North Sea. They may not be able to keep the sea, as long as others; they may not be as suitable, consequently, far from their base as destroyers of the other kind I have named, but they may not be disregarded in counting our total strength in destroyers even for North Sea purposes. They are confined mostly, in the first instance, to I destroyers of the high freeboard forward and good fuel capacity, boats of the river class, the tribal class, and those produced in 1908–9 and 1909–10 and the 1910–11. We shall by the end of 1911 have 102 such destroyers. Behind these we have sixty-four known as the 30-knotters and thirty destroyers known as the 27-knotters. We have, further, thirty-six boats known as coastal destroyers of quite recent construction. All these, which although comparatively of small size, are soundly built, fairly fast, and have a good radius of action. I may tell the House I have the very best reports of the usefulness of these boats for the service they are required to perform. Now I am quite prepared to allow these figures to speak for themselves. I ask those who consider them an excess, or those who consider them insufficient, to compare them with the corresponding figures given for foreign navies in the Return which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke). I firmly believe that such an examination will show that the present programme of destroyers is both adequate and not excessive.
  I will only make reference to the submarines and remind the House that we are taking £750,000 for this kind of boat in the present Estimates. Part of this will be expended in the building of the boats now being constructed, and part in laying down a certain number of new boats of this kind. Not including the whole of the Holland boats, we have upwards of fifty-five submarines in commission. Such is the naval programme for the new year. It is sufficient; it is necessary; in framing it the Admiralty have been guided by the considerations of the existing programmes

  49
  of foreign countries. I hope the House will not expect me to enlarge in detail on these programmes.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: You did so last year.
  Mr. McKENNA: I did last year with regard to one country, but I find myself confronted with this difficulty. If I state, however moderately and however much I may avoid every kind of exaggeration, the facts which are known to the Admiralty they are immediately seized upon by a section of the writers in the Press and they are made the foundation of a new naval scare. If, on the other hand, I did not state the facts, I am liable to be charged with making a demand upon the House for money the grounds of which have not been sufficiently explicit. In these matters I am obliged to ask the House to take the statement as sufficient that there has been no decrease in foreign naval programmes during the present year.
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: There has been.
  Mr. McKENNA: I maintain there has been no decrease in foreign naval programmes during the past year.
  Mr. LOUGH: There has been a decrease on the number stated in this House as likely to be the naval programme of Germany for the year 1912.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, there has not. I have frequently invited my right hon. Friend to read the words I used last year. He has not seen fit to do so; If he did do so he would find that there is no justification for stating that less happened last year than I said would happen.
  Mr. LOUGH: I quoted the Prime Minister.
  Mr. McKENNA: We have to look to the safety of the country, and we have to consider the strength of our Navy from year to year, and to take the necessary precautions. In no year have the Board of Admiralty failed to have regard to the actual requirements of the moment. It must be remembered that as every programme deals with a period of years in advance of the time when the programme was announced, necessarily there must be a great deal of conjecture as to what we may have to meet two years hence. We can only deal with the actual programmes we know of at the moment. Last year I stated to the House as facts what I knew to be the facts—that is, what had occurred
  50
  at the time. I gave my anticipations as to what I believed would occur in the course of the next two years, and I stated to the House what might occur, what was within the region of possibility, even of probability, but I did not include anything in my statement as to what necessarily would occur. As regards the statement which I made last year, I have nothing to withdraw. And our programme this year is framed now upon our actual knowledge of what is completed, or in the course of being completed, and what we know the foreign programmes are for the course of the next two years to come. As I have said, I hope the House will not think it necessary to go in detail into the development of foreign navies. The Return standing in the name of my right hon. Friend gives most of the essential facts, and I am sure that examination and comparison of the development of the British Navy with the development of foreign navies will justify the Board of Admiralty in the programme which they ask the House to agree to. I am sure that a comparison will justify the Admiralty in the programme they are asking the House to confirm.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to say nothing on the special point of the thirteen or seventeen German "Dreadnoughts" to be ready by March, 1912, which was the cardinal feature of last year's Debate?
  Mr. McKENNA: At the present moment Germany has got thirteen ships of the "Dreadnought" type under construction. She has in her programme four more ships to be laid down in the course of the year 1910–11. Under the German law those ships may be laid down without regard to the actual financial provisions on any day in the year 1910–11; that is to say, they may be laid down on 1st April, 1910. These are the facts. Now as to possibilities or conjectures.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how many German "Dreadnoughts" are now flying the pennant?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to that point. In August, 1907, four German "Dreadnoughts" were laid down—the "Nassau," "Westphalia," "Rhineland," and "Posen." Of these four the "Nassau" was built and completed and commissioned in two years and two months from August. J907, the date of

  51
  laying down; the "Westphalia" was commissioned almost immediately after; the "Rhineland" and "Posen" are not yet commissioned, but they are capable of being commissioned, and could have been, had there been any need for it, some time Ago. These are the four "Dreadnoughts" which I know were laid down in August, and could have been commissioned in two years and two months. Very well, the four ships of the 1910–11 programme may, under the German law, be laid down on 1st April.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: There is an important point arises about the financial year. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the German financial year begins?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is the same as ours, 1st April. The four ships of the 1910 programme can be laid down on 1st April, and if there was any necessity or any determination to do it, I presume they could be completed as fast as the "Nassau" and the "Westphalia."
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that these four ships are already in the water ready for commission, and are they in addition to the thirteen ships under construction?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. It is thirteen "Dreadnoughts" altogether, including those four. The four others may be laid down, or might be laid down by 1st April, and might be in commission, judging by previous experience, in two years and two months from that date.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the date of the order?
  Mr. McKENNA: The date of the order is immaterial. The date of the official order is more important, because the notification to the contractor that the order will come may precede 1st April, and has in fact preceded that date. What we have to regard is the date of the official order. We know that from the date of the official order, or the date of laying down the ship, there are two years and two months to completion. We are making adequate provision against any contingency, and I hope that in what I have said I shall not be supposed to have given ground for any scare or that a friendly Power is anticipating next year's programme with any hostile design against this country. But we have to face facts,
  52
  and we take precaution now with a programme of five large armoured ships to ensure ourselves against any possible risks in order to maintain the supremacy of the British Empire upon the sea.
  Let me clear up a misunderstanding or a misapprehension under which the Leader of the Opposition is labouring. I am sorry I do not see him here, because I should have preferred not to criticise what he has said in his absence. Speaking at Hanley on 4th January this year, and referring to the period during which the Liberal Government had been in office, he said:—
  "How stood our naval position at the beginning of those four years? We left the present Government with an overwhelming strength in battleship and an ample supply in naval stores. In the four years that have since elapsed they have been living upon these battleships and consuming these stores."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, even now there are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who credit the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. His argument was this. He admitted that the country was perfectly safe at the time at which he had spoken, but he said that was owing to the virtue of the Government over which he had presided, and that we had done nothing but live upon the good things he had left us. When the right hon. Gentleman made his speech I had not the figures with me, and I could not at the time contradict his statement. I knew that it was erroneous, but how far I could not say. I have since had the figures made out, and I find the following to be the true statement of the case. The total tonnage in the four last programmes of the Conservative Government—that is to say, from 1902–3 to 1905–6 —amounted to 385,000 tons. While the total tonnage of the four Liberal programmes to 1910–11 amount to 437,000 tons; that is to say, the programmes of the Liberal Government actually undertaken were 52,000 tons in excess of the Conservative programmes. Moreover, the Liberal programmes had a larger tonnage in respect of every class of ship. In battleships and armoured cruisers the Liberal programmes show an excess of 1,700 tons, in small cruisers an excess of 29,600 tons, and in destroyers 21,600 tons. These smaller cruisers and destroyers about which we have heard so many complaints levelled at the Liberal Government were actually 29,000 tons in excess as regards small cruisers and 21,000 tons as regards destroyers. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition may have left to his successors we supplemented it in the first four years we were in office by a larger amount than

  53
  he provided during the last four years he was in office. I hope after this we shall hear no more of the Liberal Government having lived upon the ships left them by their predecessors.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the relative cost of construction in the two periods he has compared?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not state it from memory, but the relative cost would be much higher under the Liberal Government. The cost of shipbuilding has increased in cost as the hon. Member knows. Now as to stores, which we are supposed to have lived upon. When the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister a decision wits come to by the Board of Admiralty, of which two Gentlemen opposite were members, to reduce or close down certain foreign yards and depots. Those actually closed were Halifax, Esquimault, Trincomalee and Jamaica; whilst those reduced were the Cape and Bermuda. These changes were made in consequence of a reorganisation of the distribution of the Fleet, under which our Fleet was very much more concentrated in the home waters. This policy was approved by Parliament when the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister, and if I may be allowed to express an opinion upon it, I think that policy was very sound. One of the results of this policy was that all the stores in those yards which were closed or reduced had to be brought home. What was to be done with the stores? It is not a good thing to keep too large reserves, and I think it will be agreed that we could not throw the stores into the sea. What were we to do with them? Just like our predecessors in 1905 we consumed the stores, and as they formed no part of the ordinary home reserve we consumed them without replacing them. Whether it was right or wrong thus to treat the stores, it was the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, it was the policy of Lord Selborne, Lord Cawdor, and the policy of the two hon. Gentlemen whom I see opposite, and yet because we have carried out that policy strictly we have been attacked for consuming stores without replacing them and for weakening the resources of the Navy. I ask this House to accept the statement that the consumption of stores, without, replacing them, which figured so largely as a ground for attack against the Liberal Government, has only been done to the extent and upon
  54
  the precise lines approved by the late Conservative Government.
  5.0 P.M.
  Before passing from these controversial topics, let me now allude to the question of personnel. We are asking for an increase of 3,000 men. A part, something over 1,000 out of the 3,000, are required for an increase of the complements in our existing ships, and this has become necessary owing to the use of cooling magazine plant. The rest of the 3,000 are needed for the complements of two ships as they come into commission. Much criticism has been directed against the Admiralty owing to the belief that we have not provided a sufficient number of men. I think in that criticism one very important fact has been overlooked. During late years there has been a strict revision of Vote A. We have, without increasing Vote A, been enabled to make certainly not less than 3,000 men available for war service who were not available before. The policy, I think, dates back to the year 1902–3. In 1902–3, if anybody looks at the Estimates for that period, they will see, for instance, among the personnel of the Navy, the number of 1,280 pensioners employed in home establishments and ships. Already, by reductions in that year and subsequent years, that number has been brought down to 300, with the result that, without increasing Vote A, on that item alone 980 more men have been made available for war service. There is another item, though smaller in amount. Formerly warrant officers had servants who were specially borne on Vote A. Now officers' servants are supplied by seamen and stokers. Consequently, we are able to take into Vote A an additional number of men without increasing our total figure.
  It is with the Marines that the greatest increase of our available war service has been obtained. The House must remember that before the reduction in the Marines, and even still at this moment, their peace numbers are larger than would be required in war. They are overborne for war service. We keep up our Fleet not for peace service, but for war service, and every branch of the Fleet ought to be so adjusted that when war requires it the whole power of our Navy shall be brought into play. We keep up more Marines for peace purposes than we should require for war service. They have been reduced and they are still, though only to a small extent, overborne, but every Marine that has been reduced has enabled us to enlist a seaman in his place who will be available

  55
  for war service, I cannot take the credit for this reform, and my predecessor cannot take it; it belongs, as so much else, I readily admit, to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen shake their heads, but the reform was begun in 1905. It is a proper reform—it is a real, businesslike reform to put your numbers upon the basis of war requirements, and not upon peace requirements—a sentiment in which, I am sure, I shall have the support of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford), What you have to look to is war, and not to peace. We have thus been enabled to acquire another addition, approaching 2,000 men, who will be available for war service, without adding a single man to Vote A. Thus, in spite of a large increase in new construction, we are able to content ourselves with asking, for the present, for 3,000 additional men only.
  There are a large number of other topics upon which I will refrain from wearying the House at the present moment. I am fortunate in having to assist me my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary (Dr. Macnamara) and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. G. Lambert). I hope each of them will bear his burden in explaining to the House these technical subjects. I certainly hope my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who has given very special attention to many matters which have from time to time been brought before the Admiralty, will explain to the House the changes we have made with regard to the system of detention barracks, with regard to the benefits granted to the lower deck and to certain improvements affecting the schoolmasters, writers, and others; and I hope my hon. Friend the Civil Lord will deal with the subject of docks. I know the House has a special interest in the subject of docks to which the name "Dreadnought" is more particularly applied. As the House knows, we are building two large floating docks, and a new graving dock at Portsmouth; we have so lengthened the existing dock at Haulbow-line to make it capable of taking "Dreadnoughts," and I can assure my hon. Friends from Ireland that in consequence of this extension there is a prospect of a steady increase of work taking place in that dockyard. It is not yet completed, but I hope it will be completed in the course of the coming financial year.
  There remains only one subject to which to refer before I close, and that is the
  56
  serious loss which the Board of Admiralty have suffered by the retirement of Lord Fisher. I will remind the House that Lord Fisher has served his country as First Sea Lord under four successive Governments, and his service has received the approval of the House of Commons again and again. The Administration of the present Leader of the Opposition, the Administration of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have had occasion many times to be grateful for the splendid services which Lord Fisher has rendered them. I very much doubt whether, without the extraordinary ability and energy which he displayed, it would have been possible in so short a time as has happened for the British Navy to have been reorganised on quite a new footing, ships to have been brought home, that we should have seen our power in home waters developed in the manner in which the modern distribution of international strength has required it, or that we should have been able at anything like the same price or cost to have carried out the enormous development of power which the Fleet has made during his administration. Reforms with which his name is connected will live for many years, and I think that, as the Governments who have been brought into direct contact with him have known how to appreciate and value his services, so the public at large when they better understand will also recognise the immense debt of gratitude which the country owes to Lord Fisher. The loss the Admiralty have suffered would have been beyond measure but for the fact that we have been able to secure as his successor Sir Arthur Wilson. At a time when most men would have been unwilling again to take on the labour of office Sir Arthur Wilson has come forward, and we have every hope that, with his assistance and by his advice, we shall be able to maintain the splendour of the British Navy untarnished and its glory and its strength unimpaired.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The right hon. Gentleman closed his remarks with a well-merited tribute to the work which Lord Fisher has accomplished at the Admiralty. Whilst it would be an impertinence on my part to embark on any words of commendation of so great an officer in the discharge of his duties, I may perhaps be allowed, as one who was associated with him in a very humble capacity during the time I was at the Admiralty, to join with

  57
  the right hon. Gentleman in expressing from this side the appreciation which everyone must feel of the immense energy, knowledge, and capacity which Lord Fisher threw into his most arduous and responsible duties. We may also, perhaps, be allowed to congratulate the Admiralty upon the choice of his successor. This is largely a personal matter, but Sir Arthur Wilson, if I may say so, is a national institution, and we are therefore entitled to join in the satisfaction which, I am sure, the whole House and the country feel in having enticed him from his well-earned repose and retirement, and enlisted his services in the greatest, as I think, office in which a citizen of this Empire can possibly serve.
  Now I come to the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He began with a note of apology at the size of the Estimates, and he said he was, I will not say between the Devil and the deep sea, because I might be required to state on which side these respective perils are situated, but he began by stating that he was between two classes of critics. There was, he said, a certain class of critic who thought all expenditure superfluous. I have not yet met that critic, but I have met a good many who thought a reasonable amount superfluous, and I have also met the critics who thought the Government are not spending enough. I venture on this occasion to range myself with that latter class, to the extent of saying that I think the Government have not spent sufficient for the Navy during the years it has been in office. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to develop an argument in which, referring to this latter class of critic, he said:—
  " If we are attacked for not doing enough, why then I would remind the House and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are on the Board of Admiralty a large number of very distinguished admirals and professional men who are in no sense politicians, and surely it is enough that we have their support in the measures and provisions we make."
  I think the less said about professional advisers on the situation the better. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any right whatever to attempt to shelter himself behind professional opinion.
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not.
  Mr. LEE: He has no right, as I contend, to even quote it unless he is prepared to get up and say that the professional advisers have been given every detail for which they have asked.
  Mr. McKENNA: I ought not to let that pass. I limited what I said to the single
  58
  act in which the Board of Admiralty had come into direct conflict with the House of Commons—I mean their signature to the Estimates. I stated that it cannot be supposed that when they sign the Estimates they are ignorant of foreign Estimates or the state of foreign navies.
  Mr. LEE: That is my whole case. By putting their signatures to the Estimate they give their approval to everything in the Estimates, and the right hon. Gentleman has no right whatever to bring forward their authority unless he is also prepared to say, if challenged, that they have been able to get everything they have asked for. I think it better that their names should be kept out of the question. After all, it is the Government who are responsible. It is the right hon. Gentlemon who comes before this House to defend his Estimates. He is responsible, and we are attacking him and the Government, and not his professional advisers.
  With regard to the Estimates, as a whole, they are better than we feared, but I am by no means prepared to admit that they are satisfactory. The chief criticism which I consider it my duty to direct against the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in these Estimates is not so much against the extent of the programme, as it appears on paper, as against its unreality, no proper provision being made for various items set forth in the Memorandum. It seems to me that the money asked for is in no sense commensurate with the programme—that is, if the Admiralty means business. I will admit this, that the programme which they have brought in this year shows some sign, at any rate, of a tardy realisation of the perils of the situation. In so far as the programme is satisfactory, the right hon. Gentleman will admit, I think, that he has at last refused to turn a deaf ear any longer to the advice he has received from this side of the House. For years past we have urged on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government the need for further exertions, and we have been told again and again that ample has been done, but the programme brought in this year by the Government is an absolute refutation of the assurances given in the past. I am aware that the Government has had to face difficulty on both sides, and that while we on this side have urged on it the necessity for a larger programme they have been assailed below the Gangway for departing in some way from the principles of international brotherhood.

  59
  For the first two or three years it was in power the present Government yielded to pressure below the Gangway, but I venture to think that during the last twelve months it has yielded to pressure from this side of the House. We are very glad that the change has taken place. There have been such bewildering changes in the policy of the Government in regard to this matter that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that its position has been something like that of a gyroscope, which is only able to maintain its equilibrium by turning round. As far as the paper programme is concerned, the Government is turning somewhat in our direction, and that is an agreeable change. I understand there is to be no active rebellion from the Reduction of Armaments party this year, and for that relief much thanks. While it will not be in order to refer to general politics, I think one redeeming feature in the political situation is that it has forced the Peace-at-any-Price party to prefer party to peace.
  I should like, before I come to the actual proposals contained in the programme for the current year, to ask the House to consider—and here I am speaking entirely for myself—to consider for a moment whether it would not be better, or possible, at any rate, to avoid these annual recriminations between the two parties and between ourselves and foreign countries—whether it might not be possible for us to adopt a policy such as that which is adopted in other countries—notably by our chief friends on the Continent, France and Germany—the policy of fixed armaments. We might thereby get rid of a great deal of inflammable material which is inevitably thrown about in the course of these discussions. I hope that that idea may commend itself to future Boards of Admiralty, and that we may, at no distant date, see a settled fixed programme or organic law adopted for the Navy of the British Empire It became perfectly clear in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—though he tried to avoid it—that it was inevitable, under present conditions, for us to make comparisons with rival Powers. On this occasion I have no desire whatever to question the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman laid before us a few minutes ago with regard to the progress of the German shipbuilding programme. If the right hon. Gentleman gives us any information on the authority of the Admiralty we are bound to accept it, because he must know better than we
  60
  do, but our present system makes it inevitable that these comparisons must be made in this House. I quite agree that it is unfortunate that comparisons of this kind are made, particularly when they are made on the authority of the Government, because they may affect the good feeling-which should exist between rival countries, but as long as we maintain a nominal standard of strength we are bound to have these comparisons. I must say I think it is absolutely necessary we should have a fixed standard of strength. There is a controversy on the point. There are two standards—the two-Power standard and the two-keel to one standard. I am one of those in favour of maintaining the standard hallowed by precedent and adopted by the Government of this country for many years past. In the course of the Debate we had in this House as to the two-Power standard last May or June the Prime Minister, in a moment of temporary aberration, introduced a qualification which appeared to have no meaning, and which I do not intend to dwell upon to-day. I want to come to the practical point in connection with the two-Power standard, and that is whether, as a matter of fact, we are maintaining it now. After all, that is a matter of much greater importance. Let us take the two next strongest Powers at the present time —Germany and the United States. What do we find if we apply such broad tests as we can apply to these cases? During the present year the German Navy Estimates amount to £22,000,000, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well enough. £22,000,000 by no means represents the German naval expenditure. Again, the United States are £28,000,000. Thus we have a total for the two strongest Powers of £50,000,000. That certainly is not maintaining the two-Power standard when we remember that our own Estimates are £40,000,000 only.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: £42,000,000.
  Mr. LEE: Even if we take the figure at £42,000,000 we are not maintaining the two-Power standard. Then, if we come to the figures as to large armoured ships, again we find we are not absolutely maintaining the two-Power standard in battleships. While it is easy to tell in the case of some Powers exactly what is being done, it is very difficult in the case of others. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is by no means easy to tell exactly what a Power like Germany is doing with regard to its battleship pro-

  61
  gramme. One thing is indisputable with regard to the German Navy, and that is the amount of expenditure. I will ask the House to consider for a moment the amazing growth of that expenditure. When I was at the Admiralty some five years ago the total German Estimate was £10,000,000, £5,000,000 representing new construction and armaments. Now the total German Estimate is £21,750,000, the sum for new construction and armaments being £12,000,000. Our Estimates have not increased in anything like the same proportion. In fact they have hardly increased at all. If you count in the Loan expenditure on naval works, which is in addition to our Estimates, you will find that it has not increased at all, and, in addition to that, we know that the German progress with regard to the large armoured ship programme has been much greater than was anticipated even by experts when the German Navy Bill was introduced. That has been made clear during the last few weeks by an eminent authority (Colonel Gadke), who pointed out that the twenty large armoured cruisers which were provided in the German Navy Bill have now been developed into super-"Invincibles"— into first-class battleships of over 20,000 tens, carrying 12-inch guns, which must therefore be added to the strength of the battleship fleet. It is a great question where to draw the line between large armoured cruisers and battleships. Lord Fisher, in a celebrated conundrum, put this knotty point, "When does a kitten become a cat?" and nobody could answer. In the same way, no one can say in these days when a large armoured cruiser becomes a battleship. It is not necessary to suggest that Germany or any other Powers are exceeding the authority conferred upon them by law. It is quite true that in this case the Germans are proceeding within their law. We have no right to complain because their law is so elastic. The real dangers we have to face with regard to foreign competition are, particularly in regard to Germany, in the first place the elasticity of the German Navy Bill, and in the second, the potentialities of German capacity. The German law permits an almost unlimited development and expansion of individual ships in the actual programme provided by the Navy Bill, and the realised shipbuilding capacity which the Germans have been building up during the last few years makes that expansion and development feasible. It is these two points which constitute the great danger, and while there are some Gentle-
  62
  men in this House who are quite satisfied that no more is to be done after you have had a Ministerial assurance from abroad as regards the future development of the Navy, I can only say, with regard to that matter, that I attach about as much importance to a Ministerial statement abroad as I do at the present time in this House, and it must depend upon the circumstances. No Minister can forecast the future, and I am quite certain that there is not a single Gentleman sitting on that bench who can tell what is going to happen during the next few months, either with regard to their own existence or anything else. Therefore, these assurances are valuable as evidence of good will, but for the purpose of forecasting the programme of ships which must take two years to build, they really should not play any part in our calculation at all. It seems to me that the only sound view of a situation like this is one which has been expressed by what, I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise as quite an impartial authority. I take it from the leading article of one of the greatest of American newspapers, "The New York Times." Writing under date 10th January last, that paper said:—
  "The determining factor in the situation for Great Britain is the steady deliberate building up of the German Navy, at a cost out of all proportion to the available current resources of the nation, and on a scale entirely beyond any visible or plausible defensive requirements."
  And the article went on to say:—
  " Now the very life of the United Kingdom depends on the humanly unquestionable superiority of its Navy‥ ‥ Against the possibility of a disaster that would be ruin. Great Britain cannot safeguard itself solely by the peaceful professions of the ruler, who could if he would inflict that disaster. It is the part of common sense to make the disaster impossible, whether his intentions be peaceful or aggressive."
  And it concludes by saying:—
  " Great Britain has the equal right to guard herself, and it is her simply inevitable duty to do so. As has been said, this in all human probability would prove a policy not only of patriotism but of peace."
  I think that statement of opinion, coming from a foreign country, which is itself included in the calculations of the two-Power standard, is one that I am entitled to ask the attention of the Committee to. This question of capacity, of potentiality, has loomed very large in all our discussions during the last twelve months, and the Government told us last year that they were going to make a great increase, that they were going to build up and prepare plant for gun-mountings, etc., to turn out a larger given number of ships in any year which was necessary. What have they done? I think we have some right to-

  63
  ask that, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us. I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman, and I gather from his gesture that he claims that the Government have done a great deal to develop our shipbuilding power.
  Mr. McKENNA: Not the Government. I did not claim it for the Government, but I claimed that the contractors have done it.
  Mr. LEE: I did not mean in our dockyards, but that the Government have given such incentives or encouragement to the contractors as would induce them to make a great development. If the Government disclaim any credit for it, I do not, of course, desire to force it on them.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think it is quite fair to the contractors for me to claim credit for doing it, as the credit is due to them.
  Mr. LEE: The only point that I make is this—that the Government said last Session they were doing it.
  Mr. McKENNA: Seeing that it was done.
  Mr. LEE: They said last Session that they were seeing it done, and that brings me to my point. Why do they not use it? If they have built up this great increase, why do not they use it? Our chief complaint is that, while the Government have put forward an extensive programme, they are starving the building Vote, postponing the commencement of that programme, and not making use of the greatly increased capacity which the contractors have now built up. I take the case in the first place of the large armoured vessels. The right hon. Gentleman said a good deal about those, but he does nothing to explain the farcical first instalment which has been taken for the first of these large armoured vessels. He said that really these instalments meant nothing; that it was only a matter of the staff being overworked; they would not have time to make up the bills before the end of the year, but the ships were going on being built just the same. Does he really ask us to believe that the Government, having put down certain sums in round figures, different sums calculated in hundreds or tens in the Estimates, as to what they are prepared to spend, that this means nothing, and that the staff have not had time to make up the bills to the end of the year, and in reality a very much larger sum has been spent?
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that; I said that a very much larger sum will be earned by the contractors, which is always the case.
  Mr. LEE: That is a good deal like what the Government said last year, and that means that they are deliberately bringing forward these Estimates with the intention later on of also bringing forward a Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. LEE: How is it possible to avoid it? If he says a great deal more money will be earned by the contractors, is he not going to pay them?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when the work is done by contractors there is a process of examination, and we are always in debt to our contractors throughout the year, and it is very difficult at the end of March to bring up the total amount. Consequently, it is undoubted that we shall not be able to get all the payments that we might wish to make in.
  Mr. LEE: That makes it clearer than ever, as far as the shipbuilding Vote is concerned, that these Estimates are fallacious Estimates, and do not represent the expenditure which is going to be incurred. We shall have again, I have no doubt, supposing that the present Government are in office the same situation that we had at the meeting of Parliament this year. The same situation will arise, and we shall be required to pass a Supplementary Estimate, and the only reason that the right hon. Gentleman gives for all this is that his accounting staff is incomplete to make the payment of the money earlier.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not the accounting staff.
  Mr. LEE: I think there is another reason, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to make his Estimates look as small as possible, but I do not mind that so long as the ships are got on with. Let us come to the facts with regard to them. As a matter of fact, in the Estimates there is only a sum provided for five of the large armoured ships, quite half of what was provided in last year's Estimates for these large ships. Is there any reason why the ships should not be laid down earlier this year? I quite agree that the Government cannot lay down ships in July, because the slips would not be ready, but the slips in the

  65
  dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth will be ready in September, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that is the case, and yet he is going to let time elapse until January without any ships laid down, and, according to the Estimates, he is putting off building and the commencement of these first two ships till January, and the slips will remain idle for several months. Of that we have a right to complain, because we consider that, having got your shipbuilding plan, the new ships should be got on with as soon as possible, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that there is urgent need for them.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that there is any urgent need of the new ships.
  Mr. LEE: The right hon. Gentleman says there is no urgent need of the new ships, but then I say he is condemned out of his own mouth; because he says that the Government will have to go to the length of borrowing two Colonial "Dreadnoughts" and retaining them in these waters after they have been supplied during the summer of 1912, retaining them here until we have ships ready to take their places.
  Mr. McKENNA: I never said any such thing.
  Mr. LEE: The right hon. Gentleman told us that two of the Colonial "Dreadnoughts" would be retained here during the summer until ours were ready.
  Mr. McKENNA: I said no such thing. These ships will be completed in September, the two of them, and they will leave these waters about November, 1912. The time they are in these waters will depend, not upon the necessity of their safeguarding our waters, but upon other arrangements which will have to be made for the escorting over of the other ships which will go out with them. It has nothing whatever to do with safeguarding our waters.
  Mr. LEE: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at his remark to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that whatever he meant that is what he said, and I am in the recollection of the House. We complain, and I think we have a right to complain, that having increased our shipbuilding capacity during the last twelve months the opportunities which have been given us have been frittered away, and we are clogging our capacity in the future in
  66
  the case of an emergency. That in itself is dangerous because no one knows—the right hon. Gentleman himself told us that it was impossible to tell what any one Power or combination of foreign Powers would do. He told us last year that they had the power and the capacity to make a sudden spurt, and we know now that we have it, and yet he is not going to take advantage of that additional capacity, but is going to put off the building of the necessary ships, with the result that he will have our capacity again strained. If this Government have to build ships, and if a sudden emergency should arise, we should be unable to extend our programme. Then, as to the delay in extending the number of our cruisers. With regard to that, I will only say that we are building too small a number and that the number of them which are proposed in his programme are insufficient. A great deal more on this subject I have no doubt will be said by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Lord Charles Beresford), and I will therefore pass away from it and will come to the question of destroyers. Here I think we have the most serious deficiency in the whole of our naval service. We are glad, of course, to see that the Government are making a push with regard to this matter and that they are speeding up last year's programme and are hoping for the completing of the whole of the vessels in their programme in, I think, eighteen months. Also that a large proportion of the Shipbuilding Vote for this year is intended for a new destroyer force, but it is impossible to get rid of the fact that last year the right hon. Gentleman again and again told us that the number of destroyers ready for sea was perfectly satisfactory. It cannot have been perfectly satisfactory if it is necessary to add twenty to it now.
  Mr. McKENNA: Why not?
  Mr. LEE: The right hon. Gentleman has told us what our strength of destroyers capable of service in the North Sea would be by July, 1911. He said we should have eighty-three. He also told us that on the same date Germany would have seventy-two of that class Does he really contend that a strength of eighty-three to seventy-two destroyers for service in the North Sea is sufficient for our needs?
  Mr. McKENNA: I said eighty-three was all we had suitable for service and suitable for all conditions of weather and distance.
  Mr. LEE: Then are we only to contemplate the possibility of war in fine weather?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has made this charge before. He is really not justified in twisting my words to a meaning which, in the ordinary understanding, they have not got. I have stated it would depend on the services the boats were called upon to perform, and how far they were asked to perform the services from their own home ports. They would be suitable for service in the North Sea under some conditions but not under all conditions.
  Mr. LEE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will get a very sufficient answer on that point in a few minutes. It is a matter necessarily for naval experts. We dealt with it at some length on the Shipbuilding Vote during the last three years, and we claim that the minimum compatible with safety is at least two to one in destroyers of this class, and probably a great deal more, and there is no sign that the Government is building up to that standard, and the only authoritative statement we have had with regard to the destroyer standard was from the Beresford Committee which sat some months ago, and which said the standard was a highly controversial question. They reported that they were satisfied that there was no such deficiency as to constitute a risk to the safety of the country. Would it be possible to have, said less without impeaching the Board of Admiralty? It is quite true we have said it again and again, and we shall have to go on saying, that in this class of vessel we are lamentably behind, and we make the additional charge against the Government that, although they bring in programmes of destroyers, they do not press on with them and they build them in very much slower time than is the case in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman has given no explanation at all why it is that our destroyer programme should be so greatly delayed. He has not told us why it is that we have only just completed the" 1906–7 programme. I think the last ship in the 1907–8 programme has just been delivered. None of the 1908–9 programme are completed, and the orders for the 1909 programme were only given a few months ago. If we contrast that with the German practice, we find that the whole of the German 1907–8 boats were completed in. 1908, the whole of the 1908–9 boats were completed in 1909, and of the 1909–10 boats, one ordered last April was completed in
  68
  December—the right hon. Gentleman has no official information of that, but he knows it to be the case—and the others are far advanced. It has become quite clear that the whole of the German boats of the 1909–10 programme were completed as soon as or before our boats of the 1908–9 programme. That is a very serious situation.
  Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
  Mr. LEE: Then will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the facts? He has always refused to do so. Will he deny that it is the fact that the Germans have completed their destroyers in less than twelve months, while our time has only just been shortened from nineteen or twenty months to eighteen. Why should it be beyond the resources of British shipbuilders to turn out destroyers in twelve months if the Germans can do it?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not. The lion. Gentleman states what he alleges to be what the Germans are doing, but he has no ground for saying it. He has not the slightest knowledge when the orders for these German destroyers were given.
  Mr. LEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Germans have as a matter of fact built their destroyers in less than twelve months?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman means, have the Germans ever built a destroyer under twelve months, it is possible they may have done, but if he asks if the Germans are executing their destroyer programme year by year, or any material portion of them under twelve months he is quite mistaken.
  Mr. LEE: The only inference we can draw from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the orders for the German boats are given in anticipation of the Estimates.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman must not draw that inference. When he says of a particular destroyer that it was ordered in April and completed in December I am only saying he does not know the date when the order was given. But as for the German programme of destroyers as a whole, no inference can be drawn from the case of an individual destroyer.
  Mr. LEE: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he told us last year that the trouble is that we do not know what

  69
  the Germans are doing, or what is their rate of building.
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Gentleman quote my words?
  Mr. LEE(reading):—
  " The difficulty hi which the Government finds itself placed at this moment is that we do not know, as we thought we did, the rate at which German construction is taking place. We do not know the rate at which the provisions of this law are to be carried into execution."
  That is the same thing.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it is not.
  Mr. LEE: I will not press the point. I think the House can sufficiently judge of the right, hon. Gentleman's meaning. We on this side do not feel in the least inclined to regard these Estimates with anything but very modified rapture. They suggest that the Government are alive, to a certain extent, to the perils of the situation, but they also show that the Government is unwilling to make the financial sacrifices which are logically demanded as the result of the situation. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have often referred scornfully to what they call paper programmes abroad. Theirs is a paper programme to-day as regards their new construction. If they really mean business with regard to this development of our naval strength, if they really wish to avoid the suspicion of subordinating the interests of the Navy to the party game, I hope they will make adequate provision to carry out the programme which they have outlined. They have certainly not done it now. They have not brought in sufficient money to make this programme which they have outlined the programme for 1910–11 at all; they have pushed it over into the year 1911–12, and I think we are entitled to press that point upon them and ask them that, if they mean business, they will at any rate make it clear that these Estimates are not final, and that at a later date in the Session they will have to bring in very substantial Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I rise to offer my contribution to this Debate with a desire, nay, with a determination, to free myself at all events, from any share of responsibility for the expenditure involved in these Estimates, but only with a faint and glimmering hope of being able to say anything which may affect the issue in the Division Lobby. It seems to me quite evident that this country has got into the hands and under the control of panic mongers, and
  70
  I am borne out by what has taken place this afternoon. A Liberal Government has surrendered its whole policy of economy, and has surrendered it to the opposite side. It is somewhat remarkable to hear a Gentleman from the Front Opposition Bench complimenting the Government upon having accepted the advice given to it from that bench. The hon. Member (Mr. Lee) has, if I am not mistaken, definitely put forward for the first time the principle that the interpretation of the two-Power standard is to be the strength of the American and the German nations.
  Mr. LEE: We have always maintained that the two-Power standard applies to the two next strongest Powers, whatever they are and wherever they are situated, and that definition was accepted by the Prime Minister himself.
  Mr. BARNES: There are, differences of opinion on that. I remember quite well several questions being put to the Prime Minister last year covering that very point. I do not remember it being put authoritatively from the Front Bench, and I am quite sure of this, that the Prime Minister very carefully guarded himself last year as to accepting that proposition.
  Mr. LEE: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. The questions were put from this bench by myself with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition, and they were not qualified by the Prime Minister on that occasion, although six months after they were.
  Mr. BARNES: Then, to put it another way, the Prime Minister unguardedly may have accepted the next two Powers as the two-Power standard basis, but ultimately withdrew them and guarded himself in the manner I have suggested.
  6.0 P.M.
  I think that is a true statement of what happend, and I simply want to warn the Government that, however much they may give in to the Opposition with a view to peace and quiet, the more they will be expected to give in. I believe that this country is not only in the hands of panic mongers, but that it is being pressed forward in a course —I will not say of destruction, because I believe the same financial interests that are to some extent responsible for these huge armaments would very likely, if it came to the point, prevent the use of them —but I believe this country is being pressed forward in a course of expenditure which is altogether beyond the reasonable

  71
  requirements of the situation, and that the country is being led into a frame of mind in which social well-being is being subordinated to what I call national and Imperial vanity.
  I wish to leave the main theme for a few moments to make reference to two or three points without dwelling on them in detail. In the first place, I think, it is a matter of satisfaction—at all events I am glad to know that the Government are asking the country to pay its way without any resort to further borrowing. To resort to borrowing would, it seems to me, be like the action of a man who, having run through a course of riotous living, took a sleeping draught, and left the responsibility of his maintaining his wife and children to others. After all, our troubles are of our own making, and we have no right to throw them on posterity. I say that with all the more emphasis, because I believe these vessels we are now providing, whether ashore or afloat, will long before another generation takes our place be neither good for use nor ornament. The old wooden ships of an earlier period were something pleasant to look at, but it cannot be said that the warships of the present day will form picturesque memorials of bygone times. As long as they are afloat they will simply be ugly and monstrous reminders of the time when man's greatest power in naval construction was signalised by devilish ingenuity in providing weapons of destruction. I am glad that the Government have the common honesty to make the country pay for the ships straight away, and not throw the cost on anybody else. I am glad that power is being taken for the construction of two floating docks. When we are building great ships we have to make provision for suitable dock accommodation in order that they may receive necessary repairs. I am glad to find that money, somewhat belated, is to be used for floating docks instead of inland docks. I think they will be more suitable, and also that they will cost less money. I am glad to know that the Government are making provision for the decent housing of the work people who are being removed from Woolwich to Greenwich. It is satisfactory to know even the official mind, which is sometimes the last to leave off old customs, is being penetrated with the idea that it is wrong to allow house jobbers to exploit public needs for private profit.
  72
  I want to ask a question in regard to engineering officers, a subject in regard to which something was said to-day on the Front Bench. I think if the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) will look at the Navy Estimates, page twenty-five, he will find that there is a considerable shortage of engineering officers this year. That is not unexpected. It is due largely, if not entirely, to the fact that Keyham College is now dried up. I think the last of the men have been, or soon will be, shifted from there. Between the drying up of that college and the bringing into operation of the new scheme, there will be a considerable interval. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty said there were to be no men available for the engine room until 1915. That is more than I expected, and I am very sorry to hear it. I should like to say here parenthetically that I believe the new scheme is a bad one. I have said so before, and I hope to have opportunities of saying so again. It is a scheme by which an endeavour is being made to remove a grievance by jockeying the old type engineer out of his place in the service altogether. It is proposed that the engineers should be lumped with the ordinary executive officers. It is proposed that the whole of the officers of the Navy in future —engineering officers and other officers— should be drawn from a class of the community amounting at the very outside, to not more than 5 per cent. That is to say, the whole of the officer class will have to be drawn exclusively from those people who are in a position to pay £100 per boy, in order to send him at twelve or thirteen years of age to Dartmouth or some other place. That in itself stamps the scheme as a bad one. I wish to know how the hon. Gentleman is going to make up that shortage which will take place between the drying up of Keyham College and the bringing in of the new men under the new scheme. That period will extend over two or three years. I wish to know if he is going to take men temporarily from the outside, or whether it is intended to promote men from the inside.
  I come to the main point in the Estimates, namely, the amount of money we are asked to sanction. That amount is about twice the amount of the Estimates thirteen or fourteen years ago, and I think nearly four times the amount of the Estimates twenty-six or twenty-eight years ago. Moreover, the true significance and full increase, as a matter of fact, is not in these Estimates at all because we are

  73
  asked by these Estimates to sanction the beginning of a certain additional programme which will land us in considerably increased expenditure under the shipbuilding or construction item next year. We have, I suppose, now the two "Dreadnoughts" which were ordered last November. We have also the four to be laid down at the beginning of next month. We shall have by this time next year other five for which power is now taken by these Estimates. That is to say, by this time next year we shall have eleven "Dreadnoughts" on our hands, and to these will be added the brood of next year. I suppose it is probable that next year we may have twelve or fifteen "Dreadnoughts" on the stocks. The £5,500,000 additional for which we are asked, of course, hinges very largely upon the additional programme sanctioned last year, and therefore we are driven back fairly, I think, to the consideration of what led up to that additional programme last year. I have no hesitation in saying that all or at all events most, of the alarming statements and journalistic jeremiads indulged in have in the main been found out to be mere baseless fables. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall proceed to prove it. I go further and say that the Government at this point would be quite justified in asking the House to reconsider the whole thing in the light of full information with the view, not to an increase, but to the lessening of this year's programme. I submit to the House that in view of the full information we have, and which ought to be available to the Admiralty, they would be quite justified in taking off part of this year's programme. And may I remind the House that there are precedents for such a course?
  The Government of 1904–5 dropped an armoured cruiser and some torpedo boats from the programme of the year, the same Government dropped a cruiser the following year, and the Liberal Government lessened the programme of the year by a battleship and three destroyers. There is ample room for like treatment now.
  We were also led into this additional expenditure by certain statements which were put forward first by the Front Government Bench, and then by the Front Opposition Bench. These were added to by what I have no hesitation in saying were crazy statements from the back Opposition Benches. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the crazy Front Bench."] Yes, those on the Front Bench were almost as crazy.
  74
  What were these statements? It was stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty that Germany was accelerating her programme, and that the result would be that the Germans might have thirteen "Dreadnoughts" next year and seventeen two years hence. The First Lord put that forward last year in starting the scare which spread over the House afterwards. Then the Leader of the Opposition took up the running and told us that the Germans would have—there was no conjecture about it—thirteen "Dreadnoughts" by the end of the year 1910, and probably twenty-one "Dreadnoughts" by 1st April. 1912. He significantly added that if thy Germans imitated the policy of the Government in demanding more money for shipbuilding they would have twenty-five "Dreadnoughts" by 1st April, 1912. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) essayed to point out, so as to allay any doubt as to the Germans being able to perform these miracles, that the firm of Krupps, under the fostering care of the German Government, were in a position to turn out more of certain armaments than all our Government and private shipyards together. Then we have the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. Samuel Roberts), who told us that the German Emperor had made arrangements with the firm of Krupps to turn out armaments for ten battleships in one year. In July last year I suppose the Government found it necessary to make, or, rather, to keep our flesh creeping, and they started another bogey. We were told that Italy and Austria had each decided to build four "Dreadnoughts." It seemed then as if the British Empire was going to be crumpled up in a race of "Dreadnoughts" of its own starting. That is how the matter presented itself to many in this House. These were the statements which were made and on account of which we launched upon this additional programme.
  How do they compare with the logic of events? It seems almost incredible, but nevertheless it is true that not a single thing stated to be a fact has turned out to be a fact, and not a single one of the predictions made has been realised or can be realised. That is the actual position to-day. We have been told recently by the German Ambassador and by the chief of the Admiralty in Germany that they will have only thirteen "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. But we are not dependent on these gentlemen. On 2nd March the Firs! Lord of the Admiralty stated that there were only thirteen "Dreadnoughts" on

  75
  order in Germany. He has repeated that statement to-day, and, so far as I know, he only qualified it by saying that the ships are not officially ordered. But whether officially ordered or not, it seems to be manifestly absurd to expect Germany to have all the seventeen ships by March, 1912, or April, 1912, because, in point of fact, the yards would not hold them. Therefore we may take it for a fact that these thirteen ships now on the stocks or afloat in Germany will be the whole of the fleet of German ''Dreadnoughts" this time two years hence. Therefore all those alarmist statements made under that head last year have turned out to be pure myths, and the plain fact remains that Germany will have thirteen ships in 1912. She will have some more on the stocks, it is quite true. She will have the three or four, whatever it may be, ordered this year. But she will only have those thirteen ready in 1912. As against those thirteen ships we shall have twenty-one, so far as I can see, actually finished. There will be four more upon the stocks, in addition to those that may be authorised as between now and then, and in addition we shall have the two from Australia and New Zealand, so the position is that by the end of that year we shall actually have twenty-seven "Dreadnoughts" as against the German thirteen plus the addition of this year.
  Where then is the fine flower of Liberal economy? This is the fine fruit of all those high-falutin phrases which we heard in the last Parliament, and which were spoken on so many Liberal platforms, of what would be done in the way of economy and saving for social reform. In fact, the seventeen "Dreadnoughts," the twenty-one and the twenty-five "Dreadnoughts" of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition are blown into thin air. Not a single thing has come out as was expected or predicted. And now, fore-sooth—this is now the most amazing thing of the whole business—not a single word is said about these predictions of last year either from the Government or the Front Opposition Benches. They are, so to speak, away in the regions of forgotten things, after they have served their purpose in compelling the Government to I adopt a certain programme. But I can promise hon. Members on both sides they will not pass away from my mind. They will stop there as a guidance to me in estimating the reliability of statements
  76
  made either on one side or the other. The hon. Member for Ecclesall told us that the Emperor of Germany had some arrangement with Krupps. That is too absurd for serious treatment. But there was a statement by the hon. Member for Fareham which is serious only because he has occupied a position of responsibility in our own Admiralty, and I suppose hopes to do so again; therefore his statement is invested with some degree of importance. He has already withdrawn part of the statement quoted against him as regards the capacity of Krupps as compared with the capacity of the yards of this country. But, so far as I know, he has never withdrawn his statement made to this House as a fact that Krupp's firm employed last year 38,000 men more than the year before.
  I have twice alluded to this matter. I have given last year information which I received from friends in Germany—Englishmen, by the way—and I quoted only a few weeks ago figures taken from a trade report in Berlin but copied from the books of the firm; and I also quoted a letter from the chairman of the firm to "The Times" last December. Now I want to give the hon. Member another chance. I have got figures from the Chambers of Commerce at Essen, and they show that at the very time last March when we were discussing this matter Krupps employed at Essen 33,917 men. At the end of March, 1908, they employed 33,086 men. That is to say, as between the end of March, 1908, and the end of March, 1909, there was an increase of 821 men; and I was informed by my correspondent that at least one-half of the factory is employed, not in the production of war material at all, but in the production of rails and plates and other things for peace purposes. I have got the figures of the total number of men employed by Krupps at Essen and elsewhere, and I find that there is an actual decrease. The position in 1908 was that there were employed by the firm of Krupps altogether 63,191 men last year, as compared with 63,540 the year before, so that there was I an actual decrease of 349 men, instead of the increase of 38,000 men which we were told about by the hon. Member for Fareham.
  I come to the scare of July. We were told by the Chief of the Admiralty—a new bogey had to be started; we had to be frightened afresh, the old one having lost some of its power—we were told, and, in fact, it was put in the forefront of the speeches in July, that Italy and Austria

  77
  had agreed each to build four "Dreadnoughts." I put a question the other day as to how these "Dreadnoughts" are progressing, and I found, just as I expected to find, that Italy had laid down one of these four "Dreadnoughts," but had not provided money to last beyond the end of next June. So it is clear that the four "Dreadnoughts" of Italy will be a long time materialising. But the seriousness of the statement of the Chief Lord of the Admiralty was in regard to Austria, having regard to the pan-German feeling on the Continent and the possibility, or the probability, as some people think, of a close alliance of Austria with the Germans. The seriousness of the position was the statement in regard to Austria. What do we find now? Only last week, in reply to a question which was put to the right hon. Gentleman, he said that not a single penny has been granted towards these ships, and not a single one of these four keels has yet been laid. These ships of the Austrians and to a large extent those of the Italians have turned out to be pure myths so far, just as the statements as to the accelerated German programme have turned out to be myths.
  The plain fact remains that, so far as Germany is concerned, Germany has only just kept to its programme, and, as a fact, if one reads into that programme, made first in 1900, the subsequent alterations made owing to the difference in the lifetime of ships to-day as compared with then, I think that the German programme has not even reached its due fulfilment at the present time; because, if you adhere to those subsequent alterations in the programme, I think you will find that there ought to be thirteen "Dreadnoughts" finished next year. I will just read to the House here a little bit of a statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty last year in regard to the lifetime of ships. He said that all improvements in the design of ships which increased their fighting capacity necessarily shortened the life of the earlier ships, just as in the case of any other machinery. Now, so far as there has been any alterations at all, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it has been due entirely to the fact that by the year 1905 it had been found that the lifetime of ships was shortened owing to improvements in battleships, and it was owing to that fact that there was any alteration at all.
  That is to say, the Germans have put into operation those principles laid down by the First Lord of the Admiralty him-
  78
  self, and, as it seems to me, they are perfectly within their rights in doing so. So fax for what might be called the position on our side. Now what of Germany? In Germany I suppose they have their fire-eaters and their talking admirals, their experts and their contractors' touters, and all the others whom we know—[An HON. MEMBER: "And their Socialists."]—and their Socialists; but, in spite of all that, let me submit to the House that this very year in Germany there is a reduction in the amount asked by the German Parliament for the construction of ships. [Several HON MKMBKRS: "NO."] According to the statement of the Admiralty themselves. I am sorry I have not got the paper with me, but an hon. Member behind has handed me some extracts which I may read from proceedings in the Berlin Parliament. One member criticised what he, regarded as the too lavish expenditure of the German Administration, and pointed to the financial policy of British Naval authorities, who paid for their warships, while Germany threw the burden of the ships on future generations. The speaker urged that serious efforts should be made to devise a method of putting an end to rival armament. Admiral Von Tirpitz said that the Government had endeavoured to adapt their needs to the financial position of the empire, with the result that the present Estimates fell short of those of last year by 24,000,000 marks, or £1,200,000.
  Mr. LEE: Is the hon. Member aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty told us to-day at Question time that the German estimates for new construction and armaments have been increased by nearly £2,000,000?
  Mr. BARNES: Possibly that may be so, but that does not include the whole expenditure, and I think I am right in saying that the expenditure of last year as compared with this year was in excess by £1,200,000.
  Mr. McKENNA: That must have been incorrectly reported. I think it will be found that the German naval estimates for 1910–11 are materially in excess of the estimates of the previous year.
  Mr. BARNES: That matter can be looked up before Wednesday, and I hope it will be seen, before this Debate is closed, as to whether we are right or wrong. I am now going to quote from the German Official Report of last Monday's Debate, which was opened, I think, last Saturday

  79
  and continued over Monday, and on one of those days Admiral Tirpitz delivered himself of words which showed the German Government's willingness to meet us halfway. The Admiral stated that they had not accelerated their building of ships, and they had kept strictly to the programme which had been known to the whole world for years. Dr. Ledebour had accused the Government of untruthfulness with regard to the proposals for these armaments, but he refuted this accusation in the most emphatic way. He added:—
  "England has never made any definite proposals, never made a formal and official proposition which could he regarded as a proper basis for official negotiation."
  This statement might be at all events taken as an invitation that such an official or formal proposition should be laid down, and I think if that were done it would probably ease the burden both upon ourselves and upon Germany. In fact, it seems to me that both in Germany and in this country the Governments are frightened by fire-eating newspapers and Navy Leagues into building these ships without any regard to their usefulness, while, of course, the people have to pay. A word or two as to the principles which underlie all this at ray of "Dreadnoughts." I submit to the House that political boundaries have lost a good deal of their significance in recent years owing to what might be called the interdependence of countries in trade and commerce, which, of course, includes banking and finance generally. I think that carries with it certain consequences. War, for instance, between Germany and this country would result in injury to this country, and to Germany as well, more than anybody else. It would injure the victors scarcely less than the vanquished. Each country has property in, and is concerned in, the credit of the other country. Each country, on the whole, is a customer of the other country; and, in short, as has been pointed out recently in a somewhat remarkable book called "Europe's Optical Illusion," international finance is simply making the weapon of war almost impossible. If the House consider and agree with us in that it will see that all the statements that have been made both here and elsewhere as to what happened in 1870, when the Germans made a raid upon France, or what happened in regard to the earlier exploits of Germany with Belgium and other countries, are absolutely beside the mark. I have a quotation here from a
  80
  speech made by the German Ambassador in London on 28th January. He puts a point much better than I can put it. He says:—
  "In view of the high development and great sensitiveness of the modern system of credit, the increased facilities for investing capital abroad, and the extensive use made of these facilities, it is impossible to conceive the idea of the forcible suppression of a commercial competitor without the conqueror injuring himself almost as much as the other. Values would have disappeared in a few days to a larger amount than a fortunate war could make good."
  I say if these words are true— I believe they are true—it seems to me wantonness and waste to build all these "Dreadnoughts" and these terrible engines of destruction. I believe that those most intimately acquainted with the facts well know that they can never be used, but the consequence is that the average man is made to fear war far more than he ever did before. I submit that money lenders and financiers generally will have a great deal more to do with war and the making of war than ever had your Bismarcks and your Von Moltkes in times gone by. There appear to be only what might be called sentimental reasons and treaty obligations as any justification in the way of armaments. I do not know to what extent this country is involved in treaty obligations, but I think—I daresay it will be considered an extraordinary statement to make—we are not concerned in regard to how Europe may be arranged or rearranged. If any hon. Gentleman can show me how I should be interested, or how a single one of my constituents would be concerned if Germany gobbled up Belgium, I am quite willing to consider it, but, so far as I can judge of the situation, we are not at all concerned in it. Therefore, all this talk which has been indulged in, and which I have heard repeatedly about the protection of our commerce, and about the cost of insurance amounting to only 3 or 4 per cent., or whatever it may be, is pure moonshine, and the amount of the insurance might almost as well be thrown into the sea for any good it does in that direction. People will buy from us only so long as we can supply their needs better and cheaper than others. I know that these views are shocking to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am here to state my own opinions and what I believe to be those of my constituents. [An HON. MEMBER: "Patriotic?''] That is my view of patriotism. It is a poor sort of patriotism which seeks some advantage at home with calamity abroad. I am here to voice what I consider to be the right view of the situation in the interests of my constituents. I thank the House for

  81
  having listened to me so patiently and courteously, while I have been expressing what doubtless to them appeared to be heterodox and unwelcome views. In conclusion, I want to say a few words about the distinctive labour view of the situation. We believe that this expenditure on "Dreadnoughts" arises from an insular, a paltry, and pernicious view of the situation. We, as a Labour party in this country, are interested in social reform, nay, we are interested in social reconstruction. We know that our fellows in Germany are also interested in social reform, nay, that they are also interested in social reconstruction; but they know, and we know, that nothing of that sort can take place so long as the two countries are pledged to spending these sums of money, and so long as the eyes of the two nations are being turned to the ends of the earth instead of the vital needs of their own people. That is why the Labour parties throughout the whole world have steadily set their faces against the expenditure of large sums of money in this way. That is the reason why the German Social Democratic Party, which is a party corresponding to that of hon. Members who occupy these Benches here, have steadily refused to vote credits for these purposes during the last few years. They still maintain that policy, and I quote in conclusion a few words uttered only last week by Dr. Sudekim in the German Parliament. Speaking on behalf of his party, speaking in the spirit I have just enunciated, he said:—
  '' Not a man and not a farthing shall we vote for this policy."
  The position in this country is the same as it is there, only from our point of view it is worse, much worse. For my part, I associate myself to the full with what Dr. Sudekim has said, because I think he expresses the spirit of labour everywhere. Therefore, I shall cheerfully walk into the Lobby against the Estimates now before the House behind my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington if he goes to a Division, as I hope and trust he will.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is as anxious as I am to maintain the old flag flying and the British Empire intact. That is my belief. He was perfectly earnest in the idea that he expressed as to the Estimates being too big, Will he study the result of the economies of the Government for four years, for if he is in his seat next year he
  82
  will be perfectly appalled at what the Estimates will be then. That is the result of false economy. To show how curiously difficult it is to represent questions of naval service to the public, we must take what the hon. Member said about the "Dreadnoughts." He talked about nothing but "Dreadnoughts," but he does not suppose for one moment that they mean the whole Fleet. If I took him down to Aldershot and showed him heavy artillery, and no cavalry and no infantry, he would probably think it strange if I said that was an army; but that is just the position when you are talking of the whole Fleet. "Dreadnoughts" would no more be effective without cruisers, stores, etc., than artillery could be utilised without cavalry and infantry. The hon. Member spoke of social reform. We all want social' reform; it is absolutely necessary that we should have social reform; but where would social reform be if our defences should not be equal to our needs? Then a word or two with reference to what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said. He is quite incorrect—I am afraid this is not the first time —in regard to what he brought forward as to the value of the Naval Lord's signature on the Estimates. I was in the Admiralty, and I would never sign the Estimates, and I never did sign the Estimates. Within twelve weeks after I went out I brought before this House the necessity for £20,000,000 being added to the taxation of the country for seventy ships. Within twelve weeks the same Lords and their colleagues wrote a paper to say it was absolutely necessary, or else the country would be in danger. What was the value of their signature?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not agree with the Noble Lord's statement of the history of what occurred in 1884.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: It seems likely that the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with me in anything, and I am certain he will not agree with many of the remarks I shall make before I sit down. That was the fact, as I was in the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about "Dreadnoughts," and said, as I understood him, that it was on this side that the "Dreadnought" was advertised. It was nothing of the sort. This side laid down a "Dreadnought." and a very wise proceeding. The "Dreadnought" was laid down as a ship superior to the ships that preceded her.

  83
  That was very wise; but the "Dreadnought" never was so much superior over the "Lord Nelson." and "Agamemnon" as they were over the "King Edward" class. Who advertised her? She was taken up, and she was advertised in every way in the world, and hon. Members on the other side of the House will support me in this because it is true. She was advertised by telling the German nation that the "Dreadnought" could sink the whole of her fleet, and that was the beginnning of this vast expenditure of money. That is so. All the neighbouring nations began to look then at this country. As long as she held the warden of the seas, and kept the freedom of the seas open for all countries, because it is necessary that we must remain supreme at sea, no nation said a word about that. But directly we began to be the bully of the seas then that expenditure in other countries —[Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but it is the opinion of the Navy. It is the fact. That is what started all this enormous expenditure of money, and, as I said the other night, you will have to pay £60,000,000 more or less for this before you finish.
  The country will be very glad to give any amount of money for the Navy, and what we have got to look at is at the facts of the case. I am not the least bit astonished that hon. Members opposite question the necessity of spending this money. Why, the Prime Minister in the middle of the General Election went down and told the country that the Navy was unassailable now and for the future, after the scare made on that Bench opposite last year, the scare created there, and nowhere else. Supposing the Prime Minister had added a postscript to that sentiment, and said it is unassailable for the future, because we are going to ask you for £40,000,000 this year, and £60,000,000 the year afterwards, do you think the electors would have regarded that with the calmness they did when he said it is unassailable for the future. I am sure they would not. Then there is another point I wish to bring forward, and it is that the money which they are going to spend this year on new construction is so small. It shows that the ships will be put off till next year, exactly the same as the four contingent ships were. The country should not forget that the words "new construction" includes ships under construction. The ships under construc-
  84
  tion have already been approved by this House and are an old programme. New construction proper is for the new programme of thirty vessels—very different to the money spent on ships under construction already. When you put down "new construction" a great number of people think that these £14,000,000 are being spent over and above the ships that the House has already approved of. I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what I mean. The whole of this money, or nearly all of it, is going to be spent on ships that, this House approved of last year. On the thirty ships you are going to build, the five new "Dreadnoughts," etc., you are only going to spend £1,400,000. That is new construction. The Hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) said very truly that is a new commitment, next year you will have another commitment, and Estimates will go to £50,000,000 or £60,000,000. [Laughter.] You may laugh, but you would have laughed very much last year if you had been told this time last year that the Estimates would be £40,000,000. I appeal to the House, would anybody have been more amused than the right hon. Gentleman if he had been told this time last year that the Estimates this year would be £40,000,000, and that they would have to be from £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 next year.
  I say that all this enormous expenditure of money has been brought about by false economy, and for want of the adoption of the most elementary tactics of prudence and forethought. First of all, you have the four years' reduction of the Shipbuilding Vote, and all the time while we were decreasing our Vote this side was continually warning the Front Bench relative to the Germans increasing their Vote. All the time the right hon. Gentleman paid not the slightest attention, and laughed, as he does at some of my remarks now. There is no excuse, in saying that we were waiting to see what the Germans were going to do. That policy of waiting to see what the Germans were going to do has resulted in their having better and bigger ships, and heavier armour ships, with auxiliary armaments we have not got. Remember that these economies were all effected in face of the German Navy Law Extension Act of 1899, of the shortening of the life of battleships from twenty-five to twenty years in 1906, while for three successive years there have been loans of £40,000,000,

  85
  most of which has been devoted to the fleet. In face of all that, during three years the Government reduced the expenditure very heavily, and the result is these £40,000,000 Estimates to-day. They do not know anything now that they did not know before. It is the result of false economy that an hon. Gentleman wants to see practised again, and which would jeopardise our supremacy, cause a panic in the country, and enormously increase the Vote next year or the year afterwards.
  I quite sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman as far as this goes, for he has on one side people saying your Estimate is too little and on the other side people saying your Estimate is too much. What I should like to put before the House and to indicate as clearly as I can is our exact position and let the public outside decide as to what should be done. As regards new new construction proper, we are only going to spend £1,400,000, against £2,285,000 last year, so that though the crisis is here in the near future, and which the Prime Minister showed clearer than anybody else last March, we are actually going to spend less on new contraction to meet this crisis in two years' time than we did last year. I find, then, that we are going to spend £321,000 on the whole five new armoured ships in the year. I cannot complain of the armoured ships, because in my programme, which I hope to be allowed to read presently, I only wanted six, and with the five ships proposed by the Government and the two by the Colonies, we shall have seven of those heavy ships. In the country at the moment which is critical, which the Prime Minister pointed out as being critical, and the Foreign Secretary amazed the whole of the Dominions and the whole world, because he said that at that time it was so critical, as Germany might produce twenty-three "Dreadnoughts," instead of seventeen, what, then, are we going to spend? The whole cost on these ships is going to be the fifth of the cost of one ship. Is that enough? It is not enough. They ought to have spent a large sum of money on those ships and removed these sudden panics and these sudden scares. I quite sympathise with what the hon. Member said just now with regard to these, scares, and these panics, and these comparisons with another nation. It is irritating, and not the way to make nations friendly with each other.
  7.0 P.M.
  As a matter of fact, the Government are going to spend this year less than they spent last year on the four contingent
  86
  ships, which shows, though I cannot say it is dishonest, it is not straight. They are going to put these ships on to next year, just the same way as they put the contingent ships of last year to this year, and then the First Lord of the Admiralty says that if we fall behind German acceleration it will be difficult to make up the leeway. I find fault with the First Lord of the Admiralty in this, the same as the hon. Member for Fareham. Why did he tell this House that the reason for the contingent "Dreadnoughts" was Austria and Italy? It was not the cause, and he knows it was not the reason. The reason was German acceleration. Why did he not tell the House the fact, instead of getting out on the thing that was not the fact? He knows perfectly well Italy did not lay down two ships and Austria is not thinking of laying them down. The ships are necessary on the grounds of German acceleration. I turn to the cruisers, and I find they are going to spend £120,000 less this year than last year. I come to torpedo boat destroyers, which is the one little bright spot in the whole of these Estimates. They are going to spend on the torpedo boat destroyers £512,788 more than they spent last year. That shows that this bench has always been right, or why do they spend more than ever before if this bench is not right? The right hon. Gentleman said we would have 102 next year. We shall not have 102. Without being egotistical, I may say there is nobody in the whole Service who has worked these torpedo-boat destroyers like, I have. I tell the right hon. Gentleman these boats are not suitable for the North Sea, not one of the 27-knotters or the 30-knotters; and you have only got eighty, to ninety of the Germans. You ought to have three to one, and I will tell you why. The whole utility of torpedo craft depends on the health and vigour of the officers and of the crew, and anybody who has ever been in one knows that they cannot possibly last physically more than three or four days. There is an officer sitting behind me who commanded three of them. He will tell you what he thinks of them directly. There is not one of these boats fit for the North Sea. The First Lord gets up and says: "On certain occasions," but whatever you have got in this country in the way of armoured ships should be ready for any sort of occasion. That, however, is beside the point. You have only got eighty. To

  87
  work out your plan you may have work on the enemy's coast, and you may be two nights there, if it is not too rough. You have got to give the officers and men one, two or three nights' rest, or else they cannot work. Even if the right hon. Gentleman's own number was accurate it would not be anything near what is wanted; and if he does not know it he ought to know it. Then there is the question of stores. It is easier for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us about stores than it is for us to find out about them. He knows perfectly well that there are a large number of stores that were denuded, outside what he speaks of as the stores that came home. I had one torpedo destroyer laid up for six months because there was not a plate to repair her with in England.
  Mr. McKENNA: That statement is not right.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: How does the right hon. Gentleman know? I commanded the ship.
  Mr. McKENNA: I know because the Noble Lord made the statement on a public platform; I investigated the facts, and I discovered that it was not six months but six weeks.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: It is perfectly true that it was six weeks before they got the plate, but it was six months before the boat was repaired. There are many stores that I have been short of, and which have had to be bought outside the yard instead of their being in the yard, as is necessary for efficiency. I have a list of them, and I will bring it out on the Stores Vote, if we ever get to it.
  Then take the question of floating docks. The right hon. Gentleman said on 5th July, 1909, that there was a serious want of docks on the East Coast. He has only put down £25,000 out of £100,000 required for providing accommodation for the dock at Portsmouth, and he is not putting down anything at all for the Medway. But it is satisfactory to observe that two docks are to be started this year, and two next. I want to say, however, that if the crisis which the bench opposite told us existed last March does exist, we want the docks at once. There is a general confusion about docks, it being supposed that we want them only during war. We want docks for ships before war breaks out, to get their bottoms, valves, and so
  88
  on cleaned in order that the ships of the Fleet may have the same speed. If you have one ship out of dock fourteen months and another three months, there is a difference of four knots in their speed, and that will mean a difference of four knots to the whole Fleet, because the speed of the fleet is the speed of the slowest ship. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman ought to hurry up with these docks, but he does not appear from the Estimates to have the slightest intention of doing so. Portsmouth as a naval port is very much behind, both in docks, coal, and coaling arrangements. That ought to be put right. I will refer to it again on the Vote.
  I come now to the personnel. I must refer to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on 27th July last, in which he said that he was perfectly satisfied with the manning, but that it had nothing whatever to do with the availability of ships. I have read that over very often, but I cannot for the life of me understand what it means. How can ships be ready or efficient for war unless they have got the men? If they have not got the men, they are not available; they cannot fight. The First Lord says in his Statement that they are joining 3,000 men. They are doing nothing of the sort. They are joining 2,394 men — they have not subtracted from the Marines and the Coastguards the numbers by which they have reduced certain parts.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is mistaken in his view. So far as, the Marines or any other rating are reduced, we have added seamen to compensate for the reduction. There is a net increase of 3,000.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not read it that way. Take the question of Marines. We ought never to have less than 20,000 Marines. With the nucleus crew system, which is an excellent system worked as it is now, as a reserve, but ludicrous, and more or less of a fraud if one is told that the nucleus crew ships are ready for instant action without an hour's delay, you ought to have the Marines up to 20,000, because in a great emergency you can have, in a hurry, 200 drilled men, who have always been together on a ship, instead of getting men drafted from all sorts of places. I protest with all the strength I can command against the Marines being reduced. I see that the Coastguards are not to be reduced any

  89
  more. That is satisfactory, although there are 147 taken off now. I do not think the explanation, "Due to revision of complements of ships of war," was at all clear, and when we get to the Vote I shall ask the First Lord for a more definite and clear statement. With regard to the men, if the Admiralty are going to use the Special Service vessels, I believe they are 19,000 men short for present and future requirements. A short time ago there was no idea of increasing the men at all. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfied with the personnel, as he was with the strength of the Fleet. We want £40,000,000 to get it right now, owing to those deferred liabilities in shipbuilding. It is the same with the men. I am certain they ought to be joining 5,000 this year. I imagine that the difficulty was in the schools. To take 6,000 to make up the wastage and to join 5,000 more would have been very difficult. But the right hon. Gentleman is making a move in the right direction, though I do not think he is joining enough. It takes much longer to train men than it does to build a ship. To train a first-class man takes about six years. A ship can be built in two.
  All parties are agreed that the safety of the Empire depends upon our supremacy at sea. Whether certain hon. Members opposite agree or not with that I do not know, but I am perfectly certain that those whom they represent do. Supremacy at sea depends on two conditions. One is the total strength of the Fleet with all its units complete, and the other is the Fleet's proper organisation for war. I maintain that the Fleet is not strong enough at the present time owing to the shortage of units, and that the provision in the Estimates for future additions is not adequate to maintain our supremacy. I also maintain that the Fleet has not been, and is not now, properly organised for war, and that such a condition is impossible unless there is a proper war staff at the Admiralty. With the permission of the House, I should like to examine this question of supremacy at sea, not from the lawyer's or the politician's point of view, but simply from that of a naval officer who has studied this question ever since he was a lieutenant. There is no question that we are face to face with a crisis in naval affairs, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the whole of the Front Bench opposite saw last March. Why are we face to face with that crisis? First of all, I repeat that it is due to the advance of a neighbour in ship-
  90
  building; secondly, to our own dangerous arrears of shipbuilding, which it is attempted to make up with great celerity in the ships already voted, but with nothing whatever, or very little, for the new commitments; and, thirdly, to the neglect of a proper organisation for war. Remember, with reference to those warnings that Ministers gave, they were in far more serious terms than anybody on this side of the House has used. Another point to be remembered is that those Ministers are responsible, and they must have based those statements on something that they knew, and that nobody outside the Cabinet could have known. Therefore, I say that the advance to £40,000,000 is not commensurate with the remarks they made.
  What have the Government done since? They lost a whole year with the "Dreadnoughts," and they are going to lose another whole year with the thirty ships they now propose. The present Administration failed to keep the Navy up to the necessary requirements, and that is why we have a big increase now. I maintain that when you get the commitments for next year, plus next year's programme, next year's Estimates will be appalling. Forty million pounds will be nothing to what those Estimates, will be. It has been continually pointed out that when the Government came into office they had a two-Power standard, although, as a matter of fact, some of the units were short; but they were four times the strength of a neighbouring Power, which since then has gone up by leaps and bounds, increasing its shipbuilding vote while the Government have decreased theirs. We do not want a return of scenes in the House. Very strong opinions are given on both sides—on what? On what is necessary to maintain our supremacy. I agree with the hon. Member below me (Mr. Lee) that we should do what a neighbouring Power has done—we should lay down a programme that should be bigger, better, and quicker than that of that neighbouring country. I am perfectly certain that that neighbouring country would not go on; her finances would not allow it. I speak of that neighbouring country with the greatest courtesy and respect, because I do respect her. We have no right to say anything whatever irritating about her. She has a perfect right to do what she likes. She would respect us for appreciating the position, and making ourselves secure at sea, because she knows just as

  91
  well as we know, and as the whole world knows, that unless we keep the command of the sea it will be the end of the British Empire. The preamble of the German Navy Bill of 1900 is a distinct threat to British supremacy at sea. It says:—
  " Germany must have a fleet of such strength that even for the mightiest naval power a war with her would involve such risks as to jeopardise its own supremacy."
  Can there be anything clearer than that? We have also the utterances of distinguished and responsible German statesmen and officials. Count Reventlow last year said:—
  " We in Germany must not be blind to the fact that in naval warfare the period of straightforward, honest declarations of war or of open preparations for war has gone for ever. It is not merely naive, but extremely erroneous to suppose that war could not break out without a formal declaration. The next war will begin with such a breach of international law and at a moment when the enemy least expects an attack."
  Well, then, there is Professor Trietsche, who says:—
  " We have settled our accounts with Austria-Hungary, with France, and with Russia. The last settlement, the settlement with England. will be probably the lengthiest and the most difficult."
  Now, how were these other countries settled? By sudden declaration of war— with the bayonet and the bullet! Von der Goltz says:—
  "The material foundations of our power are broad enough to warrant the thought of successful opposition to British supremacy. Germany must meet this war if it comes, and lose no time in making her preparations."
  I come to the point of appeal to the benches opposite. The British people and the German people hate and detest war, and they do not want war, but will you remember that the German people have nothing whatever to say as to a declaration of war. They are entirely under a bureaucracy. We in this country can have something to say of war. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You say "No." [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] Well, there is one hon. Member who can say "No," but I say that this country does not want to go to war, and if you will be advised by those of us who have studied it, to make yourselves strong enough, you cannot have war. That is the only way to keep the peace, and not fiddling about with driblets as we are doing now. Lay down a big programme like the Germans have done in a businesslike and common-sense way, and put down the money to pay for it, and then you will have no war. The matter now is that we have got no policy, and as we have got no policy, we have got no
  92
  standard. If we go on as we are going on troubles will be recurring over and over again, until irritation will set in because we are getting closer to each other, and we shall have war, which I want to prevent in my way; but you will never prevent war in your way, but for these economies you will only get panics and scares, and the enormous expenditure you have this year, and will have next year.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty on 21st July last seemed to take pride in the fact that there was "no continuity of policy." He said:—
  "There is no such thing as continuity of programme."
  That is what I want to get—a continuous programme. Let other nations know we are going to hold the sea, without being insolent or arrogant, because it is our life, and we die if we do not hold it.
  Let me turn to the two-Power standard, and give reasons why we should have it. The Prime Minister said that he meant by a two-Power standard:—
  " An equality in capital ships with the two next strongest Powers, plus a margin of 10 per cent., whichever they may be or wherever they might be situated.?"
  That was a definite, clear policy. It was accepted, as has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman below me. But on 26th May the Prime Minister repudiated it altogether, and brought in an emasculated standard which nobody can understand to this day. It is not a standard; anyway, it is not a standard to make it evident to other countries that we are going to keep command of the sea. Then he suggested that oversea navies situated in different geographical conditions should not be counted. What I want to ask the Prime Minister is: Where is the geographical position on the face of the globe where British interests or British territories do not exist? Do you suppose that geographical position removes the responsibility from that Front Bench for defending the whole of the British Empire, no matter where it may be, or where its scattered units are? I quite agree if our interests were only in the North Sea that there would be some justification for this emasculated two-Power standard, but our interests are in the uttermost parts of the earth, and their defence still remains, though you have an emasculated two-Power standard. You are already committed to a defence of the Empire as a whole because you have accepted from the dominions these offers of men and money. Therefore you cannot take geographical position into account. It is unsound. It cannot hold water, and you must come

  93
  back to your two-Power standard. Why take the geographical position? Steam, speed, and wireless telegraphy have altered distances very much. Take the two distances from England to Port Said and from England to Canada, and Canada is only about 800 miles further than Port Said. You have to be ready to support the whole of British interests, no matter where they are. Yes, we must stick to the two-Power standard, as laid down by the Prime Minister. However small a British possession is, or where or what it is, you have to defend it, if attacked, with the whole might of the British Empire ! Does anybody repudiate that on the benches opposite? No ! We have got too much of the best stuff that England can produce in her Dominions, and we have got to take care of them until they can take care of themselves. We cannot do that unless we have the two-Power standard, for we might have a combination against us without our knowledge. We have got to view the possibilities. Supposing a European country made some arrangements with an Asiatic country, and the Asiatic country was to take the Cape, or Australia, or New-Zealand—and it is perfectly possible, where are you without your two-Power standard? You have to have a Fleet which will be ready to go to the uttermost parts of the globe in defence of British interests, as well as one for the defence of the heart of the Empire. It would be more difficult for us if there was a large hostile fleet at the other end of the world than it would be if there were two hostile fleets in European waters, because we could then concentrate against them. Remember, the fleet abroad will have to be stronger on account of reliefs, supplies, and keeping its units. But you must be prepared to have two fleets unless you observe the two-Power standard.
  The problem is not new. Rodney fought out in the West Indies. He did not fight in Home waters. Hughes and Suffren Fought in Asiatic waters. The present Government kept a fleet out in China in 1906 in view of eventualities. We maintained a large fleet in Far Eastern waters owing to the Russian fleet which might have become a menace. Then I take Spain and the United States. The United States fought Spain in Cuba, and Spain had to make peace. That war was not fought in the home waters of Spain. Look back to the time of the American Colonies. Cornwallis was kept in Yorktown because we could not get force enough there to relieve
  94
  him, but we were perfectly strong in home waters. We lost the American Colonies because we had not on the American coast a fleet large enough at that time. Under these conditions we have got to keep to the two-Power standard that the Prime Minister laid down last year, and we shall not be able to defend our Empire without it. At the present moment we are not living up to it, and the Estimates do not provide enough security to live up to it in the future. The result of all this, in my humble opinion, is because we have no War Staff at the Admiralty. I shall have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, because he knows the vast improvement, which we on this side of the House recognise, that he has made in the Army is largely due to the War Staff that he instituted at the War Office. We have got nothing of the sort at the Admiralty, as I shall presently show.
  With regard to the two-Power standard, we must not forget the question of the Dominions. The Dominions have come to our assistance, remember, through speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The Dominions thought we had got into a very great crisis, and they came with their aid quickly. We must not forget, however, that we will be very foolish to count on the Dominions helping until their fleets are ready. Until those fleets are ready we must assume the responsibility for the defence of the Empire. Those fleets will take some years to be ready because, however good the ships and the men may be, no fleet is really ready for war unless it is properly trained in tactics and strategy. Until it is ready we must not for a moment think we are divorced from the responsibility of the defence of the Empire.
  The two-Power standard, with all its units, to carry out the functions of the protection of the whole Empire, to carry out the defence of the whole of the coastline, and the mercantile communications— a two-Power standard would be strong enough to command peace, but if there was war, it would give us an immediate victory. We should be so strong that no other countries would dare to attack us. What would £1,000,000 be in order to secure peace absolutely of the world, instead of peace with scares? Why, the Front Bench is nervous, or it would not ask for £40,000,000 ! The Navy was unassailable during the election. There is a great deal of comparison made about tons, guns, and prices, and one hon. Member, always on

  95
  that tack, is the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is very unfair, and has nothing whatever to do with the point, whether we are three to one or four to one. We have to calculate what we have got to defend. Take the coastline of the British Empire. It is 49,690 miles. The coastline of the German Empire is 4,910, and 2,000 miles of this are for islands in the Pacific. Our mercantile shipping is half the rest of the world put together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Quite so. Do you not want to defend it?
  Mr. McKENNA: Equal to the rest of the world, not half. [HON. MEMBERS: "The same thing."]
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The point was that I wanted to compare ourselves with Germany. We have 11,565 ships, with a tonnage of 18,826,422 tons, against Germany's 2,171 ships, with a tonnage of 4,266,713. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but we exist upon the food that is water-borne. Our workmen exist, and we ourselves exist on the raw material that is brought home. Germany could lose the whole of her fleet, and the whole of her Mercantile Marine to-morrow, and still feed her people on her home produce, and import raw material over her frontiers. All our frontiers are sea-frontiers, and all our roads are sea-roads.
  We are bound to protect them and to see that they are not interfered with, whether in peace or war. I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking about three to one, but there is no comparison of three to one or four to one. The question of tons and guns and prices has nothing whatever to do with it. It may be all very well for a Radical platform in Wales or anywhere else, but it has nothing whatever to do, from the naval point of view, with the state of the Question. If you have a nation which has four times or ten times the amount of defence to attend to you must have more materials for carrying out that defence than the person who attacks you and has very much less to defend. The Home Secretary seems to be enormously amused at that. I do not see that there is any case for humour at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech at Reading on 2nd January, instead of dealing with this great Question as I should like to deal with it, prefaced his remarks with a totally misleading announcement. He said our naval force, as compared with Germany, is three to one,
  96
  and he suggested that if Sir Francis Drake made any similar demands of the British people in his time that were being made now he would be sent to the Tower, for he would be found guilty of treason, and he would probably be beheaded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's allusion to the history of an Elizabethan war was very unfortunate. Queen Elizabeth never showed any resentment for any of her admirals if any of them called attention to any weakness in her Fleet. On 13th April, 1588, Drake wrote asking for
  " Four more of your Majesty's good ship."
  And added:
  " God increase your Majesty's forces both by sea and land daily, for I think there was never any force so strong as is now ready and making ready against your Majesty."
  Drake could not have used better language than that if he was living on the present occasion, and I am perfectly certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer and some more of the Gentlemen on the Front Bench would have called him a panic monger and other names of that description which I do not think would have been merited. Let me point out this. The Government talk of scares. Will you tell me one single so-called scare in this country that has not been justified by what came afterwards? Turn to the scare created by the Front Bench. What has been the result of it? Forty million pounds sterling this year.
  May I turn for a few minutes to the question of trade routes? Now the weak spot is the defence of the trade routes. It was never so weak as now. We talk of invasion, we talk of the defence of the home waters, but we neglect precautions necessary for the outlying parts of the Empire, and for our communication and our trade routes, which are not properly defended. There is no nation but has got some weak spot as we have, but their weak spots are not of the same magnitude, for we are absolutely dependent upon punctual and certain delivery of our food and raw materials. We have no margin for food and raw materials. We have seen, from what was said by Count Reventlow, that war will be sudden, and that the enemy will be prepared in every detail. The removal of the small ships from the trade routes is a very serious question. In that I am borne out by the First Lord of the Admiralty and by the Secretary to the Admiralty. On 16th March, 1909, the First Lord of the Admiralty said:—
  " Our commerce if undefended in war in remote seas would be bound to be attacked by armed merchant vessels, specially commissioned for the purpose as ships of war."

  97
  That would be exactly the case. We have taken the small cruisers off the trade routes while we ought to have kept them there. The trade routes will not be attacked by cruisers. If a cruiser goes out we send a cruiser to shadow her. If war comes it will be organised on a certain day; it may be months, or it may be weeks, and these tramps will come out of harbour without anyone knowing them. Why do you put a policeman to walk up and down the beat except that his appearance there stops incidents? What is the use of sending out the policeman after the incidents have occurred, and I say that the small cruisers that we scrapped should never have been scrapped or brought home until others were put in their places. The Secretary to the Admiralty on 17th March, 1909, said:—
  " What would become of Free Trade when you have lost the free sea highway of the world?"
  And then the hon. Gentleman went into the total value of imports and exports, and said all the wealth of the United Kingdom depended upon the free and safe delivery of the raw material, and he asked, What would become of the great industrial centres that are dependent for their living on these supplies if this trade is dislocated from its proper locality? Why, want and destitution would set in all over the land. I quite agree with the Secretary for the Admiralty, but I say that the fact is this, that the trade routes are not properly looked after, and are not properly protected now. If something happened with Belgium or Holland, or something of that sort in which this country was interested, we should send an expostulation from the Government, and it would probably be taken as a declaration of war. That is a possibility. Do you think other people do not see it as well as you; and we have to guard against these possibilities by being thoroughly efficient.
  I have handled the Britisher in all sorts of circumstances, and he is the best fellow in the world, and he will follow you anywhere you lead him, but it is very difficult if he has an empty stomach. Keep his stomach full, and he will follow you, and I say there are great difficulties if you stop the food supply, not perhaps in the first week or three weeks. I suppose when I refer to this some hon. Members are thinking of some political question of Free Trade or Tariff Reform, but I assure them I am very serious upon this question of trade routes. These trade routes are not defended. The right hon. Gentle-
  98
  man the First Lord of the Treasury knows perfectly well what I am telling the House about these armed tramps.
  Mr. McKENNA: I know nothing of the sort!
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Then the right hon. Gentleman forgets what was communicated to him at that Committee to which I am not at liberty to refer.
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot allow that statement to pass by. The Noble Lord has ascribed to me information which I have informed him before is not true.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that he had it in black and white from two distinguished officers about the trade routes?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; there has been no communication to the British Admiralty by distinguished officers or undistinguished officers stating that tramps are armed with guns.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: There were two letters informing the right hon. Gentleman that the trade routes were not properly protected.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is not justified in saying that either here or on the platform.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am justified in saying it, and I wish the House to understand I am justified in saying it, and I defy the right hon. Gentleman to produce the letters that went before the Committee from distinguished officers who wrote about the trade routes, and one of whom was sent to a foreign station because he called attention to it.
  Mr. McKENNA: The statements of the Noble Lord are absolutely without the slightest foundation.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am perfectly astounded at what the right hon. Gentleman says. He knows perfectly well that in the report to the Commission, if you read the Report of the Commission on the Trade Routes, that it is all of a most secret character. So it is all of a secret character. I cannot say exactly what it was, but I say that there were letters brought before that Committee showing that the trade routes were not properly defended, and I stick to it, and it is a very serious question, too—a most serious

  99
  question. Let me show how the trade routes are protected. The business of the British Fleet is to be so organised that the supplies of the country, both of food and raw material, are kept free from interruption, either in peace or war. None of the British trade routes are adequately protected, and two of the most important trade routes have no cruisers at all stationed at or near them. For instance, the East Coast of South America and the West Indies and the East Coast of America are totally devoid of local defence. I tell you that trade routes can be cut and that these trade routes are the arteries of this country, and a man or a country can just as surely be killed or demolished by having the arteries cut as by being stabbed over the heart. All we have thought of is the heart. We ought not to have scrapped the cruisers without having put something in their place. There is no cruiser to look after the enormous amount of water-borne trade passing Pernambuco. At the Cape station at the present moment we have only the following three ships, the "Forte," second-class cruiser; the "Hermes," second-class cruiser, and the "Pandora," third-class cruiser. Gold to the extent of three-quarters of a million leaves the Cape every week or fortnight, and it is not protected in the event of its being attacked by armed tramps coming there in times of war. Look at the banks of this country. Insurance would go up to prohibitive prices, and security would go down to zero. If your ships containing supplies are stopped, I see an appalling catastrophe occurring to this country before your battleships would have put to sea at all.
  I proposed the programme which, I believe, we ought to have. I would cost us £68,000,000 sterling, to be paid off in twenty or thirty years, but it would give us all our ships for the 1914 programme. Instead of five second-class cruisers, we ought to have eighteen; we ought to have twelve anti-torpedo-boat destroyers, which is a new class I would suggest, because we are lamentably short of in-shore cruisers. In Home waters we have only thirty to Germany's forty. We ought to have twenty-six torpedo-boat destroyers—the Government are going to build twenty—floating docks are going to be built, and floating coal depots. It is well known that the recent manœuvres were nearly stopped on account of the coal strike. Under my proposal we should have 128 ships by 1914,
  100
  and £68,000,000 would pay for it over and above present commitments. Of course we must take the thirty off for the ships which the Government are going to lay down this year. That programme, with the assistance of the dominions, would restore the two-Power standard and make us safe from attack not only at home, but throughout the Empire. I believe a loan would be far better than finding the money every year, although I know it is unsound finance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear," but you have run into debt, and an individual or an industry when it runs into debt has either to go bankrupt or borrow money. The reason for this state of things is that we have not had a proper War Staff at the Admiralty, and we did not have one at the Committee. The First Lord says there is one now, but that is a mistake, because we have at the Admiralty exactly the same as we had before, only it is called by a different name. We want a War Staff to make out in peace what is necessary for war, such as plans of campaign, ready to meet any emergency, and everything should be ready to carry out those plans. If we had had a War Staff we should not have been building eight "Dreadnoughts" one year and two another year, and sometimes no cruisers, and we should not have been "scrapping" a lot of our ships and not replacing them. All this has happened because we have not had a War Staff to consider our requirements, the same as the Germans. The Germans have done their work very much cheaper. They decided what they wanted, and then they put down the money to build it. We should not have had a ship like the "Swift" if we had had a War Staff. As to the Committee they did not take me into their consideration, although they could not have found more strongly in my favour unless they discharged the Admiralty. The Committee found in my favour on almost all the points I brought before them. In strategy, tactics, and fleet organisation a commander-in-chief can do as much as he likes. Look at the many changes in the Channel Fleet during the last few years, when it was split up from a condition of homogeneity to the time it went back to a condition of homogeneity, exactly as it was before. With a War Staff this chaos would not have occurred. Take the last manœuvres. They were delayed by the coal strike. One of the most difficult things for any commander to have to do in war is to handle a big fleet. Now

  101
  the big Fleet, with the exception of an hour, has never been handled together since October, 1907. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not catch what the Noble Lord said.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Well, I will write him a letter about it.
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the Noble Lord will repeat his statement.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I have no objection to that course. What I said was that the big fleets under one man require immense practice to handle. Every morning at sea I worked my ships with a lieutenant taking the captain's place, and every morning I learned something myself. What I say is that the big fleets have never been handled under one man, except for a period of an hour, since October, 1907. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I am talking of the whole Fleet. They were not handled in 1908, and 1 was not allowed to do it in 1909.
  Mr. McKENNA: Surely the Noble Lord does not mean the British Fleet all over the world, but if he means by the whole fleet the Home Fleet, the First and Second Divisions, and the Atlantic Fleet, well, they have been exercised together much more than one hour, as the Noble Lord knows.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand. I am talking of the fleet you have out in the great manœuvres once a year, which you will have out in war, and it requires a great deal of practice to handle the whole of these ships under one man, and that is what I say has not been done for more than an hour since October, 1907. I am not talking of the Atlantic Fleet of twenty, thirty, forty, or sixty ships, but I am talking of the great fleet that runs up to 200, and that has never been exercised for more than an hour since 1907. The difficulties of realising our true position in regard to national defence are immensely increased by the evasive and ambiguous replies so constantly given by the First Lord of the Admiralty to questions on naval matters, in which he endeavours to score a party point. Furthermore, I should here like to point out that whenever a Minister or any Member of this House is led into making
  102
  a statement confirming any other Member which is not borne out by facts, when that statement, moreover, is obviously an erroneous one, and is in no way repudiated by its author, that it has hitherto been the practice to withdraw such a statement, whilst apologising for the erroneous impression it has conveyed, more especially when it impugns the veracity of an hon. Member, combined with an attempt to discredit his views. The First Lord shows a constant reluctance to observe these honourable traditions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that this has anything to do with the Navy Estimates. That would have been a matter of procedure for me. If such a thing happened as the Noble Lord refers to it would have been a case for an appeal to me, but it is beside the mark to discuss it on this Motion.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I may remind the House that as recently as 10th February the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter from the Admiralty to a correspondent, which appeared in the public Press, in which he refers to my charges regarding the condition of the "Invinvincible" as "mere nonsense." That expression, in my opinion, is, I maintain, neither accurate nor courteous.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the Noble Lord will allow me to remind him, he stated with regard to the "Invincible" that the Admiralty had been guilty of criminal folly, and it was with reference to his charge of criminal folly that I ventured to state in a private letter that the statement was mere nonsense.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: What I said was that the Admiralty knew perfectly well that that ship would have to go alongside the yard; and if there was war, to send her out to fight when she could not fire her guns was criminal folly, and I stick to that. I say that it is chiefly owing to the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has always thought fit to adopt with regard to these matters that his utterances do not inspire that respect and confidence which should pertain to his high position.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESmoved as an Amendment to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to insert "the constant and vigilant maintenance of Naval Forces adequate to overcome upon the seas all probable enemies is essential to the safety, honour, and welfare of this kingdom."

  103
  The speech of the Noble Lord leaves me disappointed and almost hopeless. When he rose in his place I thought he was going to make all those most tremendous disclosures he has so long promised us, and probably going to impeach a Minister. At any rate, I thought he was going to tell us how we were to make ourselves for ever supreme at sea. Now, what has he done? He says you are going to spend so little, that you are fiddling about with trifles, and he suggests that what you require to spend is about £100,000,000, but in the end he says that tons and guns are of no use to us, and that in order to preserve our insular safety, all we want is to provide a War Staff at Whitehall. I expected something more from the Noble Lord, and perhaps on some other occasion he will say more. As for my own Amendment, I hope the Government will accept it. They may easily do so, because, as a matter of procedure, all they will have to do will be to renew the Motion that you, Mr. Speaker, leave the Chair. If this Question goes to a Division I shall not run away from the flag I have hoisted, and I shall divide upon it. Let me preface my remarks by a criticism upon the First Lord having again adopted the modern practice, or what I call the modern abuse, of taking up the time of this House making a statement which he ought to have made on Vote A in Committee. It is not fair to hon. Members of this House, and especially to new Members who are waiting to illuminate the House and the country with very important oratory. What happens is that the Minister in charge makes an hour's speech, then the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lee) makes an hour's speech—
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: No, only half an hour.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Well, it was a very liberal half hour, but two hon. Members opposite between them have taken up two hours. My complaint is that two hon. Members on this side and two hon. Members opposite make three or four great speeches; they smile at each other like Roman augurs, and when they have done there is no time, or only the dinner hour, for other hon. Members who want to bring forward substantial grievances. I am particularly disappointed with the First Lord. I knew he would attain eminence, not as a seaman, but I expected him to attain it as a financier or as a constitutionalist. When
  104
  he sat on one side of the House and I sat on another, we used to make constitutional and financial conspiracies together, and I had hoped in this he would have been now, as he was before he came a placeman, with me. I trust this protest may have some effect upon some future Minister of some consequence. In the statements circulated by the First Lord I find a paragraph to which I want to allude. He said:—
  " Since the London Declaration was signed, an International Committee, presided over by the Earl of Desart, King's Proctor, has revised the Naval Prize Manual, with a view to the issue of it to the Fleet when the Legislative and other action necessary to give effect to the Motion has been completed."
  I do not like this revision at all. I do not think it is adequate to put a Desart to revise what a Stowell has pronounced. I only allude to this to say that the word "when" is important, and I earnestly trust there will be no attempt to issue this new code of Prize Law and International Law until Parliament has pronounced upon it. Indeed, I would remind the First Lord, and I would remind any Minister who may be here, that, in fact, the Government have no right to issue a revised Prize Law until it has been accepted by Parliament. They have no power by the use of the Prerogative to change a part of the Common Law of England, which embodies the law of nations. It cannot be done without the consent of the Parliament of this Kingdom. When these proposals, which would deprive us of the power of blockade, of the right of search, and even of capture of contraband, and which would certainly take away from us the practical power of the capture of an enemy's property at sea, come before Parliament for ratification, I earnestly hope the House will pause before giving that ratification. These are the rules of the ring, and upon the rules of the ring everything may depend. Let me make the rules of the ring and I defy Castor and Pollux and Hercules and the Nemean Lion on the top of them. If you accept rules of warfare which practically deprive your Fleet of its power, your Fleet itself becomes a mockery.
  8.0 P.M.
  I observe that landsmen, Tariff Reformers, and other persons of a similar character constantly forget the special character of this Kingdom. They talk of it, and they would deal with it as though it resembled all other countries, whereas, in fact, it is different from all countries— different in the extent of its territory, different in the conditions of its life, and different above all in this, that it has not for its frontier an imaginary line, but it

  105
  has for its frontier the very unimaginary, practical, actual sea. The sea is not only our frontier, it is our barrier; not alone our barrier, it is our road. Through the sea alone can we conduct that trade whereby we live. By the sea alone can we be attacked or approached, and by the sea alone can we conduct that offensive attack which is the true defence for this country as well as for others. Then for trade these islands are situated in the most admirable manner. They have the whole four quarters of the world grouped around them in their one hemisphere. They are situated in the sea and at the crossing point of all the sea roads, which are the chiefest and ever the best roads. They are like Tyre "in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas." The strategical situation of these islands is unmatched. They divide the North of the continent of Europe against the south; they can be used to prevent the joining of Northern and Southern enemies; they can be used, they should be used, as I believe, for rallying the centre Powers against those forces of the North, against the Goths and the Vandals which may well strive to make another eruption in Europe to overcome its civilisation.
  When I speak in this matter, and in the sense of the Resolution which I have put down, I speak not only of our home defence. I must have in my mind the defence of the Empire which we have achieved and not only that. I think the Leader of the Labour party spoke of the treaty engagements, and perhaps not with any great respect. Perhaps he does not know how great and strong our undertakings are. We have guaranteed Belgium, we have guaranteed Switzerland, we have guaranteed Greece, Turkey, and our ancient ally Portugal and all her colonies.
  An HON. MEMBER: More fools we.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Member says, "More fools we," but I cannot agree with him. There are considerations of public policy, considerations of the balance of power in Europe which it is extremely necessary to have in our mind, and it is because of this that these treaty engagements have been entered into. Whether right or wrong, there they are, and I am sure no Member on any of these benches would desire to see the country of which he is a citizen repudiate the solemn pledges she has taken. I hold that we have a great burden of defence laid upon us, and
  106
  I speak not even of the cost, although, indeed, £42,000,000 is a sum enough to appal the most reckless spendthrift—a sum just three times as much as the Naval Estimates were when I first entered this House. Our problems are all sea problems. From the sea we gained our prosperity, by the sea we must make our living, and on the sea we must defend ourselves.
  What, then, should be the measure of our sea forces? It has been suggested that it should be the measure of two keels to one of any probable enemy, but that measure, I think, has been rejected even by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford). He says it is the measure of the wild men, and I agree with him. It has been suggested, and there the Noble Lord agrees that we should have what is called the two-Power standard—that is to say, a standard of the next two strongest Powers with or without the 10 per cent, margin. I repudiate both those standards. With the Noble Lord, I repudiate the two-keel standard, but, contrary to the Noble Lord, I also repudiate the two-Power standard. The two-Power standard is a mere hollow formula. It is the kind of notion which a man desires who wishes to relieve himself from thought and action and to put his mind into a pigeon-hole and leave it there once and for ever. A two-Power standard at one time may be excessive, and at another time it may be deficient. You may need a four-Power standard, you may need a four-keel standard. No, the standard of efficiency for our Navy, I submit, is this: You must first find out who all your probable enemies are going to be, and then provide such a Fleet, so manned and so handled, that you may be sure you are sure to beat them. This, and this alone will suffice, and more than this you need not have. To arm against the whole world, against your friends as well as against your enemies, is foolish and unnecessary.
  How, then, shall we ascertain the basis I have ventured to lay down? How shall we ascertain who are our probable enemies? By the most incessant, vigilant watching, not of the North Sea alone but wherever an enemy of England is capable of being found. We have an organisation for that purpose. We have a diplomatic service; we have ambassadors abroad—in fact, nothing else but gilded spies, or who should be; we have a Secret Intelligence Department, and it is in the power of the Government to keep itself informed, nay, it is their duty to keep themselves

  107
  informed so well of foreign affairs and of the doings of foreign nations as always to be aware who the probable enemies of England are. It is the Government alone who can tell that. No Admiral can know that. Admirals are good for certain things, for leading Fleets, and some of them for making speeches in popular assemblies, but the admiral does not know, and he cannot know, who are likely to be our probable enemies, nor the probable amount of their forces, nor consequently the proper provision to make against them. That, I repeat, the Government alone can know. That it must know. If that the Government does not know, impeachment would hardly meet the case. The block on Tower Hill would not be too much.
  The Member for the Fareham Division of Hants (Mr. Arthur Lee), like the Noble Lord, says we are starving the Shipbuilding Vote in these Estimates amounting altogether to £42,000,000. I do not agree with them. I think we are gorging that vote. I believe that the provision for ships and shipbuilding, for the guns and the tons that the Noble Lord so much despises, so far from being too small, is rather too big, but I recognise that I am no more competent than other persons outside the Cabinet to estimate what the exact amount is that is necessary, and, since I must rely upon somebody to tell me the standard, I confess I would rather rely upon the Government which has the information than on any Member sitting on this or any other bench who cannot have the information. There is this also to be said, that if the Government have made an error, at any rate it is an error on the right side. Who then are our probable enemies? Scarcely France, and hardly Russia. These are the two great nations with whom we have that political entente, which is so much praised, and which, in my opinion, is of so little value. Scarcely the United States—our kinsmen and cousins. Hardly Japan, with whom we have a treaty, an offensive and a defensive alliance. Is it then the Triple Alliance, the Triplice? Are they our probable enemies? Italy is halting, and Austria has given up the race of Dreadnoughts. No, you may go over the nations of the world, and you will find that in the minds of the greatest alarmists our probable enemies are not among them. There is but Germany. The Leader of the Opposition, the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) is very frank about
  108
  this. He made a statement at Hanley on 4th January of a most remarkable character. I am only surprised attention has not yet been called to it. He says:—
  " Consult, the Statesmen and diplomatists of the lesser Powers, and I am perfectly confident you will find among them an absolute unanimity of opinion that a struggle sooner or later between this country and Germany is inevitable."
  These are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. I am bound to say I think that is an extremely improper statement— it is not only extremely improper, but it is grossly unfair to the statesmen and diplomatists of the lesser Powers to say that they are unanimous. I absolutely deny it. There are thirty-eight such statesmen and diplomatists in this country and seven Ambassadors, and if the right hon. Gentleman adheres to his statement he is bound to name the statesman or diplomatist representing a lesser Power who holds that opinion. I dare assert there is not one. If he says there is, let him name him. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:—
  " They are all unanimous that there will, sooner or later, be a struggle, and they have come to the conclusion that in that struggle we are predestined to succumb."
  Not content with that, he gives us the occasion of the struggle in the same speech, for a little further on he says:—
  " I have known of Germans, not connected with the Government—men of position and character—men engaged in great affairs, who, if you talk to them about the adoption of Tariff Reform by this country actually say, ' Do you suppose we should ever allow Great Britain to adopt Tariff Reform?' "
  Therefore the struggle is certain to come whenever we adopt Tariff Reform, because Germany will not allow us to adopt it. But the Leader of the Opposition is pledged to introduce Tariff Reform as the first constructive Act of his Government, and, therefore, the first thing that will happen should the right hon. Gentleman come into office will be, following on Tariff Reform, a struggle with Germany, in which we shall succumb. I believe the right hon. Gentleman to be wrong from beginning to end. I am convinced that the country will never have or show a desire for Tariff Reform, that therefore, if he himself were again at some future period to come into power it would not impair the peace we at present enjoy with Germany, and that peace would survive even his administration.
  Next I come to the rate of building. Comparisons have been deprecated, but the whole of our naval preparations depend on comparisons with other countries. If there were no possible enemies we need have no Navy, and therefore the strength

  109
  of our Navy turns on the comparison with other countries. There has been, I think, an unfortunate lack of knowledge on the part of the present Government, as well as an unfortunate avowal of knowledge, the effect of which has been to produce a scare which might and should have been avoided. If the Government did not know last year what the rate of German progress was there was one Member of this House who did, and that was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Really his statements are most amusing and most interesting—I should say they are almost verging on the. marvellous. They resemble the Ginn, the character who emerged from the fisherman's bottle and grew till he filled the whole horizon. The right hon. Gentleman said that in December, 1910, we shall only have ten "Dreadnoughts," while, the Germans will have thirteen; on 1st April, 1911, we shall have fourteen and the Germans, if they build, seventeen. There are a good many "ifs" in this matter, because he goes on to say that if the Germans continue the programme in April, 1912, they will have twenty-one "Dreadnought's" to our twenty; if four are laid down in 1909 there will be seventeen on 1st April, 1912, and if eight are laid down this year—as eight have been laid down last year—there will be twenty-one on 1st April, 1912, to our twenty, and "if" the Germans imitate the policy of the present Government and lay down not only their eight in this financial year, but also demand a new group of four when the Government begin their new group of four on 1st April, 1912, they will have twenty-five. So here you have a growing picture. At the time the right hon. Gentleman was speaking there was not a single "Dreadnought" flying a German pennant. But first he gives us thirteen to seventeen, and then twenty-one to twenty-five, and finally he draws a picture of twenty-five German "Dreadnoughts" raging over the seas in April, 1912, ready to devour our poor twenty. It is all purely fantastic; it is pure invention, and I think the right ton. Gentleman will recognise it to be so. There will be, there can be, no such thing as twenty-five German "Dreadnoughts" In 1912. No doubt there is much virtue in your "if," and if it is suggested that there will be twenty-five German "Dreadnoughts" in 1912 I will undertake to find an admiral who will undertake to eat them, guns and all.
  With regard to the rate of building, the right hon. Gentleman does not tell us all
  110
  he knows. You must not allow yourself to be confused with dates—the date when the keel is laid and the date when the ship is launched. In dealing with the rate of building, there are only two dates—one when the first order is given and the other when the pennant is hoisted. Take these dates and compare the English and German progress, and I confidently believe that in the matter of "Dreadnoughts "—I do not say for a single ship, but, on the whole, we can give Germany twelve months' start and beat her. I shall not, perhaps, be accepted on this point by the right hon. Gentleman, but the "Dreadnought" from the first order (not from the laying down) to the hoisting of her pennant was completed in seventeen months. On the whole, I am prepared to allow not seventeen months for a "Dreadnought," but twenty months, and I say that in time of stress probably we should be able to build other "Dreadnoughts" in twenty months, almost certainly in twenty-four. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister said in twenty-three."] The Prime Minister, it is quite true, said in twenty-three months, but I say twenty-four months, and I am quite convinced that Germany could not build "Dreadnoughts" for any purpose in anything less than thirty-six months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Simply because she has not the private resources and the yards. If the hon. Gentleman will remember the extreme dates that I have fixed I venture to say that from the date of the order which we have not got—we have only got the date of the laying of the keel—if he will remember those dates I think he will find that that is the period. I agree with the Noble Admiral opposite it is not ships or guns that matter most, it is the personnel of the men, infinitely more than ships and guns that tells. Ships and guns are but steel, and the thing that informs them is the spirit, the training, and the capacity of the man and that of the officer who commands, and the Admiralty which directs.
  I believe that our officers and men are still the best the world commands, but I do think that there has been a want of wisdom shown by the Admiralty. The new system of officers' training introduced in 1902 in. this House I strongly opposed, and I think it involves an extremely bad entry for the cadets who are to form the future officers of the Navy. It gives them too much of sitting on forms and studying formulas, and too little of standing on deck and acting independently, and that seems to be pursued

  111
  to an extent which will very much impair the character of our naval officers as it has been up to this time. In this I think I must be right, because I have consulted many naval officers, and I will venture to say that every naval officer and every admiral with one exception, whom I will not name, all condemn the system of training, and say that it is calculated to produce a number of badly trained officers. It is a very serious thing if it is so. By 1912 the first batch of these newly trained cadets are to come, whether interchangeable or not—I do not know whether that is the least or the gravest of all the mistakes —they are to come into the Navy, not trained in the old admirable, practical way, which made, of all men, the naval lieutenant the most practical, but trained in 'isms and 'ologies, and their heads filled with formulas. They will come in after 1912 as sub-lieutenants.
  In 1915 there will be a full batch of them going to sea as lieutenants, and from thence onwards they will go in, trained not under the old good system but under the new bad system. Therefore the whole of the new variety of lieutenants, if I am right, and if the admirals who agree with me are right, and if those who are in the service are right, will be of an inferior order. Not because they are worse boys—they are the same boys—but because they are of an inferior and worse training than their predecessors; and inasmuch as lieutenants are the backbone of the Fleet, and it is upon them that the real service afloat must depend, this is a very serious outlook indeed. Another mistake was that reconstitution of the Board of Admiralty, which was begun in 1902 and ended in 1904, which destroyed the Board of Admiralty as it had existed up to that time, with all in an equal position and simply the First Lord, who was primus in primis. Instead of that, it set up a dictator to whom everything was to be referred, even the courts-martial—it set up a dictator where there had been a First Lord, and when I remind the House that that dictator was then Lord Fisher, it is only necessary to say that that dictatorship was very effective.
  Another mistake was the choice by Sir John Fisher of an ally even more venturesome than himself to be a kind of power behind the throne, not responsible to this House, but assuming to form policies and organisations, not only for the Navy, but for the Army, likely to have some very
  112
  dangerous effects. From this mistake grew what I hold to be the mistake of the "Dreadnoughts." I believe it was an error to embark upon that megalomania which was represented by the policy of the biggest ship with the biggest guns and nothing but the biggest ship and the biggest guns. It has led to the competition of other nations at increased cost for them and increased difficulty for us. Having got it, we must face it; but we are facing it at a time when the big ship is more exposed than ever it was before, when the danger of putting too many eggs in one basket is greater than ever it was before, when the big ship is exposed to the torpedo and the submarine, and that which may prove the greatest danger of all, the loose floating mine, left in its path. These are mistakes—they are very great mistakes —and they are the mistakes not of the present, but of the late Government; for they were made in 1902 and completed in 1904. I myself always regretted them, and never ceased to denounce them, so far as I could consistently with the loyalty I then owed to the party sitting on this side.
  On the other hand, it is right to remember that the Navy has made very great advances in gunnery, due, I believe, mainly, or to a great extent, to Lord Fisher— certainly the practical part of it almost exclusively due to that great man, Sir Percy Scott, who has improved British gunnery in a way past belief. There have been great advances in torpedoes, submarines, and great advances, perhaps the greatest of all, in our system of wireless telegraphy, which is perhaps the most important of all the nerves of war, and upon which, very likely, the issue of campaigns and battles may depend. I beg the House to observe this— that all the mistakes that have been made with regard to the Navy are mistakes which have been made by Governments—mistakes resisted by the service, protested against by the service, but which they had to accept because imposed on them by the Government. On the other hand, all the improvements of the service have been made by the service itself, generally against the desire and against the will of the Government, and it has only been by great pertinacity on the part of the service that it has been dragged in the true and right direction. But on the whole, as I say, the men and the officers are the best in the world, and for real improvements in the Navy I look rather to the service itself than to any Government or Admiralty Board. I do not say I do not share the

  113
  apprehension of the Leader of the Opposition. I do believe that there is danger, and danger for which we should be prepared in the Navy in the only possible way, namely, by Naval preparations. We cannot be blind to the fact that for the last fifty years an unbridled ambition has been striding through Europe. We cannot be blind to the fact that the greatest immorality in policy and the greatest insincerity in diplomacy has marked the course of that ambition, and it is not possible that we should not have it suggested to us to imagine that one day it may be directed against ourselves. Up to the present I see no reason for fear. I believe our Navy is strong enough to deal not only with the one probable enemy that alone is suggested, but with two or with three such, and if it is to be a competition in these costly vessels of war and in the costly arrangements connected with them, at the end the advantage must be on the side of the strongest purse. Therefore, at last the issue of competition in armaments depends on the ability of the Government to keep its finances in proper order and provide itself with the sinews of war. At present I refuse to quake. We have been called upon in our history to fight, and we have always succeeded in beating the greatest nations of the earth—Spain, in all her pride, Spain at her strongest; Napoleon when he represented not only France, but the whole of Europe, including this Germany of whom we are called upon to be so fearful at the present date. [Mr. REES: "It is a different Germany."] No doubt it is a very different Germany, but still you will hardly even now compare Germany with the whole of Europe. In 1810 we had not a friend in Europe. The Prussia that we had subsidised had turned against us, and there was not a friendly port for an English ship from the North Cape to the Ionian Islands, and, nevertheless, we came out of that struggle triumphant. We came out of it because, while the sea can coerce the land, the land can never coerce the sea. We came out of it because we held on the seas the ultimate line of all communications, because we stopped those communications, because while we ourselves were flourishing we made the French pay 6s. a pound for their sugar while we were paying 6d. That is the way to beat your enemy. No need to cut his throat; make him pay more for his sugar.
  114
  I believe that war with Germany is neither imminent nor probable. Our alarmists believe in the invasion of these islands by Germany. They expect another Hastings and another William the Conqueror. German alarmists believe that we, in time of peace, shall make an attack upon them, and that we shall fight another Copenhagen and destroy their fleet. I see neither. If it is to be a Hastings, I do not see the William the Conqueror. If there is to be a Copenhagen, I do not see the Nelson, even on those benches. I believe our Navy is now more than sufficient for all our probable enemies. I go so far as to say that I believe it to be now capable of meeting all our conceivably possible enemies. It must be so maintained. It is being so maintained. It can always be so maintained. But to these defects that I have pointed out—defects in training and defects in the constitution of the Admiralty—I think attention should be given. Attention may easily and gladly be given to them by the present Government, for they are only the faults of the previous Administration. I trust it will be given and remedies applied. And now let me recall what was said 300 years ago by that greatest of all our sailors, statesmen, seers, and prophets—Raleigh:—
  " Whosoever commands the sea, commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world, commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself."
  The ambition to command the world itself we may leave to others, but we do command one-fifth of the land of the globe and one-fifth of its inhabitants. We do command the trade of the world. We must command the sea, because in this alone is our life, our preservation, our very national existence.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. W. F. RICE: I cannot help thinking that the reason for the naval question having come into the political arena, which I deeply regret, is that the Government have not maintained the policy of the two-Power standard. When, last November, the Prime Minister stated that the Government accepted the two-Power standard as meaning a preponderance of 10 per cent, over the combined strength in capital ships of the next two strongest powers there were a great many throughout the country who rejoiced at that statement, but they were not so satisfied when, on 27th April, 1909, the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, repudiated the two-Power standard by refusing to calculate in the

  115
  Navy of the United States. I deeply regretted that statement, as it was bound to introduce most acute and differential feeling, and I am afraid, was very much inclined to make a great Power on the other side of the North Sea come to the conclusion that our Fleet was being built against her, instead of, as it is, being built solely for the defence of the Empire. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Have we got a two-Power standard now, and shall we have a two-Power standard in 1912? It is quite obvious at this moment that we have not got a two-Power standard. Shall we have it in 1912? Taking the return of battleships under the age of fifteen years, which the First Lord of the Admiralty gave last July, we find that Great Britain will have sixty-five battleships, Germany fifty-one, and the United States fifty-five. Germany and the United States will havs a total of 106 battleships, as against sixty-five of ours. That means that we will be forty-one short of the two-Power standard, not counting anything for a margin of safety. I must own that we must add the four "Dreadnoughts," which up to now were called the "contingent 'Dreadnoughts.'" Germany may also add more to her total. The issue is a great one, and it is especially great when we remember the words spoken a year ago by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He said:—
  " A new situation in this country is created by the German programme. When that programme is completed, Germany, a great, country close to our own shores, will have a fleet of thirty-three ' Dreadnoughts.' That fleet would be the most powerful the world has ever yet seen. That imposes on us the necessity, of which we are now at the beginning, of rebuilding the whole of our fleet, apart from the' Dreadnoughts ' which are in existence already."
  We have got to rebuild, according to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the whole fleet. In fact in the future only "Dreadnoughts "will count, and we have to remember that the effect of the advent of "Dreadnoughts" is to reduce the life of pre-" Dreadnoughts," and make them shorter and shorter as more "Dreadnoughts" are built. The Prime Minister last January made a speech at Bath, in which he is reported to have said that we are more completely secure, so far as the defence of these shores is concerned, at this moment than at any time within the memory of living men. I cannot help thinking that the Prime Minister was a little optimistic on that occasion. If he would carry his memory back to the time when the Govern-
  116
  ment came into power in 1906 he would remember that the Navy was in a better position as regards the two-Power standard than at present, or will be in 1912.
  Let me turn for a moment to the Estimates before us. I say candidly I welcome them, although not satisfied. I could certainly wish that more money was to be spent on the large armoured ships. We have it that they will not be laid down until the end of the financial year. I think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the end of this year or beginning of next year. I am glad to have it from the First Lord of the Admiralty that our destroyer programme is going to be pushed on with all speed. He told me in answer to a question that our destroyer programme of 1908–9 was not yet completed. But I understand from him, and I welcome the statement, that the Admiralty are going to push on with all speed in future. I wish I could have had some assurance from the First Lord of the Admiralty that the four "Dreadnoughts" of the German programme were not going to be finished as early as he stated. He said there was a possibility that they might be finished two months after April, 1912. When we remember our five large armoured ships are to be laid down at the end of the financial year, it is quite obvious that ours will not be ready until probably April, 1913. The First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking in this House last year, very nearly about the same date as the present, stated that no matter what the cost, the safety of the country must be assured. These words were very welcome, and we felt really that he realised the position, and that we ought to be, but were not certain that we were going to be, in a-position of absolute safety. Therefore, I cannot help expressing regret that the Government have not considered it right to go in for a Naval loan. I know that loans with the Government are not popular things, but we have certainly seen within the last few days that they are not so adverse to a policy of borrowing. When we realise what supremacy on the seas means to us, and what defeat on the seas would mean, what is the question of a few millions for a naval loan compared with the war indemnity we should be called upon to pay if we were defeated? That would amount probably to hundreds of millions. It might even amount to thousands of millions. I am aware that you cannot go to an insurance office and ask them to insure this country and the

  117
  Empire, but you can insure your Empire by means of having an absolutely supreme Navy. That is the policy I am sure the whole country wants. On a supreme Navy rests the security not only of this country and its trade and commerce, but the security of the whole Empire, and I sincerely hope that steps will be taken to ensure that our supremacy on the seas will never be in danger.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) was good enough to credit all parties in this House with a sense of patriotism, and one welcomes such generosity on his part. But though the Noble Lord set out to cast oil on troubled waters, he seems to have been unable to resist the temptation to pour his oil on to the party bonfire and dance round its cheerful flames. Yet I think all Members of this House must feel, in discussing such a Question as this, that the issues are far too grave for us to look at them from a party standpoint, and if we remember the results of the Naval discussion last year, we feel how serious a thing it is to speak in a party spirit of such tremendous issues. It is not easy for one who speaks for the first time in this House to have, in doing so, to raise a protest against the action of the Government he supports with his whole heart. But I should not be faithful to my highest duty if I did not endeavour, not merely to protest against the line of policy which results in Estimates like these, but also at the same time to appeal to the Government and the House to see whether there is not a better way than this terrible bloodless war of armaments. It is in no niggardly or parsimonious spirit that one objects to the enormous cost. One would gladly give £40,000,000 and more for the urgent need of the nation if we felt that the money was absolutely necessary, but when one remembers at the same time that we are asked to pass this enormous Vote we are being asked for a small increase of less than £500,000 on the Education Vote, and that we have waiting the vast problem of unemployment, which must involve immense expense if it is to be dealt with in an adequate way, one feels that it is indeed a serious thing that the Treasury should be drained in this way, and that the wings of social reform should be clipped before there is an opportunity of undertaking measures that we all in our hearts feel to be absolutely necessary.
  118
  It is because of that that one hesitates most of all; but one hesitates, too, because one believes that this is not the best way of dealing with the grave situation with which we are faced.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth said, and said truly, that it does not merely depend upon the goodwill of the German people whether we shall have war or peace. We have to deal in both countries, and not in Germany alone, with a great and powerful bureaucracy. Surely it should be the first duty of a democratic Government to go above the heads of the bureaucracy and to make a daring appeal to the imagination not only of this people but of the people of Germany; and I believe that if we were willing to go with a definite offer and to make that offer formally so that all the world might know it we should get a worthy response. We have not had the courage to make that offer, and because of that this enormous Vote is rendered necessary. Surely it is not too late to make a beginning. We shall be told that the path is difficult, and, indeed, it has been made difficult through our own action in the past. We may regard the growth of the German Navy, which now seems such a danger to so many here, as the direct result of our refusal to abandon the right of capture of private vessels. If we could take that step, which humanity demands, and prove our earnestness by coming to Germany with that offer, saying, "We are willing for the sake of humanity and the interests of civilisation to abandon a relic of the barbarous warfare of the past," we should give an earnest by that offer of what we meant.
  We shall be told that our expert advisers are against us; but again I would plead that it is the duty of a democratic Government not merely to think of what Departments advise, but to think of great principles, and to make permanent Departments, not the Government of the country, but an instrument by which the general will may express itself. We should remember that a great soldier like Wellington, in the past, considered that the loot and pillage of a captured town was a necessary incident in war, and, if it had been left merely to the soldier to decide, the soldier still might have felt it necessary to continue that practice, though reluctant to do so. Surely this, again, is a case where the general conscience must dictate to the particular service: and for the sake of civilisation, for the sake of the future of

  119
  our country, we have a right to ask a democratic Government to take a step which would be justified in the eyes of all right-thinking men. It might be said that we should fail, but I wish to appeal to the Government whether it is not worth while to make that attempt even if the immediate issue should be failure. We should be building foundations of success hereafter for another Government on some more propitious occasion, and the Government that took that step, although it might be misunderstood by its opponents, and although it might fail at the moment, would gain the gratitude of generations yet unborn.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. REES: I did not second the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), because, although I have great sympathy with it, I thought that this programme could not properly be described as the Noble and gallant Lord said, as a programme of driblets, but, as I think, it is a fair meeting of the requirements of the case. I did not think it right to join in putting forward any Amendment whatsoever, and though agreeing in many respects with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I could not by any means agree with all of the arguments which he put forward, though I do very heartily express the strongest concurrence with him when he says that all these conferences and conventions for mitigating, as it is supposed, the horrors of warfare are always arranged to the detriment of this country. It is this country, which is the strongest on the sea, that has to lose by all these restrictions upon naval action in time of war. I heartily agree with the hon. Member there, and I sincerely hope that when the International Committee to which he refers does come before the House it will be very severely scrutinised before being allowed to pass through. I do not at all agree with him in his remarks in reference to Lord Desart and the Committee, as there is no one more fair or more capable than the Noble Lord. But the principle is a bad one. We who have the best Navy should be the very last to give away any advantage we have at sea.
  I also disagree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn in the remarks in which he brought in a party point in his speech. He took the point of Tariff Reform or Free Trade. I think we should leave all that completely out of our Debate, regarding the Navy, as I do, as being absolutely
  120
  above all these party points and a subject which both sides of the House should approach in precisely the same spirit. Besides, whether the fiscal policy of this country were Tariff Reform or Free Trade, it would be none the less necessary that most of the supplies of our country should come across the sea. For that reason it is equally imperative that we should have command of the sea, and I repudiate for my part the party point made by my right hon. Friend in his speech. He also alluded to the time occupied in building "Dreadnoughts "; but, as I understand, the Prime Minister distinctly said it took us twenty-three months to build a "Dreadnought" now, and, if so, that rather impairs the argument of my hon. Friend. Nor can I follow him where he says that the British Navy at present is strong enough to meet any two or three other navies. I believe that to be a line of argument which leads to disaster. The accidents of the sea to which he himself refers, from mines, submarines, and all these other engines of destruction, are such that it is not safe to count upon superiority of ships in the way in which he did, and I believe that we should not act as if we were equal to two or three of our competitors, but that we should do, financially or otherwise, what we can to keep our own Fleet larger than those of the two next strongest naval Powers. That, I believe, so far as I can make out, to be the object of the two-Power standard. The hon. Member I think rather misled the House in referring to the time of the Napoleonic wars and to Germany. But it was a different Germany from the Germany of to-day—wholly different from the Power which has disposed of Denmark, Austria, and France. I do not think we should be wise in taking comfort from what happened in those days, but that we should rather be occupied in adapting ourselves to the present serious position. It has been admitted by the chief Ministers who sit on that bench to be an extremely serious position. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that the programmes which had been carried out by foreign Powers were no less than those which were anticipated when we had what is called the naval scare of last year, which has been referred to. I am bound to say that I cannot reconcile that with the facts, as I understand them, regarding the action of Austria and Italy, because I believe their "Dreadnoughts" have not been laid down.
  Mr. A. LEE: Two of the Italian ones have.
  Mr. REES: But none of the Austrian?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
  Mr. REES: I do not suggest for a moment that this is any reason for cutting down our programme, but there seems to me some slight disparity there, because I certainly understood, when this matter was debated in the last Parliament, that the Austrian four ships were a considerable factor in the possible combinations from the pan-Germanic point of view—a probable combination which this country in time of war might possibly have to meet. Possibly the Secretary to the Admiralty will enable us to know how exactly to reconcile these two statements. However that may be, I accept altogether the position of the First Lord, who said that what this country has to do is to provide in any year for the requirements of that year, and it is for the purpose of dealing with the present situation that this programme is proposed. I, for my part, shall give it my hearty support. I am greatly in favour of a strong Navy—I belong to that school— but I could not accept altogether the policy of my Noble Friend the Member for Portsmouth. The objection which is taken that the policy of the Government is too expensive can hardly be regarded as evidence of a perfunctory performance of one of the greatest duties of the Government. The First Lord of the Admiralty referred to the increase in the personnel, which I take to be 3,000; and I see from a statement he made in March last year that between 1904–5 and 1909–10 there was an actual decrease of 2,490 men, so that when these 3,000 extra men are engaged there is really no more than absolute equality between the number of men for the present year as compared with the number for 1904–5. During that period the German Government have increased their personnel by 15,790, the French by 4,860, and the United States by 15,305. I should like to refer for a moment to a very interesting speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party. I cannot understand why he attached such signal importance to the figures which he employed. Even if they are allowed, even if every figure that my hon. Friend put forward is accepted by the Admiralty, that does not seem to me to prove the position he put forward. Why should we go behind the actual facts? Everybody knows what the Germans have done; everybody knows the acceleration of their programme and their ability to build these
  122
  monster ships as quickly as we can. Why, then, go behind those facts and base the argument on the mere fact that there is not a large increase in the number of men employed at Krupp's. The theory is that we are disregarding the signal advance which Germany is making in construction. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend speaks as if there was only one great building firm in Germany. After all, though Krupp's is the greatest, there are others, and unless we have these figures tabulated and certified, I do submit it is impossible to base anything upon them.
  Mr. JOHN WARDwas understood to say that the figures in regard to Krupp's were correct.
  Mr. REES: My point is that even if all these figures are correct in regard to Krupp's, it is merely a side issue, and even if the figures were established, they would not be at all material to the question before us, which is whether or not the construction provided this year is or is not required. I cannot understand how there can be any doubt as to its being required. I would not have ventured to address the House on this subject except that in the last Parliament, when strong action was taken by the "Reductionist group," if I may give them that name, I was connected with another group which opposed them, many of the members of which have been scattered, many of whom are missed very much, and I feel like a Whip without a party, for which none the less I must speak.
  I only mention this to explain why it is that I feel so concerned in this matter, and why I venture amongst experts and admirals to make a few remarks to the House. The Leader of the Labour party said that political boundaries were now obliterated by the requirements of commerce and the general union of hearts which prevails all over Europe. I think political boundaries are obliterated in a very different way, and one is that which should prompt us to keep our powder dry and have the fleet ready. Looking at the map of Europe one sees that political boundaries are obliterated far more by conquest and ambition than by the march of commerce and general brotherly love, of which I do not see in the daily papers or in other directions, the slightest possible sign. The argument is that there can be no war because the people of one nation will not fight the people of another. There was no quarrel between the Japanese peasant and

  123
  the Russian mujick, but they came to have the greatest war in history—a war which no other has approached in magnitude. The same thing may happen any day again, in spite of the present fair prospects. A great deal is made in the speeches which have been delivered of the speech of His Excellency the German Ambassador—a very admirable and very patriotic speech, full of the best possible feeling towards this country, which, I have no doubt, His Excellency and the country from which he comes really possess. But I cannot see there is anything in it bearing the construction that is put upon it by hon. Gentlemen who have referred to it. For instance, the Ambassador said that the German fleet was the outcome of their national aspirations. So it is. Those aspirations have led Prussia from the position of an ordinary Power to the hegemony of the Continent of Europe, and have already made her far and away the greatest military Power. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), when I ventured to interpolate a remark, said that Germany was not overawing Europe. I am not so sure that that is not so as regards the Continent of Europe. National aspirations, the Ambassador went on to say, brought Germany into the proud position she now occupies. They are admirable remarks, but there is nothing in them to give this country such confidence that it should hesitate at all to take the steps to reinforce the Fleet by at least such measures as are proposed to the House to-day.
  The hon. Member for Blackfriars also said it does not matter who "gobbled us up," who "gobbled up" any nation, and he objected to our insular view. But it does matter who gobbles whom up, because if we are not prepared, we may be one of those gobbled up. I use the hon. Member's expression, but I confess I cannot understand how that argument can be seriously laid before the House. Then he said money spent upon our ships in the programme which is before us to-day was like money thrown into the sea. I should like to know how that is so. Whenever it is proposed to reduce the number of workmen at Woolwich or any other dockyard we hear immediately the strongest objections by hon. Members on the Labour Bench. It is said it is unproductive expenditure, but everybody immediately concerned objects to the slightest reduction of it. I will go further, and say, How is this money wasted when the whole of it
  124
  is spent on British labour and on British materials in Great Britain? For every "Dreadnought" that is built it takes from 1,000 to 1,500 British workmen, it costs £1,950,000, of which 70 per cent. goes in wages. Is it a bad thing for the country that ships should be constructed 70 per cent. of the cost of which are spent in British labour. That is an argument I cannot understand. Hon. Members use it collectively, but individually every one of them abandons it the moment it touches his constituency, and cries economy, economy, but not, Oh ! not in my constituency. If this money went abroad it would matter, but here we make all materials in this country, the whole of the construction is done in this country, and all the labour provided, and how can it be said of money spent in that manner that it is equivalent to being chucked into the sea. If the hon. Member were here perhaps he would be so good as to explain this. I am bound to say I entirely fail to understand it. I see that the German Admiral Von Tirpitz said that their programme is an industrial and financial business as well as a naval business. He also said, "We must prevent the works from decreasing, or from decreasing the workmen on a large scale because of the insufficiency of work." After all, the late hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) and Admiral Von Tirpitz arrive at pretty much the same conclusion. But why do not all the hon. Gentlemen who take that line in regard to their own constituency agree and own that money spent in building British ships by British labour in British dockyards is money not thrown in the sea, but is practically productive expenditure.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Of course it is not.
  Mr. REES: Is not anything that supports the homes of this country and promotes the safety of this country productive? I should like to hear somebody meet this point. The Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) will be ready, I am sure, as he has on previous occasions, to crush me like an eggshell. I remember lying in wait some time for an hon. Member who, though he sat on this side, I thoroughly disagreed with. He was a scholar, and one day, above all things, he misquoted Tacitus. I said the Lord has delivered him into my hands. I lay in wait, but could not get called. One day, with some ingenuity, I was about to get in my shot, when the hon. Member for Stoke got up just in time to stop me. He said, "What

  125
  has this Latin got to do with the subject before the House." The hon. Member is always ready. I have no doubt he will get up and crush me directly I sit down. I hope he will. I hope he will devote himself to elucidating this point about unproductive expenditure, and how it is collectively his friends take the different view from that which they take individually. I really should be extremely glad if he would, and I daresay other Members, too.
  As regards these ships, the point to which we are looking is, what is the relative position of Germany and Great Britain by a given date in "Dreadnoughts," because it is admitted that as time goes on the Fleet will have to be evaluated in terms of "Dreadnoughts." I think it is pretty generally allowed that when once the majority of ships are "Dreadnoughts," that however fine the fleet of a previous date might be, its ships will be of no more use than those of the catalogue of the ships in Homer, once you are outclassed in this respect. So far as I understand, by the spring of 1912 there will be a German maximum of fifteen "Dreadnoughts," as against a certain twenty British "Dreadnoughts." I do not think that is at all too great a preponderance. I think there should be at least that difference, but I believe as a matter of fact that is the difference, and if it is the case I do not think for the present the Estimates are insufficient, or that the requirements of the case are not met. I sincerely hope there will always be that difference, because, although it might be thought that with our large pre-" Dreadnought "fleet we could tolerate an equality of "Dreadnoughts," a moment's consideration will show that this is by no means the case, because the Germans might have all their fleet of "Dreadnoughts" in the North Sea, whereas ours has many duties all over the world. Thus they might very well outclass us in the North Sea, although we had a greater number taking our total strength. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) said that we lost America through having lost for the moment the control of the sea. Some dissent was expressed from that statement, but I believe the Noble Lord was perfectly right. There were defeats on land, but if we had not lost the command of the sea those defeats could have been retrieved. I would reinforce the Noble Lord's argument by pointing out that, while the history of India is continually read and taught in this country, the fact is entirely ob-
  126
  scured that the victories won by small numbers of British troops over large numbers of natives were only possible because we continually had the command of the sea.
  I had put down a Motion referring to the necessity for a War Staff at the Admiralty. All sides of the House praise the Secretary of State for War for having created such a staff at the War Office, and I believe the opinion is held by those who, unlike myself, are competent to deal with this matter, that a similar step should be taken at the Admiralty. I do not intend to move that Motion, but I should be glad if the Secretary to the Admiralty would refer to the question when he replies. It is difficult to say anything with regard to what has been stated in reference to the present naval position without being accused of scaremongering. That induces me to abstain from references which I had intended to make to the speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary when the Naval Estimates were last before the House. I may say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the German programme as contemplating thirty-three "Dreadnoughts," and stated that eventually we should have to rebuild the whole of our Fleet. In the face of such a statement from so moderate a statesman as the Foreign Secretary, I am at a loss to conceive how anybody could speak about scares. It seems to me that we have there a very temperate statement by a responsible statesman, and I, for my part, am quite content to base what I have to say upon what he said.
  The leader of the Socialists in Germany has stated that English anxiety, though it might be exaggerated, was perfectly genuine. I do not see any justification there for treating as trifling, and altogether ignoring, considerations which most of us feel should weigh with the House in considering the Estimates for the year. A National Liberal statesman in Germany, Herr Basserman, says that Germany can as little conclude an agreement with Great Britain regarding Naval Construction as a man could agree with a boy regarding their rate of growth. I have shown that the rate of growth of men in the German Navy was an increase of 15,790, as against a decrease of 2,490 on our part in a period of five years, which seems a very instructive commentary upon the remark of that Liberal statesman. Nor can I understand the ground on which the hon. Member for Glasgow disregarded the argument that the present expenditure on armaments is

  127
  only about 3½ per cent, on our total annual income, which is not a very great insurance to pay for the safety of a great Empire.
  One of the most remarkable military Writers of modern times, General Homer Lea, refers to the danger in time of war of a large proportion of foreigners who share the power without necessarily sharing the patriotism of the citizens of the country in which they are for the time domiciled. That also is a matter that we should never leave out of our minds in connection with this matter. This gentleman also calls attention to the fact that the debt of England is less now by £124,000,000 than the debt which 15,000,000 fewer population cheerfully bore half a century ago. The inference I draw from that is that, heavy as these charges for armaments are, greatly as I wish they could be reduced, much as I wish more money could be available for all the objects which my hon. Friends here have so much, although not more than the rest of us, at heart, I do not believe that the programme put forward by the Government is beyond the necessities of the case. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly clear that if this is to remain a great Empire, as its wealth, size, and population increase, it is absolutely inevitable that the cost of its insurance must go on increasing. I hope, however, it will not be to the extent foreshadowed by the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford), and that the Estimates will not be £60,000,000 next year. However that may be, the amount must obviously go on increasing unless we are to fall out of the race, and retreat from the position of pride and pre-eminence which we occupy in the world, a position which is due, under Providence, far more to the Navy than to any other arm or power that we have.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I rise to offer my congratulations to the Secretary to the Admiralty that hon. Gentlemen on the benches behind him are now giving their support to the policy of the Admiralty. I must say that I felt a great sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in the position in which he was placed to-day. He told us the sorrow he felt in reading to us the quotation from the words of that ancient mariner two hundred years ago who was beset, as the right hon. Gentleman is beset to-day, by two contending parties. One states that he has not been
  128
  supplying sufficient for the Navy, and the other states that he has been supplying too much. I must say that the position of the First Lord is one that arouses the sympathy of many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, because we believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is an open secret that the right hon. Gentleman advocated on behalf of the Admiralty a very much larger Naval Supply a year ago than was concurred in by the other Members of the Government. Whether that be so or not, it is not a secret, either open or closed, that the right hon. Gentleman was the first to frankly state to the country the position in which we were placed in consequence of the great preparations of another Power. Whatever be the differences of opinion in the House, I think even my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth will agree with me in saying that the country should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the very frank and complete disclosures which he made a year ago, in telling us how Germany's policy was to commence building ships first and then to see about the Vote for them afterwards—when they had made such progress that foreign competitors could not overtake them after the public knowledge was first made.
  There are some points in the printed statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which I think are well worthy of support, and I should like to refer to one of those points which I think reflects the greatest credit upon Admiralty administration. In the statement referred to under the heading of "Quickness of Repairs," we find it said:—
  " The collision in which the 'Sappho' was badly damaged gave an interesting opportunity to one of the dockyards to show that celerity in repair work which might be expected under war conditions."
  That was a very modest statement indeed of the facts. I happened to have the duty of surveying the "Sappho," the vessel that was damaged, and I should like to state the facts to the House. The "Sappho" was beached off Dover with a hole in her side, literally large enough to drive a coach and four through. That was on 22nd June. On 24th June, two days later, she had been salved by the dockyard officials and men at Chatham, and had been brought round to Chatham; and on 29th June—that is to say within a week of the time of the casualty—the vessel had been docked, repaired, undocked, and was ready to rejoin the Fleet, as strong and as good as ever she was. I say that was a most creditable performance, and the First Lord has not at all exaggerated when he

  129
  says that such a performance as that indicates very clearly what the nation may rely upon in time of war in the way of replacing vessels which are damaged, provided, of course, always that proper facilities are given by the Admiralty, and proper preparation is made in the way of docks.
  There is another point upon which I should like to imitate hon. Gentlemen opposite in supporting the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not remember that this point had been mentioned in the Debate. It is the fact that very much larger progress has been made with two of the "Dreadnoughts"—two at least— the "Hercules" and the "Colossus," than was estimated in the Estimates of last year. There was allotted £518,000 to be spent upon these two ships. As a matter of fact, over three-quarters of a million, that is to say, £768,000, have been actually spent upon them; so that we find that the acceleration of the progress upon these two important vessels has been just 50 per cent, over what was intended and voted by this House a year ago. I feel that that progress—true, in contract ships —should be noted to the credit of the Admiralty, and I will later on draw a deduction from the fact as it stands.
  I find, in looking through this statement by the right hon. Gentleman, these words:—
  " Tenders have also been obtained for the two armoured cruisers for the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand."
  A year ago Sir Joseph Ward, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, cabled — he did not write — to the Government offering them a "Dreadnought" at the cost of New Zealand. Today, twelve months afterwards, what do we find? The Admiralty are getting tenders ! Twelve months have passed, and we have reached the state, the remarkably advanced state, of getting tenders for expenditure which was offered to us a year ago by the patriotic Colony of New Zealand. No wonder that the Colonial Governments of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia have determined to administer themselves the navies that they propose to create. Whilst the Admiralty have been getting tenders for the New Zealand naval expenditure, the Commonwealth of Australia has not only ordered, but it has actually gone so far as to launch, the first vessel in this country that it has ordered, although, unless I am very much mistaken, its policy of having a navy of its
  130
  own originated about the same time as the telegram which came from New Zealand. I will recall to the recollection of the House what happened when, a year ago, the Estimates which are now expiring were introduced. A good deal of boasting was made from that bench opposite. These Estimates were £3,000,000 more than the previous Estimates, or nearly £3,000,000 —in fact, £2,800,000. And then was first disclosed that which the First Lord of the Admiralty has referred to by way of defence to-day—the starvation of the naval stores in the present Administration. These were the words which were used by the Admiralty a year ago:—
  " For some years surplus stocks have been utilised for replacement."
  That was rather a euphemistic method of explaining the fact. The method of assisting in the supplying of stores by drawing upon stocks which were not replaced has evidently, according to the present year's Estimates, come entirely to an end. I find that the present year's Estimate at page 1 are these words and figures:—
  " The value of the stores drawn from stock without replacement in aid of staff expenditure—in 1906, £1,024,000; in 1907, £1,294,000; in 1908—"
  And here we are coming to the end of the stock:—
  "the value is £551,000."
  So that the total of £2,870,000 of stores were drawn and not replaced in aid of fresh expenditure and applied to the defence of the right hon. Gentleman. And in reply to the defence of the right hon. Gentleman we have actually a statement and the testimony of an eye-witness—a witness of fact—the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) that there was at one time in consequence of this lack of stores a delay to one of His Majesty's ships which amounted to six months. If the Noble Lord experienced one incident of that kind how many may have arisen of which no testimony has been given? Nearly £3,000,000 of stores accumulated by the predecessors of the Government against the sudden emergency of war were used up by the present Government without replacement because they were too cowardly to go to the country and state in the eye of the country that they required the money which these stores represented in order to maintain them in case of emergency.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty said that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not justified in what

  131
  he said in criticism of this selling of stores the other day. I venture as a humble supporter of the right hon. Gentleman to say that I believe what he uttered was absolutely and entirely justified, and that no more scandalous abuse of the functions of the Government is recorded in the history of the Admiralty than that which is shown by its stealing and taking away of the stores, which were never replaced, and which is now unblushingly described as having been done to aid the cash expenditure. We have heard a great deal to-night about the Germans. We must of necessity in discussing the naval situation hear a very great deal about the Germans. My hon. Friend the Member for Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) referred to the discussion of this subject of the German and British preparation as something of a challenge to Germany. Why, last year there was in this House a discussion so frank that it exceeded all precedents as to the possibility that might arise from naval competition between Great Britain and Germany. The German Emperor, a little later, or perhaps about the same time, said in public that he must have the Trident of the Atlantic in his fist. No offence was taken by Germany at the discussion in this House, and no offence was taken in this House at the statement made by His Majesty.
  A good many years have elapsed since the epoch-making speech, which I heard in the Stranger's Gallery, made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke). His speech was described as an epoch-making speech, and it was an epoch-making speech, because it was the speech which originated what has been described as the two-Power standard as the only standard of safety by which Great Britain could judge whether or not she was protected with regard to her naval affairs. We have had that standard confirmed, with the addition, I believe, of a 10 per cent, by the right hon. Gentleman who is at present at the head of His Majesty's Administration. That was at the Guildhall—not at the Albert Hall. Both the right hon. Gentleman's speeches at the Albert Hall and the Guildhall are alike for the misunderstanding which seems to have arisen as to what the right hon. Gentleman meant by the expressions which he used.
  No public man of repute would ever dare to say anything less than a two-Power standard for Great Britain would be safe or make British interests feel that they
  132
  were in a position of being properly protected. I for one do not care much for the two-keel standard. That seems to me to be in fact a challenge. If you say, "We shall have a two-Power standard with 10 per cent, addition or any other addition," our comparison would be with the two most powerful fleets for the time being of the world. Then you are indicating no particular country; but if, on the contrary, you fix one country in the national mind, and say we will watch that country, and our standard shall be two keels to her one, you are establishing a perpetual challenge which must sooner or later excite the antagonistic feelings of the people whose country you are singling out in that way. Therefore I do not support for one moment the idea of making our standard a two-keel standard in comparison with Germany. But what we are to-day debating is not as to the two-Power standard, but as to a one-Power standard. I want to give the House this little instance of personal testimony. It is twenty years or more since I first had an opportunity of seeing the German dockyard at Kiel, and even then the amount of organisation that the German Government applied to their naval preparation no man could fail to admire. It was an organisation of exquisite skill. Throughout the dockyard there were separate houses, each house on its own ground, with a name above it of the particular ship, and in each house every equipment, every munition of war that that particular ship should require, so that in fifteen minutes everything could go on board the vessel, and she could be mobilised in a few hours. Even the constructors were trained to go into the fighting line in case of need, and in all these intervening years the same system of carefully organised preparation has distinguished the German Navy as it has distinguished everything else that German people have undertaken. We heard from my Noble Friend about the armed tramps. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty appreciated what was meant by that reference of my Noble Friend. Over all these years Germany has increased her mercantile marine by subsidies and by special Government assistance, so that the mercantile marine of Germany is now larger by far. It has bigger ships— ships more powerful than could possibly have been the case without Government assistance. Government assistance was given, so that every vessel flying the

  133
  mercantile flag of Germany would be a reserve vessel in time of war. There is scarcely a tramp steamer belonging to Germany which does not carry several officials, officers or men, belonging to the German Naval Reserve. There is hardly a tramp steamer, however small, that has not got her gun fixings marked out, most of them stored ashore, so that at a moment's notice the vessels of the German mercantile marine could be fitted out and made to perform the functions of cruisers of small power to play havoc with the mercantile navy of any power with which they might be at war. What my Noble Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) meant was that in an emergency, and in the case of war breaking out, those armed tramps that happened to be in port would immedilately be fitted out with the fittings, and could be sent at once on our trade routes and would interfere enormously and dangerously with our food supply.
  Mr. McKENNA: Would the hon. baronet give his authority for that statement?
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: My authority is the general knowledge which exists throughout the trade to which I belong. Will he deny that all the vessels in the Hamburg American and North German Lloyd lines are not available as reserve cruisers?
  Mr. McKENNA: The statement was that every German tramp had got its guns ashore.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: My statement was that nearly every German tramp had got preparations, and nearly every such vessel had got men on board who were officers belonging to the German Naval Reserve. I make that statement believing it to be absolutely true, and if the right hon. Gentleman can disprove it either as regards the large vessels of the different lines I have named, or the smaller or more humble vessels, by all means let him do so. Reference has been made to the German Act of 1900. To show the policy of Germany in regard to her naval preparations and the comparative inanition with which we have met German naval preparations, it is only necessary to consider the expenditure upon new construction in the two countries. The First Lord of the Admiralty will remember that I ventured, in the course of his speech, to interrupt him with a question as to the cost of new construction in the comparative statement which he placed before the
  134
  House. I will compare the figures as to the relative expenditure upon new construction in Great Britain and Germany. In 1904 Great Britain was spending £13,500,000 upon new construction. In the same year, Germany was spending £4,600,000; that is to say in that year Germany was spending about one-third of the amount upon new construction that Great Britain was spending. In 1905 our expenditure had gone down on new construction to £11,300,000, whereas Germany's expenditure went up to £4,900,000. In 1906, the first year that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member had charge of our expenditure, it again went down to £10,800,000, whilst Germany's expenditure had gone up to £5,300,000. In 1907 our expenditure had again fallen to £9,270,000, and Germany's had again risen to £6,280,000. In 1908 Germany's expenditure for the first time was practically equal to Great Britain's expenditure on new construction. We were spending £8,600,000 and Germany was spending £8,300,000. Those figures indicate how gradually in the course of five years Germany had crept up from a state of things when she was spending one-third of what we were spending till she was spending an equal amount.
  I do not know what information the late Government had in 1905 as to the intentions of Germany, but they did leave in the Cawdor Memorandum a programme, which I cannot say was for the guidance of their successors, but which was certainly a suggestion for their successors. In that Memorandum they foreshadowed the building of four additional "Dreadnoughts" each year, and the very first administrative act in connection with the Navy of the Government opposite was to cut down that programme of "Dreadnoughts." I remember the late Secretary to the Admiralty standing at that table and stating that the Government had determined to reduce that programme, and to-day the country stands with at least three, and possibly four, "Dreadnoughts" less in being and in course of construction than would have been the case had the policy of the late Government been carried out.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is mistaken in that. There are under construction at this moment precisely the same number of "Dreadnoughts" as there would have been if the Cawdor programme had been carried out in its entirety. The only difference is that the four

  135
  ships which are to be laid down by the present Government are far more powerful than the earlier ships would have been under the Cawdor programme.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman include the four "Dreadnoughts" which are to be laid down on 1st April?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) drew attention to the fact that the date of the laying down of the keel is quite immaterial; the real date of the construction of the ship is the date when the orders for the gun-mountings and material and machinery are given. Those dates are already long passed, and a great deal of money has been spent on those ships.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: The House understands that, but let me point out that, in order to justify the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, and in order to contradict the statement I made, that we are four "Dreadnoughts" less in being and in building, he has to take refuge in ships which, according to programme, are not to be laid down until April next, and are scarcely advanced at all. If, then, the keels are not yet laid—
  Mr. McKENNA: The building of the hull is not the part of the building which takes the longest time. That is a material factor in building ships.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I knew that quite as soon as the right hon. Gentleman. I would say, in parenthesis, I compliment the right hon. Gentleman upon the eight months during which the slips had been occupied in the case of two vessels. I quite appreciate the great advantage of preparing everything beforehand and occupying a slip for as little time as possible. But I want to say that in consequence of the reduction by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a Member, of those four "Dreadnoughts," which were projected by the Government of 1905, when they went out of office, we stand to-day with four "Dreadnoughts," less in being and in construction, unless you include amongst them the four that are to be laid down on 1st April next. Although preparations are advanced, they are not yet laid down. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can contradict that. I am not seeking to bandy words with the right hon. Gentleman, but the essence of my point is this: one "Dread-
  136
  nought" was withdrawn in 1906; otherwise to-day it would be flying the flag, and now you have to find, as a substitute for her, a vessel which has not yet been laid down. Again, for the vessel which would have been laid down in 1907, and would to-day be flying a flag you have to find a substitute in a vessel on the 1st April not yet laid down. Therefore I say we should have had two additional "Dreadnoughts" flying the flag at the present moment had the programme of 1905 been carried out. Some reference has been made by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) to The Hague Conference and to the efforts of the Government on behalf of a mutual reduction of armaments. I do not believe that the Government are in the least degree to blame in that matter. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, with whose humanitarian sympathies we all agree, advocated a scheme of mutual arrangement for disarmament, and he sent to The Hague Conference the fullest possible representation in the hope that some mutual arrangement might be brought about. But although the Government were thoroughly to be supported in that, they ought to have taken, as I hold, more active steps when their overtures were refused, as they were refused, in the frankest manner, by the German Government, who refused to limit their armaments under any system whatever. On the contrary, the Government continued their policy of ordering ships first and then having the guns, gun-mountings and other appurtenances got ready, instead of doing as the Germans do, without public sanction or knowledge, advancing enormously the construction of their vessels, and then asking Parliament to vote the money. Our system is just the reverse. We come to this House, talk about the ships, and, after we have voted them—some months afterwards—we proceed to get in tenders. I am not speaking of what the right hon. Gentleman has done latterly, but I am speaking of the general practice. Some months after the voting has been accomplished we begin to build the ships. In this we present an extreme contrast to the German system. I do not want to refer further to the question of the vessels that have already been mentioned, the battleships which are outclassed—the obsolete vessels—but I do believe that there is a great consensus of opinion that vessels of the "Dreadnought" class, plus the "Invincible," are the only vessels which can form a standard

  137
  of comparison of naval strength. The present Director of Naval Construction, Sir Philip Watt, had the genius to evolve a vessel—a "Dreadnought"—so far in advance of any previous design in power of defence and of offence that in the opinion of the whole of the Navy no comparison and no doubt whatever can exist as to a vessel of that class overcoming a battleship even of the most advanced type built immediately before it. That is the consensus of opinion in the British Navy.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a piece of information which no doubt he has in his possession, but which, so far, has not been brought out in this Debate. What is the size and power of the later German "Dreadnoughts "? A rumour goes about that they have a displacement of 22,500 tons. I have no source of official information about that, but I do know that the largest vessel that is named in the Estimates of Great Britain is 19,900 tons displacement. If it be the case that Germany has a vessel building which will advance to a displacement of 22,500, and one of 19,000, and two of 20,000, then it is evident that, in addition to the outclassing and out-pacing as to progress about which the right hon. Gentleman told the House last year, we have this year been outclassed in regard to size. That, however, is not a statement which I have any authority for making, but no doubt it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to advise us whether the rumour is justified or not. A good deal has been said as to the comparative state of the two countries in the years 1912 and 1913, and I have to the best of my ability compared the "Dreadnoughts" of the two countries. To my mind it seems that the time of anxiety is not so much 1912 or 1913, but really is 1911. According to the best computation that I can make, England at the present time has commissioned eight "Dreadnoughts" plus one "Invincible," and she expects to commission this month two additional vessels, the "St. Vincent" and the "Collingwood," and she expects to commission about twelve months from now between January and March, 1911, two vessels, the "Neptune" and the "Indefatigable"; that is to say, in twelve months from now there will be twelve capital ships flying the British flag. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) asked the right hon. Gentleman as to the progress of the German vessels, but his inquiries did not push the matter to the full
  138
  extreme. May I be permitted to push my inquiries to the full extent? I suggest that the four vessels, the "Nassau," the "Westfalen, the "Rheinland," and the "Posen," are either in commission or ready for war. Four other "Dreadnoughts" are to be completed this month, and then there are to be completed in March, 1911, three vessels, two of them not named, the "G" and the "H" and the third the "Von der Tann." So that, if this list is right, against the twelve capital ships flying the British flag this day twelve months, there would be eleven capital ships flying the German flag, and if that is a fulfilment in practice of the two-Power standard, having regard to the fleet of the United States as well, I should feel very doubtful if the country would be satisfied. I should be only too glad if the statement I am suggesting is not correct, but it is right that the country should know whether it is correct or not. I noticed that in his statement the right hon. Gentleman jumped from the present time to the year 1912, and seemed to be very carefully skipping the year 1911.
  If the advice which was tendered to the Government a year ago by the Leader of the Opposition at the Guildhall had been acted upon, the public mind would to-day have been very much better satisfied and very much more at rest. My right hon. Friend said, when this disclosure of last year's Estimates was made, that the only safe policy was to build without a day's delay. Let these four contingent "Dreadnoughts" be started at once instead of practically being started on 1st April. If that had been done, we should to-day have had four "Dreadnoughts" more, half-finished, than there are at the present time. We should, a year hence, when this comparison between the two countries becomes acute, have had four more "Dreadnoughts" practically complete, probably sufficiently complete to be of service in case of emergency, than we shall have, and the public mind would have been far better satisfied, and the feeling of the House, I believe, would be very much quieted and encouraged in comparison with what it is at present.
  I should like to be informed why there is not to be greater progress upon the five vessels which are in this year's Estimates. Is the limitation of £1,400,000, which is to be spent on them, due to financial or to physical causes? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman does not think he ought to ask this House for more money in

  139
  respect of these five vessels, or is it because the possible provision of guns and gun-mounting is not sufficiently great to advance in the same ratio as the greater expenditure on the hulls of the vessels? If that is the explanation, then I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Admiralty are to blame for not having made better provision by enlarging the gun-factory possibilities of the country. I have tried to be as fair as possible. I have not sought to make a point against the Admiralty which was not justified, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can give an assurance that the reasons for not advancing these vessels further were merely financial reasons, and not because there was not sufficient provision for guns and gun-mounting, I am sure the House will receive such a statement with perfect satisfaction. Prince Henry of Prussia, who recently visited this country, is reported in this morning's papers to have said:—
  " I spoke with many persons of authority, and can aver that I gained the impression that sincere and honourable fueling prevails towards us in England, and that there is absolutely no idea of aggression in English Government circles. In my opinion this feeling is mutual. Every attempt should be made to strengthen mutual confidence between the two Powers. The expression—confidence for confidence—applies here. Those who stood shoulder to shoulder with the English out in the Far East will have learned that the interests of both sides can only be promoted by mutual confidence."
  These words are worthy of record in the archives of the British Parliament, and by their quotation they are recorded in the archives of the British Parliament. Mutual confidence between the peoples of the two countries is the basis of peace, and added to that basis must be that mutual confidence which arises from respect proceeding from equal and adequate preparation for the worst that might happen.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Perhaps I may be permitted to endeavour to reply to some of the criticisms which have been offered during the Debate. First of all, with regard to the comment of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) that the Estimates, although better than he feared they would be, did not in some respects come up to what he thinks necessary. I confess that I do not think there is any reason for apprehension, and it appears to me that the use of the word "fear" is a little out of place. It has been suggested that there is an air of unreality about the Estimates, particu-
  140
  larly with regard to the five new ships, and that the financial provision is of a somewhat farcical nature. The hon. Member seemed to desire to put them into the category in which last year's four contingent ships were placed, having regard to the provision made for them. He and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) and the Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Sir Fortescue Flannery) all questioned very much indeed the provision we are making in these Estimates for the execution of the new programme of this year within the financial year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision we are making for these five new ships has nothing whatever to do with failure of guns and gun-mountings to keep pace with the other provisions for the ships. I think we are meeting the situation clearly and fully and with a view to getting the very best expenditure and the most scientific development, which he will understand, for every penny we spend on these ships.
  With regard to the proposition that we really ought to put more money for the construction of these ships in this year's Estimates, let me point out to the Noble Lord particularly, that the total estimated cost of the ships in this new programme when they are all completed will be £14,183,950—that is the total cost of the new programme, and of that we shall spend in the present financial year 10.1 per cent. If that is said to be too scanty and farcical, and not to meet the situation I would ask the House to look back. Take 1901–02. Of the ultimate total cost of that year's programme there was provided, in the financial year, money to execute 5.1 per cent, as against our 10.1. In 1902–03 there was provided 10.7 per cent, of the cost of the total programme of that year. In 1903–04 the proportion was 9.5, and in 1904–05 the proportion was 8.4 per cent., while in 1905–06 the proportion was 13.8 per cent. I do not wish to put this matter at all in a party way, but we have had a good deal of party recrimination, and I am bound to point out that during the last five years of the late Government the mean provision made for the execution in the year of the programme of the year was not 10.1 but 9.5 per cent., so that by way of contrast it will be seen that the provision now made is not so farcical as has been said. There have been some remarks about the two-Power standard by the hon. Member for Fareham and the Noble Lord. I really should like the position as between

  141
  them and others cleared up. The hon. Member for Fareham promptly contradicted me the other day in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate when I referred to him as an advocate of what is called the two keels to one standard. I confess I was surprised, but I accepted the statement. I have refreshed my memory by turning to the Debate of 13th July, 1908, and I proceed to read the statement of the hon. Member:—
  " His personal belief was" —
  he has never carried it beyond that, I admit—
  " that the two-Power standard was best translated as the twice one-Power standard, and that, the only safe course for us was to lay down, or, what was more important, to complete for service, two capital ships for every one that our chief naval rival might be possessed of at any given time."
  I really thought when I said he was in favour of laying down two keels to one that I was fairly paraphrasing his statement.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I think the two keels to one standard is a very excellent standard, but the standard officially adopted on this side of the House is the two-Power standard and, therefore, I support it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: But what I said— and it is within the recollection of the House—was that the hon. Gentleman had undoubtedly considered and supported, so far as he was concerned, the policy of two keels to one, and he flatly contradicted me. I have read what he said. Now I proceed to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth. He made a calculation in his historic programme before the London Chamber of Commerce on 30th June.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: It will be adopted by and by.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We shall see. The Member for Fareham's statement was that we ought to lay down and complete for service two capital ships for each capital ship of our chief naval rival. The Noble Lord, in setting forth his programme took the position on 31st March, that in 1914 we shall have in "Dreadnoughts" and pre-" Dreadnoughts"sixty-six, as against Germany's forty-one "Dreadnoughts" and pre-"Dreadnoughts," and he regarded that as sufficient.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg your pardon. I never said anything about two to one, and I described those who advocated that policy as "wild men."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I accept what the Noble Lord states, but what he said was that when we collected our "Dreadnoughts" and pre-" Dreadnoughts" in 1914 we should have sixty-six as against Germany's forty-one, and he regarded that as sufficient. He went on:—
  " What do the wild men want? They want us to lay down two to one for every ship of the ' Dreadnought ' class Germany laid down."
  Then the Noble Lord added what he has not added to-night:—
  " There is no lunacy I have ever heard so great as that."
  You had better make it up among yourselves. I confess the Noble Lord's speech a little disappointed me, for, if I may say so, it had many splashes but not many hits. After the statements which he made in the country I do not mind telling him that I came down to this House to-day with something approaching fear and trembling as to what his utterances might be, and I felt that Ministers were in for a very bad time when he got up. Because he said at North Shields, on 14th December, 1909, the Navy had been run for four years in the interests of personal and party motives. Shortly afterwards, at Tonbridge, he said—and the two statements are a little in conflict—that it was a question of keeping an efficient Navy and forgetting their rotten politics. Then the Noble Lord, afterwards, at Dorset, on 27th January, said he wanted to pulverise Ministers who stated that the Navy was in an efficient state; and at Lowestoft he said he hoped to get all the frauds out presently. I must say his speech to-night leaves something to be desired in the way of pulverisation. I do not think his torpedoes had their war-heads on to-night. That is the only explanation I can give. We have in this programme five battleships, and the Noble Lord in the course of his speech seemed to think that was insufficient. At the London Chamber of Commerce he said:—
  " I want ten battleships by the 31st March, 1914, and if the contingent four battleships are laid down I want six."
  The four vessels have been laid down, and they are no longer contingent. Therefore the Noble Lord only wants six.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Read on. I said that is not subject to any German acceleration, in which case I wanted ten. I wanted six this year, six next year, and the four that ought to have been built last year. We are one short of what I wanted.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will read it from the Noble Lord's programme:—
  "My programme is as follows: Ten battleships—I put battleships, they are what are called 'Dreadnoughts.' In that ten is included the four which the country is asking for now when they ask for eight, the Government have now suggested four. If they put down eight I only want six. If they do not put down eight I want ten."
  That is all. We put the four down and there are only six left. There are two programmes to get that in—1910–11, 1911–12 —so that the Noble Lord's programme would be secured by laying three down each year. We have got five in one year and he is not satisfied.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Oh, no.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Really, the Noble Lord must remember this is in black and white.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Yes, there it is in black and white.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am quoting from the report in "The Times." Let me put this to the Noble Lord, this great programme of 30th June, 1909, provided for twenty-four ante-destroyers, but if I heard his speech rightly he now wants twelve ante-destroyers.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Twelve in each year, or twenty-four altogether.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The same applies to the fifty-two torpedo-boat destroyers.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I want twenty-six each year.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Twenty-eight.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Twenty-six.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that certainly the Noble Lord has no cause whatever to complain of this programme of our Battleship Commission.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: No. I do not complain.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am rather relieved to hear that.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I said so.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All I hope is that we shall have no more statements on the public platform that we have let down the British Navy. A charge like that is extremely odious to men who love their country quite as much as the Noble Lord.
  144
  The Noble Lord referred to stores. Statements as to stores are made on the platform and are extremely misleading. It has been generally suggested that in our rather nefarious sort of way we have been living on stores, depleting stores to the vital detriment of the fighting efficiency of this force. Let me put the facts about the stores and I think the Noble Lord will be obliged. At the close of 1904 and the beginning of 1905 a very great change was made in Admiralty policy. There were 150 ships scrapped.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: No; only eighty-eight.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Noble Lord had better read Lord Cawdor's statement. In a speech at Glasgow on 12th January, 1905, the Leader of the Opposition referred to it, and when I say scrapped, I mean they were taken off the Active List.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Eighteen of them were put on again.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They were withdrawn, but; the term is not mine. The Leader of the Opposition certainly went to Glasgow, and he said—I do not quite remember the number—but I think it was 130 ships scrapped, and by a "courageous stroke of the pen "was the phrase. I quite recognise the fact that some of them were afterwards put on. When the Noble Lord complains, as he did, about the weakening of the trade routes, amidst cheers, let them remember that if those trade routes are weakened they were weakened by that policy. The Noble Lord agrees with that, I think?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDassented.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Then hon. Gentlemen amongst whom he sits are subject to condemnation. They certainly cheered his denunciation of work which was done by their own party. One hundred and fifty ships were withdrawn, though some of them were, I admit, afterwards returned for other purposes, certain foreign stations were closed, certain others were reduced, and the standard of reserves of certain stores was reduced. Respecting that policy I should like the Noble Lord to hear this, because he has said in public that it is we who scrapped these ships—
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Never.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I have the Noble Lord's speech.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I could not say what was not true.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: At Pembroke Dock, 20th December, 1909:—
  " This Government—"
  —that is the present Government—
  " scrapped 150 ships."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I never said anything of the sort.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am quoting from "The Times," 1st January, 1910. Again, at Grimsby:—
  " They—"
  —that is this Government—
  " had scrapped 154 vessels."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: No, I never said that.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I believe the Noble Lord took exception in some journal to "The Times" report of the Pembroke Dock speech, but not of the Grimsby speech, as far as I know:
  " They had scrapped 154 ships—"
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I never said that.
  Dr. MACNAMARA:
  " And that was a policy of the Unionists also—"
  Did the Noble Lord say that?
  "—which was a mistake."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: It was the Unionists who scrapped them.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Now we have it definitely from the Noble Lord, and it will be a great advantage to us to know that it was the Unionists.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: It was the Admiralty. Read the whole Report.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think the Noble Lord corrected the Grimsby report.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I never said what was not true. "They" meant the Admiralty.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the policy of the scrapping of ships, the closing of certain stations, the reducing of others, the redistribution of the Fleet, and the nucleus crew system, the Leader of the Opposition went to Glasgow on 12th January, 1905, and made this statement. Remember, we have been denounced for
  146
  living by depleting stores without replacing—
  " I think myself that a great reform. I do not think its magnitude has been yet fully realised by the public, but, as time goes on, I think they will feel that of all the reforms that have taken place since the time of Nelson this is perhaps the biggest that has yet been made."
  I think it is a little severe that we should be charged, as we undoubtedly have been. If the Noble Lord says that he has not made the charge against us I accept his statement at once, but, at any rate, it has been made by persons of less care and accuracy than the Noble Lord. With regard to the value of the stores drawn without replacement, these are the facts:—In 1905–6 there were £786,850; in 1906–7, £1,024,200; in 1907–8, £1,294,802; in 1908–9, £555,125; while for the present year I have not got the complete figures, but for 1909–10 the Estimate is £156,000, and in the present year's Estimate we propose to draw without replacement £20,800. With regard to the reduction of the reserve stores, that, again, is a matter upon which complaints have been made. Lord Cawdor's statement, on 30th November, 1905, gave an exposition of Admiralty policy. He said:—
  "A general revision of reserves has taken place, and clearance of obsolete stock is in progress. Arrangements for the supply of essential stores in time of war or other emergency have been developed, and the saving of the storage of large reserves in Government buildings for emergency in quantities out of all proportion to turnover is thus avoided."
  We show in the Appropriation Account on 31st March, 1909, the value of the stock that we then had. I say that the Admiralty policy of Lord Cawdor in 1904–5 was enthusiastically agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition at Glasgow in December, 1905. The value of the reserve stores was fixed on the recommendation of the Naval Establishments Inquiry Committee, and that recommendation was approved by the Board in November and December, 1905. With one exception which Lord Tweed-mouth made with regard to the victualling stores, we are to-day following the policy then laid down. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford) took part in the discussion at the Royal United Service Institution on 26th February, 1902. He said this:—
  "Then there are the stores. There is not a ship in the Service now that does not carry tons of stores that the officers know they will never be able to use; never use after action, and never probably use unless they went to dockyard to test them. Why do they carry these in their ships? The stores will not save you going to the bottom; they will probably send yon to the bottom quicker through having them on board."
  That is our case, or part of it. That was Lord Cawdor's case. He reduced the

  147
  standard of reserves of stores, and we here had the felicity of agreeing with him and of carrying out his policy.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I will explain it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should rather have thought that Lord Cawdor, in his 1905 Navy Estimates, in the matter of the reserve stores, might possibly have had the Noble Lord's comment in his mind. I have only one other thing to say; that is when the House has agreed that the Speaker do leave the Chair, that in Committee upon the Vote it has been the general practice of having a general debate. Ample opportunity will be afforded on Vote "A" to continue the general discussion on these rather interesting problems to-morrow, and I hope, therefore, I may now ask the House to agree to the Motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 131,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, including 17,324 Royal Marines."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Master of Elibank.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Eleven o'clock.

  Customs Statistical Office.
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Government Laboratory (Petition from Assistant Clerks).
  Government Laboratory (Petition from Assistant Clerks).
  Deprived of Pension (Carpenter).
  Deprived of Pension (Carpenter).
  Income Tax Collection.
  Income Tax Collection.
  Cab-Drivers' Licences.
  Cab-Drivers' Licences.
  Army Administrative Medical Officers.
  Army Administrative Medical Officers.
  New Service Bullet.
  New Service Bullet.
  Army Out-Stations (Electric Lighting).
  Army Out-Stations (Electric Lighting).
  Worcestershire Yeomanry (Escape of Horse).
  Worcestershire Yeomanry (Escape of Horse).
  Cavalry Regiments at Home (Subaltern Officers).
  Cavalry Regiments at Home (Subaltern Officers).
  Colour-Sergeant J. Smith, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment.
  Colour-Sergeant J. Smith, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment.
  Territorial Batteries, Horse and Field Artillery.
  Territorial Batteries, Horse and Field Artillery.
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (Men Employed).
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (Men Employed).
  War Office (Materials and Stores).
  War Office (Materials and Stores).
  Deptford Victualling Yard (Uniform Working Day).
  Deptford Victualling Yard (Uniform Working Day).
  Oil Fuel (Royal Navy).
  Oil Fuel (Royal Navy).
  Certificated Teachers Unemployed.
  Certificated Teachers Unemployed.
  Local Government Board in Scotland (Veterinary Surgeon).
  Local Government Board in Scotland (Veterinary Surgeon).
  Board of Trade Returns (Imports from Ireland).
  Board of Trade Returns (Imports from Ireland).
  Costs of Removal.
  Costs of Removal.
  Chinese Boarding Houses, Poplar and Limehouse.
  Chinese Boarding Houses, Poplar and Limehouse.
  Indian Duty on Silver.
  Indian Duty on Silver.
  Imported Oil (India).
  Imported Oil (India).
  Ordnance Survey Department.
  Ordnance Survey Department.
  Board of Works Land, Athlone.
  Board of Works Land, Athlone.
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Agricultural Department, Ireland (Stations and Schools).
  Agricultural Department, Ireland (Stations and Schools).
  Sales of Land, Ireland.
  Sales of Land, Ireland.
  Wanton Act, Drumraney, County Meath.
  Wanton Act, Drumraney, County Meath.
  Outrages (Ireland).
  Outrages (Ireland).
  Old Age Pension Claim, Bangor, County Down.
  Old Age Pension Claim, Bangor, County Down.
  Recent Burning on a Farm.
  Recent Burning on a Farm.
  Charges against Irish Constables.
  Charges against Irish Constables.
  Upper Bann Drainage.
  Upper Bann Drainage.
  Irish Labourers Bill.
  Irish Labourers Bill.
  Irish Untrained Teachers.
  Irish Untrained Teachers.

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD TWEEDMOUTH The LORD TWEEDMOUTH—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Standard Life Assurance Company. [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRANSFER).
Petition of the Railway Passengers Assurance Company, under their common seal, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Railway Passenger Assurance Company to the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
WICKLOW GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
ASSAM RAILWAYS AND TRADING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHARNWOOD FOREST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HOUSE OF LORDS (TEMPORAL PEERS).
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of Tuesday last), and to be printed. (No. 13.)
STANDING COMMITTEES.
The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh added to the Select Committee.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE.
The Earl Stanhope and the Lord Dunmore (E. Dunmore) added to the Select Committee.

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY had given notice to move, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the best means of reforming its existing organisation, so as to constitute a strong and efficient Second Chamber; and, in the event of such Motion being agreed to, to move the following Resolutions:—

1. That a strong and efficient Second Chamber is not merely an integral part of the British Constitution, but is necessary to the well-being of the State and to the balance of Parliament.

2. That such a Chamber can best be obtained by the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords.

141

3. That a necessary preliminary of such reform and reconstitution is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a Peerage should no longer of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is two and twenty years almost to a day since I last brought the subject of the reform of your Lordships' House before you. I then thought that that would be the last occasion on which I should trouble you, because I then recognised that some motive power external to this House would be required before this House was likely to take that matter into its serious consideration. But now it has seemed better when, by a large concurrence of opinion, it is felt that measures should be taken inside this House for the reform of this House—it has seemed better that the proposals should come from the Cross Benches, from some neutral source, so as to be rather the work of the House itself than to appear to be the action of the House dictated or controlled or inspired by that Front Bench which is usually believed to lead the opinion of this House.
My Lords, there has long been a body of opinion in this House that has been profoundly conscious of some imperfections in its structure, which it would be well in the interest of this House to remove without delay. We have been conscious, I think, in the first place, that we are too numerous a body for effective work; secondly, that we represent too much one interest, though, perhaps, that point of view has been somewhat exaggerated; and thirdly, that the principle of heredity, which is now the basis of our Constitution, has met with increasing criticism and objection in the great body of the nation. My Lords, I hope that while we are all conscious of these imperfections we are also conscious of the great and splendid history and traditions of this House. I am the last, I hope, in this Assembly to attempt in any degree to disparage them. No one can look at the history of this House without recalling the long list of illustrious men who have sat in it, and who are sitting in it, and without seeing that in every century and age of this Kingdom it has attracted to it perhaps the majority of all the military and political ability of this country, and of late, also, a large proportion of scientific and literary eminence. More than that, its antiquity is a fact which I think very few even of your Lordships realise, and certainly
142
very few of your critics. It is claimed by Professor Freeman, not merely a great historian but a still greater Radical—for the name of Liberal he would have spurned—that this House is the lineal descendant and representative of the Saxon Witenagemote, and so illustrious a descent as this, prolonged through so many ages, is not a fact which any member of your Lordships' House, or any critic of your Lordships' House, can altogether afford to disregard.
There have been eulogies passed upon this House in terms more eloquent than any that I can use, one of which, at any rate, though I know how distasteful is an extract to an audience, I will venture to inflict on your Lordships:—
"Remember for one moment what the House of Lords is. It is an integral part of the Constitution of England. It holds a large place in English history. Most of the present holders of titles in the House of Lords are the descendants of the men who wrung the Charter from John on the plains of Runnymede."
My Lords, I confess that I think that is an overstatement, and if any of my brethren in this House make that claim I desire to make a respectful exception as regards myself from any such assumption—
"They are the descendants of men who in the past history of Britain fought the battles of England against the world, and I say that to abolish that portion of the Constitution, which is older probably in point of antiquity, in point of history, than the House of Commons itself—to abolish that means a revolution greater than any that has taken place in the whole constitutional history of England."
Those are the words not merely of a public speaker of great power but of a person of great political importance. They are the words not of an old fossilised Tory embedded in this House: they are the eloquent phrases of Mr. Redmond. They were delivered to an enthusiastic audience of his countrymen in the Rotunda at Dublin some fifteen or sixteen years ago, and though I am not in favour of disinterring old speeches, I do not think it out of place to recall this important extract as coming from one who at this moment is attempting, and not without success, to disturb the arrangements of the whole financial administration of the country entirely with a view to bringing about the abolition of the House of Lords. There is another point with regard to this extract which I should like noble Lords opposite to remember. It is that the enterprise on which he is engaged involves a greater revolution than any that has yet occurred

143
in the history of England. What I want you to consider is that Mr. Redmond knows what he is doing and where he is going, and I think that there are a good many on the Ministerial side of the House who do not.
Now, my Lords, I ventured to say that I thought when I last spoke on this subject that some external pressure would be required to bring the House of Lords actively to bestir itself in the work of its own reform. In saying that I mean no censure. It is obviously difficult for any body of men to bring themselves to disturb a state of things which, though not wholly satisfactory, is generally comfortable. Quieta non movere is a great axiom of all lives, general and particular, and when in addition you are required to concede some part, at any rate, of your privileges it is, in my judgment, quite natural that the House of Lords should require some pressure to reform itself. But even if that pressure has come from without, this House in acceding to the movement is not acting under pressure, but is acting on the spontaneous results of its own action.
There have been various attempts within this House to reform this House. I will not go so far back as the almost pre-historic attempts of the third Earl Grey, Lord Russell, and the late Lord Salisbury, but among living men there are two who have moved in the matter, Lord Dunraven and Lord Newton. Lord Newton, alone of all the House of Lords' reformers, was able to bring his movement to a successful issue. He at last succeeded in bringing about the appointment of a Committee to consider the reforms that might be advisable in this House, and so far he has gathered the only sheaf in this somewhat barren harvest. I lay emphasis on Lord Newton's Committee—to which I shall have to return for a moment—for this reason, that it brought in a detailed Report to your Lordships before the present agitation began, and though no action was taken upon it in this House the reason was perfectly evident that there was no use taking action without the co-operation of the House of Commons, and that, of course, from the nature of things, could not be hoped for from the present Government. I am not blaming the present Government; I am only stating the facts.
Well, then, we come to the very important external pressure which has come upon us as a result of the General Election. The General Election, as has already been
144
remarked, has this unique and remarkable result, that it disappointed every Party who engaged in it, and I am not quite sure that it is not for the benefit of the country as a whole that that result was obtained. But it is only as a philosopher and an onlooker that I make that remark. There was, however, one direct and positive result that this House cannot afford to overlook. There was returned a majority of 125 to the House of Commons violently and radically opposed to the existence, at any rate, of the prerogatives of this House. Even that majority requires some analysis. It is in the main made up of the Irish Party and the Labour Party. Now the Irish Party desires the abolition of the House of Lords, avowedly and declaredly in order to get rid of the last obstacle to what is known as Home Rule. After that obstacle is removed they will presumably remove to Dublin, and in all probability trouble themselves no more with our constitutional arrangements. Therefore, the majority against this House, so far as it is composed of the Irish Party, is one merely for a temporary object, and that an object to which the majority of the people of England have repeatedly shown that they are diametrically opposed. Then I come to the Labour Party. The Labour Party have no such temporary object. Their objects are much too permanent. They aim at the destruction of the House of Lords for the purpose of advancing various sweeping schemes, the nationalisation of this and the nationalisation of that, for which at present the population of Great Britain, so far as I know, has shown no marked desire, and therefore they also must be considered, with some deduction as regards their operations, against the House of Lords.
I am bound to say there are other elements in that majority which I regard more seriously in reality than either of those which I have indicated. There are the Scotch. Now, my Lords, I cannot flatter your Lordships by saying that the objection of the Scotch to the hereditary constitution of this Chamber is ever likely to be removed. Strangely enough, it is an hereditary objection to an hereditary principle. It is born in their bone and their blood and their flesh. It has come to them from a century back. I remember Mr. Gladstone telling me that, when he was a young man travelling south from his father's house to London, at the time of

145
the great Reform Bill of 1832, he passed through Dundee and saw two placards which made his blood run cold. I have absolutely forgotten one, but I think I shall never forget the other. The other was simply this:—"To hell with the bloody tyrants!" And you, my Lords, or rather your predecessors, were the bloody tyrants in question. Very much the same sort of language is used now. I have sometimes wished that the people who use it could be brought by excursion train to the Palace of Westminster and invited to inspect this House on an ordinary working day, for anything less like a committee of "bloody tyrants" than the somewhat apathetic and sometimes somnolent, but always highly respectable body of men than those you see on these red benches I cannot, for the life of me, conceive. I say, then, that from Scotland, and from the north of England I think—of Scotland I am sure—you have an objection which you will never be able to mollify or break down in regard to the hereditary constitution of this House.
But, my Lords, there is much more than the mere fact of the General Election. There is the fact that the Government, both in the King's Speech and in a speech which, without disparagement to that gracious document, I consider is more important than any King's Speech, have submitted a plan which, I suppose, they have formulated in detail in private; a plan, first for the disabling of the powers of the House of Lords, and secondly at some remote period for its reconstitution. My Lords, I must ask you to follow me while I investigate the proposals and the plan of the Government, so far as that plan is known to us, for that is the necessary alternative to any plan that you may submit to the country. I do not wish to make any attack on the Government. I can conceive nothing more easy for a competent orator than to make a very rattling speech against the Government at this moment, with extracts from their speeches, and the windings of their policy, not without noticing in passing those financial measures of strategy which seem, to the casual onlooker, more subtle than beautiful. But that is not my object to-night. My object is not in the least in the world polemic. I only want to consider, from a practical point of view, what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with
146
regard to this House. The first notice we had of it was in the King's Speech.
"Proposals will be laid before you—
were the words put into His Majesty's mouth—
"with all convenient speed, to define the relations between the Houses of Parliament, so as to secure the undivided authority of the House of Commons over finance, and its predominance in legislation. These measures, in the opinion of my advisers, should provide that this House"—[this undefined House]—" should be so constituted and empowered as to exercise impartially, in regard to proposed legislation, the functions of initiation, revision, and, subject to proper safeguards, of delay."
Those words were sufficiently vague, but, through their lofty and somewhat foggy grammar, we seem to perceive a distinct intention that two parallel measures will be introduced into Parliament, one for the limitation of the prerogatives of the House of Lords, and the other for its reconstitution on a different basis. The week after we had more precise information from the Prime Minister. Immediately on the assembling of the House on February 28 he said—
"Subject, of course, always to unforeseen exigencies, we shall present our proposals with regard to the relations between the two Houses, and present them in the first instance, as I have already intimated, in the form of Resolutions. Those Resolutions will, I hope and believe, be both few and simple. They will affirm—I am speaking now in general terms—the necessity for excluding the House of Lords altogether from the domain of finance. They will ask this House to declare that in the sphere of legislation the power of Veto at present possessed by the House of Lords shall be so limited in its exercise as to secure the predominance of the deliberate and considered will of the House of Commons within the lifetime of a single Parliament."
To which has since been added the fact that Parliament is to be a shortened Parliament.
"Further, it will be made plain that these constitutional changes are without prejudice to and contemplate in a subsequent year the substitution in our Second Chamber of a democratic for an aristocratic basis."
In fact, my Lords, what is foreshadowed is our old friend the Campbell-Bannerman Resolution followed at some distant day, which is not indicated, and need not be indicated, by a plan for the reconstitution of this House on a different basis. My Lords, that plan will not follow the passing of the Veto Resolutions by the House of Commons. I am not now speaking of the question as to whether next year or in any subsequent year His Majesty's

147
Ministers will be in possession of Downing-street. That is not the point that I wish to labour.
What I want to point out is that it is absolutely and practically out of the question that, when they have passed their Resolutions, if they ever do pass them, they should be followed at any subsequent day by the plan. Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, in the course of the General Election, made some very strong declarations in favour of an efficient Second Chamber to be maintained on an elective basis. Those who read those declarations were glad to see that in any case there was to be an effective Second Chamber, but surely Sir Edward Grey and those who think with him must see that all prospect of their pledges or declarations being carried out is absolutely removed by the declaration of the Prime Minister this day fortnight. If the proposals are not to be parallel, if they are not to be pari passu, they must know perfectly well that they will never come to fruition. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. friends Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey and their colleagues are speaking and acting in perfect good faith, but the sons of Zeruiah will be too hard for them.
Just sketch out in your own mind what the prospects of the Liberal Party and of Ministers will be as sketched out by the Prime Minister. Suppose his own programme carried out. Suppose he carries the Resolutions of which I have just read the description to your Lordships. He will come back next year or in "some subsequent year"—I quote his own language—to his Party and will say to them:—"Now we have carried our proposals for the abolition of the Veto, it is time for us to consider the reconstitution and reform of the House of Lords." What will his Party say to him? They will say, "We are very much obliged to you, we are exceedingly grateful, we recognise your good intentions, but we do not mean to have anything whatever to do with it. You have done all we wanted. You have deprived the House of Lords of all privileges, of all powers, of its Veto "—as it is called, which is its right of concurrent legislation—" you have absolutely deprived them of it in the course of a single and shortened Parliament; what more do we want? You have brought the House of Lords to its marrow bones, you have bled it to death, you have reduced it to a
148
moribund condition. We rejoice, you can hear our Te Deum, but do you think that we are such unutterable and doddering idiots as to restore what we have just been at so much pains to destroy?" I have the greatest opinion of the good sense of the Radical Party in the other House of Parliament, of the extreme wing of the Liberal Party, and I am as certain as though I heard the dialogue going on that, supposing the Veto Resolutions of the Prime Minister are carried out, that is what would result from the interview between the Prime Minister and his followers. And indeed would it be worth while for the Prime Minister or for the Liberal Party or for any one else, to set up the House of Lords when they had removed all its powers? Was there ever, if I may use the adjective with all courtesy, so preposterous a proposal offered to either House of Parliament?
I am induced for once to agree with the sons of Zeruiah, whom I do not propose to particularise at this moment. You may choose, if you are in the position of the Government, logically between two lines and only two lines. You can either reform the House of Lords and place it on what you consider a better and a more democratic basis, or you can deprive it of all its powers—that is the proposal of the Government—and leave it alone, but to combine the two proposals does seem to me one of the most remarkable instances of illogical proposition that has ever been submitted, as I say, to the public. When you have annulled and shattered and bled to death this Chamber, you then propose, at some moment of your leisure, to put it up again—I do not like to use any irreverent comparison—like that game of Aunt Sally, in which we were wont to spend the leisure hours of our youth. But I will give your Lordships another illustration which, I think, is more close, and which may appeal to that sporting section of your Lordships' House to which so many of us belong. Supposing one of us possessed a valuable horse to-day. According to the Government plan we ham-string it, we put an end to its power of motion, its power of volition, but at the same time we announce that next year or on some future occasion we propose to start it for the Derby. That is, so far as I can gather, the exact proposal that His Majesty's Government propose to submit to this House.
Now, my Lords, there is one ominous word in the Speech from the Throne and the speech of the Prime Minister, which is the word "predominant"—the word "predominant" in legislation as between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. My contention is—and I know my noble friend the Secretary of State for India who is going to follow me is a great authority, and I would ask his attention to this point—that the word predominant in that sense is absolutely unknown to the British Constitution, and in the second place that it implies without any further explanation the existence of an uncontrolled single Chamber. The predominance is to be established by three simple processes. I do not think it necessary to recall now what they are. In the Campbell-Bannerman Resolution, so far as I recollect, after a Bill had been read three times in three successive years in the House of Commons, and after a conference of the two Houses, it was to become law. In the picturesque words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, with this Bill in its hands, was to go straight to the Throne without any interference from any other body of men. If that is not single-Chamber government I do not know what is. I am not alone in that judgment, which, after all, must be the judgment of every unprejudiced person. I have a very important authority on my side who has lately written a letter to the papers—I mean Lord Marchamley. Lord Marchamley has written to say with regard to the Campbell-Bannerman Resolution that—
"although I was a member of the House of Commons at the time I never liked that Resolution. It would practically abolish two-Chamber government. It would decree the sole domination of the House of Commons."
The noble Lord is too modest when he says he was only a member of the House of Commons at the time. He was one of the most important members of the House of Commons. He was Chief Whip. As Chief Whip he was the principal strategist of the Liberal Party, and kept the conscience of the Liberal Party. We now know that all the time this Resolution was being formulated by the Government and adopted by the House of Commons amid the loud acclamations of that Assembly, the Chief Whip, nourishing, like Cleopatra, an asp at his vitals, had an uneasy conscience that what he was approving was in reality most deleterious, as it would establish
150
single-Chamber government, which, of course, all history tells us is pestilential to the country which adopts it.
But I would also point out that if our powers would have gone under that Resolution and if our powers will certainly go under the Resolutions to be proposed by the Prime Minister, our very existence will be at the absolute mercy of the House of Commons whenever they choose to put an end to us. What is there to prevent the House of Commons at any moment embodying in a Bill the famous Resolution of February 6, 1649, which runs as follows:
"Resolved, that the House of Peers in Parliament is useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be brought in for that purpose."
That was done. I am not at all sure, if that Resolution had been proposed to the last House of Commons, that it would not have been carried by an overwhelming majority. What prevented it being carried into effect was this, that the powers of the House of Lords were still in existence and would have impeded the action of the House of Commons, so that it was not worth while to pass it, but under the Campbell-Bannerman régime it could be done after being read three times without the consent of your Lordships' House. So our emasculated institution would then disappear, "unwept, unhonoured, and unsung;" and I for one should not shed a tear for its disappearance if it ever reached such a condition as that to which His Majesty's Government propose to reduce it.
What followed the Resolution of February, 1649? The very next day the House of Commons passed this Resolution:—
"Resolved, that it has been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that the office of King in this nation, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, the safety, and the public interests of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished."
And an Act to this effect was brought in and passed. Well, it was brought in and passed. I do not in the least pretend that I anticipate as the result of the passing of the Resolution of which the Government have given notice any immediate or direct danger to the Throne, but it is important for any student of history to consider what was the direct sequence of events at that time, and to remember that when a body once abolishes one branch of the Legislature it might find

151
it desirable to try that sort of operation again, eager to deal with some other object and that the Throne itself, without anybody to intervene between it and the Commons, would be at any rate in a precarious position. I am not speaking on my own authority, or from conclusions I may draw from history. Let me appeal to the greatest Sovereign who ever reigned in this country without the name of King. I mean Oliver Cromwell. In the last speech he addressed to his Parliament in the very year in which he died he made use of the following remarkable expression:—
"I tell you of one thing. I made it a condition—that is, for taking the supreme power—that I would not undertake it without there might be 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."
That was the speech of the Sovereign who possessed far more power in this country than any Sovereign since his time and most before, and he said after an experience of five or six years that he for one would not undertake to sit upon what was virtually the Throne of this country without a House of Lords, without a Second Chamber to intervene between him and the tumultuary spirit of the people and of the Commons at large.
But what followed this double abolition carried out in forty-eight hours? In a few years Cromwell was trying, with an eagerness almost pathetic, to restore the House of Lords, which with great difficulty, and in a very imperfect shape, he was able to do, and simultaneously with his attempt to restore the House of Lords the House of Commons, almost on its knees, was begging him to restore the Monarchy which it abolished eight years before. And, of course, as we all know, eleven years after the abolition of these branches of the Legislature was carried they were restored by acclamation unaltered as they were before the great revolution. Speaking of Cromwell, I should like to say in passing that the Government, if they wished for it, will get no encouragement from him for the arrangement they propose. He who had fought against the King on behalf of liberty called it "the horridest arbitrariness that ever was known in the world." That is what he called government by single Chamber, and that is what the Government are about to propose to us.
What is the policy of the Government in a word? It consists of a Resolution
152
declaring the complete domination of the House of Commons, and placing the existence of the House of Lords at the hazard of the whim or momentary mood of the House of Commons. Then some day they propose to establish a precarious, muzzled, impotent phantom of a Second Chamber. They propose to do so, and I think I have shown conclusively they will never do so; but if they do it, let me suggest one difficulty to them. Of whom would this House be composed? What self-respecting person would sit in this House who could sit in the most ordinary vestry in any country parish? Of whom would this House of puppets and cripples be composed? We see from the King's Speech that the Government are in some difficulty as to the name which they shall bestow on this legislative body. Let me assist them in that. There is in this Palace an apartment well known to historians as the Painted Chamber. Let the Government, if they ever form their Chamber call it the Painted Chamber, for it will be no more. If they like they may sketch in frescoes on the wall the image of the respectable and sagacious people who would represent the House which they have in their mind's eye. Or if they want something a little more material than a mere fresco—I do not think they would—it would be more convenient to walk straight through to the steps of the Throne, through a Chamber such as that, unembarrassed by any figures in it. But if they desire some more visible embodiment, they might go to the friend of our childhood, Madame Tussaud, and ask for some of her waxen images, dressed up in the robes which Peers are supposed habitually to wear, and they would form a very suitable Chamber for the advancement of His Majesty's Government's enterprises. And if they wanted something that could articulate they might easily get a division of the A Police or a couple of well-drilled companies of Guards and they would fulfil all the functions that His Majesty's Government require for a Second Chamber.
With a single Chamber people, at least, know where they are. They know whom they are voting for. They know where to place responsibility of Acts and of Law. But a Second Chamber that is but a sham of a Second Chamber, that will be without a shadow of responsibility and power, that is to act as a whipping-boy, where necessary, for the failures of the House of Commons, is a dangerous and a futile

153
hypocrisy. The worst thing you can do with an ancient and illustrious House like this is first to degrade and disable it, and then to try and keep it in apparent existence for the purpose of deception. I am as confident of this as I am that I stand here. When you had carried your measure, when you had got rid of the House of Lords, when you had substituted for it your ghosts and phantoms, there would very soon be a violent reaction and a loud and almost universal demand from the country for the establishment of a stronger Second Chamber than exists at present. Meanwhile, there is to be an interval—a very considerable interval—between the revision of our powers and the reconstitution of the Second Chamber. Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons made a very clever gibe, as I thought, at the Government, in which he pointed out that the interval between the destruction of our powers and the reconstitution of the Second Chamber might possibly be done intentionally, with a view of carrying a Home Rule Bill in that interval. That, of course, was only a gibe, but it was a very amusing one. At any rate, there would be a very considerable interval, and even if it were not for the purpose of carrying a Home Rule Bill, the whole country and all its interests would be at the mercy of any chance majority, of any sudden ebullition of momentary wrath, such as swept over the country in 1906.
We are told this is the voice of the people, that when you come to the last resort the House of Commons represents the voice of the people. We are frequently reminded of it in this House almost ad nauseam. But this phrase, "the voice of the people," like the majority at the last General Election, does require careful analysis. In the first place, the voice of the people would be much more effective and true as a phrase if redistribution were carefully carried out. The voice of the people is uncommonly partial in its operation. No one has a greater respect for the voice of the people than I have—the deliberate voice of the informed people judging as between right and wrong on issues with which they are acquainted. But the voice of the people is so oddly constituted. In the city of Kilkenny, 1,742 votes represent the voice of the people; and in South Essex the same voice is represented by 53,000 votes. And yet I am perfectly certain of this, that the voice of the city of Kilkenny—
154
I do not know in the least who the member is; I am speaking from general conviction—I am perfectly certain that the voice of the people as coming from the city of Kilkenny is quite as loud as the voice of the people coming from South Essex.
There is another puzzle about the voice of the people. I am not going into figures now—I am sure Lord Avebury has them at his fingers' ends—but statisticians will point out how very small a plurality of votes is sufficient to return a very large majority to represent the voice of the people in the House of Commons. I will not labour that point now; but I will point out this very curious circumstance. In the year 1889, twenty-one years ago, we established county councils, and there was an election for the London County Council. A Conservative Government was then in power, and the London County Council that was returned was almost entirely Liberal, even more than Liberal, in character. Now that was the voice of the people. Since then, I think hardly without an exception, whenever the voice of the people returned a Parliamentary majority on one side it returned an entirely different majority on the other side to serve it on the London County Council. Though that point is not a conclusive, one, yet it is, so to speak, a deduction from the large term, the voice of the people, which is always used against this House, and it has some value at the present moment. The voice of the people, whatever it may be, requires everywhere some protection against its own unguarded moments. The voice of the people, like the voice of individuals, requires some interval for reflection. None of us, no individual in this House, not even on the Right Reverend Bench, but has not at some time spoken and wished he had taken a little time for reflection before he had spoken. A Second Chamber if it is kept in efficency, does, at any rate, secure that the voice of the people should be deliberate and not impulsive. We all remember the familiar instance of the majority of forty that was returned in 1892 in favour of Irish Home Rule. This House—utterly kicking outside the traces in a manner worthy of the severest condemnation of the House of Commons, and one which would be impossible under the Resolutions about to be proposed by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister—threw the Bill out, The odd thing was that when we came to the next General Election, two years afterwards, the country by an enor-

155
mous majority, by a much larger majority than was given to the other side in the year 1892, went in the other direction. That, I think, shows that the voice of the people, when it is given time for consideration, has not always pronounced in the same absolutely consistent manner as is represented by those who constantly mention it.
I want to touch upon one other point in regard to the voice of the people. I frankly admit that in this part of what I am saying I am hoping that my voice may reach those outside rather than those inside, because the facts that are familiar to you are not always familiar to the great multitudes who read the newspapers in this country. The point I would endeavour to indicate in a passing sentence is this. I spoke just now of the revolution which followed the abolition of the House of Lords at the time of the Commonwealth. Revolutions, as a rule, are not carried out by the voice of the people. They are carried out by a small and determined minority. The very House of Commons which carried this revolution was a mere rump, a fragment, of the original House of Commons. The very execution of Charles I was carried, according to the testimony of all historians, by a comparatively small minority of the British people. Those who effected the beneficent revolution of 1688—most of whom, by the way, were members of this discredited House of Lords—those who brought over William III, were, it is universally held, a minority of the people. Those who brought about the fall of the French Monarchy by the storming of the Tuileries in 1792 were not even France, not even Paris, but a deputation from Marseilles that came to Paris for that purpose. The execution of Louis XVI, his wife, and his blameless sister was not carried out either by France or by Paris, according to all testimony, but by a comparatively small minority of the capital. Therefore, it is not the voice of the people that we have—whether well-founded or not—in great revolutionary movements, but it is the voice of a small, determined, and intrepid minority.
Well, my Lords, this is the effect of the policy of the Government on these hapless islands upon which we live. They are deliberately about to establish government by single Chamber without regard to precedents or authority or history, with a sole view to their own apparent convenience and the wishes of a large section of their followers.
156
That is the effect on these islands. What will be the effect on the Empire when these Resolutions are made known to the Empire? You will announce from that Bench to the great Dominions of the Crown outside these islands that the House of Lords has been first emasculated and then abolished; and that a paulo post futurum Second Chamber is about to be brought in, or may be discerned in the political mirage which is never likely to be realised. Will not that bring about some diminution of confidence on the part of those Dominions of the Crown with regard to this Parliament? A single Chamber which is liable to every form of impulse, which is liable to every gust of popular enthusiasm, is a singularly strange centre for a disseminated Empire like ours. Our strength as a centre does not lie in forcing the pace for our Colonies, but in moderating, sobering, and guiding them, and so careful have we been that not merely should they be moderated, sobered, and guided from the centre, that wherever we have granted a Constitution to a self-governing Colony we have taken the greatest pains to plant side by side with an elective Chamber at least an equally strong and efficient Second Chamber. I am afraid the Dominions would ask their bewildered representatives in this country, "Are these Second Chambers for external application only? Are they of no use to the Mother Country which insisted on our receiving them, sometimes very unwillingly? And are we now to be told—these great self-governing communities will say—this is all very well for you; but we, the heart, the parent, and the mainspring of the Empire, are going to be satisfied with a rump of a Senate, or no Senate at all?"
Now, what will the Greater Britains say? The Greater Britains, I think you will all acknowledge in this House, are day by day influencing, more and more, our convictions and our proceedings in this country. These great forward communities, which some of us have visited, represent, to some extent, our future; and, therefore, we take into account their counsels and their opinions every day more and more. Will your announcement cement or inspire the confidence of these great communities? How shall we explain our proceedings to them? Take the case of Canada. The noble and venerable High Commissioner of Canada has a seat in this House. I do not know if he is here now, certainly I do not expect him

157
to answer me now, but I shall be curious some time or another to learn in what form of despatch he proposes to communicate the Resolutions of the Imperial Government to the people of Canada. He will inform them that the people of Canada were granted by the Act of 1867 a strong Senate possessing control over finance, and endowed with all the authority which a Second Chamber could possess. Lord Strathcona would have to tell the Senate of Canada that that was all very well for them, but that for Great Britain it has now been thrown on the dust heap. A High Commissioner has just come over from Australia—the first High Commissioner, Sir George Reid, a man of infinite ability, popularity, geniality—no better choice could possibly have been made. But it is hard upon him that his first task should be to write a Despatch to his Government in Australia, which must also begin:—"In 1900 an Act was passed for Australia giving them a strong and efficient Senate, with financial rights, with financial control. It is my painful duty to inform you that the Imperial Government considers that, though that is very well for Australia, it considers the purpose of a Senate to be useless and inefficient as regards the Mother Country."
But all their difficulties rolled into one will not equal those to be encountered by my noble and unfortunate friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He will have to write a Despatch to South Africa. He will have to state to South Africa:—"Last year we concurred with you in producing a Constitution for you with two Chambers, a lower Chamber, as it used to be called, and a Senate with financial control and the power of rejecting, but not amending, Money Bills. We took it to our Sovereign for his signature and approval, and we obtained that signature and approval. Now I regret to inform you that we are about to submit for the signature and approval of our Sovereign regulations doing away with all the powers of the Second Chamber in this country and reducing it to a nullity. You will understand in South Africa why this is done without any unnecessary explanations from me." At least if my noble friend takes a hint from me, that is the form which his Despatch will take. It will be addressed, with a strange irony, to the last of the Peers, who has reluctantly submitted to the yoke of entering this dis-
158
credited, dishonoured House. I am afraid South Africa will consider that for the last eighteen months we have been going through a sort of pantomime in Great Britain. And now they are to be told that the Government are not merely going to take up these Resolutions to the same Sovereign who signed the Constitution of South Africa last year, but they are going to demand from him guarantees of a nature which have not yet been specified, to reverse the very principle which they insisted upon for South Africa last year. If this is not deliberately digging the grave of Empire, I cannot conceive any measure more likely to do it. What a spectacle we shall present—the Mother of Parliaments digging up her Constitution by the roots, then cutting away the roots, and planting what remains at some future time in some barren and unfruitful soil to wither alone! You will have shaken faith in every part of your Dominions in your Constitution, and in the validity of your Constitution. You will have shaken faith in the stability of your institutions, and, what is worse than all, in the stability of your race, and when all belief in the stability of your race has gone, your Empire will not be long in following.
My Lords, I would ask you to turn your eyes away from the melancholy spectacle presented by the contrast between what we enact for the great Dominions of the Crown outside and what we enact for ourselves—I would ask you to turn for a moment from that spectacle to two other great democracies from which we may take some warning in the course that we are invited to pursue. Think of the United States. I must say I tremble when I think of the scorn of the United States when it witnesses our one-eyed, one-legged search for a Constitution in the twentieth century of the Christian era. What will they say to us? "One hundred and thirty-four years ago we set out on a lonely and dangerous voyage in order to get away from the tyranny, as we considered it, of a Parliament in which we were not represented. What did we do when we began to keep house for ourselves, to frame a Constitution for ourselves? We at once instituted the double veto which we had left behind in England—the veto of the Sovereign and the veto of the Second Chamber. We have, unlike you, retained both those virtues, and the veto of the Sovereign, that is, the President for the time being,

159
is stronger than it ever was, the veto of the Senate is stronger than it ever was. Both vetoes have gained strength with our strength, and grown with our growth, and you are now trying with your eyes open, in spite of our experience and our example, to put your neck under the yoke of what Cromwell truly described as the cruellest arbitrariness in the world." I tremble to think of the scorn of the United States when it witnesses our constitutional operations.
There is another country, France, with which we are daily endeavouring to enter into more and more cordial relations. France has had a longer and a more diversified experience of democratic revolution than any country in Europe, than any country in the world. It began with the great Revolution of 1789, and that Revolution has not burnt itself out yet. It is still seething in the body politic of France. After four or five revolutions France at length, in a moment of reaction from Empire, set about framing its own Constitution. There seemed a great opportunity then for carrying into effect some of the democratic proposals which find so much favour with His Majesty's present advisers. They were an advanced community; what did they do? Did they do away with the veto or the Senate? They constructed the strongest Senate that they could possess, with control over finance—a control which it constantly exercises, and, what is more—what has never been possessed by this House, or, so far as I know, by other Senates, though I am not deeply versed in the history of the minor Senates—with a veto over the dissolution of the whole Parliament, which it constantly exercises. What will France think when it sees our search for a new Constitution based upon a single Chamber?
What will all countries say, for, after all, the experience of all countries is identical in the matter, it does not vary? It does not give you any chip or spark of encouragement. You have to follow blindly in the dark without any precedent to help you. I beg your pardon—there are precedents, there is something from which you can get some encouragement; there are two exceptions to the general protest of all civilised communities against being governed by a single Chamber. I will name them. They are Greece and Costa Rica. I have been a phil-Hellene
160
in my time, and I am sure we all wish very well to Greece. I am sure also we do not wish to say anything which could be in any way offensive to the feelings of the Greek nation, but I do feel that even though we are in some perturbation at this moment, we do not particularly envy the condition of Greece. Nor does it inspire us with any great encouragement to pursue the visionary search for a single-Chamber Government. As for Costa Rica, I know less, and I have not studied the history of Costa Rica. It has not been accessible to me so much as I could wish. But from the imperfect means at my disposal I gather this, that the existence of Costa Rica has been pretty evenly divided between government by a single Chamber and government by a dictatorship—I think more often government by dictatorship than government by a single Chamber. There seems to be a necessary alternation between the two. That is our position, that is the path sketched out for us by His Majesty's Government in the first decade of the twentieth century. We are going under their guidance to turn our backs on all experience, to scorn all precedent, to flout all tradition, to embark on a cheerless and perilous journey, without any guide or compass or encouragement, every omen portending disaster in the strenuous emulation of Greece and Costa Rica.
Will the country, when it is face to face with this course, be likely to adopt it? I have a very strong opinion on that point. I am quite convinced that the country, when it is asked to embrace single-Chamber government at the invitation of Ministers, will not do so. But whether or not they do so, our course is clear. We, representing the most ancient Chamber of Legislature in this country, are bound to submit our plan to the country, to avoid this overwhelming evil and this catastrophe of Empire. The choice before us is this—you can choose from two options. One is the preservation of the present House exactly as it is but with greatly diminished and indeed vanishing power; the other is the reconstitution of this House with the maintenance of legislative rights. That is, you may choose between being a Chamber of titled phantoms or a Chamber effective to exercise all the proper functions of a Second Chamber. I cannot doubt your choice as between those two options, and still less can I doubt the choice of the country. So, my

161
Lords, we come by natural evolution to the question of procedure and the question of proposals. I must apologise for having detained you so long in examining the plan of the Government, but it was a necessary procedure to adopt to examine what the alternative was which the Government have to offer the country before we sketch out in any way whatever our own proposals.
I suggest, and I think it is the general idea of this House, that we should proceed by Resolution and not by Bill. We proceed by Resolution for two obvious reasons. The first is that a Bill is an affair of the Government—that nothing less than a Government can offer a Bill on a great measure of constitutional reform; and, secondly, a Bill must go into accurate details of administration which it is not, in my judgment, expedient for this House to attempt to do. What we have to do, as I conceive, is this—moving slowly perhaps, but so far as possible with the consent of a large body of opinion in this House—to frame general Resolutions of principle on which some future Government may propound a measure of reform. I think some people have thought that the Committee of the Whole House is too large a body to undertake the work of considering a scheme such as this, but it was not possible in reality to take any other. You have already appointed a Select Committee. It would be useless to appoint another; and it would be worse than useless because it would have been a work of procrastination and delay.
The Resolutions should, I think, one by one embody the principles on which reform in this House should proceed. I have laid on the Table three Resolutions of a preliminary nature which I hope your Lordships will be able to consider without delay. Indeed, I am sanguine enough to think that they might be passed before what has come to be called the ecclesiastical holiday of Easter. I do not know whether that is too great a demand, but I would point out that the first two Resolutions are, I think, practically unopposed by any considerable body of opinion in this House, and might be passed without difficulty. The third, I admit, is more contentious, but at any rate it could be passed without many days debate, and if so it would be eminently desirable, I think, that it should be passed before Easter. Then
162
we would lay other Resolutions. I am anxious to take the largest possible body of opinion in the House with the proposals as they are formulated, and therefore I should be in no undue or indecent hurry to lay them on the Table.
May I say a word about the Report of your own Committee? That was the one result of all the motions that have been made on this subject in my lifetime. I am not responsible for the Report of that Committee, though it is generally named after me as I was Chairman. It did not follow the lines I particularly cared about, and though I was glad to get it, I did not think it by any means adequate, even at that time, to the necessities of the occasion. But that Committee laboured under very considerable difficulties. The Government ostentatiously washed their hands of its proceedings and declined to have anything whatever to do with it. Therefore, though we had a Committee nominally of twenty-six, but really of twenty-five owing to the lamented absence of the late Duke of Devonshire, we had only three Liberals—three bold and audacious Liberals—who broke through Party discipline and ventured to sit with us. One was our lamented friend Lord Selby, who was an orthodox Liberal and of most valuable assistance to our Committee; the other was Lord Courtney, who, I think, is less orthodox, if he will allow me to say so, because he has a rooted antipathy to being in a majority of any description or kind, and therefore, with a defect so uncommon and so unorthodox, he must be ranked as a Liberal who is not quite according to the letter of the law. And then we had my friend Lord Ribblesdale, who was also a valuable addition to the Committee, but who, to use his own expression, is rather a freebooting Liberal, and came on an independent footing to join us. What I want to point out is that of twenty-five members, two of whom may be reckoned as independent and three as Liberals, we had nineteen Conservatives, which was an undue and unbalanced proportion. I honestly do not think that anybody who had been in that Committee and listened to its discussions, which were very long—too long as some members thought, but not too long as the Chairman thought—would have known, if his eyes were shut, to which political complexion the speaking member belonged. There was a real and anxious desire on the part

163
of every member of the Committee to throw his mind without prejudice into the common stock and to endeavour to produce the best result obtainable in the circumstances. On that I think I can appeal to my noble friends behind me who were on the Committee for corroboration.
I will not conceal from your Lordships even at the stage of going into Committee that it seems to me there are two vital principles at stake so vital that without adopting them it is useless to touch this work of reform at all. The first is the question of heredity and of doing away with the hereditary right to a seat in this House, which forms the third of the Resolutions on the Table, and which was the unanimous, spontaneous recommendation of your Committee.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: No.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My noble and learned friend behind me says no. Technically he is right, but in spirit he is wrong. He opposed all our proceedings without any exception whatever; but if he will allow me to say so, there were two occasions on which this Resolution was passed. One was when we were deliberating at the commencement of our sittings, and the other was when the draft Report came up for adoption.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If the noble Earl will forgive me, I was not there on either occasion.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then I am precisely right in saying it was the unanimous vote of our Committee. My noble friend can hardly claim to have voted against a proposal when he was absent.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I was engaged in the public service of the House and in the administration of justice at the time.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am not disputing the validity of my noble friend's contention. I am quite sure that, wherever he was, he was usefully and honourably employed. What I am saying is that when the Resolution was put to the Committee it was unanimously passed. I want to point out, however, that the hereditary principle is not inherent in the constitution of this House, and did not originally form any part
164
of the constitution of this House. Your Lordships must be aware, I think, that a majority of Peers in this House up to the time of the Reformation did not sit by any hereditary right at all, and, therefore, three centuries and a-half ago it was a majority of Peers sitting by personal and life tenure that prevailed in the House of Lords.
Hereditary tenure was no doubt very useful for feudal purposes, and in that way it came to be the practice in this House; but I think we shall all admit that as a legislative engine it is open to grave objection, and that it has outlived its usefulness in our community. It is the part of our constitution which is most objectionable to the country and most resented by the people at large. It is the most easy to attack and the most difficult to defend. The defence used to be that it works well in practice; but it has ceased to work well in practice. It is no sufficient answer, as has been frequently given during the late election, to point to the eminence of our members and to the excellence of our debates. In the mind of the nation at large that does not touch the question. Suppose, if you can suppose, a House composed of Shakespeares, Bacons, Newtons, and Burkes. Even then you would not remove the objection to the hereditary constitution of the House because its critics would at once say that these are men of high and exalted genius, but how are we to ensure that their successors will inherit their genius with their names, and so far as we know anything about the progeny of these great men, and so far as they have had progeny, it is not the case.
There is the further objection that I sketched at the beginning of these proceedings that we are given a great many more Peers than we want. It is enlarging the numbers in this House to an extent which is almost dangerous. A fertilising stream like the Nile flows annually, almost weekly, into this House; but unlike the Nile it does not retire. The stream is copious and constant, but there is no outlet, and when we consider the rate at which Peers have been created and are likely to be created in future, even without the mysterious guarantees which are in certain circumstances to be demanded, we may well begin to think that we shall have to ask the House of Commons to provide us with a more spacious Chamber if anything like our present constitution is to be preserved. Under the present Government, as far as I recollect, thirty-six or

165
thirty-seven Peerages have been created, three in the last fortnight—at any rate nine or ten every year the Government have been in existence, a surprising number considering the extreme distaste which the Liberal Party express of any contact with the House of Lords. Of course, if one may believe the statements of those who fix a coronet of promise on certain names outside this House, the number will be very considerably increased, almost to the extent of the guarantees that are to be demanded of the Crown. I venture to think that, although that is a matter which may raise a laugh, it is a grave subject. It bears upon the whole question of the hereditary principle, and I think I may say on the broad grounds which I have stated, without going into any that are more invidious, that the hereditary principle is a source of weakness and not a source of strength to this House, strength being what we want.
The second principle which I would ask you to adopt, and which I regard as vital to any reform which may be made in this House, is that of election from outside. That is a new principle in this country; but it is not new elsewhere. It is almost unanimously the practice elsewhere, and I will name it as being the practice in one specially Conservatives country—the Kingdom of Prussia—where the House of Lords is freely recruited from the representative element. The House of Lords in Prussia has more strength and more constitutional power than is possessed by this House. But, even if it be a new principle, if we are to deal with this question at all we must not be afraid of new principles. They will soon lose their novelty in application, and if we are not to adopt any new principle in the process of reconstitution, I am afraid our reconstitution will be a futile enterprise. After all, nothing can be so anomalous as the British Constitution itself. We are afraid to introduce new principles into it. But, really, when you come to analyse the Constitution itself one might be inclined to think that a little novelty might to some extent improve it.
You began with a House of Commons with a double Veto over it—the Veto of the Sovereign and the Veto of the House of Lords. The Veto of the Sovereign has not been exercised since the reign of Queen Anne, and is dormant, so dormant that it may be said to have perished of disuse. At any rate, it is not likely to come into
166
action in our time. Having got rid of one Veto by disuse you are seeking to get rid of the other by enactment, leaving the House of Commons free to pursue its own devices. If you are to get rid of all the old principles that animate the British Constitution you will have to embrace some new ones if you want to place your Constitution upon a satisfactory footing. I venture to think that nothing but the elective principle will give new life and strength to this Second Chamber. Nothing else will give you that contact with national life and national opinion which is necessary for the strength of any Chamber exercising the functions with which we are endowed. The hereditary principle has not given and cannot give us that strength. The addition of life Peers, which has sometimes been suggested, has not given and cannot give you that strength. Let me give a familiar illustration. Take two popular men and make them life Peers. Take the two gentlemen who, I understand, are most popular on Liberal platforms at this moment—Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill. Both are very able orators. Make them life Peers and put them in this House, and in a year, or two years at most, they would have no more contact with the people than any other member of this House, and they would lose all the advantages which elective principle gives them, and the strength they receive from delegation, and would have to rely upon their mere sheer ability alone. I give that as an illustration of how little strength you may hope to get from life Peers alone.
When I speak of election I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish it to be supposed that I would venture to propose that any addition to this House should be arrived at by means of popular election. That would only give an understudy, a feeble understudy, of the House of Commons; and, further, it would multiply all the horrors of a General Election, which we must all be anxious to avoid. If by any action, direct or indirect, of this House we should put another General Election on the national programme it would be, I think, imputed to us as a crime. That all the misstatements, all the personalities, all the foolish and erroneous placards, all the actual lies which are employed at a General Election should be repeated for our benefit and selection would, I think, be a most detestable and impossible proposition.

167
I do believe that this ancient and illustrious Assembly would derive new strength, new grace, new dignity by association with the corporations and county councils of this country formed into elective bodies very much on the French basis; and I am bound to say that this representation, in my judgment, so far as it has any value, should form no inconsiderable proportion of this House. Remember that even if elected they might still be Peers. It would be open to any member of your Lordships' House to stand for election outside; and I venture to think that any Peer, however illustrious his name and however long his descent, would gain, not lose, in dignity by entering this House as the representative, say, of Yorkshire or Lancashire.
I will not go further into details. I only want, on this occasion at any rate, to establish two principles, which I repeat I believe are vital to any work of reform and without which it is no use entering upon any operation at all. These principles, with all my heart and soul and with all the earnestness which I can use on so great and so solemn an occasion, I implore your Lordships to recognise and adopt. I believe that at this critical moment you have an opportunity of rendering your country a greater service than has fallen to any body of men since the Barons wrested the liberties of England from King John at Runnymede. You, like them, may rescue the nation from an impending despotism, not the despotism of a King, but the even more formidable despotism of a single and irresponsible Chamber. You have to preserve and to vindicate the balance of our ancient Constitution. You have to protect the nation from the legislation of impulse and of passion and of excess. You have to guard the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. You can do all this by surrendering privileges which day by day are growing less valuable, which act as a barrier between you and the rest of the nation; and, having made that concession, by framing ungrudgingly and unselfishly, in a large and generous spirit, a reformed House of Lords which shall claim and deserve the confidence of the country.
My Lords, the Government must soon go to the country with its plan. Let us, too, go with ours. Let us, in our turn,
168
appeal to that supreme tribunal—for, after all, in the long run, in the last resort, it is the nation that must judge—not the High Court of Parliament, not the House of Lords, or even the House of Commons. Demonstrate to your countrymen that the plan of the Government is a single-Chamber plan and therefore spells disaster to the nation, and offer your alternative plan, which you may truly say is offered in the interests of the nation and not of a Party or of yourselves. What is the alternative? The alternative is to cling with enfeebled grasp to privileges which have become unpopular, to powers which are verging on the obsolete, shrinking and shrinking until at last, under the unsparing hands of the advocates of single-Chamber government, there may arise a demand for your own extinction, or the Second Chamber, the ancient House of Lords, may be found waiting in decrepitude for its doom.
I daresay in the course of this discussion you will be reminded of a memorable night in the great French Revolution, the night of August 4, 1789, when to successive waves of passionate enthusiasm the aristocracy of France surrendered privilege after privilege, until those who had entered that hall a proud and powerful aristocracy left it as simple citizens. My noble and learned friend appears to have that incident in his head. He, perhaps, will tell you that that great concession brought about the French Revolution. If he tells you so, and he does not say he will tell you, he will tell you wrongly. The Bastille had fallen and the Revolution had begun. The lesson to be learned from that memorable night is not the lesson of privileges conceded to a popular demand. They were in themselves gross and exorbitant privileges, such as would not have been tolerated in this country during the last three centuries—privileges of forced labour, privileges in some cases of serfage, privileges of total exemption from taxation and what not, privileges as unlike as possible to that modest right of concurrent legislation which we are still permitted to exercise. The lesson from that night is a widely different one. It is the lesson of too late. Had the French aristocracy made that surrender a hundred years earlier they might have saved the Monarchy and the State. What would have been the salvation of France in the reign of Louis XIV came too late in the reign of Louis XVI.

169
My Lords, the words "too late" are written across the history of every national catastrophe. Those words shall not be written here. I am confident of the wisdom and patriotism of this House; so confident that I am convinced that they will rise to the height of this great occasion and vindicate the balance of the Constitution. You will, my Lords, if I am not greatly mistaken, save the Constitution by maintaining the guarantees that that Constitution demands; you will save the future of your country, for nothing less than the future of your country is involved; and for yourselves you will earn the imperishable honour and imperishable gratitude not merely of the nation now, but of generations yet unborn so long as the history of this country survives.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the best means of reforming its existing organisation, so as to constitute a strong and efficient Second Chamber.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATER FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, my noble friend who has moved this Motion has spoken, as he always does, of course, with eloquence, with passion, with feeling, and with knowledge. I could, if this were the suitable place, follow, I am afraid with dissent, some of his historical analogies. First of all, I distrust the application of experiences of other times and countries to our own political difficulties and perplexities. You can never be quite sure that you thoroughly understand all the conditions which produce such events, for example, as the night of the Fourth of August or the Fall of the Bastille. You can never be sure even in details, and I am not certain that my noble friend is perfectly free from remark.
My noble friend dwelt with great force on the case of our great Colonies, of Canada and Australia, and asked your Lordships to consider with what scorn they would look on any action in this Parliament which abolished the two-Chamber system. My noble friend surely overlooked the fact that the Senate, or Second Chamber, in Canada and Australia is purely a nominated Chamber. Therefore, there is no argument whatever to be drawn from that part of my noble friend's case. I will not delay the House by following him in some of these details. I shall have a word to say about
170
Cromwell by-and-by, as to whom my noble friend and I have often differed.
But to-night, my Lords, you have got to consider not historical analogies nor eloquent appeals as to your Lordships' making great sacrifices—you have to consider what my noble friend, I venture to say, has overlooked, the practical emergency by which you are confronted. I think I shall be able to show that my noble friend's proposal does not really come to the fringe of that emergency. He analysed with great skill and a good deal of justice, I do not deny it for a moment, the nature of the last election, and the majority which retains the present Government in power. Well, but a remarkable thing has happened. My noble friend has done what is described as treating great questions as if they were great and solemn realities—as if they were real. He has done that, but he has overlooked a remarkable circumstance. The last time I had the honour of addressing your Lordships I ventured to wind up my remarks with this observation, that there was no such battleground for ferocious Party conflict as the revision of the Constitution. I pointed out that we were entering on a tremendous journey which would be long, fierce in antagonisms, and probably perilous. Whether the tremendous drama which was opened at the end of November last year is to be a five-act drama or only a three-act drama I do not know. My noble friend to-night has, at all events, opened the second act of the play.
I am a little surprised, I must say, and I should think that your Lordships at large must be, that he was not content to wait until the proposals of the Government were before the House. He drew an enormous number of inferences from those proposals as he depicts them in his own mind, but for my own part I think that the noble Marquess opposite was far wiser when he took exactly the opposite line from my noble friend on the first night of the session, and said that he thought it would be better, and I am not sure that he did not say fairer, to defer discussion of these things until the proposals of His Majesty's Government were laid before the House. I shall be glad to know how it is that if my noble friend is to have the support of the Leader of the Opposition the noble Marquess has changed his mind? My noble friend will remember that the first Motion that he made on this subject in this House, I think in 1888—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: In 1884. That was the last in 1888.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The second was in 1888, and was very similar in purport to the Motion raised to-night. It was then met by an Amendment from Lord Wemyss to the effect that if any change in the constitution of this House were required it ought not—it ought to be not the result of any proceedings of a Committee, but ought to spring from proposals made by the Ministers of the Crown of the day. That evidently was in the mind of the noble Marquess and it would have been a far more convenient course if that principle had been accepted.
But, my Lords, an extraordinary transformation in the drama has taken place since November, 1909. At that time, when the object was to reject the Budget, we heard from all the benches opposite that this House was a model of impartiality, that it was prefectly fair, and had all the virtues that a Legislative Chamber could possibly have, far removed from all the base arts of mechanical confederacy in ordinary political warfare. But to-day what is the foundation of the case which my noble friend is pressing on the House. It is that this House is indefensible in its constitution, is in urgent need of reform, and ought to strip itself of its rights and privileges, or some of them, at all events, at any price, and that you must drop the principle of an hereditary Legislature; in fact, that it is as little a decent revising Chamber as could be possibly devised or imagined. That is a very remarkable transformation. I heard the other day a story of a noble Lord—I do not know who it is, but he is not one of the working bees in this House—who voted against the Budget and went down to his northern domain, where he spoke against the Budget, greatly to the disgust of the people who listened. They broke his windows and expressed their disapproval in the roughest way. The noble Lord felt that that being the result of the last vote he had given, it was rather hard that the next vote that he was going to be asked to give, after sacrificing his convenience to that extent, was for his own extinction. That is only an illustration of the transformation that has taken place. You first of all commit homicide by slaying our Budget, and then proceed to commit suicide by denouncing yourselves as entirely unfit to have done the very thing that you did.
172
The House will wish to know what is the view taken by the Government of my noble friend's Motion. When the subject came up before in 1907 the Government then took the view that it was illusory and worse than useless to discuss any proposals for changing the constitution of this House unless attention was paid to and a decision arrived at in relation to the differences and disputes which arise between the two Houses. It was on that ground that they did not enter the Committee, of which action my noble friend has just severely complained. The Government adhered to the principle of my noble friend's Amendment on that occasion. We still think it inexpedient to discuss proposals for reforming this House until provision has been made for an effective method of settling differences that may arise between this House and the other House of Parliament. But as our own proposals will be, we hope, before your Lordships at no distance of time, we do not think it necessary to move an Amendment to that effect to-night. We shall lay them before you, in the words of the King's Speech, "with all convenient speed." It is our intention to lay them before you as soon as they have passed the House of Commons. The House of Commons will be invited to discuss the proposals on Tuesday in Easter week, so that your Lordships will be able to compute from that date when they are likely to be here.
The difference in the policy and the tactics recommended by the noble Marquess opposite on the first night of the session and the course actually taken by my noble friend looks as if there had been some forcing of the noble Marquess's hand. I suppose it has been forced on the noble Marquess by the intelligence that must have reached him from all his colleagues, from members of his Party who got in at the General Election, and from candidates who were defeated, by all manner of supplications, asseverations, and indications that it was the hereditary character of this House which, in my noble friend's words, "broke the shins" of candidates. I wonder what my noble friend's real expectations are of good coming from the action that he has to-night begun, because this is only the beginning. He said, on the occasion which I have already referred to, that—
"a Tory Government is the only Government that can carry through a reform of this House."
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: But, he asked—
"Is it in human nature for a Conservative Government to do so when they are in power? What is more convenient to them than the constitution of this House? So a Conservative Government, when it comes in, will find more urgent questions to deal with than the question of the reform of the House of Lords."
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: When was that?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: May 17, 1907.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: A good deal has happened since then.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Then as for the Liberals, my noble friend cannot have forgotten what happened in 1894. He was then the head of a Government, and he made an admirable speech, not less admirable than the one which he has made to-night, against the House of Lords, and I hope I am not betraying Cabinet secrets when I mention that the result of that state of mind of the head of the Government was the appointment of a Cabinet Committee. And when that Committee had sat for a considerable time, the question was put how they were getting on, and it appeared that, though they had had considerable deliberation and frequent meetings, they had not yet settled the question whether they wanted to make this House stronger or weaker.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I was not on that Committee.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Nor was I. Then my noble friend falls back on the people whom he calls "the thinking part of the nation." He says you cannot expect a Tory Government, you cannot get a Liberal Government, to take up this question, and he falls back, therefore, on what he calls the thinking part of the nation. That is a very unkind aspersion on the human race. It seems to follow from that that Liberals and Conservatives are the unthinking part of the nation. He excludes us, politicians, from the thinking part of the nation. I wonder what his idea of the thinking part of the nation is. I remember Mr. Bright once, when he was reproached for voting against Mr. Mill on some point or other and asked, "How could you vote against a great thinker," replying, in very gruff language,
174
"The worst of great thinkers is they generally think wrong." I should be the last man in this House to fall into any vulgar or Philistine language about thinking people, but I am sceptical as to there being in existence a great body of men who are too good to be Tories, too good to be Liberals, but who, somehow or another, are to be good enough some day or another to carry a scheme for the reform of the House; of Lords. You will have to get the politicians into it.
My noble friend has said, though I do not think he repeated it to-night, and it is an important observation, that the thinking part of the country would prefer the House of Lords unreformed to no Second Chamber at all, and, if I may speak of the people who do not think, I agree, and I should share their prepossession. But my noble friend has gone too rapidly in assuming that all Ministers, or voters, or members of Parliament who support the Resolutions which will come before your Lordships' House by-and-by are all single-Chamber men. You may, if you care, draw out the chain of inference, as my noble friend did, showing that it may lead somehow or another, some day or another, to a single Chamber. That is not the intention of those who will send these Resolutions up to your Lordships' House. It is not inherent: in the Resolutions or in the purposes of the Resolutions, and there are many both in the House of Commons and outside of the House of Commons who would prefer a House of Lords unreformed—I mean unreformed in structure and in composition—to the most attractive single Chamber that the wit of man could devise or the most aerial fabric which could be devised out of rainbows by political ingenuity. I hope that that will not be thought inappropriate in reply to some of my noble friend's observations, and I hope a note may be taken of it by all those whom it concerns.
My noble friend did me the honour to appeal to me to say something as to the language of predominance, imputing predominance to the House of Commons. As to the word, I do not defend it, but I should think that no single man has ever used language in this House, neither Mr. Disraeli nor Lord Salisbury nor anybody you like, which could be taken to dispute for an instant the predominance in legislation of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Within a single Parliament?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: That was not my noble friend's limitation. That is quite another matter.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No, no. That is a point I put.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: We do not know about a single Parliament. We shall see how it appears.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My noble friend must not get out of it like that. We know all about it from the Prime Minister.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My noble friend asks whether your Lordships would consent to be made puppets and cripples and so on, but when you talk of a single Chamber as something intolerable and unthinkable and so forth, well, do not overdo that, because for all real and effective purposes of government—I withdraw the word all—but for all the great real and effective purposes of government you have single-Chamber government now. Here is Mr. Balfour's account in his election address. It is perfectly familiar; no one here will dispute it for a moment. How does he describe it? It saves one the trouble of turning to books about the Constitution. These are Mr. Balfour's own words—
"The representative Assembly is no doubt the primary organ of the popular will. It determines, without appeal, the political complexion of the Government. It controls all the Estimates. It initiates all the taxes. In legislation, it is the dominating power. Its Ministers direct and sometimes tyrannise over its deliberations. They are, nevertheless, its creatures, and, while no veto of the House of Lords can reduce the salary of an Under-Secretary by a single shilling, the most powerful Cabinet is still obliged to bow to the House of Commons."
Therefore when you are drawing this terrible hobgoblin of a single Chamber think how far off from single-Chamber government you are now. Foreign policy, and all policy outside legislation, is indisputably in the hands of a single Chamber. My Lords, this question is raised by a practical emergency. I will not argue whether this House of Lords' question was raised by you or by us, or, as I think, neither by you nor by us, if you are going to speak philosophically about it; it arose from the inevitable state of the case and out of fatal necessities of human things.
176
Think what Lord Salisbury said in 1894; how untrue, how mistaken it has proved. Lord Salisbury said in 1894 if once your Irish policy is out of the way—that was the policy of my noble friend and myself—the House of Lords would settle back into the old position when parties were fairly evenly balanced, though there was a leaning towards the Conservative side. That was a very natural opinion for a man like Lord Salisbury to hold, and a not unreasonable expectation, but forces, deep forces, were too strong, and they have been growing stronger and stronger. The gulf—yes, the gulf is not too strong a term—between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons has widened and deepened since 1894, not owing to a mischievous spirit in either one Party or the other, but owing to the fact that great new masses of voters have come into electoral power, and they are using that electoral power, and will continue to use it to satisfy their own aspirations and meet their own needs. If you had not, my Lords, been driven violently down a steep place against the Budget, if you had only steered clear—I hope you will forgive me for speaking in an oracular tone, but it is my convinced opinion that if you had only steered clear of exorbitant pretensions in the matter of finance this House might perhaps have faced the election—there having been no intervening election—the election in the normal course of things with a great deal more composure than any of you, on the one side or the other, can face the next election when it does come. The noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, has said something about his being in favour of reform, but not of destruction. When he listened to my noble friend to-night, and heard, first, that the hereditary principle is to go, and secondly, that the elective principle is to be largely adopted, and if he followed those thoughts out into all the devices that are connected with them, I wonder whether the noble Earl does not see something that might be called destruction in what lies before him. And when he says we do not know where we are going, I wonder if my noble friend and noble Lords opposite who are going to follow him into the Lobby realise with any clearness, firmness, and precision where they are going. The noble Marquess opposite, Lord Lansdowne, in a speech I think in Wiltshire—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Liverpool, I think.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: In Wiltshire I think it was. I hope the House will listen carefully to these words. The noble Marquess said—
"For the future a Peerage should not entitle a Peer to take part in the legislation of the House and we recommended on the Committee—"
This is a remarkable expression—
"that there should be a kind of Inner House of Lords, composed partly of Peers whose qualifications and antecedents manifestly rendered them fit to take part in the proceedings in any legislative Chamber, partly of Peers selected from amongst the Peers by the Peers themselves, and partly of Life Peers appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Government of the day, and in our belief that would have given a very compact and very efficient House of Lords. Now some enemy may say ' Oh, but that does not go nearly far enough; we want much greater reforms.' "
Lord Lansdowne continued—
"Shall I say why I am opposed to much more far-reaching reforms? It is because I should always believe in the preponderating power of the House of Commons, and it is my belief that if you were to set up a House of Lords by some process of election, or otherwise placed in a position analogous to that of the House of Commons, you would inevitably find that the House of Lords would claim what it does not claim now—a coordinate power with the popular House."
That is to say, the noble Marquess when he made the speech was averse, as his words seem to mean, to that principle of large and extended election which my noble friend quoted. Lord Salisbury made a very important criticism in the debate on Lord Wemyss's Amendment to my noble friend's Motion in 1888. Lord Salisbury said—
"Depend upon it, if you ever succeed in so altering the character of this House that it consists entirely of determined politicians who always attend all the debates and attach the same weight and importance that are attached to their own opinions by those who sit in the House of Commons you will have pronounced the doom of our present system of Government."
That is to say, if you get this fancy Chamber full of busy, able, competent men you will then have, as Lord Salisbury said, pronounced the doom of our present system of Government. I submit that line of argument to the consideration of my noble friend and his supporters. Then I come to Lord St. Aldwyn. It is no secret what he would have liked and would like. He committed himself to the view that county councils should be empowered to send, or, that the Crown should be allowed to summon, to this House not more than eighty persons qualified for service—that is, if they had served ten years in the House of Commons or on a county council.
THE EARL OF ROSEBEEY: Whose proposal is that? I did not hear it.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Lord St. Aldwyn's. I think it is in the Report of the Committee. However these are his words. Then my noble friend proposed to give the right of nomination to representatives of boroughs of 500,000 population, and so on, but I hope your Lordships see what deep waters my noble friend's Motion is going to ask you to embark upon. You would find, supposing such a body could come into existence, a very different Assembly from that which we are now confronting. Extraordinary language has been used in the way of pretensions. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has actually said that he considers this House cannot fulfil its functions efficiently unless it has some power in the last resort to compel an appeal to the country, which can alone demonstrate what is the real wish of the country. That may or may not have been permissible in the case of the Budget last November, but for this House now to claim—I wonder whether my noble friend would back that—that you are to have the power of compelling a Dissolution whenever you think a Dissolution is expedient—I do not think that would be carried. And when language is used that this House has a perfect right to conduct its own internal reforms in its own way, I cannot imagine anything more entirely unreasonable and anything more entirely away from the facts. You can do nothing in the way of internal reform if it requires a Statute, any more than the House of Commons can reform itself without your assent.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I ask who used this language about the House of Lords reforming itself by its own action?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I have not named anybody at the moment, but I should have said it had been continually used.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I have not heard it before.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I do not say my noble friend has used it, but I think I can undertake to find instances of that language having been used, and it is very plausible until people begin to think. The moment they begin to

179
think, then, of course, it is absurd. I wish my noble friend had taken a little more trouble to tell us plainly what he means by the words "strong and efficient." What does he mean? I will tell your Lordships what I think the object of this Motion must be, and what the language implies. The language about "strong and efficient" means that this is a move—I do not use the word cynically—a move against the House of Commons. "Strong and efficient" in this House, on the scale contemplated by the mover of this Motion, must mean opposition to the House of Commons. And what are you doing? Your taking back—that is an observation worthy of your Lordships' attention—this demand for a great, strong, and efficient Second Chamber is really an attempt to take back that extension of popular electoral power which it is one of the glories of the Party opposite to have been instrumental in establishing. I should regard the erection, if you can do it, of a strong and efficient Second Chamber as a sort of counter to the policy of 1867. That policy was what Mr. Disraeli educated his Party to, partly, perhaps, to dish the Whigs, and this policy may be described by ill-natured people as designed to dish the Radicals. It is a retrograde proceeding, in my view, and will be judged as such.
If the association of strength and efficiency means that you are to have your own way against the House of Commons, then I repeat that it is a taking back of electoral and political power which the persons concerned will assuredly not stand. I want, then, to ask how the proposals indicated by my noble friend's Motion will deal with the practical difficulties. I cannot for the life of me see how what my noble friend proposes will abate a single one of the perplexities and difficulties of the present situation. Let me look at one or two. Will it lessen the liabilities to friction between the two Houses? Surely not. The stronger and more efficient the Second House, the more will the chances of friction be both multiplied and intensified, for reasons described by Lord Salisbury in the language I have already quoted. One of the great complaints of this House is that Bills are not sent up here in time to receive adequate discussion. That is a complaint made, I understand, whichever Party is in power. I think the noble and learned Lord who sits opposite has loudly complained before now of his own political friends
180
begrudging time for adequate deliberation. But do you think that by having a strong and efficient Second Chamber that difficulty will be in any degree abated?
What is the most injurious of all the complaints which are made against your Lordships' House? I believe all your Lordships will admit that it is the differential treatment which is given by this House to Liberal and to Conservative Bills. The popular impression is that this treatment is due to systematic class prejudice and systematic Party prepossession. Indeed, I do not believe that either the hereditary principle or anything else does half as much to lower the credit of your Lordships' House as this impression. How will adding strength to and invigorating the efficiency of this House cure that particular evil? I doubt if anybody does not expect that the new elements which my noble friend wants to have contributing to this House would be in their main leanings Conservative, and that, of course, is one of the reasons why you want it, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that. But my noble friend has given us no single idea how his mode of dealing with the Second Chamber is going to make deadlocks between the two Houses—which are the great mischiefs of the present system—less frequent, less troublesome, and less dangerous. I wonder if he thinks that it will. No reform conducted without a scrupulous and exact and comprehensive regard for your Lordships' relations with the House of Commons, however strong and efficient you may be made, can touch this vital and central difficulty. If you do not do that you bring no relief at all to the difficulties of our situation. Do what you like to make your new House, your renovated House, strong and efficient, whether by the simple plan of reducing the numbers and creating an Inner House of Lords, as the noble Marquess called it, or by calling into existence some Senate or another—do what you will it can never possess strength and efficiency except in the most strictly limited and narrow sense. Mr. Balfour used a very extraordinary expression the other day. He said you want this House to represent the permanent wishes of the nation. Nobody is a more exact speaker, but I declare I have not been able to think what he can mean by the "permanent wishes of the nation." Are there any? What, I wonder, was Mr. Balfour thinking of? Justice, freedom, equality

181
before the law, and so forth—but the permanent wishes of the nation! Who thinks so ill of his countrymen as to suppose that the electors of the House of Commons will ever send to represent them men who will be any more blind to the value of these great principles and laws of a modern State, more or less, than the House of Lords?
I am only going to say a word more. All depends—and this is a point worth bearing in mind because it goes to all your proceedings when Resolutions come before you—all depends much more upon the powers that you are going to give to a Chamber than upon any dealing with constitution and function. When you probe the case to the core it is not the structure of a Second House which stands in the front. I say nothing against much that has fallen from my noble friend as to the great topics of internal reform of this House. Internal reforms, interesting, important, far-reaching as they may be, are essentially but secondary in comparison with the question of its powers over the legislation of the House of Commons. These are a few points which have been suggested to me by the Motion of my noble friend. He mentioned Cromwell. Whenever I pass the monument of Cromwell as I come to this House I naturally think of my noble friend. As I say, he and I do not agree as to all the achievements and policy of that illustrious figure. But I once wrote something about Cromwell, and if your Lordships would not think I was taking a liberty I would like to read a few sentences from it which are strictly germane. I said—
"There is no branch of political industry that men approach with hearts so light and yet that leaves them at the end so dubious and melancholy as the concoction of a Second Chamber. Cromwell and his Parliament—"
as to which my noble friend said some things which I am not sure I would say—
"set foot on this Pons Asinorum of democracy without a suspicion of its dangers. To call out of empty space an artificial House, without the hold upon men's minds of history and ancient association, without defined powers, without marked distinction of persons or interests, and then to try to make it into an effective screen against an elected House, to whose assent it owed its own being, was not to promote union but directly to promote division and to intensify it. Cromwell never thought out the scheme. Like smaller reformers since, Cromwell had never decided, to begin with, whether to make his Lords strong or weak; strong enough to curb the Commons, yet weak enough for the Commons to curb them."
182
I then added that the riddle which perplexed Cromwell was still unanswered. And I do not believe my noble friend's contribution will be an effective answer to that riddle.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I venture to address you upon this subject because, like the noble Earl who introduced it to-night, I twenty-six years ago stood up in your Lordships' House to implore your Lordships to give consideration to this subject. The only regret I have that the noble Earl should have brought the Motion forward—and it is no fault of his—is that it should be necessary to do so at the present moment. When the noble Earl first brought this subject forward in your Lordships' House he hoped, and I hoped, that it might be settled quietly and dispassionately at a time when the country was not divided by turmoil, was not in a state of paroxysm, as I venture to think it is at this moment, on this question. I should like to have seen the matter settled at a time when your Lordships could have given it a much more dispassionate consideration than I fear it is possible to give it to-day.
The question was asked by the noble Viscount who has just sat down why the noble Earl did not wait for the Government's proposals, and I think he attributed to my noble friend the noble Marquess who sits behind me a declaration at the commencement of the session that to wait for the Government proposals would be the best course which this House could adopt. Well, my Lords, what were the Government proposals then and what are the Government proposals now? From the gracious Speech from the Throne we gathered that a measure was proposed, or rather two measures were to be introduced, dealing both with the powers of this House and with the constitution of the House; and I venture to say if that course had been maintained by His Majesty's Government the advice of my noble friend, that we should wait for those proposals, would have been quite right and proper advice. What is the position now? The proposals affecting the constitution of this House have disappeared into thin air, and we know now from the Prime Minister that the proposal is not to be dealt with as a whole, but that your Lordships are only to be asked to curtail your own powers of legislation.

183
There appears to be, from what the noble Viscount said, yet a fresh change in the plans of His Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount tells us they will propose some means of settling differences between the two Houses. I do not know, of course, what those means may be, but it is a new announcement from His Majesty's Government that they will introduce proposals for settling those differences. We shall look with interest and anxiety to the proposals His Majesty's Government are going to bring before us.
The noble Viscount said he thought it was the recent election which had induced the noble Earl to suggest to your Lordships, as he will do in a few days, that the hereditary principle should not of itself give a right to sit in this House. That proposal came from the Committee of which my noble friend was the Chairman, and, as he told you, with the exception of my noble and learned friend behind me that proposition was unanimously accepted by the Committee. No elections had taken place then, nor was anything of the kind in contemplation. Then the noble Viscount went on to say that we have single-Chamber government already. He read out to us a list of the powers possessed by the other House of Parliament but not by this House. I do not think there is a single member of your Lordships' House who would wish to take from or share with that House any one of those powers to which the noble Viscount referred. But what we do claim is the power which we now possess, and which I venture to think any Second Chamber should possess—the power to be satisfied that the country is in favour of great and drastic measures of reform, which have not been pronounced upon at a General Election, before those measures are allowed to pass through Parliament.
We are in the midst of a great drama, says the noble Viscount Yes, but when Lord Newton moved for the appointment of the Committee to consider this subject the curtain had not been rung up on that drama. Yet the members of His Majesty's Government entirely declined to take any part or lot in an examination into the question. I deeply regret that decision on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I cannot help thinking that there must be some members on that side of the House who in their hearts, seeing
184
how evenly divided that Committee was on some important questions, regret equally that a greater part was not taken by noble Lords opposite. I cannot help thinking that if the Committee had had the advantage of the assistance of noble Lords opposite there might have been more guidance, more light and leading, for the people of this country. What did the refusal of His Majesty's Government to join that Committee amount to? It amounted, I think, to an admission that there was no conceivable Second Chamber, because the whole field of the reform of the Second Chamber was open to the Committee—
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether that was so? My impression is that the reference to the Committee was to consider schemes and proposals of reform that had previously been made.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The reference was—
"to consider the suggestions which have from time to time been made for increasing the efficiency of the House of Lords in matters affecting legislation, and to report as to the desirability of adopting them either in their original or in some modified form."
I admit that that confined the Committee to proposals which had already been made, or to any modification thereof, but I venture to think if you look through the proposals made from time to time for the reform of the Second Chamber it will be difficult to find any which are not under consideration at the present moment. The noble Earl, in moving that your Lordships do resolve yourselves into Committee, made some observations upon the "voice of the people," and I think he made it quite clear that there is much difficulty in determining when and how the voice of the people can be truly said to have spoken. I would like to add to what the noble Earl said that I think the people of this country do not always express their voice at a General Election. By that I mean that there is a considerable amount of apathy when there is no great and burning question before the country, and that it is sometimes most desirable that one should know what is the view, not only of a percentage of the electors, but of all those electors who can be brought to the poll. I was told a story the other day by a member who stood for the other House of Parliament

185
that when he called upon an elector the latter said—
"I suppose you have come to talk to me about the election. If you are a Radical I will kick you downstairs, and if you are a Unionist I shall content myself by banging the door in your face."
That was the extent of the interest that elector took in the election. When you look at the figures you will see that at the election of 1910, eighty-four per cent of the electors of London went to the poll; in 1906 only seventy-eight per cent voted; and in 1900 not more than sixty-five per cent. To say that the voice of that sixty-five per cent of the electorate is the real voice of the people is a proposition which will not bear a moment's examination.
What are the desiderata which the noble Earl has put before the House? I think he claims that the House should not be un-wieldly in its numbers; that every member of it should feel it his duty to assist in the government of the country; and that such duty should neither be illsuited nor irksome to him. The noble Viscount said just now that your Lordships first of all committed homicide on the Budget, and then proposed to commit suicide yourselves. Well, how many noble Lords opposite voted for the Finance Bill? I think the Dumber was seventy-five. I defy any one to propose any scheme for the reduction of the Members of this House that would not leave more than seventy-five of those who voted against the Finance Bill of last year. I think that is a sufficient answer to the suggestion that the proposals of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches means the suicide of this House.
Then the noble Earl suggests that the House should be constituted, or a part of it, on some popular basis, but I rejoice to think that the basis which the noble Earl suggests is the basis of this House as it exists. His historical review I will not add to, because I do not think it can be improved, or that anything better can be said in favour of it; but of this I am quite certain, that one of the most valuable institutions in the whole of this country is the Peerage of England. I say that because I believe membership of it is the greatest incentive to good public work in this country. My Lords, after all what do most of us desire? We desire to be thought well of by our fellow men, and I venture to think, in whatever walk of life, whether it be science or whether it be politics,
186
that a seat in your Lordships' House is looked upon as the greatest of honours and therefore as the greatest incentive to public work in this country. I should greatly deprecate anything which, by bringing in too great an infusion from outside, would destroy the character of this House. This is not the moment to go into any detailed suggestions for the reform of your Lordships' House. That will come by-and-by when you have disposed of the Resolutions that are on the Paper and consider the further Resolutions which the noble Earl will propose. When that time comes I shall venture to hope that it may not be impossible to put before your Lordships a scheme by which, while maintaining the character of this House—that is to say, maintaining it as a House of Lords, a House of Peers—it may be possible to submit some members of it to the opinion of their fellow men outside, so to get that current of fresh air and that contact with opinion outside this House which the noble Earl desires.
My Lords, I was sorry the noble Earl did not make any reference to what, I think, is a question which actuates a very large number of members of your Lordships' House as well as the public outside, and that is the possibility of bringing into this House some representation of the great Dominions overseas. The noble Earl pointed out to your Lordships how the proposals to emasculate this House might be received by these great Dominions, but he did not give us any hint or suggestion as to how he thought we might include them. I do not think there will be any difficulty in inducing your Lordships to make this House more of an Imperial House than it is at present. My belief is that the difficulty lies on the other side of the water, and I should greatly hope that the result of the Motion which the noble Earl has moved and the result of the attention which the subject is securing, not only in this country but throughout the Empire, will lead to some suggestions from overseas as to the manner in which it would be acceptable to those great Dominions to be included in the Second Chamber of this country. What we have to aim at is, above all things, to secure an independent Second Chamber. After all, we do not sit here for our own benefit; we sit here for the benefit of the people of this country, who, I believe, as the noble Earl said, will insist upon having a Second Chamber of some kind or other, such as is possessed by almost every other civilised country in

187
the world. The House of Lords is the Second Chamber to which England has been accustomed, and with which I believe England will not entirely dispense. It seems to me that, having got a Chamber with the historical associations which surround this Chamber, having got the advantage that we have of the presence here of some of the ablest men in the United Kingdom and a few from the Dominions overseas, it would be madness to cast it aside and attempt to construct an entirely novel and different Senate. I sincerely hope your Lordships will be very careful in departing in any degree from the principles upon which this Chamber is at present constituted. I do not say that it is impossible to find means by which it might be altered and improved, but I do believe that in the opinion of the majority of the people of this country the Peerage ought always to continue to be the basis of the Second Chamber. The object which we have in view is the safe and continuous development of the institutions of the country. We want to get an Assembly which possesses patriotism, common sense, and, above all, independence; and I do not despair that, when your Lordships go into Committtee on this subject, you will be able to evolve a scheme which will commend itself to the people and be accepted by them in preference to the proposals of His Majesty's Government to deprive your Lordships of those powers which alone make it Worth while to sit in any Second Chamber at all.
LORD NORTHCOTE: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount, I think, laid him rather open to the tu quoque reply upon several points. For instance, I entirely agree with him when he quoted the great difficulties which attended the concoction of a Second Chamber; but the moral I drew from it was that that made it all the more improbable that we should see any of these misty reforms of the Second Chamber which have been vaguely shadowed forth. Then, again, the noble Viscount said that the proposal which the noble Earl made was in the nature of a move against the other House. Well, the noble Earl's proposal would lead to the reduction of the Conservative majority in this House and the abrogation of the hereditary principle, and if that is what the noble Viscount considers an attack upon the Liberal Party I think he is somewhat hard to please. Again, the noble Viscount urged my noble friend, Lord Rosebery, not to overdo a
188
Single Chamber. I only hope His Majesty's Government will follow that wise advice; but our apprehension is that it is not the First Chamber which is overdoing itself.
The noble Viscount taunted us with what he called the transformation scene. Well, my Lords, we are not the only Party who have effected a transformation scene, for I seem to recall a statement of His Majesty's present advisers that when the new Parliament was elected it would be a case of Budget first and other measures afterwards. We do not hear very much about the Budget nowadays, but we are aware of obvious reasons why that measure is hung up. However, I did not rise for the purpose of making a very imperfect reply to the noble Viscount's speech, but just to recall to the recollection rather of the public than of members of this House that, whatever may be the upshot of the Resolutions of the noble Earl, there is no possible basis of agreement between the two political Parties in the two Houses of Parliament upon this question of the House of Lords. The noble Viscount said that in the able and exhaustive speech of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, the fringe of the question had not even been touched. If that is the view of His Majesty's Ministers it is perfectly obvious that no amount of discussion on our part can lead to the adoption of a measure which will find favour on both sides of the House. Therefore an early appeal to the supreme arbitrators, the electorate, would appear to be inevitable.
I think we may comfort ourselves with the reflection that we shall go into the battle with the possibility of gaining, but with the knowledge that we cannot be worse off if we lose. We undoubtedly ran the very serious risk that the attack which is now being framed would be made upon this Chamber if we persisted last year in referring the Budget to the country. That attack has now come, and we must meet it as best we can, with the knowledge that, even if we fail, we can be no worse off than if we sit down quietly. We are doomed to political extinction by His Majesty's present Government, or, at all events, to such a measure of what we consider political extinction that we would risk all rather than submit to it. I imagine I am speaking the views of the great majority of noble Lords when I say that we are irreconcilably opposed to the principle that

189
it shall be in the power of the other House of Parliament to force through any measure within the limits of a single Parliament, irrespective of any appeal to the electors of the country. I admit it is possible that the Government may succeed in passing a Statute which would place this House in the position they wish to see it occupy. I conceive that it is possible that, rather than run such extravagant risks as the swamping of this Chamber by the creation of 400 Peers, your Lordships might prefer to accept the situation and allow the Government to pass such a measure.
Then I would remind His Majesty's Ministers that, although one man may lead a horse to the water, twenty cannot make it drink. It would be quite impossible for them to continue with a Second Chamber the vast majority of which would probably decline to go through the farce of attending debates or criticising measures over the ultimate fate of which they would have no control. The necessary result of that, I take it, would be that this House as a House would have to be ended and a Second Chamber of a different kind constituted. We are told that that Second Chamber, if it is to be created at all, is to be created on a broad democratic basis and chosen by a large body of electors. As the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, put it, is it likely that any man in whom the country would be likely to have confidence would go through all the trouble and expense of getting elected to a Second Chamber unless that Second Chamber were to have at least as large powers as this House at present possesses. I do not, therefore, see that His Majesty's Government would gain all the advantages anticipated should they succeed in reducing the House of Lords to the very humble position which they wish to assign to it in the future. The question, then, comes whether we are not making a very real, substantial, and reasonably liberal proposal by the suggested limitation—I will own that I have looked forward to a considerable limitation—of the number of Peers in this House, and by the abrogation of the hereditary principle. It seems to me that in addition much good would result from the infusion of a considerable number of life Peers. I think that in addition to the limitation of our numbers and the creation of a considerable number of life Peers it might, under certain circumstances, be possible to arrange, in cases of disputed Bills of first-class importance,
190
for a joint conference of the two Houses sitting, and perhaps voting, together.
I am not disposed to give unlimited acquiescence to Lord Rosebery's suggestion as to the electoral body by which the House of Lords should be chosen in future. I am still less disposed to favour the idea that a portion of the reformed House of Lords should be taken from the old members and a portion from outside. I think it would be much better that the whole body should be chosen either by the present House or by such outside body as may be determined upon. I am also inclined to doubt whether it would be well to lay down as a positive enactment that nobody should be eligible to a place in the reformed House of Lords unless he had held certain offices. I think that would be putting the younger members of the House in rather an invidious position. I also share the opinion that those noble Lords who might be deprived of seats in this Chamber under a system of reform should be able to present themselves as candidates for the Lower House. And, lastly, I should say I think in a reformed Upper House some system of providing for the representation of the minority would undoubtedly have to be introduced, so that the Liberal element should have its fair share of representation in this House.
One remark which has been made may, I think, be worth elucidating a little further—that is the remark made by the late Lord Salisbury as to the circumstances under which this House would cease to be so largely composed of members of one political Party. I dare say some of your Lordships remember as well as I do that it has only been within the last forty years that one Party has gradually assumed ascendancy in this House. I can recollect the time of a great division—I think in 1863—when a very full poll was taken of the House of Lords; of the Peers voting the Liberal Party, the Government of the day had an actual majority, and it was only by bringing up the proxies which then existed that the late Lord Derby secured a majority of Dine. That shows that the House of Lords has not always been in the past a Tory preserve, and that it acquired its present political complexion simply through the extraordinary rapidity with which Radical legislation has progressed and forced many moderate Liberals, not to desert their Liberal principles, but to

191
join, perforce, that camp from which they were least divided. I do not wish to go into detail as to further proposals. There are certain reasons why I cannot agree with Lord Onslow as to the advisability of including representatives from the oversea Dominions, but that and other details I reserve for further consideration. I would express my general hearty concurrence with the noble Earl who has brought forward the Motion, and my general agreement with the greater part of his eloquent speech.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, in listening to the speeches made by noble Lords who have devoted a considerable amount of time and study to this question, it has been brought home to me how difficult it is to introduce changes into this House without running some risk of destroying much that is good. This House has played a part in the history of the kingdom of which it may well be proud. It is no light matter to talk of altering its constitution, and I feel that my connection with this House is of too recent origin to entitle me to put forward my views were it not that we have all had to meet a good deal of hostile criticism during the recent political controversy. If further justification were needed I should find it in the hostility which has been shown to the functions of this House, including the duties of ordinary revision, by Ministers in the House of Commons during the last few years. The sole object of the Government during those years seems to have been to put aside the functions of this House.
There may be—I fear there is—a great difference of opinion between Liberal Ministers and noble Lords on this side of the House as to what are the true functions of the House of Lords; but I certainly think, in regard to its powers of revision, we should be able to expect fairer and more-impartial treatment than that which has been accorded to us. I think a most unfair or, if that word hardly meets the case, a most un statesman like course, has been adopted in regard to many of our Amendments on the ground of breach of privilege. Let us take the Old Age Pensions Act. The clause dealing with disqualification for imprisonment would probably have resulted, as many of your Lordships will remember, in unjust and invidious distinctions in similar cases of offences dealt with by different magistrates. In one case a man might receive a day's imprisonment and find himself disqualified
192
from drawing a pension for ten years. In another case of a similar offence a man might receive a punishment to which no penalty of that nature would be attached. An Amendment was carried in this House to rectify what was evidently a mistake and an injustice by altering the limitation of disqualification for imprisonment to a minimum period of one month; but although it was pointed out in the House of Commons at the time—I think by Mr. Keir Hardie—that this Amendment would merely remove the possibilities of grave injustice, yet in pursuance of their usual policy towards this House Liberal Ministers insisted on the rejection of that Amendment on the plea of privilege. Under the treatment which was accorded to us on our Amendments of this and of many other Bills it would be clearly impossible for this House to exercise its ordinary duties of discussion or revision on any of those large social measures which come up to us from time to time. For Amendments would frequently vary the charge to some small extent and thereby give the Liberal Government a chance of rejecting such Amendments on the grounds of privilege. There must be some friendly co-operation between the two Houses if we are to get the best legislative results. If the House of Commons desires to accept an Amendment it is always open to it not to insist upon its privilege.
But, my Lords, it is not only on questions of privilege that a determined hostility has been shown to this House. Take the Land Tenure Bill, now known as the Agricultural Holdings Act. Perhaps I cannot do better than quote very briefly one passage out of a speech by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. He said—
"On the attitude of the Government towards our Amendments, I observe the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture took credit for his friends in the House of Commons that they did not reject our Amendments en bloc. As fifty-five out of seventy-one were inserted by His Majesty's Ministers themselves, to say nothing of twelve other Amendments to which they assented, I think it is straining the imagination a good deal to conceive that the whole of the Amendments could have been dealt with in that summary fashion."
My Lords, further comment on my part as to the attitude of the Government is unnecessary. Have Liberal Ministers shown any desire to accept anything from this House which may tend to its credit in the eyes of the country? Their policy has been one of "filling up the cup," and when an

193
election draws near, when as a discredited Party they see their hopes of retaining office ever growing fainter, they attack the House of Lords as the best means of obtaining public favour and to help them at the polls. For this reason, if for no other, I would support any measure of reform which would help to strengthen this House and enable it to carry out its duties to the nation in a more efficient manner.
But although I agree that it is necessary, for the reasons I have given, to strengthen this Chamber and relieve it of those disabilities which at present form the stock-in-trade of every demagogue in the country, I think the real reason why we should take this action is that I believe there is a sincere desire on the part of the nation for some measure of reform of this House. I believe there is a feeling among the more thoughtful members of our community, a feeling which has been growing for years, that certain anomalies in the constitution of this House should be removed, that the accident of birth unaccompanied by other qualifications should not of itself entitle any man to a seat in this House. The fact that there are a certain number of Peers who have not got the time or the inclination to attend to their legislative duties and who yet exercise their right to vote on the somewhat rare occasions when they attend this House, is not only an anomaly, but is a distinct source of weakness to the House. But as the constitution of the House of Lords is already based partly on the system of heredity and partly on the system of selection, I hope it may be possible to extend the system of selection to the hereditary element. I mention selection and not election in contradiction to the noble Earl who initiated this discussion, because I cannot conceive any fully-elected House being in a position to carry out its difficult duties as a Second Chamber.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I said I hoped the principle of election would form part.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I am not opposed to some elective element being introduced, but if any portion of the hereditary Peers are to be elected I think it would probably be wiser to have them elected by their fellow Peers or by one of the two Houses of Parliament. At present this House has an independent character which I would like to see maintained. It is removed from the
194
fluctuations of political feeling and does not depend on any man's vote. At present it cannot be forced by any one section of the community to pass a measure at the expense of the remainder. These are very valuable qualities, how valuable one can only judge when one looks at the discreditable political bargaining which often takes place between factions in the House of Commons, and which I am not sure is not now taking place in that House.
What is the attitude of the Government in regard to this question of reform? I have not yet understood what their attitude is. I think many noble Lords on both sides of this House would welcome a statement by the Leader of the House as to the position the Cabinet now take up in regard to this question. Do the Government, or do they not, intend ever to bring forward any proposals for its reform? I am glad to see that they or at least their representatives in this House do not question the efficiency with which noble Lords transact the business of this House. I believe myself that the Government's chief objection is to the efficiency with which many noble Lords bring expert criticism to bear on many Ministerial measures. When Lord Newton moved the Second Reading of his Bill some three years ago the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the House, boycotted the discussion on the ground of partiality. He informed your Lordships on this side of the House that, belonging to the Unionist Party, you dealt with measures of the Liberal Government in a Party spirit. I would like, with all due respect, to deny the impeachment, which hardly tallies with the statements of Liberal Ministers who have been recently going about taking a great deal of credit to themselves for the extraordinary amount of useful legislation which has found its way on the Statute Book in the last few years.
The noble Earl also admitted on that occasion that no reform of this House, no matter what distinguished men of impartial views were introduced, would ever produce a majority in this House in favour of the measures to which we are at present apparently offering an insuperable barrier. Our partiality, in fact, consists in our insistence on certain principles; in maintaining the unity of the Empire; in securing to parents the right to have their children educated in the faith in which they were brought up; in objecting to unfair burdens being placed in a vindic-

195
tive manner on a particular trade or section of the community, and, finally, in referring a Budget to the people, who have fully vindicated our action by returning to the House of Commons a majority of representatives opposed to that measure. I know it is possible and it is one of the drawbacks to our Parliamentary system that a section of those representatives may yet be bribed by some measure of Home Rule into supporting a measure which otherwise they would heartily condemn, but even in that case our action has been fully vindicated by the country. In fact, the possibility of such a bargain being struck in the House of Commons is surely only one more proof of the absolute, necessity for maintaining a strong and efficient Second Chamber. Mr. Redmond recently asserted, at a public dinner, that the main issue on which the last election was fought was not the Budget but Home Rule for Ireland, and that the result of the election was a majority in favour of Home Rule. I do not question the truth of what Mr. Redmond said. I only question how many electors outside Ireland realised the issue on which they were voting. It is said our House is not representative; but who are the representatives of the million of people in Ireland who are bitterly opposed to Home Rule and of the millions of electors of England, Scotland, and Wales who were apparently misled as to the issue of the last General Election? I think every fair-minded man in the country would say it is the Second Chamber.
But, my Lords, the anomalies which do undoubtedly exist in this House are a great source of weakness. They were used with considerable effect at the last General Election, not only to discredit our action but to blind the people as to the real nature of the demands made by the Government in regard to the limitation of the powers of this House. I doubt very much if many people understood in the least what those demands were. If any elector asked Mr. Asquith when he was on the public platform if he were in favour of the Second Chamber, the answer was always "Yes." I wish the electors had gone a step further and asked if the Second Chamber was to have any power to appeal from the Government to the country. What answer would he have given? I have no doubt he would have delivered a clever and lengthy peroration which neither his questioner nor anyone
196
could have understood. But at the next General Election a plain, straightforward answer will be demanded to the question, and the Government policy will be shown to be a deliberate attempt to gain autocratic power for the Cabinet of the day to pass what measures they choose and to prevent the people having any voice in the legislation of the country. When this is put before the people as a clear issue they will realise that, reformed or unreformed, the House of Lords is the only safeguard they have against such rule.
This, however, does not affect the issue before us. Our action must not be based on expediency, but upon the wishes of the people. I believe there is a growing conviction among the electors of the country that some reform in the composition of this House is desirable, and I also believe that in carrying out some readjustment of the House to modern conditions it should be possible to link up the House of Lords, with all its great traditions, more closely yet in the sympathies of the people. I venture to hope, my Lords, that you will support the broad principles contained in the Resolutions of the noble Earl. The principle of the third Resolution is, I think, a necessary preliminary to any reform. Without it, in face of the misrepresentation we have to meet, we should not be able to retain the confidence of the country, and without that confidence we could not have a strong and efficient Second Chamber.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, as one who spoke in favour of and advocated the reform of this House five-and-twenty years ago, I heartily support the Motion of the noble Earl. It is probable enough that there are not many who desire to see a single-Chamber Government in this country, or rather who dare to assert in so many words that that is their wish; but there seem to be a great many who would prefer to have a House of Lords possessing no greater power than that of merely putting in drafting Amendments or of correcting grammatical errors which have been unnoticed on Report in the other House. I believe, however, that the great majority of the people of this country desire to have a genuine and effective Second Chamber not less strong or effective than those which have been set up in the Australian Commonwealth and the South African Union, and one which, while

197
able to resist democracy if it goes mad, shall be so constituted as to be in sympathy with modern developments and aspirations, and so composed that its criticisms shall command in any case attention and respect if not acquiescence.
The noble Viscount who followed Lord Rosebery rather made game of him on account of Mr. Balfour's enumeration of the points with regard to which the House of Commons in this country was always the predominant partner of the two Houses of Parliament, but unless I am very much mistaken there is hardly any one of those points in respect to which the representative Chamber in every country in the world and in all our own Colonies is not likewise predominant. I do not think there can be any self-governing community of any sort or kind in which the House of Representatives does not hold the power of the purse, which after all, is the mainspring of the Government of every country. Single Chamber Government, although condemned by the custom of the whole civilised world, would after all, be better than an omnipotent House of Commons subject in name, but in name only, to an impotent House of Lords, for if we had the misfortune to have only one Chamber, that Chamber having full responsibility for its actions, would be likely to be more careful of what it passed into law than the House of Commons is at present. We know well enough that it often occurs in the House of Commons that Members who thoroughly dislike a particular Bill vote for it in obedience to the Party Whip, relying on its being dealt with up here; while at the same time they exercise their privilege of abusing the House of Lords for doing that which in their inmost hearts they desired.
We had an example of that not long ago in connection with the Bight Hours Bill. It is notorious that the majorities by which that Bill passed the House of Commons did not by any means represent the feelings of the House of Commons towards it, and we only passed it here, in the words of Lord Lansdowne, with great misgivings, but feeling, notwithstanding our doubts, that the Government was ready to assume responsibility with regard to it. It is notorious that many of the criticisms passed upon that measure have since proved themselves to be only too well founded. It seems to me that there must be something wrong either with the composition of this House if a measure which undoubtedly commanded a
198
great deal of popular support outside was practically without friends here, or else there must be something wrong with our position in the machinery of government if, after thinking that the measure was full of imperfections, we were unable to remit it for further consideration. The truth is, I am afraid, that we only passed that Bill because, in plain English, we thought there would be trouble if we did not, and because unfortunately the public is only too apt to discount any criticisms which are made here by attributing to them, unjustly enough, an undercurrent of self-interest.
The worst enemies of this House do not deny that the de-bates here reach a very high level, and that great questions are worthily discussed, but there is no doubt that those who opposed the Budget in the country at the late Election were seriously handicapped by the fact that it had been remitted to the constituencies by the action of the House of Lords. The People's Budget was not exactly fortunate in the country. The constituencies who returned the gentlemen who voted by a majority of 230 in its favour on Third Reading have only returned a majority of about the odd thirty in favour of it now, and, if the Irish Members are justified in their boast that they won for the Government as many as twenty seats in Lancashire and Yorkshire, that odd thirty in favour of the People's Budget would be represented in fact by a minus quantity. But the fact that we rejected it undoubtedly told largely in its favour, especially in Scotland and in the North. We do not get the credit for rejecting things on their merits; yet what is wanted undoubtedly in the country, as I believe, is a strong Second Chamber capable of steadying public opinion, of giving the demagogues time to talk themselves out, and so constituted that the weight of its criticisms shall not be lessened by any disparagement of the channel through which they may be delivered. In these circumstances, it seems to me that boldness will be the true statesmanship, and that we ought not to be afraid to make drastic changes in the constitution of this House.
My Lords, this is not yet the time to discuss possible changes in detail, but I venture to think we can best seek for guidance in the systems adopted in our great self-governing Colonies beyond the seas, and in the balances of power which are found to work well in those democratic communities. Those sys-

199
tems vary in detail almost everywhere, but two or three general rules appear to underlie them all. The Council or the Upper House is about half the strength of the Lower House. The members of it, if not nominated for life, are elected for a term at least equal to twice the legitimate duration of a Parliament, and the electors, with one important exception, are chosen on a very much higher franchise than those who elect the Lower House. Moreover, in the latest Constitutions, at any rate, and the most important ones—those framed within the last ten years, the Australian Commonwealth and the South African Union—there are careful provisions made for deadlocks between the two Houses, whether on general legislation or on matters of finance. I believe that the best solution of the present difficulties will be found in taking example from what has been proved to answer well across the seas. It is likely enough that, for a period at any rate, the best solution may be found in a combination of the methods of co-optation and nomination and election, but I believe that if we are to have a permanent system and one which will not need to be revised within a limited period, it will be wise to arrange that the great majority of the members of the future Second Chamber of this country should be chosen by indirect election from outside.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken into the constitution and methods of electing Second Chambers abroad or in the Colonies. Even if I wished to I should not be able to, but at all events I may say that I listened with great interest to what he had to tell us about the plans which are pursued in those parts of the world. I am very much interested, however, about the whole question of the Second Chamber here, so I will confine myself entirely to those considerations. It is a good many years now since I came into the House of Lords. Although perhaps not the oldest, I have probably been a member of this House as long as anybody present to-night. I took my seat in 1877, on the same day as Lord Beaconsfield, though I recognise that this has nothing to do with the matters we are to consider to-night. I also remember that in my hotter youth I was something of a reformer myself, and I remember, like a nightmare, addressing your Lordships' House in an endeavour to give expression to my own ideas on that subject, those ideas
200
being that nobody should be allowed to vote unless he had attended sittings of the House a certain number of times. The noble Marquess, the late Lord Salisbury, was Leader of the House at that time, and much to our regret he was absent from indisposition. On that occasion I received a tremendous castigation from Lord Cranbrook, and I was congratulated by all my friends that this unfortunate circumstance had kept Lord Salisbury away or I should probably have got it much worse than I did.
The other reason why I should like to say something to-night is that I was a member of the Rosebery Commitee. I propose to say very little about that, and I do not, I daresay to your relief, mean to say anything about Oliver Cromwell either. Oliver Cromwell slept for two nights in my house at home. I assure you I am very proud of that fact. But, after all, when we come to bring Oliver Cromwell into our considerations to-night, it is just as well to remember a characterisation of him by one of our great historians—that Oliver Cromwell could govern neither with nor without Parliaments. Under those circumstances I do not know that we need trouble very much about what he would have thought or said or done with regard to the matters which are occupying us now. I am sure that everybody in the House will join with me in expressing to Lord Rosebery how much we have been interested in the speech he delivered to us, and I think we all recognise his high patent to advise us in the contingencies which surround us. But I hope he will not think that I am out on a freebooting expedition if I rather question the opportuneness and the present advantage of the course that he recommends to the House. And here I find myself in quite unexpected agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, below me. On this question of advantage I address myself, for the moment especially to the Opposition Peers and the Cross Benches, and particularly to those who are acting with the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, though I have no notion who they are or whether they include the noble Marquess opposite, or what I will call the official Opposition Bench. I dare say later in the evening, when we hear someone from the Front Opposition Bench, we shall be illuminated as to how far the mover of the Resolutions to-night and the Front Opposition Bench are in complete accord with regard to the opportuneness of the motion.

201
It is quite unnecessary, of course, for me to trouble about what noble Lords below me think or what their official or semi-official supporters think. I remember quite well when Lord Crewe, with that gift of lucid and fair exposition of which he is a master, explained to the House the exact nature of the Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions. I understood from him then that he acquiesced to the last jot and tittle in the degree of nullity which those Resolutions established. I will go back for a moment, then, to the reasons why I think that, tactically speaking, apart perhaps, from any lofty principle, the moment for what we are considering to-night is not felicitously chosen. I think if we are going to discuss this question for four nights, as I believe is the case, it is inevitable that the discussion will reveal a great many divergences of opinion, a great many confessions of what may be indefensible, or thought indefensible, a great many suggestions of compromises, a recognition of Strength here and of weakness there, and that in the process, whilst outside this House we may lose our friends, I think it is quite certain that we shall retain our enemies. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, may say, in the same spirit that Lord Camperdown applied to the Budget, that if that is so he does not care; and I am sure he does not care, because he thinks it is right, and I quite recognise that he is the person who has the best right to advise us on it.
But really, speaking for myself, much as I am prepared to defer to his experience, I do feel a little uncomfortable about the moment chosen. I think if we could have waited for what Lord Rosebery described as the Cleopatra-like procession of Resolutions in the House of Commons, it is more than likely that events would have occurred which would have made the Government, I do not quite like to say ridiculous, but would have made them appear in not quite as strong a position as when they started on the operation. I have every confidence in the Leader of the Opposition in the other House to make the very most of any material for the defence of our position and of attack on the Government's position which it may be possible to make, and I think that all this would have been watched with lynx eyes by the noble Marquess opposite and by a great many observant critics who are sitting here. Then when our turn came it seems to me that we should have found ourselves, or noble Lords opposite would have found themselves, equipped with material, whether
202
for attack of the Government's Resolutions or for defence of our own position, which would have been invaluable, and which I am afraid the course of this Debate may not give them here. And in that connection a Latin adage occurs to me which is not a bad one, although I believe it comes out of a Latin grammar—"Fas est ab hoste doceri."
Now, my Lords, I pass to Lord Rosebery's first and second Resolutions, which affirm the necessity of an efficient Second Chamber. In, I think, the best political novel in our language, "Coningsby," Mr. Milbanke, while talking to Coningsby, declared, in 1834, that—
"nobody wants a Second Chamber except a few disreputable individuals."
That is not the view taken here, or, indeed, outside in 1910. We have just heard from Lord Morley that the Cabinet is like adamant about a Second Chamber. So that we may agree that what Mr. Milbanke thought in 1834 is not what His Majesty's Ministers think in 1910. Another thing which Mr. Milbanke said was that he never heard of a Peer with ancient lineage. Whether he was right or wrong about that, such lineage as we do possess and such legislative rights as it has given us, and gives us at the present moment, are, I understand, all to disappear under these Resolutions. But, be that as it may, it is quite clear that these are days when everybody thinks a Second Chamber is wanted. We live in days when Parliament is always being urged, even goaded, to interfere in many matters, and to render and to undertake services which have never previously been attempted. Interference by the State between labour and capital, with regard to freedom of contract, supply and demand, and so on, is recognised and practised by both Parties. It is not a question how to interfere, but only of how much to interfere, that is always the ground of controversy. This points, of course, to the necessity affirmed by Lord Rosebery's Resolution. I am not going into any academic elaboration on single or second Chambers. I would only point out that, whatever the rights or wrongs of single Chambers may be, when noble Lords opposite are in office we do live practically under single Chamber government and nothing very terrible seems to happen. My only explanation of that is that Mr. Walter Long and Mr. Chaplin must be looked upon by the general public as less formidable customers than Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill.

203
Now, my Lords, I come to the third Resolution as to the hereditary principle. Well, I am afraid, with all its imperfections and its virtues on its head, the hereditary principle appears to have gone by the board, or perhaps it would be better to say that it has been jetisoned. It is quite true that in the very early deliberations of the Rosebery Committee, everybody on that Committee came to the conclusion that that principle had to go. But where, I think, it really suffered most was in what I may call, perhaps, the perambulating oratory of the crisis Peers. The Rosebery Committee cheerfully affirmed a self-denying ordinance on the part of a very large number of persons who had not been consulted in the matter; in fact, I do not know that had they been consulted they would have agreed. I do not know that I should if I was one of them, but, anyhow, what we understand by the Anti-Budget Crusade gave that position away, and very effectually. Theoretically England, disposed, as it may be, to maintain existing institutions, is becoming, and very naturally becoming, suspicious that the hereditary basis for a Second Chamber is indefensible, and that it is no longer held to be defensible by the people who are most concerned, you would think, in maintaining the hereditary principle. We have yet to see what practical England, as opposed to theoretical England, will say about it.
As we have heard to-night, the ultimate appeal in this matter must be to the electorate. Speaking for myself, my own predilections are in favour of the House of Lords as I have known it, and of the House of Lords as I have seen it. I am afraid about these very ambitious schemes of reform. Gaily as I started in early life, I am becoming rather a waverer now. The noble Viscount below me will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was Voltaire who said—
"Before you set about remedying the disorders of a State, it is well to study and consider the character of the people."
I submit that the House of Lords, to a very considerable extent, does understand the character, not, perhaps, of a Radical House of Commons, but the character of the commons of England, and I also submit that the commons of England, though they may often disapprove of us and often be provoked with us, on the whole understand the House of Lords pretty well. Anyhow, whether I am right or wrong on a long survey of that, I venture to say
204
that within the last twenty years—since Home Rule—the House of Lords have been more in sympathy with the commons of England than the House of Commons. When the noble Marquess opposite, advised you to take the line and to act in the way suggested on the Budget—and needless to say, you did so act on his advice—I thought you were wrong. I personally did not like it at all, and I do not like now, the feeling of the House of Commons forcing a Dissolution on Supply; but I am bound to say that the noble Marquess took very strong ground, and that that ground was made stronger by the many people who supported him; and I think that what the noble Viscount below me called the exorbitant pretensions of the House of Lords in acting in the way they did about the Budget was, perhaps, a little overstatement of the case. But, be that as it may, the assassins at all events have not committed suicide, and I only hope that we are not going to put our hands or minds to anything of that sort now. I rather deprecate an auto da fe of any sort before you are obliged to make your confession, and that is why, as I said at the beginning, I am a little nervous and uncomfortable about the particular line we have taken or are being invited to take to-night.
My Lords, I have only one more word to say about a Second Chamber, I quite understand, if you are going to reform this Chamber, that reform, except to strengthen, would seem a mischievous contradiction in terms. But my whole feeling is against a very strong Second Chamber in the acute and extended democracy under which we live. I am entirely with the noble Marquess in what he said about the Second Chamber and democracy, which was read out by the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, to-night—that, pushed to logical issues, after all, we all know that a Second Chamber system must be a deadlock system; and I should personally be extremely sorry to see popular liberties represented in and by a House of Commons arrayed against equal rights and claims set up by the House of Lords or the Second Chamber. I really do feel that unbending virtue and unyielding virtue is about the most formidable thing we can create in a Second Chamber, having regard to the character and the whole complexion of English politics in their representation as we now understand it.

205
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to advance a plea for a little patience. The history of the House of Lords in its relations with the House of Commons is, after all, a history of adjustment. You had adjustments in 1407, 1671, 1678, and 1860. I quite agree that those were adjustments on Money Bills which were preceded by resolution. But, after all, we do not quite know what the Government are going to propose in this way. I know the noble Earl examined Lord Morley on it, and I am not sure that he got quite a satisfactory answer from him. But, at all events, when the noble Earl received the answer, which, as I say, I do not think was a satisfactory one, he got up and said that in fact he need not have asked the question because we know what it is—it is the Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions. But is it the Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions? Because after all, whether we admire the Government or whether we do not, it is a Government which is a little, what Horace would call, ventosus. It is certainly capable of chops and changes, and I do not think it would be far wrong for any of us to say that, although the Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions are supposed to hold the field, when the Resolutions we are asked to consider actually come up here they will not be exactly the Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions. But, my Lords, that is only my own view. It is quite possible that they may be worse than those Resolutions. It is also quite possible that, for all kinds of reasons which occur to me but which I will not trouble you with, they may be very diluted Bannerman Resolutions, and they may supply a basis which we should be quite willing to consider and see whether by compromises, or concessions, perhaps, here and there, we might not find room for a new constitutional understanding, and so carry on without anything very heroic. At all events, speaking for myself, I do not care very much about mortgaging my freedom or in any way embarrassing my rights of consideration by going into anything very detailed or very substantive until I have seen what the Government are going to propose.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I think it would be very difficult to exaggerate the importance of the discussion in which we are engaged, for upon it, or upon the issue that takes place upon it, depend the steadiness of the legislative machine of the country and the security of obtaining the considered
206
wishes of the electorate of the country, and of seeing that they prevail. It is worth while, perhaps, considering what should be the exact quality of the Chamber for carrying out such duties. First of all, I should say that the great essence in that quality should be independence and freedom from the pressure of perpetual election; secondly, that it should be in touch with local feeling in different parts of the country; and, thirdly, it should preserve as far as possible, as was laid down by the Committee over which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches presided, the fabric and position of the House of Lords in the Constitution.
We are sometimes told that Peers should not of their hereditary right sit or vote in your Lordships' House. I agree that there are certain Peers who for various reasons are unable to take their due part and share in the work of your Lordships' House, but that could surely be remedied quite simply by a system of election by their fellow Peers, which system formed part of the recommendations of the Committee over which the noble Earl presided. That principle was accepted by the Committee, and I do hope that it will form a very considerable part of any scheme of reform of which your Lordships may approve. But I trust also that we may see beyond this a considerable number of Peers who have sat in your Lordships' House some of them for many years. Many of them have done great service to the State, and I think it would be very desirable that a large proportion of those should be allowed to sit as qualified Peers owing to their services to the State. The noble Earl this evening, in his most able speech, told us two things. Speaking of the hereditary principle, he said that the hereditary principle had outlived its usefulness, and he went on to add that it had ceased to work well in practice, but I noticed that the noble Earl said not one Word to justify either of those statements. He made them as broad sweeping statements—that the hereditary principle had outlived its usefulness and had ceased to work well in practice.
My Lords, I think that a charge of that kind, broad and sweeping as it is, might have been worth a few words of explanation as to how this system has ceased to work well in practice and as to how it has outlived its usefulness. I venture to take a very different view of the hereditary principle of your Lordships' House, and to assert that

207
that principle has been no failure. I believe it has been of great value to the State. The great mass of those who are hereditary Peers are men who have trained themselves to know what their duties would be in order to bring themselves into a position to carry out those duties effectively and for the good of the State. And, my Lords, many and many a Peer who takes no very active part in politics, who is not a professed politician, is of enormous value in the councils of the State. He is a man who lives at home, who is respected at home, who knows his country and his fellow countrymen, and when that man comes to Parliament he comes imbued with a knowledge of his fellow countrymen and free from the bias of Party politicians, and he brings into the councils of the nation a weight which it would be very difficult to replace. It is very easy to sweep away what you have got, but it is very difficult indeed to be certain that you will replace it with anything better or even as good.
At an earlier part of this evening one of the noble Lords who addressed your Lordships—I think it was Lord Rosebery—spoke of the great services done by hereditary Peers in the past. If anyone will look up the record of the services of hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House in the past, either as Leaders of the House or as holders of high office under the Crown, I think he will find the services of hereditary Peers very difficult indeed to match in any other class or rank of life in this country. Therefore, my Lords, I do hope that in any reform which your Lordships may approve you will retain a very considerable body of hereditary Peers in this House, whether they are qualified by past services to the State or by election by their fellow Peers. We are told, and I do not deny it may be true, that under the pressure of a movement in the country it may be necessary to resort to some extent at all events—and there are many views as to the extent it should be resorted to—to an elective element from outside your Lordships' House. That may be so, but in dealing with this matter I do venture to suggest that great care should be taken. We have to guard very carefully against several dangers in this respect. I am not saying that I am averse to the proposal, but I do see in it grave dangers unless great care is taken in respect to how it is carried out.
In the first place, we have to watch with the greatest care the independence of those whom you bring in from outside. If they
208
are to be subjected to election like ordinary Members of Parliament I do not think you can possibly say that they will have the same independence as life Peers or hereditary Peers. You have other dangers to guard against if you establish nothing but an elective system, which I understand is the view of some of the members of His Majesty's Government. I understand that some of the members of His Majesty's Government have stated distinctly and clearly that in their view a strong Second Chamber is required and that that Chamber should be an elected one. I do not say that that is the view of the whole of His Majesty's Government, because I think it would be very difficult to find any one subject upon which they were united in opinion; but I do not think it will be denied that that proposal has been put forward by a leading member of the Government. But, my Lords, if you adopt that plan, how are you going to guard against the danger, and the grave danger, too, of setting up practically two Houses which would be much the same as the present House of Commons? Does anyone know, if anything of that kind is done—and I am quoting it as being recommended by a leading member of His Majesty's Government—how it will be possible to guard against a very strong Second Chamber indeed, such as has been denounced so vigorously by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India to-night? You must have one thing or the other. You must have either a strong Chamber based upon the hereditary system, or you must have a strong Chamber based upon the elective system; but the moment you get a predominance of the elective system you surely must take great pains and great care to guard against its competing unduly and unwisely with the House of Commons. The noble Viscount told us several things. He told us that before the election it was contended that this House was everything that was fair and reasonable and proper, but that now, after the election is over it was as little of a decent revising Chamber as possible. I am not sure whom the noble Viscount was quoting, and I should like to know who has said that the present House of Lords is as little of a decent revising Chamber as possible, because those were the words the noble Viscount used.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: That was the general impression I got from the noble Earl's speech. I do not know what else it meant.
EARL CAWDOR: Then I take it as being a quotation by the noble Viscount from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Not a quotation; a representation of what the noble Earl said.
EARL CAWDOR: Very well, I will take it as a representation of the noble Earl's speech, although I am bound to say I noticed nothing in the speech of the noble Earl to justify such a representation. What happened at the General Election was this. I do not charge the noble Viscount with it, because I am sure he would not do it himself. But a good many of his colleagues, in the course of the last election, denounced your Lordships' House pretty soundly, chiefly on the ground of its hereditary character. "Why allow these hereditary Peers to interfere with us?" "What right have they to trample upon the people?" and so forth. And when that is answered by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches suggesting, "We will modify the hereditary system; we will modify the hereditary position of the House of Lords; we will try and leaven it with outside election; we will eliminate from the hereditary Peers those who do not want to serve or cannot serve or those who for some physical reason are unfit to serve," what is the reply of the noble Viscount? It is, "We want none of your strengthening of the House of Lords; we will keep you to those things that we have denounced. We will make use of those denunciations in the country for Party purposes; we will keep you as you are and take away your powers." My Lords, I ask—Is that fair play? If the denunciations are fair, why block the amendments to get rid of the flaws which you yourselves have been pointing out for your own benefit at the elections? Surely if there are flaws you should be the first to assist in removing them. The Government have denounced them. They have said that our powers are unwise, that they are improper, that we have no business to exercise powers of the kind, and when we want to cure them they say, "No, you keep them," and they will rub the sore in again when the next election comes. I do not think that is a very dignified position to take, but that is the position that is taken now by His Majesty's Government. I should have thought that if there were objections against the House of Lords as a hereditary House, any suggestion to remove those would have been received with open arms by the noble
210
Viscount himself. But the noble Viscount says, "No, I am not going to have the House of Lords strengthened; any strengthening of the House of Lords means an attack upon the House of Commons."
Then the noble Viscount passed to the question of the single Chamber and took a view which I am bound to say I have not beard taken before. He told us, "For all important matters you have a single-Chamber Government now." My Lords, if we have a single-Chamber Government now on all important matters, according to the noble Viscount, why all this disturbance about the Veto? Why is the Constitution to be torn up if in all important matters you have got a single Chamber to-day? The noble Viscount was emphatic upon that. He dwelt upon it for some time. But, if so, what becomes of all your attack upon the Veto, if upon every important question you have already got all that you can possibly ask? One is a little inclined to ask what it is the noble Viscount is objecting to in my noble friend Lord Rosebery's Resolutions. His friends tell us that there are many Peers who ought not to be allowed to sit and vote in this House. Does he object to their elimination by the election of Peers in this House by their fellow Peers? The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Rosebery is that certain Peers should sit who have done good service to the State. Does the noble Viscount object to that qualification? The noble Earl suggests that we should get in Peers from outside so as to bring the House into closer touch with the people outside. As far as I know, the noble Viscount objects to every one of those modifications and improvements, and he wishes to leave your Lordships' House in the worst state in which his friends have described it. It does seem to me that the noble Viscount and his colleagues should take one line or the other. They should either drop their attack on the House of Lords because of the defects they find in it, or join hands with those who wish to remove those defects and make the House more in consonance with what his colleagues at ail events have endeavoured to describe it should be.
Now, my Lords, I think it is worth considering to what extent your Lordships' House in past years has really represented the considered wish of the country. If we

211
pass back only over the last fifteen years I think we can learn a good deal. We have been told a great deal about the friction that exists between the two Houses, and the noble Viscount talked of the gulf being dug deeper between them. My Lords, is it a gulf between the two Houses that we are dealing with? Is it not rather a gulf between His Majesty's Government and the electors of this country that we are dealing with? Let us follow it step by step. Take all the important Bills that have failed to become law through the action of your Lordships' House in the last fifteen years. A few of them were enumerated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the debate on the Budget last year, and they were very few. I will take one further back in date than those that the noble and learned Lord referred to on that occasion. I take the Home Rule Bill. Did or did not your Lordships then interpret the considered wish of the country in relation to that Bill, or did the Government of the day interpret it better? Is it not a fact that but for the action of your Lordships' House Home Rule would have been the law of this country fifteen years ago? Then we pass on to the Education Bill of 1906 and the Licensing Bill of 1908. We are told that we were there acting contrary to the wish of the people of the country. Since the Education Bill of 1906 and the Licensing Bill of 1908 there has been a General Election. For the first time since those Bills were introduced the people of this country have had an opportunity of expressing their wish on either of them. Is there anyone on the Front Bench opposite who will tell me that the House of Commons of to-day would pass either the Education Bill of 1906 or the Licensing Bill of 1908? We know that they would not, and, therefore, those two Bills, which were the great ground of offence against your Lordships' House in those years, are Bills with regard to which the people of this country have taken exactly the same view as your Lordships did, and have confirmed and justified your Lordships in the action that you took in respect to those Bills.
I now come to the last Bill—the Budget Bill of last year. We are still told by many, both by friends and foes, that we did the wrong thing when we referred that Bill to the judgment of the people. But, my Lords the plainest man can read, surely, what has happened. I think the
212
last majority the Government had in favour of the Budget of last year was something like 300. How much of the Budget have His Majesty's Government dared to put before the House of Commons up to the present time? Is there one shred of that Bill that they dare bring before the House of Commons now without the certainty that it would be rejected absolutely, whatever part of it they might think of touching? When we hear of the friction between the two Houses, it really is not the friction between the Houses that is in question. The friction that has arisen is because your Lordships' House has interpreted the public mind against the Government of the day, and, therefore, it is not against the people that we have made our protest; it is not against the people that we have taken any action; but against the tyranny of a passing Government.
The Motion of the noble Earl that we are discussing to-night is as to whether we should go into Committee on the question of the reform of your Lordships' House. It appears to me that that Motion is a mere natural corollary to the Report of the Committee over which the noble Earl presided. I think we should certainly go into Committee upon that question. With respect to the Resolutions that the noble Earl has put upon the Paper, the first two are, I think, those with which the large majority of your Lordships' House would certainly concur. With regard to the third, that which lays down that a hereditary Peerage should not of itself give a right to sit and vote here, I am one of those who voted for that Resolution in the Committee and I am certainly in favour of it now. If you are going to do anything at all in the shape of House of Lords reform, whether it be great or whether it be small, you must in the first instance touch, in the way that the noble Earl suggests, the hereditary principle of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I trust that your Lordships will agree at all events to that. When we come to the wider questions that have been foreshadowed by the noble Earl as to outside elections I believe, as I have already said, that there is great difficulty in dealing with that question. I think it may be necessary and desirable to deal with it, but it requires to be dealt with with very great caution, for the reasons I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships to-night. Upon

213
that I shall hold my hand, and I hope all noble Lords will hold their hands also, until I see exactly what the proposals are, when I hope they will be dealt with generously, but wisely and with caution. The noble Viscount this evening took me to task because I had said—I do not know when or where, but I do not deny that I said it somewhere—
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I can give the noble Earl the reference if he desires it.
EARL CAWDOR: No, I do not deny it for a moment, because these are exactly my ideas. The noble Viscount said that I was in favour of reform, but I was not in favour of destruction. Then he put it that if I was in favour of the reforms foreshadowed I must be in favour of destruction, or, at all events, must see myself just on the brink. I do not see anything of the kind. I am in favour of reform, but I think that reform is exactly what may save you from destruction. I think that what you are going to get by reform is increased strength. I think you want more strength, although I do not for a moment admit the insufficiency or the inadequacy of the present House of Lords to carry on its work. But there is undoubtedly pressure from outside that some reform should be carried out, and I will tell noble Lords what I am in favour of, and what I am opposed to. I am in favour of reform, certainly not of destruction. I am in favour of increased strength to a limited extent, though I deprecate very much that the Second Chamber should be made too strong. What I do oppose, and I hope your Lordships will oppose it too with all your strength, is a sham Second Chamber of any kind. My Lords, that is the policy of His Majesty's Government—to pretend to the country that they have a Second Chamber, and to take away from that Second Chamber every vestige of its strength. If we come to a conflict in the country on that ground I think we shall contest it with every prospect of success, because if it is made clear that what is proposed is a sham and not a reality, I believe that the people of this country will refuse it almost with unanimity.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, the noble
214
Earl's first sentence in the particularly thoughtful speech with which he held the attention of your Lordships' House was that it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this discussion. I think with that every single person will agree. He then proceeded at once to fall foul of my noble friend on the Cross Benches with regard to some statements he made in his brilliant speech this afternoon, and that clearly shows how deep the cleavage must be amongst the would-be reformers of your Lordships' House. Then the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, went on to blame us because we would not join hands with him. I must respectfully ask him what are we to join hands with him about—to do what? Why should we join hands with him? To remove the deadlock? My noble friend Lord Morley, with unerring instinct, put his finger at once on the weak point in Lord Rosebery's great speech when he pointed out that there was not one single word in it, as far as I understood him, that in any way went to remove the deadlock between the two Houses—a deadlock which I believe both sides really deplore. Then the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, blamed us because we do not help him to remove the flaws in your Lordships' House—flaws which he was quite ready to admit. But I most respectfully ask the noble Earl if he will be graciously pleased to allow the Government of which I am a humble member to remove those flaws in their own way. All through the debate it has been shown that there are three distinct lines of thought on this great question. There is the programme of the Labour Party They go for complete abolition, and this pestilential attitude, if I may quote the words of my noble friend on the Cross Benches—
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Pestilential attitude?
EARL CARRINGTON: I understood the noble Earl to say that the suggestion of a single-Chamber Government was a pestilential proposal.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I thought the noble Earl meant that I had described the attitude of the Labour Party as a pestilential attitude. I am quite willing to say that the proposal of a single Chamber was a pestilential one, but I do not wish it to be understood that I described the attitude of the Labour Party in that way.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am sure the noble Earl would be the last person who would in any way accuse me of trying to misrepresent him. The attitude of the Labour Party, as I understand it, has one great virtue, that is its extreme simplicity, although it may not be very likely to recommend itself to your Lordships to-day. But the proposal of the Labour Party in the light of the past history of the attitude of your Lordships' House to the Labour Party is not altogether surprising. The second proposal is that of His Majesty's Government—the limitation of the Veto, as to which I need say nothing at the present moment. I believe that proposal was originally invented by Mr. John Bright. Of course your Lordships will not take the smallest notice of it, but I may remind the House that that proposal has been already carried in the Commons House of Parliament in a full House years ago.
Now we come to the proposal of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. The two first proposals that I have mentioned are intelligible enough, but I am bound to admit that the proposals of my noble friend on the Cross Benches are not quite so easy to understand, though we are told that they follow practically the recommendations of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which reported last year. That Report, as the House knows, stated that it was undesirable that the possession of a Peerage should of itself—and those, my Lords, are important words—give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. There were twenty-five members of that Select Committee, I believe, and seventeen out of those twenty-five voted on that recommendation and were unanimous with the single exception of Lord Halsbury. The fifteenth clause suggested that the representation of the hereditary Peerage was to be largely reduced, and under the twenty-fourth clause Peers with certain qualifications were to be entitled to sit as Lords of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Rosebery, in his great speech on the Budget last year, rather anticipated matters when he made what he called a practical suggestion of reform. It will be in your Lordships' memory what the noble Earl said. He said he meant no disrespect to the House—of course, nobody for one moment would accuse him of any disrespect to the House of which he is so conspicuous an ornament—in saying that
216
the names of some of us would not greatly count in a Division, but if you selected 150 Peers from the majority—and he paid a great compliment to noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, because he left his old friends entirely alone and spoke of the Conservative Party only—they would have infinitely more weight than the 400 or 500 names taken without any selection at all. That proposal was not received with any great enthusiasm. All the members of your Lordships' House, with the exception of 145, I think, voted. But that was the proposal of the noble Earl last year which is embodied in the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee.
I think even the opponents of the noble Earl's new scheme of reform must acknowledge that the Report of his Committee did contain two very noble ideals. In the first place, there is the suggestion of self-sacrifice on the part of your Lordships, and our old friend the survival of the fittest is also brought in—a principle which would, no doubt, give a spur and an incentive to every Peer to try to do the best he could to be worthy of and to win and to keep a seat in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Ribblesdale, who has left the House, quoted Latin. I now propose to quote Greek, because I think the suggestion of my noble friend on the Cross Benches harmonises with that glorious sentence that we knew so well in our younger days. I believe it was in Homer, and as far as I remember it is what Juno said to Achilles when he was starting life—

—namely, always to excel and be superior to others. Noble Lords treat that with a certain amount of merriment, and really, honestly, I am not surprised at it, because noble Lords opposite and the rank and file of your Lordships' House would say: "If you are born the son of a Peer, after all that is good fortune and that is good luck." There is not much difficulty, perhaps, about that. But if when you are born the son of a Peer you are supposed from that fact at once to be turned into a superior person or a super-man, that, I think, noble Lords opposite would agree, is a very different pair of shoes. Noble Lords are, I think, generally speaking, rather too modest a class of men. The

217
rank and file at least do not generally claim to be representatives of religion, science, art, learning, administrative experience, or to represent the greatest naval or military talent, but I think we can fairly claim that the great bulk of the members of your Lordships' House are all really well-educated men. They are all men with a great sense of honour and probity, and they all do their best to lead useful lives, and to do their duty in that state of life in which it has pleased God to place them.
May I give two instances to your Lordships as to how the difficulty in the way of the Rosebery proposals would work? I happen to have the great privilege of being connected, more or less remotely, with perhaps a score or so of families the heads of which are members of your Lordships' House, and amongst those there are men of great distinction. Two or three of them are Lords-Lieutenant. Most of them are magistrates—in fact, as they are all Conservatives I think all of them are magistrates. Two of them are representatives of the oldest Baronies of England, going back to the Henrys and Williams; many of them have fought with great distinction for their King and country; and one of my relatives is a member of the Church of England, and I am bound to say he is a very great success in his way. I went once some years ago to hear him preach in his church, but the place was so crowded that I could not get beyond the porch. Then, again, in the historic county of Bucks, in which I live, I am surrounded by Peers, and by many others who are dying to be made Peers. We have Peers of all sorts. We have artistic, journalistic, pugilistic, ritualistic, and socialistic Peers. By that I do not mean revolutionary Socialists, but men of the highest social standing, and all these members of your Lordships' House have the great characteristics which have made the English nation the undoubted success that it is in the world at present. Yet out of this great collection of worthy men I can only think of one, who is a distinguished Field-Marshal, who would be passed as sound into that august body which a great leader of your Lordships' House, whom I will not name, but who took a great interest in the reform of the House of Lords in 1888, somewhat cruelly called "a mere zoological collection of abstract celebrities."
218
My Lords, what under these proposals are you going to do? You are going to ask these men to put themselves voluntarily in the position of defeated candidates for the House of Commons; you are asking them voluntarily to bang, bolt, and bar the door of their hereditary House, not only against themselves but against their children and their children's children for all time. Now I can understand—I think anybody could understand—the House of Lords in its generosity making such a sacrifice, if all shared in the sacrifice alike. If you say that the hereditary principle is frankly to be abandoned, and that you are going to substitute an elective House instead, well and good. If you make that proposal you will have a great many people who will agree with you, and if you go north of the Trent I suppose seven or eight out of every ten men would be found heartily in favour of your proposal. But to say that the hereditary principle is to be partially maintained for the benefit of some Peers who—I am speaking with all respect—are not in every case necessarily wiser or better, or more informed or more loyal, or more patriotic, or more useful members of the community than the rest, seems to me—I may be wrong—a wholly unreasonable proposal and one which could not be fairly maintained for one single moment. It is no business of mine, but I do honestly think that if those who support the noble Earl on the Cross Benches try conclusions with Lord Halsbury, that veteran champion of the hereditary privileges of your Lordships' House, who is one of the most conspicuous ornaments of this House, and who, I may, perhaps, remind your Lordships, obtained his Peerage because of his intellectual eminence and not because of his being the son of his father, they will probably find themselves in a minority.
As I have already said, the noble Viscount behind me, with unerring instinct, put his finger on the one weak spot of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, when he pointed out that that speech contained no suggestion of relieving the deadlock which we regret to say exists between the two Houses, and which it seems to me is getting very serious indeed. There is no doubt that on this subject the temper of the nation is rising. Your own Press acknowledges that. All you have to do is to read Mr. Garvin's editorials in the Observer. He tells you, perhaps I might say with brutal frankness, that the existing state of things in the

219
Second Chamber is indefensible in theory and untenable in practice. I would, however, rather not use that somewhat vulgar bludgeon of Mr. Garvin's, I would prefer to use the still more deadly rapier thrust of my noble friend Lord Rosebery, who on March 17, 1894, said that what he complained of in the House of Lords was that during the tenure of one Government the House was a Second Chamber of an inexorable kind, while when another Government was in power it was not a Second Chamber at all. You have two Chambers under a Liberal Government, whereas under a Conservative Government you have a single Chamber. "Therefore, I say," said the noble Earl, "we are face to face with a great difficulty, a great danger, and a great peril to the State." My Lords, will the proposal of the noble Earl in any way remove or even diminish these perils, these dangers, and these difficulties? I do not believe it will. If I thought it would I should be the first to follow my noble friend into the Lobby, just the same as I did years ago. The question before the country at this present moment is whether the Liberal Party shall or shall not have a share equal to that of the Tory Party in the management of the country, and to that question I believe the whole Progressive Party in this country—in England, in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Wales—would say "Aye" The Liberal Party is pledged to destroy by law the Lords' Veto in financial matters only, and to limit it, with proper safeguards of course, in other matters. A noble Lord laughs, but that is not a new proposal. I think I might cite to him in support of it the words of Lord Granville, quoted by Lord Wemyss in his letter to The Times this morning—
"The powers of the Lords should be properly limited and controlled."
That was said thirty or forty years ago, and this, my Lords, I should think can be done by a very short measure, the main recommendations of which will, I believe, be in the near future laid before your Lordships' House.
In conclusion, all I have to say is that Lord Rosebery's proposals involve the very contentious subject which relates to the composition of this House, the most delicate and difficult of all constitutional tasks; but what we maintain is that the unfairness of the Party system which at present exists, under which the House of Lords has befriended so many Tory Bills and measures, and destroyed so many Liberal ones, must in some proper way no longer be allowed to
220
continue, but must be brought to an end, and to an end at once. That is the great question before us, and before the country. This question was precipitated, I believe, by the action that your Lordships thought fit to take—although I am the first to admit that the action you did take last year was actuated by the highest and purest and most patriotic motives—in refusing to grant Supplies to the Crown. The real question remains, and this is the great question that we have before us. It is a question which the whole Progressive Party are prepared to fight, and it is a question which the Liberal Government proposes to lead them in the fight upon, and to stand or to fall by the decision upon it. I have to thank the House very much for allowing me to make these remarks, and I would only add that my reason for interposing in this Debate was that I thought it would not be right if I could not give expression openly in your Lordships' House to the same arguments that I and many of those who think with me used throughout the country during the last Election.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I must confess that I regret that this discussion has taken place; in fact, so strongly do I feel on the subject that I have been tempted to place on the notice Paper an Amendment to the effect that "This House deems it desirable, before taking any steps in the matter of reform, to await the proposals as to its constitution and powers which are foreshadowed in the gracious Speech from the Throne." I have not moved this Amendment because I felt that any proposals made by the noble Earl, the only member of your Lordships' House who has occupied the high position of Prime Minister of this country, deserve to receive and would receive the careful consideration of moderate men in both political camps, and that it was therefore unbecoming of a member of the rank and file of your Lordships' House to move what amounted to a direct negative, unless he was assured of the support and approval of the Front Opposition Bench. But, my Lords, I think this need not prevent me from laying before your Lordships the reasons why I think that the Motion of the noble Earl is inopportune.
I am sure there is no member of your Lordships' House, at least on the Opposition side, who will not welcome any measure which may tend to strengthen this Chamber or add to its efficiency, but there is a time and season for everything, and

221
in my humble opinion this is not the time nor the season for your Lordships to enter into the question of the reform of this House. Let me review the situation, very briefly, for the facts are known to us all. Last year your Lordships thought fit to refer to the country the Budget of the year, not only because in your opinion it was a bad Budget and because it contained revolutionary proposals, but also because a large amount of matter extraneous to the finances for the existing year was attached to it which constituted a breach of the privileges of your Lordships' House. I was astonished to hear the Leader of the House, in the course of the debate the other day, say that he imagined the contention that there was tacking in that Bill had been dropped because the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition suggested that if the Budget ever came before this House again it would be passed into law. My Lords, as I understand the position of this House we are always ready to pass what the country desires, whether it should be a Bill which affects our privileges or not; but we do not acknowledge that the ephemeral majority in another place always represents the fixed determination of the country. At any rate, in this case we were amply justified by results, and your Lordships have been proved right because in the new House of Commons there is a considerable majority opposed to the Budget. As in 1893 you were acclaimed as the saviours of your country from disruption, so at the present time we may be congratulated as having saved the country from a system of taxation which must have wrought serious and lasting injury. Even the Government acknowledge that your Lordships have got the best of it, and state that they dare not enter into another contest with this House until they have succeeded, whether by constitutional or extra-constitutional means, in tying our hands behind our backs.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House told us the other night that a state of warfare existed between the two Houses, and that on their side hostilities had already begun. He explained how the Radical Party in the House of Commons as a means of defence had blown up their bridges and pulled up their lines of railway. In other words, they had put the country to large unnecessary expense by resorting to borrowing instead of collecting taxes which the taxpayers are only too ready to
222
pay and as to which there is no dispute, in order to secure a tactical advantage over this House. I should not complain if this kriegsspiel could be carried to its legitimate conclusion, and if in the event of your Lordships proving victorious a war indemnity could be demanded. I fear we shall be unable to recover from His Majesty's present advisers the vast expense to which they have put the country because they prefer to govern in the interests of a faction rather than for the welfare of the nation as a whole. Well, we have heard of the state of warfare that exists between the two Houses. The first steps in the hostilities have been taken, and ere long we may expect the first pitched battle to take place. Is this the time to take off our armour to see whether there are any rents in it or whether it requires repair? Is this the moment to parade our sick and inefficient soldiers? Take care lest while we are doing so the enemy fall upon us and we are completely routed. Is it not better to stick to the armour which we have and which has served us well in former battles, to try and persuade our sick and inefficient soldiers to be more valorous in the future, and, standing shoulder to shoulder strong in the consciousness of past victories, strong in the knowledge that we are fighting not for ourselves but for what we believe to be the interests of our country, defeat the enemy; and then when the fight is won, but not before, to set to work in the piping times of peace, and, if it is considered necessary, take whatever steps are desirable to reform this House, and, in the jargon of the day make it suitable to modern requirements. I know that this course does not recommend itself to the noble Earl on the Cross Benches.
The noble Earl, Lord Carrington, reminded us of the advice which Lord Rosebery gave to the House last year. Lord Rosebery came down in the midst of the battle on the Budget and advised the majority of your Lordships to pass a self-denying ordinance, to declare that in your opinion you were incompetent to take part in so vital an issue and to discharge the duties entrusted to you by the Constitution, and he counselled you to retire to the steps of the Throne, to be spectators of, but not participators in, the fateful Division on the Finance Bill. If that course appeared advisable to him then, I cannot be surprised that he should recommend another confession of your unworthiness

223
now. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the noble Earl, and nobody listens with greater delight than I do to his speeches, but I hope he will forgive me if I say that sometimes at the termination of them I am reminded of the old song—
"The King of France went up the hill with twenty thousand men,
The King of France came down the hill, but ne'er went up again,"
The noble Earl will, I hope, pardon me if I suggest that this is a course of action which has recommended itself to him on more than one occasion. May I ask noble Lords opposite if they remember being led up the Home Rule hill in 1893, although I am glad to say that the noble Earl has reached the level again, and does not propose to make any mountaineering feats in that direction.
Last year one of the most strenuous leaders of the anti-Budget fight was the noble Earl. The echoes of his speech at Glasgow reverberated to the utmost confines of the Kingdom. No more powerful or effective indictment of the policy of His Majesty's Government was made. I feel sure that many of your Lordships who up to then had not decided what your duty might be with regard to the action you would take in the matter, were decided by that speech that it was your duty, at all hazards, to deliver your country, if possible, from the peril with which it was threatened. Yet when the day of battle arrived the noble Earl was the first to come down to this House and deliver a most eloquent sermon to us for which he might have chosen for his text—
"He who fights and runs away
Shall live to fight another day."
And now, again, the noble Earl counsels us to take strong measures with regard to the reform of this House. Will the noble Earl forgive me if, with the recollection of his attitude on the Budget, I say I fear lest when the emasculating Resolutions of His Majesty's Government are produced, amended, perhaps, as has been suggested by Lord Ribblesdale, the noble Earl may tell us that the surest way of safety lies in accepting them.
My Lords, I, for one, cannot see what we can gain by entering into this question of reform at the present minute. We shall certainly gain no kudos in the matter, because we shall be told we refrained from doing so until the pistol was held to our heads. I do not see either that we shall
224
gain anything in the way of tactics. The Government have a very difficult game to play, and I would prefer to see their hand on the table before disclosing my own cards. Their policy, as I understand it, is divided into two parts: first, the Veto of the House of Lords; and, secondly, what may be relegated to the Greek Kalends, the question of reform. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has dealt so well with the first part of their programme that it is unnecessary for me to attempt to go over it again. The question of Veto has only to be submitted to the people of this country, and as soon as they realise that it means government by a single Chamber it is certain to be rejected. But if the Government attempt to deal with the second part, that of reform, their difficulties will be very great. If they try to create a strong Second Chamber, they will find themselves opposed by the vast majority of their supporters, and if, instead, they attempt to create what is only a sham Chamber they will, as the noble Earl told us, find it impossible to procure any self-respecting men who are willing to become members of it. In addition to this, they will have to deal with the question of hereditary rights, and it seems to me that that is a most difficult subject for any English Statesmen to deal with, for we must not forget that we, both Liberals and Conservatives, acknowledge one hereditary element which we all love and respect and which we regard as one of the most valued and valuable assets of the country. My Lords, it appears to me that it is not for the Opposition to present a constructive scheme. If we do so, our proposals will be attacked and our differences exposed and shown up, as has been done this afternoon by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India. It is for the Government to enunciate their policy, and when we have had it before us and examined it, and when we have criticised its weak points—which there will be no difficulty in doing—it will then be time enough for our leaders to put forward an alternative scheme of reasonable and reasoned reform to lay before the electors of the country.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I shall not detain your Lordships at any length, but as there is the opportunity I should like to avail myself of it to make one or two observations in reference to the important matter before the House. One of the observations I

225
should like to make is with reference to the question of qualification. The question has come very prominently before the country owing to the Return asked for by Lord Onslow, and it was generally understood that in the projected reconstitution of your Lordships' House by the noble Earl he would take that question into account. Without going into it in detail, I want to say on that that if the House is going to consider the question of qualifications it ought to remember that the present members of this House deserve very special treatment in the matter, because they are existing members of the House, with more or less vested rights and interests in it. Their qualifications may be great or they may be small, their public services may not be very conspicuous, the public may not be aware of what they have done, but the fact remains that a large number of the members of your Lordships' House have given a great deal of time and attention to their public duties and responsibilities, and have gone through a great deal of labour in qualifying themselves for fulfilling those duties and responsibilities as members of your Lordships' House, regulating their lives and their affairs in the past to that end.
I might even go further and say that owing to the very position which we have held in this House as Lords of Parliament we have been actually circumscribed and hampered in our ordinary interests and possible actions in life. If, therefore, qualifications are going to become important I do think that the personnel of this House as it exists to-day would be deserving of special consideration, and that vested rights and privileges, which are, after all, only the counterpart of vested duties and responsibilities, should be respected in any consideration of this matter. Therefore I hope, if the question of qualifications is gone into, a distinction will be drawn between the qualifications deemed necessary in the case of new members coming into this House, and the qualifications deemed sufficient in the case of members already existing in your Lordships' House. When the constitution of the French Senate, some twenty years or so ago, was changed from life members into members elected for each Parliament, the rights and privileges of the life members of the House were recognised, and they were left there. I think, my Lords, that if that were understood at all, it would mean that the full
226
rights and privileges of the existing members of the House would not be ignored, and it would avoid going into what, I think, would be very invidious and petty distinctions between one Lord and another.
I am sorry I have not heard more this afternoon in reference to the reconstructing of this House by the creation of life Peerages. As far as I have heard, there has been very little said on that subject. I, personally, attach very great importance to the strengthening of this House by means of life Peerages. I consider it an excellent plan to add to the House a number of men of high distinction in science, art, literature and medicine, and in the public services. If we do go into that question I should wish to stipulate that the life Peers should be chosen in such a way that they would be representative of all parts of the Kingdom. The noble Earl this afternoon referred to the possibility of an elected element in this House, and I understood him to say that he thought, just adumbrating it, that several of these members might be nominated or elected by county councils. Whatever we do, I hope we will not do that. I am, and have been for many years, a member of a county council, and my belief has always been that a county council was not a political body, that in being a county councillor I was standing upon non-political ground, that I would have no legislative powers on that council, and that I was merely as a resident and a ratepayer appealing to my friends to place me upon it to represent them in that way with regard to rates and local affairs. I therefore look on any proposal that would bring county councils within the political arena as one which would work very badly, both for the county councils themselves and for this House.
I, personally, would have no objection to seeing a portion of this House elected, and as I am addressing your Lordships I might say how I consider that element should be introduced into this House. I think there should be, somehow or other, some reflection of the House of Commons within these walls. But although I am in favour of an elected element coming in, I am far from wishing your Lordships' House to become a replica of the House of Commons. I think the advantage of having two Chambers is not merely that all legislation must pass the two Houses. The great advantage of two Chambers is that they are of different

227
origins, and different compositions, and different characters, and that they judge questions from different points of view. But while I feel that, nevertheless I do feel that there ought to be some reflection of the varying public opinion of the country in this House, and therefore I agree with what Mr. Balfour said the other day when he stated that there should be some direct and formal connection between public opinion and the Second Chamber. What I would like to see as a mode of reflecting that public opinion into this House would be that every House of Commons should have the power of electing sixty-seven members to this House; thus, every ten members of the House of Commons would have the power of electing one member, and therefore any candidate proposed would, after getting ten votes from the House of Commons, be thereupon declared a member of this House. That would mean an addition, if we take this particular Parliament, of sixty-seven elected members to your Lordships' House, representing all Parties in the House of Commons—Labour by four; Nationalists, eight; Irish Unionists, two; and the Liberal and Conservative Parties the rest between them. By that means you would bring into this House in the case of each Parliament some reflection of that Parliament. That is the way I would myself suggest that an elected element should be introduced into this House. I know it has often been said that that is an indirect way of introducing it, and that it is a disadvantage if you do it through the county councils—in other words, if you do it through a body elected for another purpose. That would be a great disadvantage. But in the House of Commons the members are elected for the purpose of representing
228
the political views of the time, and therefore their elected members in this House would be carrying out the direct work for which they themselves were originally elected.
My Lords, I have only one other observation to make, and that is with reference to the suggestion that one mode of re-constituting this House should be by selection amongst the Peers themselves from among their own number. I hope that course will not be adopted. If we had a very small body to choose from it would mean, I think, that the choosers would be a very small body also, and I do not believe it would work well. One of the great arguments in favour of the hereditary principle is that we are independent. We are dependent on no one's votes and no one's good will for being here. I therefore look upon any form of election of Peers by their fellow Peers as possessing all the disadvantages of the hereditary principle and of election, and I think it would simply introduce into this House more Party feeling, which is the thing we wish to keep out. This mode of election has not, I believe, worked very well in either Scotland or Ireland, not on account of the way it was exercised by the possessors of it but because of the inherent viciousness of the system.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next (The Lord Granard (E. Granard)). (No. 14.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.