Sitting of 3 April 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with)—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Hastings Corporation (Water and Finance) Bill [Lords].
Charles Shell's Charity Bill [Lords].
Swinton Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
London Cemetery Company Bill [Lords].
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Bicester Urban District Gas Bill,
Furness Railway Bill,
Manchester and Milford Railway Bill,
Marple Urban District Council Gas Bill,
Tamworth Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Luton Water Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Slough Urban District Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.

CIVIL SERVANTS.
Return ordered, "showing the total number of persons in the established Civil Service of the State on the 31st day of
1778
March, 1911, distinguishing those in each Department of the Civil Service and Revenue Departments, respectively (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 409, of Session 1902.)"—[Lord Charles Beresford.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Territorial Waters.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the limits in distance from the mainland of territorial waters claimed for fishery purposes by Norway, Russia, Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Portugal; whether all the sea between the most southernly of the Lofoden Islands and the mainland is claimed as territorial water by Norway; what was the approximate distance from that island to the mainland; whether the pearl fishery banks of Ceylon were claimed by Great Britain to be in territorial waters; and what is their greatest distance from the mainland of Ceylon?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Denmark, Germany, and Portugal maintain a territorial limit of three miles for fishery purposes. Russia is at the present time claiming twelve miles, while Norway and Spain have for some time past claimed four and six miles respectively. His Majesty's Government, however, have always declined to recognise these extensions of the generally accepted three-mile limit. Norway claims exclusive fishery rights in the Westfjord, which lies between the Lofoden Islands and the mainland, but no definite limit to the waters thus claimed appears ever to have been specified. The distance from the most southern of the Lofoden Islands to the mainland is about fifty miles. In 1869 His Majesty's Consul-General at Christiania was informed that His Majesty's Government could not recognise any right to exclude fishing, except within the limits adopted by the British, French, and German Governments. His Majesty's Government do not claim jurisdiction over the Ceylon pearl fisheries on the ground that they are situate within territorial waters, but because the beds are capable of being physically occupied in a manner analogous to the occupation of land; and, further, because from time immemorial, and, therefore, before the

  1779
  adoption of the present three-mile limit, they have been treated by the successive rulers of Ceylon as subjects of property and jurisdiction, and have been so regarded with the acquiescence of other nations.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is it a fact that along about one-half of the coast of Europe the three-mile limit is not accepted by the bordering State?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member would give me notice of that question.

  Declaration of London.
  Sir GEORGE KEMPasked whether, in view of the interest excited amongst the shipping and commercial community by the Declaration of London, and of the importance of a sound judgment being arrived at as to the advisability of the ratification by Parliament of the Declaration, he would cause a translation into English to be prepared of the Blue Book (Miscellaneous), No. 5, 1009 [Cd. 4555], being The Proceedings of the International Naval Conference held in London, December, 1908, to February, 1909, which volume is entirely in the French language?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is in accordance with precedent that the full reports of the proceedings of international conferences which are conducted in the French language are laid before Parliament in their original version. This was notably done in the case of the two Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. The principal papers respecting the work of the London Naval Conference have, however, been translated into English, and will be found included in the Blue Book (Miscellaneous) No. 4, 1909 [Cd. 4554]. As was stated in reply to a similar question in this House on June 23rd, 1908, to furnish a complete translation of all the protocols of such Conferences, with the papers annexed thereto, would involve considerable labour, and would require an addition to the staff of the Foreign Office, for which there does not seem to be any real occasion, in view of the fact that the principal papers have been translated.

  Canada and United States (Tariff Agreement).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether, in connection with the reciprocity negotiations between the United States and Canada, any instructions, whether verbal or
  1780
  written, were given to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington as to the course he should adopt to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom and the Empire in the United States' market; and whether any representations have been made to either of the negotiating Governments on behalf of these interests?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have nothing to add to the answers which have been repeatedly given to questions upon this subject.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly let me have some indication where they are to be found?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly I will.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the hon. Secretary let me have it now?
  Mr. MACMASTER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, when our Ambassador mentioned an offer of general reciprocity was made, His Majesty's Government took any steps to give instructions to our Ambassador as to what course he should pursue?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to that supplementary is the same as the answer to the original question.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether our Ambassador at Washington has reported to the Government whether our interests are affected by this reciprocity?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a question which has been repeatedly answered.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was aware of the appointment of an International Joint Commission, representing the Governments of the United States and Canada, for the settlement of boundary disputes; and if he would state the powers of this Commission and its bearing upon Imperial relations?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Boundary Waters Treaty of January 11th, 1909. The powers of the Commission are defined in Articles 8 to 12 of the Treaty, which was laid before Parliament in September, 1910. It is a treaty made between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government.

  Registration of Teachers.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Eduction whether he was aware that in November, 1909, a representative gathering of teachers of all kinds unanimously pressed for the registration of teachers; whether the ground in taking this action was to encourage the more adequate training of teachers, especially of secondary teachers; whether any notice of this demand had been taken by the Board of Education; and whether it was intended to reintroduce in any form the registration of teachers or to give encouragement to regular training of secondary teachers?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I am aware that at a meeting, such as my hon. Friend describes, resolutions in favour of the registration of teachers were passed. I do not understand that there was absolute unanimity as to the form the register should take or as to the constitution of the Teachers' Registration Council. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth part of the question, the Board have been discussing the question with representatives of various branches of the teaching profession, some important conferences having been held in the Board's offices in the last week or two which seemed to suggest the possibility that agreement on the outstanding points of difficulty may soon be reached. The Board already encourage, by the payment of grants, the training of teachers for secondary schools.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first register was destroyed by Oxford and Cambridge snobbishness?

  Elementary Schools (Inspectors).
  Mr. KINGasked how many inspectors of elementary schools, including assistant and sub-inspectors, but excluding inspectors of manual training, drawing, and music, have been appointed by the Board of Education during each of the past four years; how many in each case were graduates of Oxford or Cambridge; and how many had previous education of elementary schools as elementary teachers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total number of appointments of inspectors of elementary schools of all grades, excluding inspectors of manual training, drawing and music, appointed by the Board of Education
  1782
  during each of the past four years, with the further particulars asked for in the question, is shown in the following table:—

  Year.

  Number of Appointments.

  Number who were Graduates of Oxford or Cambridge.

  Number having experience in teaching in Elementary Schools.

  1907

  …

  9

  6

  6

  1908

  …

  13

  10

  5

  1909

  …

  13

  8

  8

  1910

  …

  21

  15

  16

  Totals

  …

  56

  39

  35

  Board of Education (Mr. Holmes's Circular).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has examined other circulars and memoranda which have been issued by permanent officials without his previous knowledge or consent; whether he has discovered any which are not in accord with the policy of the Board; if so, what was the nature of their contents; and will he cause them to be circulated to Members of this House?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have read some Memoranda which have been circulated among members of the staff of the Board without my previous knowledge. It is in accordance with my wish that educational subjects, on which there is wide divergence of view, should be freely discussed and inquiries made amongst the Board's officers under confidential conditions. Some of these Memoranda contain expressions of opinion which I do not share; but Memoranda conveying instructions or advice are in a different category. When instructions or advice are given they are given in unmistakable terms, and are not left to be gathered by inference. I am afraid I cannot undertake to ciruclate the Memoranda referred to above. I could not expect to get the free and helpful discussion I now get from members of my staff if their individual opinions, freely expressed in confidence, were to be subsequently published to the world at large.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are any similar documents to what is known as the Holmes's Circular in existence at the Board of Education which are not in accord with the policy of the President?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that question is the same as the one on the Paper which I have answered fully.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: May I ask if the reply is in the affirmative?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member had better wait until he gets a copy of my answer, and then he will understand it more clearly.
  Mr. BYLES: Is there no way of bringing the policy of the President into harmony with that of the Permanent Secretary?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The policy of the Permanent Secretary ought to be brought into harmony with that of the President.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Permanent Secretary should not give his sanction to the issue of circulars affecting appointments by local authorities until they have been first submitted to the President?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already answered many questions on this subject almost in the same terms as that put by the hon. Member. I cannot add anything to the answers I have already given.
  Captain KNIGHTasked whether there are any more private and confidential memoranda issued by his Department; and if he will specify those with which he does not agree?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Sunderland.

  Technical Schools.
  Mr. GRANTasked the right hon. Gentleman if it is his intention to extend the system of block grants now applied to schools of art to technical institutions of established reputation, with the view of relieving such institutions of a large amount of clerical work?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This matter is being carefully considered in connection with the revision of the regulations for technical schools.
  Captain CRAIGasked if the President will state the total number of actual students enrolled in the following technical schools, from the beginning of the Session in September or October up till the end of March, and the actual number of individual students in attendance during March: Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Sheffield.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the statistical returns for the schools in question will not be available until the Autumn.

  Secondary Schools (Teachers' Register).
  Mr. MOUNTasked whether in view of the anxiety of secondary teachers throughout the country for the reintroduction of a register of secondary teachers, the right hon. Gentleman can state what progress has been made in the setting up of such a register?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer I have already given to the hon. Member for North Somerset on this subject.

  Small Holdings and Allotments.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he could state the number of persons who have been supplied with allotments during the last five years, the approximate size of such allotments, and if the Board of Agriculture have advanced to such persons any money or material for the building of houses?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): 16,944 persons were supplied with allotments of land acquired by local authorities in England and Wales for the purpose in the three years 1908, 1909, 1910. The average size of the allotments was approximately one rood and nine perches. It is not possible to give similar information for the years 1906 and 1907. The Board have no power to advance money to allotment tenants for the building of houses.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Can the hon. Gentleman give me separately the number of allotments furnished in Scotland to the knowledge of his Department?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Is it not the case as stated in the papers that since the passing of the Agricultural holdings Act for England and Wales the number of small holdings is less now than it was before the passing of the Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That is so, but of course there are explanations of that which are too long to give now.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Will the hon. Baronet publish those explanations?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman would wait until there is an opportunity in debate of raising this question.
  Mr. MORRELLasked what is the total number of persons now in occupation of land let to them as small holdings by county councils under the Small Holdings Act, 1908; and what is the total acreage of such land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: On the 31st of December last 5,343 small-holders were in actual occupation of land let to them by county councils to the extent of 69,429 acres.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Baronet state when the other 1,000 applicants will be provided for?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I hope in due course.
  Mr. MORRELLasked how many of those who were approved by the county councils in 1908 as suitable applicants are still without land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have no information on this point. The men whose applications were approved in 1908 are not separately distinguished in the returns made by the county councils.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Baronet obtain information on this point?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will inquire.
  Mr. BARNSTONasked if the hon. Baronet can see his way to add the name of one practical tenant farmer to the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the position of tenant farmers on the occasion of the sale of their holdings?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The President regrets that he does not see his way further to enlarge this committee, which now consists of fourteen members. Mr. Colin Campbell, the president of the National Farmers' Union, who is a member of the committee, is himself a practical tenant farmer.
  Mr. BARNSTON: Is there anybody on the committee who represents the dairy farming industry from a dairy farmer's point of view?
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware of the practice of certain county councils on the receipt of applications for land under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, to put a representa-
  1786
  tive of the Commissioner of Canada in communication with the applicants in order to induce such men to emigrate; and whether he will take any steps to prevent the Act being carried out in this way?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with the names of the county councils to which he refers I will inquire into this alleged practice.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that it was done in Lincolnshire in the case of the Kesteven county council?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have already informed my hon. Friend I am not aware of the practice, but I will inquire into it.
  Mr. EDWARD STRAUSSasked what steps the President of the Board of Agriculture is taking to carry out the promise he made to secure the Idstone farm, Berkshire, for small holdings?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: My Noble Friend undertook to do his best to secure the farm in question for small holdings, but he is informed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they are advised that it is not suitable for this purpose, and for this and other reasons of a practical character, as also on account of the displacement of labour which would be entailed, they are not prepared to let it to the Small Holdings Association which desired to take it. The Commissioners are, however, very willing to do all that they can to meet the requirements of the local applicants. The Commissioners are the owners of other land in the neighbourhood which may be found suitable for subdivision, and arrangements will be made at an early date for conference on the spot between the representatives of the Commissioners, the Board and the local Small Holdings Society; and the President has every reason to hope that an arrangement satisfactory to all concerned will be arrived at.
  Mr. EDWARD STRAUSS: Would the hon. Baronet exert his influence with the Board to see the necessary steps are taken to prevent the owner letting the farm while negotiations are pending?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will represent that to the President of the Board.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can he tell me who it was advised the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, contrary to the opinion of the President of the Board of Agriculture, that this was not suitable for small holdings?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware.
  An HON. MEMBER: May I ask the hon. Baronet if he is aware that the county council have also considered the question whether this farm is suitable for small holdings, and have refused the application because they thought it undesirable?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the action of the Kesteven County Council in letting off the shooting rights over small holdings belonging to the council, without reference to the occupiers of the holdings and against their interests; whether he is aware that a memorial of protest, signed by fourteen of the small holders was disregarded by the council; whether any provision for letting the shooting rights in this way was included in the scheme submitted to the Board; and what is the policy of the Board in this matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir, but I am inquiring into the matter.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether any provision is made as to the question of shooting rights in the scheme submitted to the Board?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I would ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Outbreak in Surrey).
  Mr. STANIERasked whether any foreign hay, litter, or oats were used on the farms in Surrey where foot-and-mouth disease broke out; and, if so, from which country they came and whether they have been traced?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: A small quantity of Russian oats forming part of a cargo of over 10,000 quarters which left from Libau on 21st January last had been used for feeding the stock on Brooklands Farm. Inquiries have been instituted which showed that the cargo was very widely distributed in comparatively small quantities, and some of it is known to have been fed to cattle in the same neighbourhood as the infected place, but without any evil result. I should be glad to show to the hon. Member the reports which have been made by an inspector on the subject if he would care to see them.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give the number of cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Russia, Germany, and France during the year 1910, and also up to date during the present year?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The latest information with regard to Russia shows that in October last foot-and-mouth disease existed in 1,039 communes, and that many thousands of animals had been attacked. In Germany there were, in February last, 8,513 infected places, including premises in which the disease was suspected to exist, in 2,564 parishes. In France the official returns show that no case of the disease occurred in 1910, but we were informed last month that the disease existed in the arrondissement of Dieppe, and we have reason to believe that it has now made its appearance elsewhere. We are in communication with the French Ministry of Agriculture with a view to obtain further information on the subject.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Was the outbreak in France prior to the outbreak in Surrey?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: There is no connection traced between the two places.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in order to trace the cause of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey, in view of the germs of the disease being impossible, microscopically, to identify, hay, straw, chaff, and other feeding stuffs of foreign origin are being fed to healthy animals, or how otherwise, if at all, attempts are being made by the Board to find out the origin of the outbreak?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: In the opinion of the Board's veterinary advisers it would be extremely undesirable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. The fullest investigation whence feeding stuffs and fodder came from has been made.

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the hon. Baronet if he will say to what cause he attributes the increase in the number of outbreaks of swine fever during the current year, in spite of the existing stringent regulations of the Board and the continuing large expenditure of public money in carrying them out?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I should not like to express an opinion till I have had an opportunity of reading and considering the evidence and Report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever.

  Anthrax.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary if he will say to what cause he attributes the increase of anthrax among farm animals in Great Britain during the last two years and its occurrence in almost every part of the country, including many localities where it was previously quite unknown; and what proportion of the cases of death officially returned as due to anthrax have subsequently been proved to be due to some other cause?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The increase in the number of recorded eases of anthrax is probably due, speaking generally, to the fact that the existence of this disease is more frequently reported. It is not possible for me to give a full reply to the last part of the question except in considerable detail. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the Board's Annual Reports for the past two or three years.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not a fact that the statistics relating to anthrax are misleading owing to the fact that many of those cases are subsequently found not to be anthrax at all?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I should not like to commit myself to that.

  Bee Diseases.
  Captain BARINGasked whether the Board of Agriculture is fully equipped, both financially and scientifically, for conducting inquiries into the diseases affecting bees?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir.
  Captain BARINGasked whether the agricultural departments of several foreign governments have bee farms of their own for purposes of investigation and research; and whether he will consider the desirability of following their example?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Hungarian Government have a State Bee Farm which, however, has for its object instruction in bee-keeping rather than investigation and research. In Berlin the Imperial Biological Institute conducts investigations into bee diseases. I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Captain BARINGasked what immediate steps his Department is taking to collect further information on the Isle of Wight bee disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board's Inspectors are collecting very detailed information from bee-keepers as to all the various circumstances connected with outbreaks of the disease, and we are making arrangements for its further scientific investigation at Cambridge under the charge of Dr. Graham Smith.

  Water Roe in Sheep.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the disease called water roe in sheep, which occurred in France, is known to the Board; and whether it has occurred in this country?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Our veterinary officers cannot identify the disease by the designation given in the question. Perhaps the hon. Member would kindly give me the French equivalent or some further particulars respecting it.

  Rats (Extermination).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the expense and trouble now being given by local authorities to diminishing the prevalance of rats, the Board of Agriculture will issue a leaflet giving information as to the estimated effect on the prevalence of rats of the trapping of stoats and weasels; and will he cause such a leaflet to be issued to landowners, farmers, and game preservers in counties where trapping prevails?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board issued a leaflet in December last calling attention to the enormous damage done by rats, and urging upon farmers the necessity for their destruction. Nearly 50,000 copies of the leaflet have been circulated. It will shortly come forward for revision, when we shall be glad to consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. I will send him some copies of the existing leaflet.

  Copenhagen Fisheries Congress and Exhibition.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a fisheries congress and exhibition is to be held in Copenhagen in the summer of 1912, special prominence being given to the motor and oil-engine section; and whether he contemplates taking steps to ensure that the Britsh fishing industry in all its branches shall be represented, both in the exhibition and at the congress?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir; and we have brought the matter to the notice of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association and of the trade journals. We shall be glad to do what we can to carry out the suggestion made in the latter part of the question.

  Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Government gives a yearly Grant to the Agricultural Organisation Society; if so, what is the amount of that Grant; what are the terms on which it is given; has the Government representation on the board of the society; and, if so, who are the representatives?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have agreed to make a grant of £1,200 per annum for a period of three years from 1st April, 1909, provided that the income of the society subscriptions and donations in each year is not less than £1,200. In the event of the income of the society exceeding that sum, the grant is increased by a corresponding amount to a maximum of £1,600. The actual amount granted for 1910–11 was £1,491 8s. 4d. The conditions are too detailed to give in reply to a question, but I shall be happy to send a copy to the hon. Member. The Board nominate six members of the Committee of Management, who are at present as follows:—

  Mr. T. Baines,

  Mr. E. J. Cheney,

  Small Holdings Commissioners.

  Mr. C. Roden Buxton,

  Mr. J. C. Gray,

  Central Small Holdings Society.

  Mrs. Roland Wilkins,

  Mr. D. McInnes,

  Co-operative Union, Limited.

  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether, with a view to further assistance, the Government will make representations to the Development Fund Commissioners urging a Grant-in-Aid of this society and its admirable national work?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of that.

  Northumberland Fishery Committee.
  Mr. DAWESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture where the police or patrol boats employed by the Northumberland Fishery Committee are stationed; whether they have, on a single occasion within the last six months, been at sea for the purpose of
  1792
  detecting illegal trawling; and whether he will consider some more efficient manner of protecting the line fishermen?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Committee hire vessels and employ them as occasion arises. They do not possess any vessels of their own stationed at definite points. In 1910 vessels were hired on twenty-three different occasions for the purpose of detecting illegal trawling. We are in communication with the Committee on the subject, and I hope that it may be possible for us before very long to assist the Committee to make more efficient arrangements for the enforcement of the By-laws?

  Delivery of Letters (Caherciveen).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the late delivery of letters in Caherciveen in consequence of the un-punctuality of the train due in Caherciveen at 8.26 a.m.; and whether, in view of the fact that nearly four hours is allowed for the journey between Farranfore Junction and Caherciveen, a distance of thirty-eight miles, he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Frequent representations have been made to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the subject, and I am assured that at the present time there is a marked improvement in the time kept by the train. I shall continue to have the working of this service carefully watched.

  Post Office ("Premium Bonds").
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postal authorities refuse to allow newspapers containing records of premium bonds for redemption to pass through the post on the ground that the system of premium bonds amounts to a lottery; whether it has been explained to the Department that in nearly all instances the bonds which have been sold in this country bear interest and are sound investments, and that even where no interest is paid all genuine bonds must eventually be redeemed, the issue being thus wholly distinct from a lottery; and whether, in view of the hardship to many thousands of people in this country who have bought such bonds and who are now prevented from learning whether they are drawn for redemption or not, apart from any question of premiums, he can see his way to modify the restriction?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has been judicially held that the so-called "premium bonds" are within the Lottery Acts, and the procedure of the Post Office must follow the decision of the courts.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to apply the same principle to all bonds redeemable at a premium—for example, to the Brazilian Four per Cents, recently issued by the Rothschilds?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It depends entirely upon a legal decision given on the subject. The Postmaster-General cannot undertake himself to discriminate. It must follow the decisions of the courts.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not discriminating already?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; not further than the courts have gone, so far as I am aware.

  East Central Postal District (London).
  Mr. DAWESasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been called to the absences on account of illness amongst the female staff of the East Central district during the past twelve months; whether such sick absence is due to excessive pressure of work and inadequate staff to supply vacancies caused by annual leave and normal sick leave; and, if not, how he accounts for the sick absences?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been called to the amount of sick absence among the female counter clerks and telegraphists in the Eastern Central district. It is attributed to the concurrence of a variety of causes. It has undoubtedly thrown additional work on the remainder of the staff, and I think there is a case for increasing the number of established officers for substitution purposes. I am already in communication with the Treasury on the subject.
  Mr. DAWESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in the year 1907, several branches in the East Central district were visited by Mr. A. P. Vaughan, a Home Office factory inspector, in consequence of complaints made that basements were being used for the meals of the staff and for rest purposes; that the inspector recommended that the use of basements for such purposes should be
  1794
  discontinued; whether underground rooms are still used for the same purposes at the Aldermanbury, Gracechurch Street, Great Tower Street, and Ludgate Circus branches; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps to give effect to the inspector's recommendation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the case that at the offices mentioned the basements are used for dining and retiring rooms. The Report mentioned in the question, which followed an inspection made at the request of my predecessor, recommended the disuse of basements, but recognised that this might be a counsel of perfection, and suggested that if it proved to be impracticable, electric fans should be introduced. I much regret that the accommodation available does not allow a change which is doubtless desirable, but the electric fans have been installed at three of the offices mentioned, and one is about to be installed at the fourth.

  Athey Urban Council (Telephone Service).
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that more than two years ago the Athey Urban Council, county Kildare, signed an agreement with the postal authorities for the installation of the telephone system; can he say what are the reasons for this prolonged delay; and whether he can state approximately the date on which the wants of the public in this matter will be complied with?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret that I have not been in a position to accept the offer of the Athey Urban Council to guarantee the extension of the telephone system to that town. I am, however, in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

  Wick Post Office.
  Mr. MUNROasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that inconvenience and loss have been caused to the commercial community in Wick by the recent restriction of the hours during which postal and telegraphic business can be transacted; that the Wick Chamber of Commerce have memoralised the Secretary of State on the subject; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the desirability of extending the hours of business in the Wick post office, at any rate during the summer months?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Reports have been furnished to me on the subject, but I am not, so far, satisfied that any real inconvenience has resulted from the changes made about twelve months ago in the hours of business at the Wick post office, and I should not feel justified in extending them on the information at present in my possession. In a recent memorial received by the Secretary for Scotland the Wick Chamber of Commerce ask for further telephone and telegraph facilities, and I am making inquiries in the matter.

  Continental Telegraphic Communication.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General if he has considered a resolution passed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce on the 16th instant urging him to adopt, in connection with Continental telegraphy, a system of urgent telegrams for extra payment; whether he will inform the House what steps have been taken since June, 1909, to improve telegraphic communication with the principal commercial centres of the Continent; what further steps he now proposes to take; and whether he will adopt the system of urgent telegrams advocated in the resolution?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will give full consideration to the resolution in question, which as yet I have only seen in the public Press. Since June, 1909, multiplex apparatus similar to that previously in use in the French and Swiss circuits has been introduced into the Netherlands circuits; and experiments are in progress with a view to a further extension in the use of such apparatus, especially over the longer cables between England and Germany. This presents certain technical difficulties, which my officers are endeavouring to surmount in concert with the officers of the German administration. The question of giving additional facilities for urgent telegrams in return for extra payments has been for some time under my consideration. Difficulties arise through the necessity of avoiding the imposition of delay on other telegrams paid for at existing rates. But the proposal will not be lost sight of.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that at the present time it is possible to telegraph to New York from Liverpool and get an answer within three or four minutes, whereas it takes four hours to telegraph one way from London to Marseilles; and that from
  1796
  Havre you can telegraph to London viâ New York, in ten minutes, while it takes one and a-half hours to send from London to Havre by direct route?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not prepared to accept the figures without investigation; but I know it is the case that during the hours when the London and New York Stock Exchanges are not open at the same time it is very easy to get extraordinarily rapid communication between Europe and New York and back again.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that telegrams to the Cotton Exchange at Liverpool go backwards and forwards within three minutes at the opening of the New York market?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am very glad indeed that should be so.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know——
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are other ways of imparting information to the Postmaster-General.

  Municipal Tramways (Speed Limits).
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any power to regulate the speed of tramway cars in municipal areas; can he insist on such speed being reduced to ten miles per hour; is he aware that municipalities refrain from applying for the ten miles limit within their area because such limit would interfere with the speed of the municipal tramway cars; and will he introduce legislation dealing with this matter, in view of the number of accidents in large cities due to the speed of vehicles?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Board of Trade have power to fix the speed limits to be observed by tramway cars, and the matter is dealt with in the regulations made by the Board after inspection of the routes. The limits vary on different tramway systems, and on different sections of the same system, according to the gradients and curves on the lines and the local conditions generally, and I do not think that it would be in the public interests to fix a hard and fast limit of ten miles an hour. The question of the limitation of the speed of motor-cars is not governed by the speed limits fixed for tramcars, and comes within the province

  1797
  of my right hon. Friend, the President of the Local Government Board.

  Caherciveen Train Delays.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the failure of the morning train, due at Caherciveen at 8.26 a.m., to run up to the scheduled time on several occasions during the month of March; is this due to the want of sufficient employés between Farranfore and Caherciveen or to lack of supervision; and will steps be taken to secure punctuality in the future?
  Mr. BUXTON: The railway company inform me that since the 20th March the times of running of this train have been altered, and that it is now due at Caherciveen at 9.15 a.m., and has arrived punctually at that time since the alteration was made.

  Coronation.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked whether, in view of the fact that the Coronation day and the day following will be public holidays in the county of London, it is intended that the workpeople employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard, Enfield Small Arms Factory, Pimlico Clothing Factory, Woolwich Arsenal, Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Factory, and West India Dock Naval Store shall be granted and be paid for such holidays?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The question should be addressed to the representatives of the War Office and Admiralty, which are the Departments concerned.
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the payment of an allowance towards the cost of entertaining distinguished visitors attending the Coronation incurred by naval commanders-in-chief and general officers in command of districts?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am informed that no applications on the subject have been received from naval commanders - in - chief nor from general officers commanding. If commanding officers have to entertain there are funds provided for the purpose. If these should be regarded as insufficient in any instance the case can be considered.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether that answer will be brought to the notice of the naval commanders-in-chief and others concerned?
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked, having regard to the proposal of the Government as to the duration of the Coronation holidays, that it was proposed to make two days' holiday apply merely to the county of London, he will state if the Royal Proclamation is rightly worded in stating that 22nd and 23rd June shall be both public holidays under the provisions of the Bank Holiday Act throughout the Kingdom; and, if so, why this alteration was made in the original proposal?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised that the legal effect of the Proclamation is in accord with the announcement made—namely, that Thursday, 22nd June, will be observed as a bank holiday throughout the United Kingdom, including London, and Friday, the 23rd, as a bank holiday within the administrative county of London alone.

  House of Lords (Judicial Powers).
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether there is any proposal to abolish or diminish the powers of the highest appellate court, commonly called the House of Lords, in view of Mr. Justice Avory's remark at the conclusion of the election libel action brought by the hon. Member for the Skipton Division of Yorkshire, that he might go to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords, if there is one; and whether, in view of the confusion in the minds of electors between the House of Lords in its legislative and judicial capacity, colour to which is now given on the high authority of one of His Majesty's judges, ho will consider the advisability of designating the House of Lords in its judicial capacity by some other title?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed by the learned judge (as is indeed obvious) that the observation referred to was made in a spirit of pleasantry and was only intended for counsel to whom it was addressed. I see no evidence of such confusion in the mind of the electors as the hon. Member attributes to them.
  Mr. PETO: Is there any objection to reconsidering the question of combining the functions of the Privy Council with the judicial functions of the House of Lords?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it not a fact that in reference to the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, provided three members of the judicial bench are present, the sitting of that House of Lords is a

  1799
  sitting of the House of Lords itself, and that any Member, whether he be a lay Member or not, is perfectly entitled, so far as the law is concerned, to take part in the Sitting.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that considerable confusion has been deliberately instilled into the minds of the people in this regard, especially in respect of the Osborne Judgment.
  The PRIME MINISTER,No, Sir.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it not the fact that the forms of the House of Lords in giving judgment are exactly the same as the forms of the House of Lords in ordinary procedure, and that so far as the law is concerned any Peer twenty-one years of age can take part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] No, it is not agreed.

  St. James's Park.
  Mr. MARTINasked whether the Government have practically consented to the changes in St. James's Park proposed by the King Edward Memorial Committee, inasmuch as the First Commissioner of Works was a member of the sub-committee which unanimously recommended the proposed changes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The sub-committee in question is, as I understand, composed of subscribers to the memorial, and the Government are in no way responsible for any recommendations it may make.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether, in view of the regret at the diminution in the size of St. James's Park due to the formation of the Processional Way, the Government will consider the advisability of reducing its width and restoring a portion of it to St. James's Park?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The Mall affords a great opportunity to people to witness processions, and the First Commissioner does not think it would be in the public interest to remodel it at great expense. He regrets, therefore, that he is unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the regret that, before the curtailment of St. James's Park and Green Park in connection with the Queen Victoria Memorial took place, the House of Commons was not afforded
  1800
  any opportunity of expressing its opinion, he will give an assurance that no alteration of the existing plan of any national park shall in future be undertaken without submission to the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I am informed that the plans for the Queen Victoria Memorial and the Mall Extension were exhibited in the Tea Room some time before work was begun upon them, and the sum necessary for the construction of the new Mall was voted by Parliament. I cannot give an undertaking in such wide terms as are suggested in the second part of the question, but I do not think that serious or substantial changes in the parks should be undertaken without notice to the House of Commons.
  Major WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the opposition to the full details of the King Edward VII. Memorial scheme in St. James's Park, he will consider the advisability of devoting a considerable portion of the funds available to improving and beautifying Victoria Park or other open space in East London, so that the poorer subjects of His late Majesty may obtain some benefit from the memorial scheme?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The funds in question are entirely raised by voluntary contribution, and the Government have no voice whatever as to their application, except in so far as public interests are involved in the execution of a memorial scheme.

  Labour Day Celebrations.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether, in view of the fact that organised labour in this country is in favour of 1st May being celebrated as Labour Day, His Majesty's Government can see its way to concede a holiday to as many as possible of the workpeople in all departments on that day without loss of pay?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; His Majesty's Government cannot see their way to adopting this suggestion.

  Parliamentary Franchise (Royal Navy).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce a Bill providing facilities for officers and men in the Royal Navy to exercise their Parliamentary franchise when on duty at sea?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to promise such legislation.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the disabilities under which these officers and men are?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  Parliament Bill.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, by the order and tradition of Parliament, it is not possible to amend or omit any of the enacting words which have for so many centuries been included in every Act of Parliament; whether, as a consequence of the passing of the Parliament Bill, there may in future be Acts of the greatest constitutional importance which will contain these enacting words, although it will be an accepted fact that they have not had the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal; whether he has considered the legal effect of the inclusion of such a mis-statement of fact upon the interpretation of such Acts judicially; and whether he proposes to take legislative action so as to secure that, when Acts are passed under the provisions of the Parliament Bill, the enacting words shall clearly indicate that such Acts are the legislative product of a Single Chamber?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is clearly possible to amend or omit enacting words with the sanction of Parliament. The only question is in what manner that sanction should be expressed. Whether the sanction should be expressed by means of legislative enactment or not can be and is raised by Amendments to the Parliament Bill.
  Mr. L. HARDY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is possible to alter the enacting words of any particular Act without general legislation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. I said with the sanction of Parliament.
  Mr. CASSELasked whether the sanction of the Crown was obtained for the introduction of the Parliament Bill, having regard to the fact that it contains in the Preamble a statement that it is the intention of Parliament to curtail the Prerogatives of the Crown; if so, when was such sanction obtained; and, if not, whether it will be in accordance with constitutional precedents and principles to proceed further with the Bill without such sanction?
  Mr. MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask him whether he is aware that there is no precedent for the adoption of his suggestion embodied in the question, or whether it is not the fact that the Preamble of a Bill cannot restrict or extend the granting part when the language in such other Act are not open to doubt, and that when the Preamble is more extensive than the granting part it cannot curtail the effect of that part when otherwise free from doubt.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the law. The assent of the Crown to the discussion in Parliament of measures which would affect its Prerogative can, in the case of a Government Bill, be given at any stage in its progress by the Minister in charge. The practice, so far as I know, only applies where the operative Clauses of the Bill would, if carried, affect the Prerogative. It has, therefore, no application to the Parliament Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the fact that the Preamble of the Parliament Bill commits Parliament to an expression of intention, and whether, apart from the Preamble, it is not the fact that the operative part of the Bill limits the Royal Prerogative by limiting the rights attached to a writ of summons to the House of Lords which is part of the Royal Prerogative?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer himself, must be familiar with the distinction between the recitals and the operative clauses of a Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the supplementary question, whether the operative part of the Bill apart from the Preamble does limit the Royal Prerogative by limiting the rights attached to a whit of summons to the House of Lords which is part of the Royal Prerogative?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My answer is in the negative.

  Board of Agriculture (Fishery Advisory Committee).
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the facts that the Development Commissioners have appointed a committee to advise on fishery questions; that

  1803
  the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries considered that its constitution gave no adequate representation to English and Welsh fishery interests, and made representations to the Development Commissioners accordingly; that the Development Commissioners have given no effect to these representations; and whether he will take steps to see that the expressed views of the Government Department in charge of English and Welsh fishery matters carry their proper weight with other Departments of the Government where fishery interests are concerned?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have considered the matter, and see no ground for interfering with the action taken by the Development Commission in the exercise of the discretion allowed to them.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in reference to the first part of the question, a difference exists in fishery matters between the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Development Commissioners.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have not brought that question to my notice.
  Major WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he will endeavour to secure that England may obtain from the Development Fund a suitable grant for fishery development and may be treated with the same generosity as has been extended to Scotland and Ireland in respect of grants for this purpose?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Development Commissioners do not intend to make any attempt to adopt any proportionate basis of distribution of their funds between the various parts of the United Kingdom, but are simply dealing with applications on their merits. Applications for grants for fishery purposes will be carefully considered from whatever part of the kingdom they may be received. I understand that no application from England for fishery development has yet been received by the Commissioners.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lancashire Committee absolutely deny that they have applied?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They have applied for representation on the Advisory Committee, but I have no information that they have applied for a grant.

  House of Commons (Payment of Members).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, before the actual amount of salary to be paid to Members of this House is definitely settled, he will consider the proposal that the salary paid shall be graduated in accordance with the number of electors that each Member represents in Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All relevant considerations will be duly taken into account, but among them I cannot include the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider graduation according to length of service?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it proposed to add to the salaries of Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, or will the salaries allotted to Members be deducted from their salaries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: When the proposal is produced the hon. Member will be able to form his own opinion.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of that answer, when we are going to be paid—when?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must give the same answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. MARTIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the amount paid to the Members of Parliament in the United States with a view to having all classes of the community represented in this House without any loss to individuals?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said that all relevant considerations will be considered.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman send us something on account at once?

  House of Commons (All-Night Sittings).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that in order to assimilate an all-night sitting to a normal sitting it is considered advisable to deduct eight hours out of eleven occupied beyond the regular limit of a Parliamentary day, he will make arrangements to avoid the recurrence of such conditions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot admit the assumption which underlies the hon.

  1805
  Member's question. The deduction which for the purposes of the argument I made the other day was, as I stated at the time, one of extravagant generosity.

  Scottish Small Landholders Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the continued emigration of the rural population of Scotland, which the Scottish Small Landholders Bill was designed to check, and which passed through the House of Commons during two Sessions of Parliament and was rejected by the House of Lords; and whether, as this Bill has been twice submitted to and approved by the electors of Scotland, he will give special facilities for passing this Bill through the present Parliament?
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Peebles and Selkirk (Mr. Donald Maclean) has obtained first place on Friday, 2nd June, and has given notice of a Scottish Small Landholders Bill in the same terms in which it has twice been passed through this House; and whether, if that is so, he can give facilities to give effect to the Second Reading of this Bill?
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his assurance as regards the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, given at the border meeting at Earlston, he can see his way to reintroduce the said Bill at an early opportunity?
  Major M'MICKINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the amount of emigration from the rural districts in Scotland, and of the fact that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, designed to counteract this tendency, passed through the House of Commons in two successive Sessions, he will grant special facilities for the passage of this measure during the present Parliament?
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the feeling in Scotland with regard to the necessity of passing the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill; and whether he will give special facilities for passing this Bill into law so soon as the Parliament Bill has become law?
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill has been twice passed through the House of Commons and has been before the people of Scotland and endorsed by them at two
  1806
  General Elections, he will give an assurance that the wishes of the people of Scotland so emphatically expressed shall not be set aside, but shall be pressed forward so that they may be passed into law at the earliest possible opportunity within the lifetime of the present Parliament?
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Scottish Small Landholders Bill, which was twice rejected by the House of Lords, is the measure of land reform which has the approval of a large majority of the Scottish people; and whether he will use every endeavour to introduce that Bill, and make progress with the discussion of it, at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. FALCONERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that suggestions have been made in favour of the postponement of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill until after the passing of a Home Rule Bill for Scotland; that this suggestion has caused apprehension in the minds of the people of Scotland, who are deeply interested in land reform; and whether he will give an assurance that the Small Landholders Bill of the Government will be proceeded with at the earliest possible opportunity, and will not be postponed as suggested?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The pressing importance of this subject, which is alluded to by my hon. Friends is, I believe, admitted on all hands. I repeat the assurance I have already given that the Government are fully alive to the urgency of this matter, and that they have every hope that the necessary legislation will pass into law during the present Parliament. I have publicly intimated at Earlston and elsewhere that they are willing to consider any amendments from any quarter not inconsistent with the general principles of our Bill.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Has it been brought to his notice that this side of the House is perfectly ready to discuss this subject in a friendly way?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.

  Financial Relations Committee.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the names of the financial experts and other well-qualified persons, including in the number representatives of different sections of Irish opinion whom the Cabinet have taken into consultation in connection with the financial relations between Great

  1807
  Britain and Ireland; will those Gentlemen sit with the Committee of the Cabinet or as a separate Departmental Committee; will they take evidence and make a formal report; if so, will the nature of the evidence be made public, and for what period of time it is estimated their investigation will last; will they proceed on the basis of the Report of the Childers Royal Commission of 1894; and, if not, upon what other basis?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present able to give the names or the particulars for which the hon. Member asks.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that the Chief Secretary has publicly announced that on the result of this inquiry will depend whether we shall have Home Rule, and that he himself apprehends that it will be a very tight fit, and whether, in view of the importance of this investigation the Irish people will be left in total ignorance of who the men are who will decide their fate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: They will not decide their fate at all. This is information which is required for the guidance and information of the Government.
  Mr. MALCOLM: What is the reason for secrecy as applied to these financial experts?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no secrecy whatever. I am going to give their names as soon as practicable.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Have the names of the financial experts been confided to the two Nationalist Members who have gone on a begging expedition to Australia?
  An HON. MEMBER: When may we expect the announcement of the names to be made?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope very soon.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the announcement be made before Easter?

  Irish Estimates.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether no Irish Vote has been put down during the present Session which would make it possible to discuss the practical cessation of land purchase or the charge of partiality in the administration of justice preferred against the
  1808
  Irish Government in connection with the Bantry and Crossmolina riots; and whether he will arrange that the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, or some other appropriate Irish Vote, shall be taken on Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that Friday would be a convenient day for the purpose. We shall take Irish Estimates later in the Session on a day which is convenient to all parties.

  Alteration of Load Line.
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of seamen who have been drowned by being washed overboard and the number of ships which have foundered each year since the alteration of the load line; and also the numbers of men and ships drowned and foundered, respectively, for each year during the same period before the alteration of the load line?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will give the particulars asked for in a printed answer as they are too voluminous for a verbal answer. But I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to learn that the figures are most satisfactory, and that the comparison of the two periods he asks for shows a substantial diminution in loss of life. The number of masters and seamen reported as having been drowned by being washed overboard, during the four years previous to the alteration of the load line, namely, 1903–1906 inclusive, was 257. The corresponding figure for the four years 1907–1910 inclusive was only 163. The number of vessels lost in the respective periods was 201 before the alteration, and only 144 since the alteration.

  Pomona Haulage Company, Limited.
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the compulsory winding up of the Pomona Haulage Company, Limited; whether the Co-operative Banking and Investment Society, Limited, and other similar societies, all registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, are or were ventures of a similar character run by the same individuals; whether he is aware that in December, 1909, the attention of the Chief Registrar was called to the matter at a time when at least one of their ventures was in liquidation; will he state what action the Chief Registrar took in the matter; and whether full inquiry will be

  1809
  made into the operations of the persons who trade as the Pomona Haulage Compay, Limited?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have ascertained that a company called the Pomona Haulage Company, Limited, was ordered to be compulsorily wound up at Manchester on the 15th March. A full inquiry is always made into the affairs of every company ordered by the court to be wound up compulsorily, and an inquiry will be made in the ordinary course into the affairs of the Pomona Haulage Company, Limited. The rest of the question relates to societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. These societies are outside the province of the Board of Trade, and the part of my hon. Friend's question which relates to them should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  Port of London Authority (Dock Labourers).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, in connection with employment at the London Docks, shipowners and others are constantly breaking the agreement made between employers and workmen after the great dock strike, relating to fixed hours for taking on men and for minimum periods; and whether the Port of London Authority will issue regulations insisting that the terms of that agreement must be adhered to, especially those relating to taking men on at fixed hours—namely, 7 and 8 a.m. and 1 and 6 p.m., with a minimum of four hours' employment?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible to this House for the Port of London Authority, and ought a question to be addressed to him in respect of it, and what control has he over the Port of London Authority?
  Mr. BUXTON: When questions of this sort are put to me I communicate with the Port Authority in regard to the matter. I have no information which would lead me to confirm the view expressed in the first part of the question. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the whole question of casual labour at the docks is at present engaging the attention of the Port of London authority.

  Mercantile Marine (Foreign Seamen).
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked what is the number of men of foreign
  1810
  nationality serving in the British mercantile marine; and what proportion they bear to men of British or Colonial birth?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is not possible to state definitely the number of men of foreign nationality now serving in the British mercantile marine. The figures showing the number of persons employed in vessels belonging to the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, and Channel Islands during 1909, published in the Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping (Cd. 5292) for that year are the latest available. These are as follows:—

  British

  …

  …

  …

  198,474

  Foreign

  …

  …

  …

  31,873

  The proportion of foreign seamen was 16.06 to every 100 of British nationality, the lowest percentage reached since 1893. These figures are exclusive of lascars and Asiatics, of whom a large proportion are British subjects. Detailed figures with regard to these are not available.

  Labour Exchanges (Staff).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether the staff of the Labour Exchanges has been filled by patronage or by open competition; and whether there are a number of redundant clerks available who, having passed the Civil Service examination, would be better qualified to deal with the work of a new Government Department than persons appointed merely through patronage?
  Mr. BUXTON: When the Labour Exchange Act came into force it was necessary, in view of the special nature of the duties to be performed, to obtain the services, as far as possible, of those who would be likely to be conversant with the work required of them. The Labour Exchange staff was not, therefore, recruited by competitive examination, but the great majority of the higher appointments were originally filled on the recommendation of a committee presided over by the First Civil Service Commissioner. In view of the special nature of the duties, I do not think that it would be desirable to limit the appointment of Labour Exchange officers to persons chosen by competitive examination; but I need hardly say that any applications from those who have passed the Civil Service examination would be carefully considered. I am at the present moment considering what improvements can be effected in the methods by which appointments are made in this service.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, subject to what he has said, that preference ought to be given to those who have passed through a Civil Service examination, and more especially to those who have been squeezed out of other offices through re-organisation, having taken place in those offices?
  Mr. BUXTON: I think that in some cases the work is not suitable for those who, in the ordinary course, are called Civil servants, but I am giving the matter my consideration. I desire, certainly, as far as possible, to utilise their service. As regards the last part of the question, it depends, of course, on the circumstances under which a particular officer may have been squeezed out, whether his application will be favourably or unfavourably considered.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How many of these officials were appointed on the personal recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have already pointed out that the great majority of the higher appointments were originally filled on the recommendation of the committee presided over by the First Civil Service Commissioner.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Could we not revert as quickly as possible to the good old Liberal practice of open competition and do away with these bureaucratic nominations?
  Mr. WATT: Will the nominees of the Labour party get preference, as in the days of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor?

  United States (Cost of Living).
  Mr. REMNANTasked whether the Report on the cost of living in the United States will be published before Easter; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay in publishing this Report, which, on the 16th March, 1910, he promised would be ready for issue last autumn?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Report referred to by the hon. Member is now in the Press, and will, I hope, be issued before Easter.

  Trade Unions (Unemployment and Sick Pay).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the reports of the Registrar-General
  1812
  show that 100 trade unions have paid out to their members during ten years, for unemployment, £4,018,176; for sickness and accident, £3,424,376; for superannuation, £2,363,254; for death, £954,007; and whether he has any means of deciding the amount of similar benefits paid by the remaining 1,073 trade unions not dealt with in the report?
  Mr. BUXTON: The figures referred to by my hon. Friend are based on a Report issued by the Board of Trade on Trade Unions in 1909. They relate to 100 principal trade unions, and represent the great bulk of the expenditure of all trade unions on these benefits. I will, however, consider whether similar information could be furnished as regards the other trade unions.

  Food Prices (Germany).
  Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the authoritative estimates based on official German returns showing that in the past five years food prices in Germany had increased by 13.6 per cent. and miners' wages by 20 per cent. over the preceding five years; and whether he will bring up to date the information on these matters contained in the Report on the Cost of Living in German Towns?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am not aware of any authoritative comparisons of the relative rise in the wages of German miners and of food prices. Many unofficial statistics of the kind quoted by the hon. Member are published from time to time in connection with current controversies in Germany as to the effect of the rise in prices on the purchasing power of the working classes in that country. The Report on Cost of Living in German Towns dealt with the facts at a given date. The information was obtained by personal inquiries in Germany, which occupied a very considerable time and involved great labour and expense. In order to bring the figures up to date similar prolonged and costly inquiries would be necessary, and the Board of Trade cannot, I fear, at present undertake this work.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why miners' wages have been increased in Germany to the extent of 20 per cent. is because they have powerful trade unions?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is highly probable.

  Accidents (Great Central and Metropolitan Joint Lines).
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the Great Central and Metropolitan Joint lines, near Northwood, an engine driver, named Huckell, was severely burnt on the 27th instant; whether he is aware that with the same class of engine two men have been killed and two men maimed for life from the same cause; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will prevent these engines doing further work until a full inquiry is made into the causes of these accidents?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have ordered an inquiry into the causes of this accident.
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman prevent this class of engine going out pending the inquiry, having regard to the fact that two men have been killed and two maimed for life arising out of the same cause?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have considered that point carefully, and I am informed that I have no power to make such an order, but I will communicate with the company in regard to the matter generally.

  Railway Companies (Income Tax).
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain the action of the Inland Revenue in sending round to the offices of the railway companies and suggesting that that portion of the Income Tax due by them in March should not be paid, but held over until April?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I much regret that owing to the mistake of a subordinate officer certain railway companies which are usually asked to pay on 30th March taxes not due under the Special Taxes Management Act until 20th March were this year asked to defer payment till April. The instructions to the chairman of the Board were to receive payment on 30th March.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Treasury in suggesting to the taxpayers that they should delay their payment of Income Tax and thus break the law.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite see where the urgency comes in.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The urgency is that by this action money which should have been received this year and used for the Old Sinking Fund is diverted into next year. It is urgent, I submit, that the taxes should be collected at the proper time. Every day that goes by delays the collection.
  Mr. SPEAKER: But the end of the financial year has passed. I do not see that any action which the House could take could go back on that. Supposing the House were to adjourn to-day in consequence of the hon. Baronet's Motion, how would that affect the matter? This is altogether new to me, and that is why I am asking for information.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It would compel that part of the Income Tax which has not been collected to be collected.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Even then it could not be paid in before 31st March.

  Lady in House of Commons Crypt.
  Dr. ESMONDE: May I ask the hon. Member for Southampton whether it is true that a lady has been found in the crypt, and, if so, when she got there, and what he proposes doing?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: I have just been informed that a lady was found in the crypt this morning. I have not yet had time to make myself fully acquainted with the circumstances. Presumably the lady went there in order to avoid the Census. The only step I propose to take at present is to inform the President of the Local Government Board so that she may be enumerated with the rest of the population.
  One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

  NEW WRIT.
  New Writ for the County of Haddington, in the room of the right hon. Richard Burdon Haldane, now Viscount Haldane, called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Gulland.]
BILLS PRESENTED.

  CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN) BILL.
  "To throw open additional posts in the Civil Service to women," presented by Mr. SNOWDEN; supported by Mr. Atherley-

  1815
  Jones, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. Theodore Taylor; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th May.

  EDUCATION (GIRLS) BILL.
  "To give better educational facilities to women," presented by Mr. SNOWDEN; supported by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. Theodore Taylor; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th May.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MARRIED WOMEN) BILL.
  "To give the wife claim for maintenance," presented by Mr. SSTOWDEN; supported by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. Theodore Taylor; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th May.
  SHERIFFS' SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) BILL.
  "To make provision for choice of law agents as Sheriffs' Substitute and as interim Sheriffs' Substitute in Scotland, and to fix an age limit for their compulsory retiral," presented by Mr. WATT; to be read a second time upon Friday, 14th April.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Mr. JAMES HOPEhad on the Paper the following Notice of Motion:—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions for altering the Constitution of either House of Parliament."
Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield appears to me to be beyond the scope of the Bill.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: On the point of Order, I venture to submit that this Bill deals with the relations of the two Houses of Parliament. The relations of the Houses must depend in some degree on their composition, and to change their composition or Constitution might be the best way of harmonising opinion. Therefore I submit to you that the Instruction that the Committee should have power to insert provisions for altering the Constitution of either House is in order.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so. It is one way of dealing with the difficulty, but not the way proposed by this Bill.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to Move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the one dealing with the powers of the House of Lords as to Money Bills, and the other with the restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills and with the duration of Parliament, and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the other is proceeded with."
The two parts of the Bill are, I think, quite distinct, and should naturally be dealt with separately, namely, the part which deals with the House of Lords as regards finance, and the other part which deals with the powers of the House of Lords as regards general legislation, and the question of the duration of Parliament which is involved in the question of general legislation. I submit that the course I am recommending is one which would be to the convenience of the House and to the convenience of the country. In the last few months, in dealing with this question in the country, I have met very many people who hold that there ought to be some further limitation, at all events some definition by reducing them to writing, of the powers of the Second Chamber with regard to finance. But, at the same time, I have found that many of those same people feel very strongly that there ought not to be that great curtailment of the powers of the Second Chamber with regard to general legislation which is proposed in the latter part of the Bill. In fact, the feeling is that while we may rightly curtail the powers of the Second Chamber as to finance, we ought to preserve strong powers to the Second Chamber as to matters of legislation, and not to reduce that Chamber to absolute impotence, as the present Bill proposes to do. For that reason I think it would be far more convenient that we should separate the Bill into two portions. I venture to think that course would be convenient not only to the House and the country, but also to the Government. As I understand the position it is this. The Government and the party who support them are entirely agreed as to the desirability of the first part of the Bill, and they have made up their minds that they are going to take away altogether from the House of Lords power over finance. They have gone further and said, in the words of the Home Secretary, that this diminution of power is to apply not merely to the present House of Lords, but to any

1817
Second Chamber that may arise in future under the words of the Preamble. These are his words on 31st March, 1910:—
"We, by our Resolutions, take the view that this House should be invited to exclude deliberately and by law the House of Lords or any other Second Chamber from any control in the business of finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1910, col. 1574.]
4.0 P.M.
While it is quite clear on the question of finance that the Government take that view, do they take the same view with regard to general legislation? Will those limiting powers given in the second Clause of the Bill apply not only to the present House of Lords, but also to any future Second Chamber that may arise? That is a very important point. We will not even know until the Preamble is passed, and after that we will not know whether there is to be a Second Chamber at all. We know that the Government say there ought to be a Second Chamber, and we know that the Foreign Secretary (Sir Edward Grey) has said that for his party to advocate a One-Chamber system as regards general legislation would spell disaster, death, and damnation. But while we know that is the view of the Government with regard to the Second Chamber and the necessity for it, we also know that hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side distinctly say that there should be no Second Chamber, even for general legislation, let alone finance. As regards hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway on this side—I do not wish to misrepresent them—I believe I am expressing their opinion rightly when I say that they are perfectly indifferent whether there is a Second Chamber or not, provided that they get Home Rule for Ireland. It is clear that while on one question all the supporters of the Government are agreed, on the other question there is such a diversity of opinion that surely it would be far more convenient not only for the country but for this House, and also for the Government themselves, that they should take the opportunity of dividing the Bill, proceeding with that part on which there is agreement among their own supporters, and postponing for further consideration that part on which there is so much division among themselves. As there were many people who held that some limitation on the question of finance in the relations of the House of Lords to the House of Commons was a perfectly proper position to take up, I may remind the House that Lord Lansdowne, dealing with this very question on a Resolution in the House of Lords, abandoned for that House
1818
the power of finance. The Resolution declared with regard to Money dills such provision would be on the following lines: "The House of Lords are prepared to forego their constitutional right to reject or to amend Money Bills which are purely financial in character, provided that effectual provision is made against tacking." And then follows a long further explanation of what particular Amendments would be necessary to make it clear who was the person or who were the persons to decide what was a Money Bill, and also what tacking was, whether it was merely overt tacking of a Clause not financial which was simply there in a Money Bill, or whether it included the far more subtle kind of tacking which consists of including non-financial measures in the garb of financial propositions.
When we find not only on that side, but even on this side, that the Leader of the Unionist party in the House of Lords is prepared to abandon the financial position of the Lords, but not their general legislative position, surely the obvious course for the Government to take is to divide the Bill in the manner that I have suggested, and to deal with that part upon which there may be some general agreement, and postpone for further consideration that other part of the Bill, which is far more contentious and far more difficult for this House to decide. The proposition I am making is in accordance with the practice of our Colonies and of all foreign countries whose constitutions I have had an opportunity of studying. And it is also in accordance with precedent in this House. In our Colonies today and in nearly all foreign countries the Second Chambers have practically equal powers with the First Chambers in matters of ordinary legislation. But there are restrictions of varying degree with regard to the position of Second Chambers in matters of finance. That is the case in Austria, France, Italy, Prussia, and even in the United States, though in the United States the restrictions on finance placed on the Senate are very slight indeed. It is the same in our Colonies. In Canada, Australia, and South Africa the Second Chamber has equal power with the first on matters of general legislation, but there are restrictions in regard to finance. Coming to this House the proposition I am making is strictly in accordance with precedent. Over and over again in the history of this House declaratory Resolutions have been passed limiting the power

1819
of the House of Lords with regard to finance. In the beginning of the year 1671 the celebrated Resolution was passed which has often been quoted here, "That in all Aids given to the King by the Commons the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords." Passing on from thence there are similar Resolutions in 1678 and 1689 and down to 1860, when very strong Resolutions were passed by this House on the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill repealing the Paper Duty. The House of Commons has attempted by Resolution to deprive the House of Lords of certain powers in regard to finance, but, with the solitary exception of the Campbell-Bannerman Resolution of three years ago, no attempt has ever been made by this House to deal with the general legislative functions of the House of Lords. I say, therefore, it would be in accordance with precedent that you should follow the suggestion made in my Resolution, and that before we deal with the far bigger and more contentious questions we should attempt to deal with the powers of the House of Lords with regard to finance.
There is another reason which I would like to submit. My proposal would exactly enable the Government to meet the political situation which has arisen at the present time. What has been the cause of all the agitation in the country, and in this House during the last eighteen months, and the cause of the great crisis we have had? The cause has been one thing only—namely, the rejection by the House of Lords of the Finance Act in the year 1909. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was the last straw."] If it had not been for that fact should we have had the General Election of January, 1910? Should we have had the Resolution brought in to this House by the Prime Minister on the assembling of the new Parliament? Should we have had the Conference last year? Should we have had even the more mysterious General Election of December, 1910? Or should we have this Bill now? No. The reason why this Bill has been brought in is on account of the interference of the House of Lords with the question of finance. The right hon. Gentleman practically said so in introducing his Resolution into this House condemning the action of the House of Lords. On that occasion he said that the Motion was made because the House of Lords had made a breach of the Constitution and the usurpation of the rights of the Commons. And he went on to point
1820
out that the action of the House of Lords in this matter differed in kind from their action in other matters, because by interfering in finance and rejecting a Budget they had practically interfered with the Executive Government, and taken upon themselves the right to compel a Dissolution. I submit, therefore, that this crisis has arisen in consequence of the rejection of the Finance Act by the House of Lords. Hon. Members opposite may take a different view, but I ask them whether on other occasions when the House of Lords have not dealt with the Finance Act, when they have dealt with general legislation, have we ever had a measure of this sort proposed to the House of Commons?
I was a Member of this House in the year 1893, when the House of Lords rejected the Home Rule Bill, a Bill in many respects of greater importance than the Budget of 1909. The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government then. Did he or his colleagues come down to the House with a Bill for abolishing the legislative action of the House of Lords? Not at all. There was a little agitation in the country, and then the Government quietly proceeded to pass the Parish Councils Bill. Again, in 1906, when the House of Lords interfered in general legislation and amended the Education Bill brought in by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, the House of Lords on that occasion, as the Government said, causing them to drop the Bill, did the Government then bring in a Bill for abolishing the legislative power of the House of Lords? So far from that, they quietly proceeded for several years with their Government, and two years later they actually included in another Education Bill most of the Amendments made by the House of Lords in their first Education Bill. In the year 1908 the House of Lords rejected the Licensing Bill. Did the right hon. Gentleman then come down here with a measure to destroy the legislative power of the House of Lords and set up Single-Chamber Government? Not at all. There was no agitation in the country then. The chief thing that I remember was a big dinner in the National Liberal Club, at which the right hon. Gentleman made a great speech, and said that the House of Lords would occupy a prominent position in the party programme of the future. No measure was brought forward to deal with the House of Lords, and I think my proposition therefore is absolutely correct that had it not been for the rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords in 1909 we should not

1821
have had these two General Elections, we should not have had this agitation in the country, we should not have had the Resolution of last year, and we should not have this Bill at the present moment. If that is so, if the power of the House of Lords with regard to finance is to be curtailed, if they committed a crime and an outrage when they rejected the Finance Bill, if they are to be punished for that, then let the punishment fit the crime. If you are to deal with the weak spot in the Constitution which enables the House of Lords to upset the Executive Government and to force a Dissolution, then you ought to confine your Bill to questions of finance and you ought to define exactly what are to be the relations of the Second Chamber to finance in the future.
I submit therefore that it would be for the general convenience of all parties that we should divide this Bill into those two portions into which it naturally falls. There are a great many people in this country, people belonging to all parties, moderate men on both sides, who hold that no lasting and no permanent settlement of this great crisis can be arrived at except by consent. I fully realise that the Government can if they like force the whole of this Bill by their big composite battalions through this House, and I recognise that they may also be able to force it through another House. If they have got those guarantees we used to hear so much about, though we never hear about them now, they may by sheer force of their majority be able to force this measure through both Houses and make it the law of the country. I submit that if they do that, if they use their majority in that way, they will effect no lasting and no peaceful settlement. A system which provides practically One-Chamber Government is a system which this country, I am sure, will never tolerate. The country may tolerate the taking away of the power of finance from the Second Chamber. It will not tolerate that Cabinet despotism which will follow if the House of Lords or any Second Chamber is to have no power over general legislation. I submit that the proposition contained in my Instruction is a proposition which may lead to a settlement of this question on friendly lines. The lines are there. I have already read the Resolution of Lord Lansdowne offering, on behalf of himself and the Unionist party in the House of Lords, to abandon their power over finance. There is the obvious making of a settlement. If the Government accept my In-
1822
struction, and I hope they will, I say there is the possibility of a settlement at this initial stage of the Committee proceeding on this Bill. If they do not we must fight it out in Committee. For these reasons I venture to move the Instruction which stands in my name.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to second the Motion.
I would point out to the House that the genesis and origin of the first and second Clauses are entirely different, and they are also different in regard to subject-matter. My hon. Friend stated, and rightly stated, that the origin of this Bill was entirely due to the rejection by the House of Lords of the Finance Act of 1909. It was wholly that action of the House of Lords which resulted in the present critical situation, and we were told that such a state of things as then resulted could not be allowed to exist in future, for the reason that it would make the Executive Government dependent not upon one House but upon two Houses. That is an argument which has to be met. It was admitted that the House of Lords, when they took that action with reference to the Budget, did so under very special and extraordinary circumstances, and it was only those very special and extraordinary circumstances which justified their so taking it. Personally, I think we have to meet the question, that if the Second Chamber is to have power over finance, it might put in jeopardy the stability of the Government if the Government does not command a majority in the other House. We are ready to admit and to agree to that proposition. But Clause 2, which has relation to general legislation, has a wholly different origin. It goes back, certainly in recent times over a number of episodes in regard to which at different times the two Houses have found themselves in disagreement. It arises, of course, out of the Resolutions that were carried by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1907, consequent upon the failure of the Government to pass the Education Bill a year before. It affects general legislation, and proposes to make a far wider change in the old practice of Parliament. It is perfectly true that the House of Lords seldom rejected a purely financial proposition, but it has during many generations of Parliamentary Government, over and over again, rejected or amended general legislation. Therefore, the change proposed by a Clause of that sort goes far further against the old Parliamentary position

1823
than does Clause 1. Certainly, whatever we may think of Clause 1, we have to admit that the difficulty of the Executive in the two Houses may lead to very grave embarrassment, if, as we are told by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Second Chamber could produce a Dissolution of Parliament, so long as it has a majority against the Government. That, of course, is obvious, but I think it fair to assume that we could find a measure of agreement. Therefore I submit that the financial question had better be considered first, and reported in a separate Bill to be sent up to another place. If that were done, I have no doubt that as regards Clause 1 a settlement might be arrived at without much difficulty.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I need not say that the Government cannot recommend the House to assent to this Instruction. Its object is practically to confine this Bill and the present discussion of it until the Report stage, to these provisions which deal with the relations of the two Houses with regard to finance. I recognise, with much pleasure and satisfaction, the admissions which have been made, admissions of which we shall take note, by both the Mover and Seconder of this Instruction, that this situation, as created by the action of the House of Lords in the year 1909, is not one which any House of Commons can be advised to submit to. I recognise, very gladly, that that shows a very considerable advance on the position taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the General Election of January, 1910, when, throughout the country, they vindicated the action of the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Some of them are doing it now—as representing the real opinion of the people, and strictly within the ambit of its own recognised Constitution. That position is not tenable by any of those who support this Instruction on the grounds submitted by the Mover and Seconder. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Instruction has somewhat misread and rather inverted the true history of this situation. It is perfectly true the action of the House of Lords in the rejection of the Budget made the question of the relation between the two Houses one of acute political controversy. But the controversy was of much older standing than the rejection by the House of Lords of the Budget. As the hon. Member reminded us, my predecessor,
1824
Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman, in 1907, when it was common ground between us that the House of Lords would never venture to deal with finance, moved the resolutions upon which the main part of this Bill is founded. In point of history, it was not the action of the House of Lords in regard to finance, it was their action on general legislative questions which brought the relations between the two Houses to the forefront of political controversy. But while I note with satisfaction the admission that the claim put forward in 1909 by the House of Lords in regard to finance is no longer going to be sustained—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no"]—I am in the recollection of the House, and the House will bear me out in that; I think the hon. Member even quoted the declaration of Lord Lansdowne, which, if I understand the meaning of English, was in exactly the same sense—while I recognise with satisfaction that that position has now been completely abandoned—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no"]—it is not abandoned; it is the basis of the Instruction——
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. I never made the admission the right hon. Gentleman says I made. All I said was that the Government view was that the House of Lords had gone beyond their sphere. That was the Government view. The contention I put forward, and always have put forward, was that the view of the House of Lords was that the Bill of 1909 was not a pure Finance Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: Then why did the hon. Gentleman quote Lord Lansdowne in the citation to which I have already referred? I certainly do not understand the logical process that was in the hon. Gentleman's mind. But, quite apart from that, it must be obvious that the Motion for the division of this Bill into two parts at this stage is altogether impossible. Why should the Bill be divided? Let me take for a moment the hon. Gentleman's view, that it is possible for people to think that the powers of the House of Lords in regard to finance are to be curtailed, circumscribed, and defined by Act of Parliament, and at the same time its powers with regard to general legislation ought to be left where they are. That I take to be his view. But that can be done perfectly well, if it is the general opinion of this House, which I do not believe it is, without any division of the Bill at all. How? In the simplest

1825
possible way. You can pass Clause 1, with such Amendments as the House sees fit to introduce in it, and you can reject Clause 2, and then the result which the hon. Gentleman seeks to obtain will have been achieved. The only other effective operative Clause in the Bill is the Clause which limits the duration of Parliament.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment to reject Clause 2?
The PRIME MINISTER: Of course I shall not. I am pointing out that this Instruction is totally unnecessary, because if it be the general opinion of the House that the Bill ought to be confined to the reconstitution of the relations between the two Houses with regard to finance, then, without a division of the Bill, you can carry out that intention by passing Clause 1 and rejecting Clause 2. Therefore, upon any view of the case, the Instruction is totally unnecessary. But I take it further than that: In the view of the Government the Bill is not a separable Bill. When you are dealing, as this Bill proposes in its title, with reconstruction, with a new definition, with a new circumscription of the relation between the two Houses of Parliament, you must deal with the matter as a whole. It is quite true that different considerations apply to finance from those we apply to ordinary legislation; but they are correlative one with the other; they are part and parcel of a single scheme that has been discussed over and over again inside and outside this House, and, as we believe, they are parts of a political scheme approved by the electors of the country. I again say that we cannot submit to any separation of the Bill, and, upon these grounds, which I think are practical and most logical grounds, the Government must ask the House to reject the Instruction.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was divided under two heads, in one of which he criticised my hon. Friend (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen), and in the other of which he laid down the policy to which the Government are prepared to adhere. I dissent from the right hon. Gentleman under both heads. In the first place, he entirely misrepresented the view taken by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if anybody is of opinion that, while the relations between the two Houses are under consideration, some modification ought to be made in those relations on financial matters, that carries with it the view that
1826
the House of Lords exceeded their constitutional powers when they asked the people to decide upon the merits of the Finance Bill of 1909. The House of Lords may have been wise or unwise in that action. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the other day, in a very eloquent passage of a speech he was then making on the subject, declared that the House of Lords had been extremely unwise, and that their action amounted to suicide. He then took an entirely different view from the one which he has just propounded to the House. He then took the view that if it had not been for the action of the House of Lords with regard to the Budget of 1909, the policy which we are now asked to discuss might never have been brought to a practical issue. I dissented from him then, and I am inclined to dissent from my hon. Friend now, because my hon. Friend in his speech took exactly the same historic view that the right hon. Gentleman took a few weeks ago, and which the right hon. Gentleman has now wholly abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman now says that it is quite true that the House of Lords are greatly to blame for exceeding their constitutional powers in 1909, but that that was not the origin or genesis of the policy now proposed to the House; that the policy was started by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1907, and even further back if you like; at all events it was more or less formulated in 1907, during the continuance of the present Government, and that was done long before the provisions of the Budget of 1909 had entered into the fertile brain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has changed his view. I do not think it is very relevant or very important to the issue now before us. At all events the right hon. Gentleman thought it worth while to attack my hon. Friend for having in his historical aspect of the question held precisely the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman himself held only a very short time ago.
For my part I adhere to the view which I always held. I think that on this subject the present party came into power determined to destroy the Constitution, that they have been looking for an issue, and, indeed, while the General Election of 1906 was going on they began the policy of looking for a cause of quarrel. They found cause of quarrel in every modification of a Bill by the House of Lords, in every rejection of a Bill by the House of Lords, and, finally, in the rejection of the Budget

1827
they thought they had got sufficient cause for quarrel, and they are happy and satisfied.
That is the historic aspect of it, What we are now called upon to decide has really no direct relation to that historic aspect at all. What we have now got to decide on the Motion which you, Sir, put from the Chair, is whether it would be desirable or advisable or not to divide this Bill into two and treat the first Clause as a separate measure from the second Clause. Why does the Prime Minister object to that? The objections to that, if I understood him rightly, are because, in his own words, the Bill is not separable, that the Bill contains one undivided and indivisible policy, and to treat it as two Bills would be to separate that which neither in logic nor in policy ought to be separated. I think the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely precluded from pursuing that line of argument. In the first place, from the Government's own point of view, the Bill is not complete. They admit in their Preamble, and in their speeches, that this is merely a stage in the general revolutionary course which they desire to pursue. My hon. Friend does not ask them to maim and mutilate an admirable and coherent scheme of policy, but a policy which is avowedly incomplete and avowedly inchoate, and he says if you cannot take it all at once you had better divide it into logical and convenient sections, and if yon carry out that view you will have to divide Clause 1 from Clause 2. If that argument is not sufficient, is not the Preamble sufficient? Consider the relation of the Preamble to the two Clauses. The Preamble of the Bill is one which is almost a revival or antiquated relic of a legislative age which had for ever gone until the Government have chosen to revive it. How have they revived it? They have put forward a Preamble which is by way of governing all the Clauses in the Bill. What relation, however, has it to the first Clause of the Bill? What possible relation has it to the first Clause of the Bill? What the Preamble says is that you must have a Second Chamber, that it should be a poular Second Chamber, and that the time has come when you should create that Second Chamber, and that you should decide exactly what its powers are to be. But this Clause has nothing whatever to do with the relations between the two Houses in modifying Money Bills. It says that the House of Lords should not touch a Money Bill at all. It shuts out the
1828
House of Lords completely, reformed or unreformed, and as the policy of the Government is that no future House of Lords should touch pure Money Bills at all, therefore, what has the Preamble got to do with Clause 1? What on earth has the Preamble got to do with a Clause which (undoubtedly excludes a Second Chamber, reformed or unreformed, from touching Money Bills. Clearly it has got nothing to do with it. The Preamble, if it has got to do with anything has got to do with Clause 2.
It seems to me by the way the Government have constructed their own Bill that it is clearly shown that my hon. Friend is proceeding on perfectly logical lines when he suggests that Clause 1 should be taken and treated separately altogether from the very controversial matters contained in Clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Resolutions passed at the instance of Lord Lansdowne by the House of Lords, and he stated that, as an admission on the part of both Lord Lansdowne and my hon. Friend who moved this Motion, that the House of Lords were wrong in their action in 1909. That is not so. There was no admission of error on the point, but the question practically considered, and which was considered by the House of Lords, is whether there should be some change in the relation between the two Houses in that respect, a change which would, no doubt, go to eliminate the House of Lords as a controlling factor. Under the circumstances I want to know how the Government themselves can defend these two Clauses as belonging to an inseparable fraction of this great controversy. You may put the two Clauses together, and the Government are not acting out of order in doing so; but they do not pretend that their scheme is a complete one or that Clause 2 depends on Clause 1, or that Clause 1 depends on Clause 2. Under those circumstances, considering the magnitude of the conflict and controversy which lies before us, I think my hon. Friend was well advised in suggesting that, in the first place, we should limit our discussion to that part of the general Government proposal on which we seem to be nearer agreement than we are likely to be if other Clauses be joined with Clause 1.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I think the statement of the Prime Minister has thrown a new and very alarming light on the intentions of the Government. He has told us that this Bill is inseparable, that the scheme foreshadowed

1829
is one whole, and cannot be in any way modified. For a long time we have been pressing on this side to find out whether the Government intend permanently to deprive the House of Lords of any effective Veto in general legislation as opposed to financial legislation. For the first time this evening we have the Prime Minister throwing over what I understood to be the meaning of a statement of the Home Secretary that that distinction would take effect, and that there was to be different treatment as to financial powers in the new House of Lords in comparison with general powers. The Home Secretary said on 31st March last year:—
"We, by our Resolutions, take the view that the House of Commons should be invited to exclude deliberately and by law the House of Lords or any Second Chamber from any control in the business of finance,"
That is to say, the financial control is to be permanently invested in the House of Commons and in the House of Commons only. The Preamble of the Parliament Bill shows, or it might be argued to show, that the Government did not intend to extend this disability to all legislation. The Preamble says:—
"Whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber. …"
You are to limit the powers of a Second Chamber as regards finance for ever, and, presumably, the Preamble, if it means anything, applies only to the other general parts. If the Government really mean the Preamble earnestly and do intend in good faith to reform the House of Lords and to give it back effective powers, then it would be a sound matter of drafting to divide the Bill into two parts. The financial provision being permanent and the general provision being temporary, surely it is best to keep them in separate Bills, so that you would have one Bill dealing with finance, which is to be entirely untouched, and another Bill which would deal with those powers of the House of Lords which would be affected by the Veto.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The answer of the Prime Minister rose in my mind, as in the mind of my hon. Friend, who has just spoken, some surprise. I was not surprised, of course, that he repeated all the old story about whether we have admitted or do not admit that the House of Lords was wrong in 1909. That point of controversy is necessarily over. In my view the House of Lords acted quite constitutionally, and I have never been able to understand how anyone who looked into the
1830
precedents could doubt their constitutional action. The question whether it is desirable for the House of Lords to take action of that kind, and whether it is desirable that it should be taken from them by Act of Parliament is a wholly different controversy. It is with that controversy we are now concerned. My hon. Friend argued very properly on the admissions of the Government, and on the position of the Government themselves set up, the question of the taking away of the power of the House of Lords in respect to Money Bills took priority, and was indeed the essential point in this Bill between the two Houses. Certainly that corresponds to the language used by the Prime Minister in the beginning of the Session and by the Noble Viscount who has recently left us for another place, and who, when he was a member of this House, very emphatically stated, and I think he said, that if the House of Lords had left the Government alone that the Government would have left the House of Lords alone, a view not very dignified for constitutional reformers, but that is by the way. The striking thing which impresses me, as it did my hon. Friend, is that the right hon. Gentleman proposes, as I understand it, that even if they have an elective Second Chamber that they would give us no power in matters of finance. That is, of course, utterly without precedent in the world. There is no elective Second Chamber that has no powers in finance. I can understand persons arguing in favour of or against an elective Chamber, but I cannot understand being in favour of an elective Second Chamber, and saying that it ought not to have power in finance. The whole case against the House of Lords on that depends on the character of its constitution. If you alter its constitution to be a purely elected body, then naturally it should have powers as to finance. The Instruction says that the Government ought to separate the Bill, because it is perfectly clear if you are going to treat the financial part of the Bill as permanent and the rest as temporary then it is very much better to have two Bills. If part of the change is to be permanent and to go on for ever, and part merely temporary, how can it be argued that it is desirable to deal with the whole matter in a single Bill?
There is another argument which ought to weigh with the Government, and it is this. It is conceded, indeed, and so far understood, that the disagreement on the first Clause between the two parties in

1831
this House and throughout the country is very slight. The Unionist party have been prepared to make great concessions on the point of finance. Therefore, it would probably be possible to adjust an agreed Bill so far as Clause 1 is concerned. Supposing you separated this Bill into two Bills, you would have your agreed Bill carried through both Houses and passed into law. That would be a great step towards settlement, and by consent one great part of the subject would be out of the way and would be satisfactorily settled. If therefore the Government really approached this subject with a view of making a settlement and not fighting a party battle, and if their intention were really to approach the matter patriotically—— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] am not surprised that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, having a much more intimate acquaintance with the Government than I have, should regard any suggestion as to their patriotic action as merely derisory. The way I have suggested, however, would be the way if they wanted a national settlement. They would take the financial part of the Bill separately, carry it through both Houses, probably rapidly, and pass it into law, leaving the remaining matters to be threshed out at leisure. That is the way to secure a national settlement, but it is not the way the Government propose to proceed. They do not want to make a national settlement. What they want is to reform the Constitution in the interests of their own party. They are engaged on a gigantic gerrymandering job, and they will not accept any instructions or any Amendment that would interfere with the fundamental purpose—that is, the gerrymandering purpose—which the Bill has in view. The only question the Government have ever asked themselves in this controversy is this: "Does the Constitution as it now exists inconvenience our party I If so, how can it be made to inconvenience our party less? We want a Constitution that will work for the Liberal party and against the Unionist party. That is all we want." The party opposite would never agree to any measure which tended to arrive at a settlement by consent. They do not want a settlement by consent. They want a party victory. Hence they go on fighting, with a great deal of bombastic talk about their courage, the mandate of the people, and so on, and phrases of that kind come
1832
readily to their lips if the Government take a single step towards making a businesslike and workmanlike settlement.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I wish to make an appeal to the Prime Minister regarding this Bill as a constitutional reform, in order that he may modify his attitude on the question of dividing the Bill into two parts. It is quite clear that the questions of reform in the first Clause are entirely different from those which arise in the remainder of the Bill. In reference to Money Bills, the Prime Minister himself has stated very often that the constitutional principle is that as subsidies are given by this House and all money provisions are initiated in this House, the Second Chamber, whatever it may be, ought to have no power whatever with regard to such Bills. Whether we agree with that or not—and I think that historically it is not true—a constitutional principle is involved. It may be a proper constitutional principle that as regards Money Bills this House, and this House alone, should interfere. That is the principle which is involved in the first Clause of the Bill. I would say in passing that if the Second Chamber is hereafter to be elective, the basis on which Money Bills have been dealt with in this House alone is, of course, immediately undermined, because the whole principle on which money powers are exercised by this House alone is that we are an elective and representative Chamber. The theory is that no one in this country is taxed except by his own consent, and that he gives that consent through his representative. No one knows at present what the view of the Government is as regards the Second Chamber, but if it were altered as the Preamble suggests into an elective Second Chamber the whole basis of the constitutional principle governing the control of Money Bills by this House alone would be altered, because the Second Chamber being elective would have equal rights with the House of Commons, and ought to have equal powers and privileges in regard to Money Bills. It is a most difficult matter, unless this Bill is divided as proposed, to determine whether as regards Money Bills the old powers of this House ought to be asserted to the extent of giving the Second Chamber no power at all, or whether in the event of our having an elective Second Chamber we ought not to realise that that Chamber will then be as representative as this, and

1833
will have as good a right as this to deal with money as well as other matters of legislative concern.
The second reason why I think this Instruction should be agreed to is that as regards legislative matters the question of interference depends on a wholly different principle. It depends not on the rights of this House at all, but on the principle whether or not the Second Chamber is so constituted that you ought to give it real and substantial powers in matters of legislation. Everyone who has any knowledge of constitutional principle and of the constitutional laws of this country ought to realise that we are proceeding absolutely in the teeth of all Liberal principles if we propose as regards matters of general legislation to have a uni-cameral system instead of the bi-cameral system which in days past has been in the forefront of the protection of our civil and religious liberties. Let us assume for the moment that, as regards matters of finance, as a constitutional principle, this House should be supreme. I do not agree with that principle myself, but I take it for the purpose of my illustration. Coming, then, to questions of legislation, what is proposed in the Bill? It is said that at some time or other there is to be a Second Chamber. In the meantime there will be an interregnum. That means that for a period of time—and in my opinion a very long period if this Bill is once passed—the Cabinet and the majority in this House will have an absolute tyrannical power to pass any legislation they like, without any restraint either from a Second Chamber or from the possibility of an appeal to the will of the people What do the great political philosophers like Burke say? They say that the glory of our Constitution is that you do not find this absolute power vested in any single individual or in any single body; whereas if the proposal of the Government is passed you will have an autocracy greater than that which is known in any other civilised country in the world. Surely we ought to separate great legislative questions from the entirely different question of whether it is a proper constitutional principle that this House should be supreme in money matters, and that no Second Chamber, however constituted, should be allowed to interfere. Let me ask the Prime Minister this question, as I should lay great weight on his view on any question of constitutional principle. Is it not a fact that historically, as regards constitutional principle, there has always been a clear dis-
1834
tinction between matters of finance and matters of general legislation? Has it not been part of his argument that it is because of their undue interference in matters of finance it has become necessary to deal with the House of Lords? I do not want to rule out the other matters of legislation to which he has called attention; but they depend on an entirely different principle. The Prime Minister complains that the existing Second Chamber has been one-sided. That that is so in one sense I as a Member of the Unionist party, entirely agree, and I am one of those who sincerely hope that drastic reforms may be carried out. But the two questions stand on an entirely different footing. I ask therefore, on constitutional principles, that whatever may be done in the matter of finance these legislative questions should never be put under the tyrannical power of a particular Cabinet, without any control from a Second Chamber or from the chance of an appeal to the electorate. On these grounds I strongly support the proposed Instruction, and I hope that some further reply will be made on behalf of the Government.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The outstanding feature of this Debate has been the unanimity with which hon. Members opposite seem to have agreed that the financial aspect of this measure is now practically accepted on the other side. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I gathered from the speeches that we have heard that it was now common ground, and that the taking away of financial control from the House of Lords was accepted by both parties, provided that no tacking took place. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I would suggest to the Sub-committee in charge of the Amendments that they ought to agree to a common policy in an important matter of this kind, so that the Debate might have a more fruitful result. Undoubtedly the Mover of the Instruction accepted that position, and from that point of view I congratulate the Government on the improved prospect of their measure. If that is the position of the Opposition, I do not see why we should not pass Clause 1 without any very great delay. I rose particularly to enter my protest against the assumption that this Bill is only a temporary measure. Is it to be assumed that we have had two General Elections on a measure which is only of a temporary character? Is it to be assumed that the limitation of the Veto is to apply only to legislation and not to finance? We

1835
on this side are supporting a Bill which we hope and believe will be of a permanent character. We hold that the limitation of the Veto will apply to legislation under any Second Chamber that may be constituted, and that the absolute control of finance will rest with this Chamber, no matter what the constitution of the future Second Chamber may be. Let us, therefore, have no misunderstanding on that point. From that point of view I support the Government in opposing this Instruction.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. PEEL: I think the hon. Member opposite has a curious misunderstanding in regard to Members on this side. I speak only for myself, but it seems to me that there are two points in connection with the question of financial control. One is the question of tacking, about which a great deal will be heard in connection with Clause 1, and the other is the question of whether the Second Chamber, reformed or unreformed, should have the opportunity of saying "No" to the whole of the financial legislation. On that point I am entirely unrepentant in reference to the action taken by the House of Lords in 1909 in referring the Finance Bill to the people. In fact, I do not know whether I do not go further than some of my hon. Friends, because I am one of those who think that if the House of Lords had not referred that Bill to the people it would have deserved for that reason to have had its functions abolished; because I do not think it would be a fit Second Chamber to deal with this large question. I go further than that. I have always been in favour of some change in the composition of the Second Chamber. I am far more strongly in favour of it now than before. When this action of the House of Lords was taken it seemed to be suggested that it was improper. I then said to myself that that action and those powers were what a Second Chamber ought undoubtedly to take and to possess. If the Second Chamber is not thought a proper Chamber to possess those powers and to exercise them, then the sooner you reform the composition of that Chamber the better, and give us a Second Chamber which, like every Second Chamber in other countries, has the power in the last resource of dealing with finance. After all——
Mr. SPEAKER: The observations of the hon. Member are not relevant to the point at issue.
Mr. PEEL: I apologise. I was really replying to the point taken by the hon. Baronet opposite. I will deal more exactly with the Instruction which has been moved. One of the reasons that I support this Division is precisely because of the very great attention that I have paid to the distinction between financial and ordinary legislation. As a Member of the House of Commons, which has and must have the chief control over matters of finance, I think it is a great pity that the distinction should not be clearly laid down in the very Bill which deals with the powers and limitations of the House of Lords. I think you ought to draw the distinction more clearly than you can draw it in one Bill. The distinction between financial and ordinary legislation ought to be emphasised by being dealt with in two Bills. Moreover, when you are going to deal with these great constitutional changes, surely it is enough at first to take one great change by itself. The change advocated in Part I. is a very great change. I hold it is a great change in the Constitution, and it is enough for this House of Commons to deal with in one Session. I question the desirability of going further on further grounds. I believe myself that this Bill is itself and as it stands one of the worst examples of "tacking" ever sent up to the Upper Chamber. I believe, with many of those who have spoken already, that what the country is most interested in is the question of finance, and that generally the people did not imagine when this Bill was going to be brought forward that it would contain in addition to these regulations about finance, such enormously extended further powers of the House of Commons in regard to general legislation. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, so far, that it is enormously important for him to carry this country with him in his great constitutional changes. I would submit, therefore, that the first Clause of this Bill should first be dealt with as one; Bill, and then—I won't say that it ought to be submitted to the country—but that some considerable interval should elapse before the passing of the second portion, in order that the country may be perfectly clear upon it. And after all, the right hon. Gentleman knows that such a course would enhance a good deal the value of the Bill; when the country may have the opportunity of saying whether it is satisfied by the first constitutional change, or whether it wishes to go on to the further and larger constitutional change dealing with legislation.

1837
There is one more point arising out of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman talked about "a perfect whole." You can have a very good whole if you follow the suggestion put forward, because during the interval that I have proposed, and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept, he will have an opportunity of maturing his second portion of the Bill for reform in the constitution of the House of Lords. Then he would have a measure which would be a whole. You would have a measure that deals with the legislative powers of the Second Chamber, and at the same time says what the composition of that Chamber has to be. If you are going to proceed with this measure now you lay yourselves open to a terrible charge. I think it is a most discreditable charge against those who are wishful of altering our Constitution. That charge never has been, and never could have been, brought before against any of those persons, who in the past have made great changes in our Constitution, that is that they were going to make a change, and at the same time going to take advantage of the opportunity, for party purposes, to put two Bills through in the interregnum which they otherwise would not have passed. If you are going to make a great constitutional change, let it at least be made with some sort of decency and decorum. Let not that charge be levied at it that may truly be levied against right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let them, by the method I have suggested, the method embodied in the Instruction of my hon. Friend, take the second part of their measure and unite with it reform of the House of Lords. Then no one can say in the future: "What is the validity of these Bills that you have passed; what is the validity of your Bills about licensing, Welsh Disestablishment, Education, and all those matters which you are going to rush through whilst unshaped is that Second Chamber which you yourselves say ought to exist?" If this Bill passes before the House of Lords is reformed, those measures that you will pass are really revolutionary measures, passed in the interregnum. They cannot have that same moral validity—whatever legal validity there may be—as measures which have been passed by two Chambers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to remove from his party, from those who are accepting this great constitutional change, the possibilities of the charge being levied against them, that they are
1838
making constitutional changes for other than great national reasons. If the right hon. Gentleman does that, I believe he will get a perfect whole more worthy of him than this will be.
Mr. MALCOLM: I am not quite sure that the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) is not really directed against the members of his own household. He asks whether the Bill is to be temporary or permanent, and trusts that it will be permanent. That will not carry conviction in the House at all until the Preamble has been got rid of. The Bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. If the Preamble is got rid of we will have the wolf in its own clothing. That is really what this Bill is—a Single Chamber measure. The hon. Baronet tried to make us believe, as he apparently himself believes, that the country is in favour of a measure of this kind, because, he said, the people had twice declared for such a Bill. I am afraid that that has very little effect upon my mind. What I judge from these elections really is only this: that after the Budget had been thrown out by the House of Lords the majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite was reduced to fifty-two. When the second election came last year the Government was returned to power with only a bare majority. I do not, therefore, think they can say that they base the strength of this Bill upon any great support in the country itself.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not discussing the Instruction at all. He is dealing with the general question.
Mr. MALCOLM: I am sorry. As for the Instruction itself the House is advised to a certain course of action by the Prime Minister. I think it would be better advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen). I have heard of Instructions being accepted which have made some difference to the passing of a Bill. I have never heard, in a Bill which only consisted of three operative Clauses, that it was the wise course to take to throw out the second, and perhaps the most important of the three Clauses. The better course, surely, is that we, a practical assembly, should accept the Instruction to divide the Bill. It is perhaps obvious that the Prime Minister does not intend to take any Amendment. His Bill is virtually inspired, I suppose, from the beginning to the end, and no Amendment or Instruction will be accepted from this side of the House. But perhaps

1839
he would listen to the appeal which I consider was made to him from far off Dundee the other day by no less a person than a colleague of his own, the Lord Advocate, whose speech I read in this morning's "Times." I find the right hon. Gentleman says:—
"Though the House of Lords might be quite indefensible on paper, it might work well in practice, and he refused to rail at an institution, which, honestly speaking, he had very few faults to find with. He did not know of a Second Chamber in the world that did its work so well as our Second Chamber. There was no sloppiness or slovenliness in the way it revised its Bills or discussed public questions."
Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Instruction.
Mr. MALCOLM: I regret exceedingly having transgressed the second time, but the point I would like to make in regard to this is that whereas the Instruction invites the House to divide the financial operations of the House of Lords from other legislative matters, I was trying to bring the Lord Advocate on to my side to show that on those legislative matters the House of Lords was a fair and efficient body. We therefore ask in this Instruction that whatever may be done with regard to the financial side of the Parliamentary Bill, general legislation shall be left to the House of Lords as it is until it is reformed. I call the Lord Advocate on our side to witness that at the present time the House of Lords as to general legislation is very effective. I hope the appeal of the Lord Advocate will not fall in vain on the ears of the Prime Minister.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I must be allowed to congratulate the Member for Kirkcaldy upon having broken the silence that seems to have settled upon benches opposite. It is a great testimony to the discipline of the heterogenous combination that supports the Government that he is the only Member who has risen from those benches opposite to take part in this Debate. He has expressed a belief that all the measures of this Bill should be permanent. I suppose he is the only Member that could entertain that idea. He got up, as the Home Secretary would say, to "ginger up" the Government. At the same time, how he could imagine that this Bill, which is the most transient and embarrassed phantom which has ever crossed the floor of the House, should be permanent is to myself beyond the possibility of belief. I do not suppose that there is a Member on our side who does not in his heart believe that the
1840
Second Chamber which is to be constituted ought to have the same powers over finance that every one of those legislatures which we have prescribed for colonies by our own direct order has. After all, finance, as the Prime Minister has often said, is the most elastic instrument of government. To say that no Second Chamber ought to have any power of dealing with finance is virtually to abandon a great part of the sphere of government and men's affairs in the future. I do not believe there is a man upon this side who does not think a Second Chamber ought to have that power, and I do not suppose the Prime Minister, who knows as well as anybody in this House constitutional precedent, thinks we ought not to give to a reformed Second Chamber exactly the same powers as we give, and as we were careful to insert in laws conferring self government upon our Colonies which passed through this House. The power over finance possessed by a Second Chamber is the general reserve of the Constitution. It is not its exercise, but it is the existence of that power that has the real effect, and I am bound to say I think the financial powers of the Second Chamber is worth a good deal more legislation than is proposed in this one bare Clause. Nothing could be more curt or unsatisfactory than the Clause in this Bill dealing with the financial powers of a Second Chamber. I cannot imagine that the Government realise that they are going to disfranchise the whole of the Members of the Upper House so far as finance goes, and this Clause ought to be followed by others, pointing out in what way the Peers, who pay a considerable part of the taxation of the country, will be able to deal with finance, or why they should be selected for disfranchisement—why they should be put outside the Constitution in regard to that which touches men far more closely than any other question of legislation.
The Clause as it stands is almost insulting in its brevity. There ought to be some provision for the Peers. I can understand in a reformed Second Chamber, not based upon hereditary principles, it would be generally thought all men represented here, would have their views on finance; but as at present proposed the Peers are to be really outside the Constitution in regard to finance, and there has not been a single word mentioned in the change of status in this Bill, which is a good reason for the Amendment. The question of finance is so vastly important, it is worth a good deal more consideration

1841
than is given to it here, and I do not know whether any Amendment introduced will show that at least so far as the Peers are concerned, it is only of a suspensory character. I think if there is to be a reformed Constitution, the Peers having their votes for representatives in this House will exercise the same pressure upon their representatives as any other class. But that is not in this Bill and, the subject is so important, there ought to be some mention of it. I cannot help contrasting the way in which we are approaching this question with the way in which the makers of the American Constitution approached theirs. Finance was considered by them, not merely by rhetorical artifice, but upon the great principle of Government, and debates took place which lasted days; while in the recasting of the Constitution here, we seem to have no reverence for it at all. We are going to deal with finance in one Clause, and we are going to turn out the Peers and prevent them having any voice in taxation. In the old days the Peers taxed themselves. Up to the time of Henry IV. each estate used to tax itself. But the Peers are not to tax themselves now, we are to tax them and they are to be deprived of saying a word upon the subject. It is all very well to say that power was only latent, but it was always there, and in days gone by it acted as a check upon Chancellors of the Exchequer using Finance for other than its own proper purpose; they did not use it in those days for social reform, they used it simply for the purposes of revenue. The Prime Minister has told us that Finance is elastic, but the Peers who have to pay are to have no voice either in the passing of the Finance Bill or in the election of representatives who are to vote away the money. I think this matter is worthy of much more legislation than is proposed to be given it in one Clause, and if we had a tithe of the reverence for our Constitution that the Americans have, we should not attack it in this haphazard way.
Mr. MARTIN: I oppose this Instruction because I support the Bill in its entirety. I could understand if this were intended to be a permanent Bill, there might be something in the assurances we have had from the other side that they were prepared to support the Finance Clauses in this Bill and to make it a matter of agreement while desiring to oppose Clause 2. I entirely repudiate the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He said he supported the Bill because it is going to be
1842
a permanent measure. If he supports it on that ground it seems to me he cannot support it at all, because the Government have made it very clear indeed that they are in favour of two Chambers, and they do not propose by this Bill to change the Constitution of this country into a Single Chamber, and when my hon. Friend tells the House that this is a permanent Bill which is to last for all time he is quite mistaken.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: My hon. Friend misrepresents me. I said nothing about the Preamble of the Bill or about the Government's intentions. What I said was that at this moment we have had no word from the Government that the limitation of the Veto is not to be permanent. It has nothing to do with the Bill at all.
Mr. MARTIN: If the hon. Gentleman thinks a Second Chamber, such as is promised in the Preamble of the Bill, which is to have no Veto power, is to be a real Second Chamber, then I am entirely against him. I listened very carefully to the speech of the Prime Minister, and it was very clear and explicit, as his speeches always are. He said the Government are in favour of a Second Chamber. Now it must be clear to every Member of this House that this Bill, if it is to be a permanent Bill, so far as doing away with the Veto of the other Chamber, would mean the creation of a Single Chamber. That must be perfectly clear.
Mr. SPEAKER: That has really nothing to do with the Instruction. It is a separate issue altogether.
Mr. MARTIN: Then, Sir, may I ask this question. How it can be, that the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is absolutely in order and that my speech, in which I endeavoured to answer him, is not in order?
Mr. SPEAKER: It may have been through my negligence that I allowed the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to make his speech, but the fact that one hon. Member has been out of order is no reason why every other hon. Member should be. I think I have allowed the hon. Member some latitude to reply, and I now invite him to keep to the Instruction.
Mr. MARTIN: I shall endeavour, Sir, to keep to your ruling. I oppose the Instruction because I believe this is a temporary Bill. If it was to be part of the permanent Constitution of the country, I think

1843
the Instruction would be reasonable, but we have the assurance of the Government that this Bill is to be only a temporary measure until the Government have an opportunity of bringing before the House a Bill which would constitute a real and effective Second Chamber based upon democratic principles. If this Bill was to be a permanent one, and was to provide that the House of Lords was to have nothing to do with legislation except to delay it for a short time, then I would support the Instruction and would, in fact, oppose the Government Bill, but it is because I support this Bill from one end to the other, and because the Bill was submitted to the people of the country during the last General Election, and was approved not alone the provision which takes away from the House of Lords the right to Veto, but also the more important provision, as I understand it, which shows that the Government intend at the earliest possible moment to introduce a measure which will give an effective Second Chamber to this country, that I support it, and no Chamber can be effective unless it provides an effective Veto for measures passed in this House. For that reason I oppose the Instruction, and I hope this Bill will be passed. I quite appreciate the position of the Government; they desire that there should be a Second Chamber for this country, they desire that that Second Chamber should be constituted by the people of this country as representing this country and not by the House of Lords.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I look upon this Instruction as an extremely valuable one, and if it were accepted by the Government it would very much facilitate business. I do not go so far as to adopt what has been said by some of the speakers on this side. I do not say for a moment that if the Bill was divided it would be possible for those of us on this side, or for any large number of us to accept Clause I as it stands, but I think we would be able to discuss these important matters better separately, and we should have a fair discussion upon the very important question as to what should be done with purely financial measures. I venture to think if the Government could see their way to look at the subject from that point of view, it would help the real solution of the question we have before us. This Bill consists of three distinct matters. It is very curious, as has been
1844
already pointed out by one or two hon. Members, that the Preamble of the Bill does not seem to have anything to do with either of these two Clauses. The Preamble, of course, simply deals with the one question as to reform of the House of Lords. There are no operative words whatever, as it turns out, in the Bill itself upon that particular point. Then, when you come to the Bill you find it deals with two distinct topics. One topic dealt with is that in Clause 1 as to the procedure which should be adopted when the measure is exclusively a Financial Bill.
It will be agreed that if we could find out at a very early stage of any Bill whether it was exclusively a Finance Bill, and if there was more attempt to give a proper definition of what were exactly Finance Bills, it would be better. It would be very difficult in the scope of one Clause to really deal with all these conflicting questions connected with the defining of a Finance Bill, and what is perhaps even more important—the exact point of time in the course of the passing of a Bill at which the question ought to be decided whether it is a Finance Bill or not. It must be evident we ought to know in this House and in the other House at a very early stage, if any such Bill is being considered, whether it is being taken as a Finance Bill or not, because the procedure would be entirely different. I will give a very simple illustration. There are many remedies for disease that had very much better be taken in separate parts. When one part is taken it displays its effect. There is the familiar illustration of the Blue Pill and Black Draught. If we take the Blue Pill first—that is, the financial portion—and get rid of that, we would find whether it will be necessary to take the Black Draught later on. I think the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said he had not read the Preamble of the Bill. If he had read it he never would have made the astonishing speech he did, in which he said the Bill was to be a permanent one because we are to read the Bill both with regard to the financial portion and the other, which is only to operate until the constitutional House of Lords is elected.
I join in urging upon the Government the very great desirability of dividing this Bill into two parts. The very important question of what is purely financial could then be disposed of in a separate measure, whereas if the two are kept together it will take a long time. It would create very great confusion and difficulty in

1845
dealing with the Clauses from a practical point of view in Committee if the two are forced through together.
Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the one dealing with the powers of the House of Lords as to Money Bills, and
the other with the restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills and with the duration of Parliament, and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the other is proceeded with."
The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 271.

Division No. 104.]

AYES.

[5.32 p.m.

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

Fleming, Valentine

Newman, John R. P.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Foster, Philip Staveley

Nield, Herbert

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Gardner, Ernest

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

Astor, Waldorf

Gilmour, Captain John

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

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Goldsmith, Frank

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baird, John Lawrence

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Grant, J. A.

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Haddock, George Bahr

Peto, Basil Edward

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pretyman, Ernest George

Barnston, H.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Quitter, William Eley C.

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

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Hardy, Laurence

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harris, Henry Percy

Remnant, James Farquharson

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Rothschild, Lionel de

Beresford, Lord Charles

Hills, John Waller

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Bird, Alfred

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyton, James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Burn, Col. C. R.

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Butcher, John George

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Campion, W. R.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John Ralph

Cassel, Felix

Kimber, Sir Henry

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Steel-Maitland. A. D.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Stewart, Gershom

Cave, George

Larmcr, Sir J

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Swift, Rigby

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Sykes, Alan John

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lee, Arthur H.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Chambers, James

Lewisham, Viscount

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Clive, Percy Archer

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Touche, George Alexander

Courthope, George Loyd

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Walker, Col. William Hall

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Mackinder, Halford J.

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Macmaster, Donald

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Croft, Henry Page

Malcolm, Ian

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

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

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Winterton, Earl

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Wolmer, Viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Worthington-Evans, L.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Morpeth, Viscount

Yate, Col. C. E.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Yerburgh, Robert

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Younger, George

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mount, William Arthur

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A

Neville, Reginald J. N.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Newdegate, F. A.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Ashtcn, Thomas Gair

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

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

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Barton, William

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Beauchamp, Edward

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Sir George H.

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Johnson, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John Pius

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Bowerman, C. W.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pringle, William M. R.

Brocklehurst, William B.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Brunner, John F. L.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Bryce, J. Annan

Jowett, Frederick William

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Burke, E. Haviland-

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Keating, Matthew

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

Kellaway, Frederick George

Reddy, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Clynes, John R.

Lansbury, George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, Sidney

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Logan, John William

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lundon, Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cotton, William Francis

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowlands, James

Cowan, William Henry

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Runciman Rt. Hon. Walter

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

St. Maur, Harold

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Crumley, Patrick

MacGhee, Richard

Scanlan, Thomas

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

M'Callum, John M.

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

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

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sheehy, David

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dawes, J. A.

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

Shortt, Edward

Delany, William

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Dickinson, W. H.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Donelan, Captain A.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Doris, William

Marks, George Croydon

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Duffy, William J.

Martin, Joseph

Snowden, Philip

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Soares, Ernest

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Meagher, Michael

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, W.)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Elverston, Harold

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sutherland, John E.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Millar, James Duncan

Tennant, Harold John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Molloy, Michael

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Essex, Richard Walter

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Falconer, James

Mooney, John J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Morgan, George Hay

Toulmin, George

Ffrench, Peter

Morrell, Philip

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fitzgibbon, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Muldoon, John

Verney, Sir Harry

Ginnell, Laurence

Munro, Robert

Walton, Sir Joseph

Glanville, Harold James

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Neilson, Francis

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Goldstone, Frank

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wardle, George J.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Waring, Walter

Greig, Colonel James William

Norman, Sir Henry

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Watt, Henry A.

Hackett, John

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Webb, H.

Hancock, J. G.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Doherty, Philip

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

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

O'Dowd, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Ogden, Fred

Whitehouse, John Howard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Grady, James

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Whyte, A. F.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Wiles, Thomas

Hayward, Evan

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

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

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Winfrey, Richard

Hinds, John

Parce, William (Limehouse)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Hodge, John

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Holt, Richard Durning

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pirle, Duncan Vernon

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pointer, Joseph

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Instruction standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) proposes "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power not to proceed with the consideration of the Clauses of the Bill until the Constitution of the Second Chamber mentioned in the Preamble has been determined." With regard to that, I should say that the hon. and learned Member's proposal seems to me to negative the decision to which the House came when it passed the Resolution "that this Bill be now read a second time." If the Instruction of the hon. and learned Member were passed the Bill would be set aside, and none of the Clauses could be considered, and some other Bill not yet introduced would be taken up; therefore, I think the Instruction is not in order on those grounds. With regard to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Banffshire (Captain Waring), it proposes "to limit the scope of the Bill to such measures as are set out in the Preamble thereof." This limitation can be imposed without any Instruction, and the Instruction is, therefore, unnecessary. The next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber), contains two parts. The first part deals with a proposal "to insert provisions for the rectification of the representation of the people in this House by a redistribution of the seats," and that is beyond the scope of this measure. The second part of the hon. Baronet's Instruction provides "That the remainder of the Bill shall not take effect until after a General Election and the adoption of the Bill by a new Parliament." That is out of order, because it can be done by process of limitation in Committee. There is another Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman), which deals with the composition of the Lower House, and that is beyond the scope of this Bill. With regard to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) it proposes "To add provisions further adjusting the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament by removing the disabilities which prevent Peers from being elected Members of the House of Commons." That is beyond the scope of this Bill, and the same remark applies to the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. Mildmay), which proposes "To insert provisions enabling Peers to vote at Parlia
1850
mentary elections." That is beyond the scope of this Bill.
Mr. MILDMAY: As this Bill places a peer in the position of being subject to taxation without representation, may I urge, Mr. Speaker, that it is within the scope of the Bill to correct a position which I think every hon. Member of this House will regard as being impossible to last permanently.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point on the merits which the hon. Member can urge as a reason against the Clauses of the Bill. I must also point out to the hon. Member that his Instruction is out of order because it is a mandatory Instruction, and you cannot give mandatory Instructions to a Committee of the whole House.
Bill considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. I desire to call your attention to three Amendments to the enacting Clauses—not the Preamble—which are incorrectly printed on the last sheet of Amendments. One of them stands in my name. It proposes——
The CHAIRMAN: If that is the case we will deal with it when we come to it. It is not the occasion now for asking questions about an amendment to which we have not come.
Mr. GINNELL: My point of Order is to ask you——
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is dealing with the enacting words, they are not open to Amendment.
Mr. GINNELL: Is it your ruling that a Committee of the whole House is incompetent to touch the enacting Clause?
The CHAIRMAN: We do not deal with the enacting words.

PARLIAMENT BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bill.)
  (1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be pre-

  1851
  sented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.
  (2) A Money Bill means a Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects—namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament; supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them.
  (3) When a Bill to which the House of Lords has not consented is presented to His Majesty for assent as a Money Bill, the Bill shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons that it is a Money Bill.
  (4) No amendment shall be allowed to a Money Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, is such as to prevent the Bill retaining the character of a Money Bill.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move to postpone the Clause.
  I move this Amendment because I think it will be generally convenient to deal with the Clause about general legislation before we deal with the narrower issue of financial legislation. The Committee will remember that the Resolution passed in Parliament presided over by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, on 24th June, 1907, was confined to general legislation. It ran in these terms:—
  "That in order to give effect to the will of the people, us expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House, should be so restricted by law as to secure within the limitation of a single Parliament that the final decision of the Commons shall prevail."
  I admit that when the Veto Resolutions were passed last year another element was introduced. The Resolutions passed in 1910 came about in this way. The Budget had been referred by the House of Lords to the judgment of the people, and an additional Veto Resolution was moved by the present Prime Minister to cover the case of a Finance Bill which had been passed by this House and had been rejected by another House. I think it would be very much more convenient if the larger issue were discussed first for this additional reason. It may be that in
  1852
  the discussion on Clause 2 matters may arise which may largely affect the financial issue on Clause 1, and it would be extremely inconvenient to the Committee, having discussed and disposed of Clause 1, to have to discuss matters which naturally enter into Clause 1 on Clause 2. That, I think, is a very good reason why we should postpone Clause 1 as being the narrower issue. There is a further reason. Various Resolutions have been from time to time passed by this House on financial matters. The first I will mention was in the year 1671. There was another in. 1679, and a third in 1860, when the Paper Duties were rejected by the House of Lords. If we discuss this financial Clause now, all these Resolutions, I take it, will have to be opened up in a most complete manner before we are in a position to deal with the question of general legislation. That is another very good reason why we should take the Clauses in their natural and logical sequence, which is that we should take the general question and general legislation first, and then take the narrower issue and limit it to financial questions.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Friends on the fertility and resource which they are all exhibiting, from a dialectical point of view, in the discussion of this Bill. I observe the hon. Gentleman himself who has moved the Amendment, has also got down an Amendment on page 58 to postpone Clause 2, so what provisions of the Bill he desires the Committee to discuss I am at a loss to know. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, we should commence our discussions in Committee by discussing Clause 3. "Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law."
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: My object was clearly to postpone Clause 2 until after the Preamble of the Bill had been taken.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Let us see exactly where the hon. Gentleman is. He wants us first to postpone Clause 1, and then, when we come to Clause 2, he proposes we should postpone Clause 2, and then, I understand, he proposes ws should postpone Clauses 3, 4, and 5 in order that we may discuss the Preamble of the Bill. So much for the hon. Gentleman. But what of those who are sitting around him?

  1853
  I suppose they are going to support him in this dilatory Motion. We have been engaged for nearly two hours in discussing an instruction—I am not complaining—to divide the Bill into two parts. Why? In order that we may take Clause 1, the Clause dealing with finance, and that Clause may be exhaustively discussed and reported to the House before we ever entered upon the consideration of any other part of the Bill. Now, after two hours spent on that discussion with a division which has negatived that proposition, we have an hon. Gentleman getting up to move the direct contrary, and that we should proceed at once to postpone Clause 1, the Clause on which we were assured at any rate there was a certain amount of common ground, in order that we may enter at once upon the most controversial part of the Bill. I think I have said enough. It seems to me, quite apart from these dialectical difficulties on the other side of the House, that the logical course is to begin with finance, where we are absolutely limiting the powers of the House of Lords, and then to proceed to general legislation, where we only impose a qualified restriction.
  Sir R. FINLAY: If the object of this Amendment were simply to postpone Clause 1 in order that we might proceed with the consideration of Clause 2 there would be some ground for the reasons given by the Prime Minister, but what my hon. Friend desires is that we should postpone the Clauses of the Bill in order to get to the discussion of the Preamble. I think what took place on the last Amendment is enough to show how absolutely desirable it is that we should know exactly the position of the Government on the Preamble before we come to the Clauses of the Bill. We had in the course of that discussion two hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side, one of whom said he would support the Bill out and out on the ground that it was permanent and intended to be permanent, and the other of whom declared he would support it on the ground that it was temporary and intended to be temporary. How is it possible the House should with advantage engage in the discussion of a measure when they are absolutely in the dark as to what the Government mean with regard to the intention stated in the Preamble?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Preamble stands postponed until after the whole of the Bill
  1854
  is dealt with, and we cannot now therefore discuss the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is discussing.
  Mr. HARRIS: I should like to give a few reasons why it would be convenient that Clause 1 should be postponed until we have considered Clause 2. The case for Clause 1 will be in a large measure destroyed if Clause 2 is passed in its present extraordinary form. If Clause 1 stood alone, and if the proposal in the Bill was one to deprive the House of Lords of their constitutional right to amend and reject Money Bills, it might fairly be argued that is bringing the constitutional right of the House of Lords in accord with what is the usual practice. That would be a proposal that might be considered on its merits, and as a separate proposition, as was proposed by my hon. Friend earlier in the afternoon. Clause 2 does not stand alone. The Bill proposes not only to exclude the House of Lords entirely from the domain of finance, but also to restrict its power in the most drastic manner as regards Bills not Money Bills. It must be obvious that to deprive the House of Lords of its financial powers, while leaving its powers as regards general legislation, is one proposition, and that to propose to deprive the House of Lords of its financial powers, while restricting its powers over general legislation in an extraordinary manner, is an entirely different proposition, and I think we are entitled to know what is the exact proposition before the Committee with regard to Clause 2 before we come to the discussion on Clause 1, If Clause 1 stood by itself and was the whole Bill it could be considered in an entirely different way than what we understand to be the conjoint proposal of the Bill.
  The proposal of the Bill, as a whole, is a proposal for which I venture to say there is no precedent in the whole world. The Australian and South African Senates can reject a Money Bill, and they have only a suspensory veto as regards general legislation. Provision is made for joint sittings of the two Houses, and in the Australian case there is power of reference to an electorate. While the whole of Clause 1, taken by itself, might be accepted as a temporary measure, it cannot be accepted in conjunction with Clause 2 and what we understand to be a permanent proposal as regards the powers of the Second Chamber in this country. Therefore I venture to

  1855
  submit that really, as a matter of convenience, it is extremely desirable to know in what form Clause 2 is going to be passed before we have to consider what should be the financial powers of the Second Chamber. For that reason I hope the Government will agree to let Clause 1 be postponed.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think the Prime Minister was really not quite fair to my hon. Friend in suggesting that the present Amendment was irreconcilable with the Instruction of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen). The object of that Instruction was not that Clause 1 should be taken before Clause 2, but that it should be taken and reported as a separate Bill. That was the whole, I think, of that proposition. The ground then taken was that if it were discussed and reported as a separate Bill it might be possible for all sides to agree.
  6.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not like to be accused of misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel Roberts). The hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Hope), although he is seconding, does not appear to have read the Instruction. What was it?
  "To divide the Bill into two Bills, the one dealing with the powers of the House of Lords as to Money Bills, and the other with the restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills and with the duration of Parliament, and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the other is proceeded with."
  In effect Clause 1 was to be reported before we could proceed to consider Clause 2 at all.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The idea was that the first Clause should be reported as a separate Bill, and the reason why we put that forward was that an agreement of that Clause as a Bill by itself was not impossible, when the Clause had been threshed out and amended. In the speech I made I suggested it would be practically possible that it should not only be reported as a separate Bill, but even passed as an agreed Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would not consent to that course; hence the present motion. There are certainly very good reasons why the second Clause should be taken first, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is really to his own interest that it
  1856
  should be so. There are certain objections applicable to both Clauses, but some of these apply in a far greater degree to the second Clause than to the first. If the objections are argued on the first Clause it may be that the answer given will not apply to the arguments that would be advanced on the second Clause, and when the first Clause has been disposed of these arguments may again be put forward with still greater force as against the second Clause. The Debate will consequently have to be taken all over again. I think the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken will very much prolong the Debate. Important as the first Clause is and great as is the evil that lurks in it, as at present drawn, undoubtedly the whole pith of the controversy, as it is understood outside this House, turns on the second Clause. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes our Debates to be conducted not only for the edification of Members of this House, but also for the information of the country outside, and I suggest that the proper course is to go straight to the important issues involved. I would add that that cannot be achieved if we discuss the technicalities of Clause 1 instead of proceeding to the broad issues of Clause 2 at the first possible moment.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I think my hon. Friend is fully entitled to say that the discussion which took place on the Instruction dealt entirely with the question whether or not the Clause should be reported as a separate Bill, and not with the chronological order in which the discussions should take place. My hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, based himself entirely on the recommendation of the Committee and on the desire that the Preamble should be discussed in a certain place under certain circumstances. You have ruled that out of order. I should have supported my hon. Friend for the reasons he gave had it been possible for us to discuss the point, but I am not sure he will think it worth his while to carry this matter to a Division in view of your ruling, in which you tell us that at this point it is not convenient to discuss the question of the postponement of the Preamble.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I wish to make an appeal to the Government. It is in their power to suspend the Standing Order which prevents a postponement of a Clause until after the Preamble. I think such a suspension might easily be carried by

  1857
  agreement, and that would enable us to raise the question whether the Preamble should be discussed first. The Standing Order certainly was not passed in view of Preambles of this kind; and, therefore, I would invite the Government to consider whether it would not be wise, in the interests of sensible discussion in this House, to have the Preamble first discussed, and then pass to the discussion of the Clauses. It certainly would be much more convenient and much more businesslike
  The PRIME MINISTER: We think we must first discuss the operative Clauses.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I would have withdrawn my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to suspend the Standing Order; but, as he will not, I fear I must press it to a division.
  Question put, "That Clause 1 be postponed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 282.

  Division No. 105.]

  AYES.

  [6.10 p.m.

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fleming, Valentine

  Nowton, Harry Kottingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, H.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Quilter, W. E. C.

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hills, John Waller

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Butcher, John George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Campion, W. R

  Kerry, Earr of

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Carllie, Edward Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hall)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Swift, Rigby

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Chambers, James

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Browniee

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Croft, Henry Page

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Mr. Cave.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newdegate, F. A

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Muldoon, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Munro, Robert

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Neilson, Francis

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Hackett, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Armitage, Robert

  Hancock, J. G.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Dowd, John

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Ogden, Fred

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Grady, James

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Barton, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

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

  O'Malley, William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hinds, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Boland, John Pius

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Johnson, W.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Joyce, Michael

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Keating, Matthew

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Clynes, John R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, Michael

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lansbury, George

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Rowlands, James

  Dawes, J. A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  St. Maur, Harold

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dickinson, W. H

  M'Kean, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Doris, William

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sheeny, David

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Marks, George Croydon

  Shortt, Edward

  Elverston, Harold

  Martin, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrlm, S.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Falconer, James

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Soares, Ernest

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Millar, James Duncan

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Field, William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Furness, Stephen

  Mooney, John J.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Tennant, Harold John

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morrell, Philip

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  1860

  1861

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. Clackmannan)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Toulmin, George

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Webb, H.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wardle, George J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Waring, Walter

  Whyte, A. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wiles, Thomas

  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) is not in the right place. It will come in later on. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is also in the wrong place.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish, Sir, to call your special attention to the fact that unless my Amendment is allowed to be Moved at this stage there will be no opportunity of making it clear at what stage we are to know whether we are discussing the case of an alleged Money Bill or a Bill that is not a Money Bill. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Clause as drafted begins by saying:—
  "If a Money Bill having been passed by the House of Commons and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session,"
  We ought to know in the first stage of a Money Bill whether it is a Money Bill or is claimed to be a Money Bill, and not wait till it is passed, because there are different provisions made with regard to such a measure, and it comes in a different category if we pass the Clause. In my judgment, there is no place so proper as the commencement of the Clause for putting in the words which I propose, which are:
  "A Bill which has been certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons (in manner hereinafter provided) to be exclusively a Money Bill shall," and so on—I think it will be proper to make it clear whilst we are passing this part of the Clause that it cannot be made a Money Bill by a subsequent proposal.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have listened to the hon. Member, and the point which he wants to make, because later on in the Clause I may tell him I was completely puzzled as to what he meant, because the very next Amendment standing in his name is to leave out the word "if" which stands at the commencement of the Clause.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not propose to leave out that word.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is out of place and will come later on. The same thing applies to the Amendments of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) and the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir Clifford Cory) proposes an alternative Clause, which is not in order. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has an Amendment which is also out of place.
  Mr. CAVE: I do not know what has happened in connection with the Amendment standing in my name. Have you ruled that out altogether, or will it come on later in the Clause. The substance of it is that I want to raise the whole question of substituting a Joint Committee of the two Houses for the Speaker. Although, of course, it can be raised in another way, this is a way in which it is open to us to raise the discussion, and I think the Committee will be glad to come to the discussion of the question early.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the best way would be to take the alternative course after that which is at the beginning of the Clause. I take the order in which the provisions are in the Bill as a general rule, unless there is some definite advantage to be gained by taking another course. The next Amendment which appears on the Paper is to leave out Sub-section (1), and it is not in order. The Sub-section in question is an operative part of the Clause, and its omission would necessitate leaving out the Clause. The next Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) is not in order unless it is to be taken in conjunction with the consequential Amendment later on.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: It is to be taken in conjunction with the Amendment later on. I beg to Move in Sub-section (I) to leave out the word "If." ["If a Money Bill having been passed by the House of Commons."]
  I desire to move this Amendment in order to ask the Government what func-

  1863
  tion they expect the House of Lords to discharge in future with respect to Money Bills at all. Under the Section a Bill will go to the House of Lords in the ordinary course, and I presume it will go through all its stages. I presume it will be moved and discussed, but apparently whether it is moved or whether it is not, whether it is discussed or whether it is not, it equally becomes law at the end of a month's time, and is sent for the Royal Assent at the end of the month. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he attaches any importance to keeping up the form on this occasion. This Bill will be discussed, and the Peers may say "content" or "not content," but the result at the end of a month is the same and the Bill is to receive the Royal Assent. If this Amendment is considered in the light of a subsequent one which is on the order paper, the substance of the proposal is that the House of Lords may suggest changes in a Money Bill and send them down to the House of Commons simply by way of suggestion, just as in a similar way it is provided in a later Clause in this Bill that Bills are to be passed about between the two Houses.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the hon. Member explain where the subsequent Amendment which he means to propose is to be found
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I know it is a little difficult to follow. I am now proposing to leave out the word "If" subsequently to that is an Amendment at the bottom of page 38 to leave out from "Commons" to end of Sub-section and to insert:—
  "Shall be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the Bill has not been before the other House of Parliament."
  The effect of the two Amendments taken together is that the Bill will not go through these forms in the House of Lords. I move, then, not because I am enamoured of their substance, so much as to ask the Government what importance they attach to any of these Bills going before the House of Lords at all. Presumably they go through all their stages. I suppose it is brought in and read the first time, and then another day is given for its discussion on the Second Reading, then, perhaps there will be a Committee stage and a Third Reading, but whether it is discussed or not, whether it is divided against or not
  1864
  it is apparently to have the force of law at the end of a month. As things stand, I do not see why the Government attach importance to these stages. If they would accept an Amendment lower down on the Paper, which would give the House of Lords power not to make amendments but suggestions to the House, the matter would be entirely different. By that Amendment I suggest that the House of Lords may at any stage return to the House of Commons any Money Bill requesting by message the omission or amendment of any provisions therein, and the House of Commons may if it think fit, make any such omissions or amendments with or without modifications. If anything of that kind were possible the Clause would have some value, but if nothing of the kind is possible I really do not see any explanation of the point as to the necessity for going through these stages. I cannot help thinking that this is done deliberately in order that the ugliness of the Government proposal may be cloaked, and, perhaps, if Thomas Carlyle were yet alive he would re-write another chapter in "Sartor Re-sartus" to show how the present Government had adopted certain clothes so as to cloak their present proposals. I think that is the reason why the Government want to retain these old forms while they are still proposing by this Clause to deprive the Second Chamber of any right to do anything with a Money Bill, the result of such a proposal being to throw an unendurable onus upon the Crown.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is always very dangerous to reason by metaphor, and the hon. Gentleman has alluded to the philosophy of clothes as explained in Carlyle's "Sartor Resartus." The difference between the hon. Gentleman and us in this matter is that we propose to retain the present constitutional arrangement, whereas he proposes to divest us of it altogether. That is the most revolutionary proposal that has yet been made, and I wonder whether it will be supported by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil). It is, as I say, the most revolutionary proposal that has yet been made. It is not merely that we should assert the supremacy of this House in matters of finance, but that we should not even allow the House of Lords to have an opportunity of discussing any financial measure which has passed through this House. That is the proposal, and when the hon. Gentleman asks me why I resist it, I say it is because I see no reason for

  1865
  it. It is going further than the Government think it necessary to go in asserting the rights of this House, because our view has always been that in this Clause we are giving legal and statutory effect to what has hitherto been, or was till 1909, the almost unbroken constitutional usage. There is no innovation here of any sort or kind—absolutely none—except that we are putting into the form of an Act of Parliament now that the necessity has arisen that which up to a couple of years ago, by universal consent, was the adopted practice without any Act of Parliament at all. The House of Lords discussed Finance Bills; they did not amend them; they did not reject them. We are proposing to leave them in the position in which by constitutional usage they always have been, to discuss financial proposals which emanate from this House. That other is a power which for over fifty years they never claimed, and certainly never exercised—namely, that to amend or reject. The hon. Gentleman proposes to go further, and deprive them of the power even of discussing these proposals. The Noble Lord shakes his head, but he has not read the Amendment, or has not read the consequential Amendment, because, according to the hon. Member for Sheffield, if this word "if" is omitted, the Clause will run as follows: "A Money Bill having been passed by the House of Commons, shall be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the Bill has not been before the other House of Parliament." The House of Lords would then have no power of expressing any opinion upon it or considering it. That is the proposal. The advantage of the Government proposal is three-fold, although the Noble Lord attaches no importance to it. The Government view is that we should disturb the existing constitutional system as little as possible. In the second place, if the Bill is sent to the House of Lords, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the House of Lords will pass it.
  Mr. REMNANT: Under the Amendment it does not go to the Lords at all.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly the point. What I am arguing against is the proposal that the Finance Bill should not go to the House of Lords at all.
  Mr. REMNANT: I understood that, but the right hon. Gentleman said, in reading it, "and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the
  1866

  Session." If the Amendment is carried that will be left out altogether.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I admit that. I apologise. We are talking about the difference between sending a Bill to the House of Lords under the limitations proposed by this Clause and not sending it to the House of Lords at all. In the first place, we make the minimum of disturbance with existing constitutional practice. In the second place, the House of Lords in all probability will pass the Bill. It always has done so, and most likely it will do so again. The Bill will go to the country with the joint assent of both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) attaches no importance to that. In the third place, even when the House of Lords refuses to pass the Bill, is it to be said it is no advantage whatever to have a debate there, considering the manner in which that House is constituted and the eminent persons who take part in its deliberations? We are constantly being told that is the real reservoir of political wisdom and ability. Is it to be said that the country is to deprive itself of the advantage of hearing the financial proposals of the Government discussed and reviewed with all its vast resources of dialectical skill. I do not go so far as that. On the contrary, it is very desirable that we should preserve in the House of Lords the powers it already possesses, and that we should not plunge into revolutionary innovations in our Constitution unless abundant reason is shown for doing so. As regards the only other point raised by the hon. Gentleman—namely, the later Amendment of his own—I need not point out that it will be quite out of order to discuss that at this stage. It is an alternative proposal. It assumes that Finance Bills do go to the House of Lords, and it gives the House of Lords a new power of suggestion, as distinguished from Amendment, which would bring Bills back to this House for further consideration. We can discuss that point if and when the Amendment is reached. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the Government is proposing the least possible disturbance of our existing arrangements which is consistent with the assertion of the uncontrolled supremacy of this House in all matters of finance.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I really should like to know what place the word "revolution" fills in the right hon. Gentleman's vocabulary. He informed my hon. Friend Mr. Hope) that this was the most revolutionary proposal ever made in this House.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, no. I said "yet made in this discussion."
  Mr. BALFOUR: I suppose by "this discussion" the right hon. Gentleman means the discussions which have been going on for the last two or three years?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-day.
  Mr. BALFOUR: There has been no proposal to-day. If it is the most revolutionary proposal yet made to-day, I quite agree. The proposal which we have discussed at great length, though very important, is not revolutionary. No doubt it is possible to deal with the Constitution in a more revolutionary spirit than at all appeared on the face of the Instruction which occupied the earlier part of this afternoon's debate. In truth, my hon. Friend's proposal, whether it be good or bad, may deserve many epithets, but it certainly does not deserve the epithet "revolutionary." The right hon. Gentleman is passionately attached to the existing forms, which he seemed to think only carry with them that the House of Lords and the eminent persons in that Chamber may make speeches, but may do nothing else with regard to finance, and he has taken this opportunity of reiterating the amazing doctrine, for which he has made himself responsible on more than one occasion, that the House of Lords have at present, under our existing system, no constitutional right whatever to reject Money Bills. That is really a profound delusion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Quite apart from party purposes, I understand and agree with those who say the House of Lords has not the power of amending, but certainly has the power of rejecting Money Bills. There can be no doubt whatever. It is perfectly true that that power has never been exercised since 1860 because in that year arrangements were made by this House, not with a view of preventing the House of Lords from rejecting Money Bills, but with a view of preventing the House of Lords dealing with part of the financial proposals of the year without dealing with the whole of them, and no doubt if you put, as since 1860 you have put, the House of Lords in the position of either leaving alone or rejecting in toto the financial provision of the year, of course the constitutional power which they possess is one which must be exercised on the rarest possible occasions. I really do not believe that any impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt that that is the true interpretation
  1868
  of the development of our Constitution in regard to the power of the House of Lords over Money Bills. That power has not been exercised for amending purposes for more time than is worth considering now. When it could be exercised in the form of rejection of a part of the financial schemes of the year, of course it was much easier for the House of Lords to use that power. The House of Commons made it extremely difficult for the House of Lords to use that power, and, having made it more difficult, of course the result is that it has been very rarely used and ought only in cases of extreme necessity to be used. Whether 1909 was a case of extreme necessity is, of course, open to dispute. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think the Budget of that year was of so ordinary a type that the House of Lords ought to have let it go through as all other Budgets have gone through since 1860. I think the House of Lords would have been failing in its duty if it had not referred to the people so very exceptional and so very remarkable a departure in the finance of the country. However, that particular point may be disputed, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman should have raised it on this Amendment, to which it appears to be only remotely relevant.
  What we have to discuss now is whether we shall retain these forms which the Government propose to leave to the House of Lords, and which my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) proposes to withdraw from them. To withdraw these powers is not revolutionary—it is absurd to call it revolutionary—but in my judgment it is not expedient, and I should be sorry to see these forms withdrawn from the House of Lords, not in the least, because I think the proposal of my hon. Friend is revolutionary, but because I think the possession of these forms by the House of Lords on a Money Bill might, in certain very easily foreseen circumstances, be extremely useful. Supposing this Clause passes, as I most earnestly hope it will not pass in its present form—supposing, in other words, it is left to the Speaker of this House alone to decide, after a Bill has gone through its stages here, whether it does or does not contain tacking provisions, I think it is an excessively bad proposal, but if the Amendment is carried there would be no opportunity for reviewing the decision of Mr. Speaker, which may have the most far reaching consequences, beyond the sphere of the House over which Mr. Speaker reigns, stretching perhaps into the life of

  1869
  every man and every commercial institution of the country. The House of Lords, if your Clause passes, will have no power of rejecting the Budget, but they will have the power in debate of showing that the Budget, which has been decided by Mr. Speaker to be purely a financial measure, is nothing of the sort. They will be able to show that it goes far beyond the limit of a purely financial measure, and it may be that, as the result of their debates, the Government themselves might think it worth while to modify a scheme, the unconstitutional character of which has been thus exposed. That is only one illustration, though I think a very important one of the sort of advantages which might still accrue, even under this Clause, to the House of Lords, if you leave with them the power of surveying the Budget. I do not take so low a view of the effect of discussion in Parliament upon public opinion as some critics of our Parliamentary institutions are disposed to do, and even if the House of Lords retains the constitutional power which it now possesses of referring great new financial departures to the constituencies, debate in that House upon some great issue, in which the whole country is interested, cannot fail to modify and mould public opinion. In these circumstances, though I think the epithet "revolutionary" is probably the last epithet which the Amendment really deserves, I am disposed to think that this Clause will not be improved by the modification which my hon. Friend suggests.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: After what has fallen from my right hon. Friend I do not desire to press the Amendment on the Committee, but there are one or two points which deserve attention as a matter of Debate. The Prime Minister seems to suppose that because a power is not exercised for a number of years it is non-existent and, whether existent or not, is of no importance. That is a profound misconception. This House has never exercised in the whole course of its history the power of rejecting an Appropriation Bill. Would he say it is desirable that the passing of an Appropriation Bill should be taken as a matter of form? It is obvious that the existence of a power, even, may be a valuable thing. It may check proposals being introduced. It remains in the background, a security against scandalous and unusual abuses of the power of this House, and for that reason I regret that, whether in the hands of the present House of Lords, to which
  1870
  there are objections, or in the hands of a more popularly constituted body, there should be no financial power. Some financial check on this House will ultimately be found to be necessary.
  But the important objection to the Government proposal, though I quite agree with the weighty argument my right hon. Friend has put forward, is simply that it is an untruthful proposal, which makes believe that you have a security when there is no security. In the language of the late Lord Salisbury, it erects a rotten fence on the edge of a precipice, against which people may lean, and, leaning, fall over. Lord Rosebery, in a memorable metaphor, said the Bill was like hamstringing a horse and entering it for the Derby. If you are cruel enough to hamstring a horse, it is better not to enter it for the Derby. To see it limp round the course is unseemly and merely an exercise of cruelty. However, my right hon. Friend thinks the House of Lords limping round the course will produce an effect on public opinion, and it is possible that it may show the inhumanity of the hamstringing to which it has been subjected. From that point of view no doubt there is a good argument against the Amendment, but I think the Prime Minister's speech was a revelation of his point of view. What he cares about is the clothing of the Constitution—the seemliness, the pretence, the unreality—that is what he values. The real power of the Second Chamber he does not value at all. He does not value it because it is inconvenient to the party he leads. Because the thing is merely pretence, he likes it for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the public among other useful functions. My hon. Friend's Amendment shocks his constitutional sense, and he rebukes him for being revolutionary. The right hon. Gentleman's conception of a sound Constitution was what the late Mr. Carlyle would have called a thing which depends elaborately on pretence. The right hon. Gentleman wants one House managed by the guillotine in the interest of the Liberal party, and another going through mere forms. I quite agree that my hon. Friend's Amendment, if pressed, would shut out other Amendments, and there is so much weight in that that I do not think he should divide the Committee upon it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Prime Minister says this proposal is the most revolutionary that has been made in this discussion. It is the most honest proposal made

  1871
  since the Bill was brought before the House. I say so because it says what will happen if the Clause is passed. The Prime Minister objects to the Amendment because it is going to get the clothes off the Government and the party opposite. That is exactly what I want to do. I want to take the clothes off hon. Gentlemen opposite. That would have a startling effect upon the electors of this country. My hon. Friend, like myself, is a businesslike person. We both dislike shams, and therefore my hon. Friend says, "This Bill is going to take away from the House of Lords their power to alter or amend a Money Bill. Take away their power to debate, and do not let them sit in the gilded Chamber discussing nothing at all, or only subjects which are not to be affected by their discussion." He says further, "Let the House of Commons say whether a Money Bill is for the good of the country or not." I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he likes to hear speeches.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I thought he did. I apologise. I see where I made the mistake. He said he liked speeches in the House of Lords where he cannot hear them. He does not like them here. Why does he not like to hear speeches in this House? There would be only one advantage apparently if this Amendment were carried. My hon. Friend desires to allow this House to send up a Money Bill once. "Alice in Wonderland" said, "If I say a thing three times it is so." Why does not my hon. Friend say, "If the Liberal party pass any Bill three times it must become law." When passed the first time Parliament can be prorogued to meet on the following day. It can then pass the Bill a second time, and prorogue again. In the third Session it would become law. Then we shall all be happy, and hon. Members opposite will be able to indulge their love of legislation. I share with my hon. Friend the desire to reject, if possible, every Clause in this Bill, but if we are going to have a Bill let us have an honest one. Let the Government say to the country, "In our opinion we are the only people who ought to have any power in legislation." That may be a very laudable ambition for them, but my business instincts prevent me from supporting such a proposal. I think it is a sheer waste of time. I think my hon. Friend has done a
  1872
  very valuable service in bringing forward the Amendment. If his speech is reported it will show clearly that he wishes to be straightforward and honest.
  Viscount MORPETH: The Prime Minister said that it was desirable that the Second Chamber should be able to express its assent. I wonder if that commends itself to hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on the other side. What is the value of being able to assent if a person has no power to dissent. If a slave had power to assent to his sale that power would have no value if he could be sold contrary to his will. The power of assent by the House of Lords is a thing to which not the slightest attention would be paid by this House or Government. It seems to me that the pretence is not worthy of the Government of a constitutional country. The Prime Minister attaches great importance to discussion. Personally I attach no importance to discussion where it is not accompanied by any power to act. Everyone who has sat on a Consultative Committee knows it is the most weary thing that has ever been known. The Committee has power to make recommendations, but no power to enforce them. I assure my hon. Friends below the Gangway that I dislike unrealities. If this were to be a permanent. Bill I would say that the unrealities had better be swept away. On the other hand, if it is not to be permanent, I would say that before we part with realities we should know what is to be done. If the realities are left, some control to the Second Chamber may be restored. When this Government are no longer in power and others have taken their places, the very forms which are left may be utilised to restore what has been destroyed.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think the Committee is very much indebted to the hon. Member for bringing forward this Amendment. The discussion of it has led to a remarkable speech by the Leader of the Opposition. The Amendment itself is based upon the proposition that this Bill is intended to establish Single Chamber Government. That is entirely denied by the right hon. Gentleman, who has admitted that the mere power to discuss a Finance Bill in another place is a valuable possession. I build upon that a fortiori the argument that the power of discussion and revision contained in the Bill will be valuable also under the second part in

  1873
  relation to ordinary legislation. Therefore early in this Debate we have got the admission that this Bill does not set up Single Chamber Government, but leaves powers to the other place which are valuable. I hope I shall have an opportunity of saying later on that that admission carries the right hon. Gentleman a little further with the powers which are left to the other place. I think I am speaking for other hon. Members on this side of the House as well as for myself when I say that the powers so retained or left to the other Chamber instead of being too shadowy or too vague, are rather too large to be entrusted to that Chamber.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not dealing with the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. CAVE: I cannot help pressing a little further the metaphor of the Prime Minister when he said that the Government proposed to leave to the House of Lords their clothes. There is a story in Hans Andersen which relates that there came at one time to a town people who gave out that they were going to make clothes of such wonderfully thin texture that no one could see them except people who were wise. What followed was that they went through the gesture of making clothes, and they sold like wildfire. Everybody bought them and admired them, until one day a little child came, and, looking at them, said, "Why they have got nothing on." Then the whole fraud came out. It came out that these people had been trading on the credulity of others. In this case the Government are conferring power like the merchants in these clothes. My hon. Friend takes the part of the child, and is frank enough to say, "If this Bill passes there will be no clothes at all." I think the Amendment is useful as showing that the Bill is, in fact, a sham. Those who pretend to leave under this Bill any powers whatever to the House of Lords are only misleading this House, and it would be better, if possible, to have reality in the Bill, and to say that no Money Bill can go to the other House at all. The Prime Minister said in terms that the Upper House has now no constitutional right either to reject or to amend a Money Bill. I venture to differ entirely from that statement, and I think he is the first Minister and this is the first Government who have said it in this House or elsewhere. I need only refer to Mr. Gladstone, who said in the clearest possible terms——[An HON. MEMBER: "He is dead."] Mr. Gladstone's
  1874
  reputation is not dead. There are many in this House, mainly I think on this side, who have still some reverence for what Mr. Gladstone said on constitutional matters, because in these matters no one was more Conservative in the best sense of the word than Mr. Gladstone. On 5th July, 1860, he said that the House of Lords had the right both to reject and to amend. What he said was this: that, in fact, the two Houses meant the same thing:—
  "The House of Commons by its privilege with respect to Money Bills has meant to reserve to itself the integrity of the taxing power, and the House of Lords, by declining to admit the claim of the House of Commons, has intended to preserve to itself an effective means of preventing the House of Commons from forcing upon it other matters of general legislation under cover of Money Bills."
  Mr. Gladstone was not the only one, because Lord Morley, in very recent times indeed gave utterance to sentiments something of the same kind. I have his words here:—
  "The bare legal right (to reject the Budget) has not been denied. Some, no doubt, and I do not know that I would quarrel with them, would argue that the bare legal right may, on certain occasions, be appropriately transformed into a moral duty. Yes, but I can imagine a state of things—I can imagine it with difficulty—which would justify the transformation of a legal right into aspect of moral duty by reason of the wildcat proposals of a demented House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1909, cols. 1140–1.]
  That admits the constitutional rights in an extreme case. That is all that anybody can look forward to. I think it right to protest against the view as things stand that there is this constitutional bar, and if you are going to define a Money Bill in the wide terms of this Clause, I should strongly oppose the restrictions of the House of Lords further in this matter. If you are going to restrict the House of Lords against interfering only with—to use the old word—Bills of aid and supply, that is one thing, but under the terms of this Clause the Government will be able to bring in, without any check whatever, without even the check of delay, proposals which may alter the whole aspect of this nation. I am glad my hon. Friend moved this Amendment, because it will enable us to know, though, of course, we knew it before, but it will expose to the Committee what this Clause really does, namely, to remove, so far as these matters are concerned, all power whatever from the other House.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I do not think we can congratulate the Opposition on the skill with which they have selected the Amendment of which they are taking their first stand. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down described the Bill which we are discussing as a sham.
  Mr. CAVE: I did not say the Bill was a ham. I said that the Bill would make the House of Lords a sham.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Then there is some reality in the Bill itself. I only refer to that in order to describe this Amendment, and to say that if this Amendment is not a sham then I do not understand what a sham is. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have been denouncing the very extreme character of the proposals of the Government in regard to finance, and the limitation of power of legislation on the part of the House of Lords, yet here we have them to-day-occupying a great amount of valuable time of the Committee in supporting an Amendment which will go a great deal farther than any proposals which the Government have made. In effect the intention of this Amendment is that a Finance Bill cannot go to the House of Lords at all. How many of them will have the courage to vote for that in the Division Lobby? They have brought it forward for discussion, with no real earnestness of intention of pressing it upon the House.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Amendment has been brought forward in order to expose the character of the Government Bill.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Are we to understand that the attitude of the Conservative party is simply to expose the policy of the Government? I think that that policy will stand any exposure, but we are now to understand this, that in exposing the policy of the Government you bring forward proposals of your own that have no reality as far as you are concerned. Those who talk of exposure have no belief in their own proposals, and they have not the courage to vote for them in the Division Lobby. This is, in my opinion, a good proposal, and but for the argument put forward by the Prime Minister as to leaving the existing state of things to some extent as they are, with regard to the machinery of Bills passing from this House I certainly would have advocated this Amendment myself. If we mean, as I presume the Government do that in future the House of Lords shall have no power in regard to finance then I contend there is a great deal to be said for the view that we might send the Finance Bill direct from the House to the Throne to receive the Royal Assent. That is the purport of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved. If
  1876
  they care to go into the Division Lobby in favour of that with any real earnestness I shall certainly support him. So far as I can see, the Amendment is only put forward with a theoretical, but not very useful object, because they have not the intention of voting for it in the Division Lobby. Unless it is unanimously rejected I shall vote for it in the Division Lobby.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I think that the speech to which we have just listened shows rather less than the sense of humour which is said to be possessed by natives of the country to which the hon. Gentleman and myself both belong. I consider that this discussion has been extremely useful in showing up the real character of the Government proposals. What the Government propose is this, to leave the people under the impression that they have a Second Chamber, and I say that the simulatum of a Second Chamber is a great deal more dangerous than the absence of a Second Chamber altogether. The Prime Minister talked about constitutionality and about the danger of revolution. But he is carrying out a revolution. I absolutely differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he asserted that this Clause merely embodied the existing law of the Constitution. Of course, I do not intend to enter on that subject at the present moment, but no one who looks into the precedents can assert that the proposition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman is a correct statement of the law upon the subject. This proposal is revolutionary, because it deprives the. House of Lords of any right to deal with Bills of this class, while at the same time it proposes to leave the country under the impression that that right exists by leaving to the House of Lords the power of discussion. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend has been extremely useful in unmasking the real character of the Government proposals, and having unmasked the Government proposals, I think that my hon. Friend will be of opinion that the whole purpose of the discussion has been served, and that any one who is capable of appreciating that ridicule is sometimes the best way of combating dangerous proposals will agree that he was well advised in moving this Resolution.
  Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Knight the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) mentioned the other day, I think, in a speech in the country that when he sat on this side of the House he delayed business with more artistic flavour than

  1877
  those who sit here now. All I can say is that he has lost that art since he went to sit on that side. I must protest against the assumption which is apparently held by him and his friends that it is not for the Opposition to bring forward an Amendment in order to obtain a discussion, and an answer from the Government, and not to go to a Division. I never heard such an argument before. I think we shall have had a most useful discussion on this Amendment if we can get an answer to a question which I now propose to put to the Government. There is a point which I think has been hitherto missed in the course of this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the course of his speech was good enough very wisely to refer to a head shake of mine on the subject whether or not a Money Bill could be discussed if this Amendment is carried. This is a point which I think is very clear. There is nothing whatever, and there cannot be in this Act anything that will prevent the House of Lords from discussing anything they want. Nothing that the Government can put into this Bill can affect the power of the House of Lords to discuss money or any other Bill. As I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, it is that these Bills shall be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament, the Royal Assent being signified notwithstanding that the Bill has not been before the other House of Parliament. The point I thought made admirably by my hon. Friend which has not been taken up is this: Are you going to say that the House of Lords is in future to go through all the action of discussing the Bill? Is the Chancellor to rise upon the Woolsack and ask the "contents" and "non-contents" to signify their approval or disapproval, and is all the form to be gone through when they know perfectly well that by going through it they will gain absolutely nothing and that they have neither power to give assent to or dissent from the Bill. In this Amendment there is nothing to prevent them discussing it, but, as I understand it, the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to prevent the hollow mockery being gone through of this Bill being brought to the other place and their assent being asked for when it makes no difference what they do. The junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) said on 7th April, 1910:—
  "They are not to have the power to amend the Bill, nor to reject it, nor to suspend it. Why send it to them? Why make two bites at, the cherry? Why not say emphatically here and now that the House of Commons is supreme in finance, and so show that in practice as well as in theory by sending the Finance
  1878
  Bill direct to the Crown, without going to the House of Lords at all?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1910, col. 705.]
  That is exactly what the Government propose to do. They propose to make these unfortunate gentlemen whom they have sent in such confusion to the other place Viscount Morley, Viscount Haldane, and all the rest of them—give their time and sit in the House while they are being asked whether they are in favour of the Bill, and, whether they say Yes or No, it will not make the slightest difference on the question of whether the Bill will become law or not. If that is not a mockery I do not know what the meaning of the term is.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Northamptonshire quoted the words of the Leader of the Opposition as admitting that discussion of financial provisions on the part of the House of Lords would be valuable, and the hon. Member said that, therefore, there would be still a two Chamber system. But the point we are making is that under the new powers, though the House of Lords may have opportunity of discussing, they would have no power of revision; there would not be an opportunity for the House of Lords to do so, even if they thought fit. For that reason the Prime Minister was not accurate when he said that this Clause leaves the House of Lords in the position in which they have always been. Of course, he was alluding to the fact that it is very rare for the House of Lords to reject the Finance Bill; but he seems to forget that it is a very common occurrence for the House of Lords to put Amendments in Money Bills which are often accepted.
  The CHAIRMAN: What has this got to do with the Amendment before the Committee?
  Mr. GUINNESS: My point is that under the present proposal of the Government there will be no opportunity here for considering Amendments which have been made in the House of Lords by consent.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can deal with that point in a later Amendment. A question upon it was asked of the Prime Minister, who said that this was not the time to deal with it. It arises on a subsequent Amendment, and therefore the hon. Member is out of order.
  Mr. GUINNESS: May I ask the Prime Minister to deal with this question? He said that the House of Lords would have power to discuss Money Bills. May I ask whether they will have any opportunity of

  1879
  making Amendments, and whether the House of Commons will have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter after it has been discussed in the House of Lords?
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that we cannot discuss these questions over and over again. There are later Amendments which raise the point. A question was put to the Prime Minister in regard to it, and he refused to deal with it now because it comes on at a later stage. I think, therefore, the hon. Member should wait until we come to that Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Prime Minister stated that the situation of the House of Lords under the Government proposals will be left as it has always been, but we show that it is changed, suggestions made by the Lords cannot be sent down to this House for consideration.
  Mr. GUINNESS: May I point out that the House of Lords has very often amended Money Bills, and those Amendments have been accepted. May I quote the ruling of the Speaker on the occasion of the Old Age Pension Bill:—
  "Almost every year, certainly very frequently this House does not insist upon its privilege. It accepts amendments, and in sending a message to the other House the statement is made that this House does not insist upon its privilege."
  My point is that the position of the House of Lords will not remain the same under this Clause, and for that reason we are perfectly entitled to resist it. We have seen the House of Lords making Amendments to Money Bills with the consent of the Government, yet the House of Commons under these proposals will have no opportunity of taking those Amendments into consideration. What will be the effect? The Bill will go to the House of Lords, and there will be no means of reconsidering it here, unless the Government withdraw it, prorogue Parliament, start a new Session, and reintroduce it. If there is to be no power of reconsideration, though it might be of merely drafting mistakes in Money Bill——
  The CHAIRMAN: This is really dealing with a later Amendment, and the hon. Member is arguing a point which does not rise upon the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. MORRELL Mr. MORRELL rose in his place and claimed to Move:—"That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: I hope the hon. Member will restrain his impatience. I fancy that we had better all arm ourselves with a certain amount of patience considering the magnitude of the enterprise upon which we are now entering.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to speak to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. SALTER: I will endeavour to do so, Sir. A more legitimate Amendment than that which my hon. Friend has moved was never placed before the Committee of this House, and if only because of the speech elicited from the Prime Minister, a speech which appears to me to contain a tacit admission of the profound sense the Prime Minister has of the value of the cooperation of the House of Lords in matters of finance in any Constitution. If my hon. Friend does not press this Amendment to a Division it is not because of any one of the three reasons which the Prime Minister urged upon the Committee against it. What were the three reasons the Prime Minister gave? He said, first of all, "We are retaining the old system, and you are departing from it." That is a very edifying observation in the mouth of the Prime Minister. Why is it that our Finance Bills—and I observe with great interest that the Prime Minister used the expression "Finance Bill," which may be very important at a later stage of this discussion—have gone to the House of Lords? They have gone there in order that we might have the additional authority and assent of the House of Lords, and because the House of Lords had the undoubted and unchallenged right to reject Money Bills. The Prime Minister talked about retaining the old system. Is it retaining the old system to substitute for a discussion in the House of Lords, which was real and which could be followed by action, a discussion which is to be academic and have no more practical result than the discussion of a college debating society? The Prime Minister's second point, and, to me, the most interesting, was that the House of Lords will support and carry ninety-nine out of one hundred Finance Bills which we send up to them. But there is one out of the one hundred to which they will refuse their assent, and we are going to make a new and invidious distinction between those Money Bills which are styled an Act of Parliament in the present day, and those Money Bills which are mere decrees of the House of Commons.

  1881
  We shall have to invent a new Preamble, and we shall have to divide our Money Bills into two classes—those which receive the assent of both Houses, as I take it, under the Preamble of the Bill, "by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled." But for that percentage—and I agree with the Prime Minister it would be a small one—which is not assented to by the House of Lords, we shall have to find some new term which will distinguish those House of Commons Money Bills from Money Bills which are Acts of Parliament in the old sense. That invidious distinction will have to be made. The Prime Minister's third point is this. He said that we will have the great advantage of discussion in an assembly, so illustrious as the House of Lords, where there are able and highly qualified men and financiers, who are there to give us the advantage of their mature consideration. But does not it follow that the more valuable the discussion in the House of Lords the more invidious this distinction will be between those Money Bills to which they have assented and those Money Bills in regard to which they differ from this House, and from which they withhold their assent. These are the three points which the Prime Minister urged, but which, if I may respectfully say so, seem to have no very great substance in them. While I agree with what fell from the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Amendment, I submit that it is one which substitutes a reality for a sham, and it would save the last month of the Session for finance, a period which will be wasted under the Government proposals.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Members who have proposed and supported the Amendment do not intend to go to a Division, I would appeal to the Committee to let us dispose of it, and proceed to other questions such as that raised by the hon. Member below the Gangway, and which come up for discussion on later Amendments.
  Dr. HILLIER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. He dwelt with some seriousness upon the value of discussion in the House of Lords among the distinguished Members of that illustrious assembly on any measure, including even Finance Bills. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us by what means the
  1882
  views of that illustrious Chamber on a Finance Bill will be conveyed to this House. As I read the Clause, it will be impossible for the Lords to move an Amendment to a Money Bill. Will the Prime Minister be good enough to explain to us by what constitutional means under the Clause, if carried in its entirety, the House of Lords will be able to convey to this House their valuable views on a Finance Bill which he insists should be sent to them?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: With regard to what the Prime Minister says as to the House of Lords not having rejected any Money Bill between 1860 and 1909, I would remind him that, in 1861, the year after, Mr. Gladstone proposed to make it more difficult in the future for the House of Lords to deal with these questions, and Lord Derby, who was Leader of the House, entered a very emphatic protect against any interference with their rights. Of course, Money Bills in former days were something very different from Money Bills as defined in this Clause, and I must enter that caveat against what the Prime Minister has said, because undoubtedly we have had instances of Money Bills having been dealt with by the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) referred to the fact of the Amendment being moved for the purpose of discussion, and with no intention of dividing upon it. The hon. Gentleman must know that when he was in opposition such a thing was constantly done, and perfectly legitimately done. I must say frankly that I did not propose this Amendment with a view to going to a Division, but simply to see what the Government had to say in defence of their position. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I beg to move, after the word "if" ["If a Money Bill"] to insert the words "within" three years of the passing of this Act."
  I hope this proposal will meet with a better reception from the critical hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) than did the last, because I think he will agree that this is an Amendment of real substance. I am seeking to limit the period of what I may call the interregnum, within which the Government are to be entitled to have the advantages derived from the passage of this Bill. At the present moment there is a declaration of their

  1883
  intentions in the Preamble, that at some period or other, which is not at all defined, they will reform the Second Chamber. The purpose of my Amendment is to limit the period during which this transition time will last, and to place on the Government the responsibility and the duty of reforming the Second Chamber after the period of three years. I think that an Amendment of this kind is not unusual in Bills of a certain class. It is one which gives the Government the opportunity of declaring before this House whether their intentions with regard to the reform of the Second Chamber are honest or are not honest. In point of fact, the Amendment in very few words crystallises the Preamble of the Bill. I think in proposing that the term should be extended for so long as three years that we are giving the Government rope enough. This Bill is, of course, only a means to an end. Everybody knows that, it is not denied. How long should the Government be placed in a position to exercise the immensely increased powers which they will get under this Bill, and within what limits shall it be confined. Within three years of the passage of this Bill it would be perfectly possible for the Government to pass through this House and the other its Home Rule proposals. It will be possible to pass certain other measures in the logrolling condition in which it is placed, and it will also enable all extremists to get their particular views carried into effect. There is no lack of generosity in the period which this Amendment offers to them for their very fell and unfortunate purpose. Therefore, I think, if there is a real intention on their part, and if they have any plan in their minds as to what proposals they intend to make for the reform of the Second Chamber, then three years would be plenty of time to formulate and pass a scheme. I do not know whether the intention of the Government, as expressed in the Preamble is ultimately to find its way to that place which we are told is paved with good intentions. I have my own suspicions. It is with a view to bringing the Government out to a definite and distinct statement on this question that this Amendment is submitted. I should be very glad, and I am sure hon. Members on this side would be glad, to know that the Government were able to accept an Amendment of this kind, which as I say, would be an earnest not only of their intention in the Preamble, but of their honesty in this matter.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The hon. Gentleman proposes also to move a similar Amendment, limiting the duration of this Bill in Clause 2. It would be far better, and I believe in accordance with the Standing Orders, that he should attempt to deal with that in a separate Clause at the end of the Bill instead of by Amendment at this point. This, at any rate, is not at all a convenient point for embarking on the discussion which it is now desired to raise. Even if he were not to take the course of moving a separate Clause to make a temporary limitation which he desires to establish, it is clear that what he desires to raise would come in more acutely on Clause 2 than on Clause 1. For after all, Clause 1, as the Prime Minister has shown in a speech on an earlier Amendment, only has the effect of restoring to the House of Commons the powers which, at any rate judged by the practice of the last fifty years with the exception of the Budget of 1909, have always been enjoyed by the House of Commons. To say that the operation of this most essential safeguard, namely, the assurance of our rights over finance, should be limited to a period of three years is obviously putting forward a proposal which we on this side of the House could not accept. We do not think this is a satisfactory time to embark on the general discussion of the Preamble. No doubt there would have to be a very grave and important discussion of that part of the measure, but coming as it does at this point of the Bill, I can only say that the Government hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, but, in any case, it will not be in their power to accept it.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has explained the reasons which have influenced him in advising the Committee not to accept the Amendment. He says my hon. Friend would be well advised if he had made his proposal in the shape of a new Clause. My hon. Friend would perhaps reply to that observation by asking whether if he did put this in the shape of a new Clause, the right hon. Gentleman would afford any guarantee that there would be the opportunity of discussing it. I have not the least doubt, if such an assurance were forthcoming even now, my hon. Friend would concur in the view that that would be a more convenient course. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman to offer any such assurance, and in that case I am a little surprised that he

  1885
  should have suggested to my hon. Friend to withdraw this Motion. As to the substantial merits of the proposal, my hon. Friend says that if three years were inserted in the Bill, it would give the Government reasonable time to make reform proposals to which so many of them are committed. I fully agree that there may be more suitable opportunities during the progress of these discussions for the whole of that argument to be laid before us. I do not dissent from that, but, at any rate, here at the very earliest stage of the discussion an opportunity is offered to the Government to state whether they contemplate any arrangement of the kind in three years. I would ask the Government, are they determined to take up the position that, however a Second Chamber may be constituted or reformed, or ultimately transformed, that under no circumstances whatever, and however such a Second Chamber may be constituted, will they leave to them any control of finance. It is a very different proposition to lay down here that as the Second Chamber is at present constituted, the Government is not prepared to allow any. I can only hope, when the full discusson is reached which raises the whole question of the Preamble, that we may obtain assurances which are satisfactory. I confess I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman has not found it in his power to make some statement in answer to the particular Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I only rise at this stage of the discussion because I am not absolutely sure that I wholly agree with one part of what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. F. E. Smith). He apparently takes the view of the Home Secretary that the whole of this question could be better discussed on a new Clause. I am not absolutely sure that is so. The question of finance is really different. The question of how the financial relations between the Houses may be modified by an entirely reconstituted House of Lords is really rather different. I do not say it could not be discussed on a new Clause, but it is really different from the question of how a reconstituted House of Lords would deal with ordinary legislation. For example, my own view is, that you may leave with propriety the practical control of our finance, except in certain grave cases which I will not deal with now, but, broadly speaking, you may leave the ordinary financial work of the country to the House of Commons, even if we do have a reconstituted House of Lords,
  1886
  provided that House of Lords were not simply elected. On the other hand, I think it is ludicrous, with a purely elected Second Chamber, to say that you are now going to give it no place whatever in financial matters. Therefore, it is really vital to discuss this question on this Clause, whatever we may think it necessary to do on the second Clause, and whatever may be done to bring the whole discussion together. If my hon. Friend were fortunate enough to be able to deal with it on a separate Clause, this is an entirely special question of what the relation between the two Houses is to be on questions of finance, and it entirely depends on what your Second Chamber is going to be.
  If your Second Chamber is going to remain as it is, then I desire to see the great powers of the House of Commons maintained. Whether they be strengthened, they certainly ought to be maintained, but if you contemplate, as you say you contemplate in your Preamble, the creation in the near future of a Second Chamber on a completely representative basis, then, I say, it is all important that we should limit this Clause to a period of three years, because as soon as you have constituted your new Second Chamber, conditions will come into existence which, in my opinion, will make this Clause absolutely absurd and absolutely untenable. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, even if the Preamble were carried out, would still wish to see this House the First Chamber absolutely uncontrolled, absolutely free, with regard both to the broad principles and to the details of every financial proposal and of every Bill which could be called a Finance Bill. If that is his argument, he is running counter to the views and opinions of every statesman in Europe, in America, or in the free self-governing dominions of the Crown, who has set himself to the task of framing a constitution and of determining what should be the relations between the two Houses in that Constitution. Wherever you have a completely elective Second Chamber there you have a Second Chamber which has a certain amount of power at all events in modifying and moulding the financial policy of the country. As the Government have announced their intention of having a completely elective Second Chamber, I cannot understand why they refuse, I will not say the actual time limit of three years, but a relatively short time limit, which would enable them to bring in their new Second Chamber, and in the light of its constitution to frame their proposals as to the

  1887
  relation between the two Houses, not on the basis of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, but on the basis of two Chambers both elective, the Second as completely as the First. That is the justification for my hon. Friend's proposal. In one sense there is a stronger reason for discussing this question on Clause 1 than on Clause 2, because it seems to me that in Clause 2 at all events there are some powers beyond the delay of a month or two which you propose to leave to the Second Chamber. But there are no powers in regard to finance. Therefore, when the time comes to fulfil the promises which they have somewhat rashly made in the Preamble, when they have induced Parliament to create a new Second Chamber elected on a democratic basis, the Government will be obliged to revise the provisions of Clause 1. That being so, it seems only rational, logical, and statesmanlike to put into the Clause itself a time limit which would enable them to do their best to carry out the pledges which they have made to the House and to the country.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: The Home Secretary endeavoured to persuade us to postpone this discussion to a later date, asking us to wait until the Preamble came on or until we could discuss the question on a new Clause. But is it advisable for us to wait, in view of what we have suffered from this Government since 1906? Is there any guarantee that we should have any opportunities to discuss the Preamble at all or any of the new Clauses? We know what happened on the Revenue Bill recently, when no new Clauses were discussed. Therefore, unless we have a guarantee that such an opportunity will be given, knowing how greatly the Government loves the closure, I think it will be most inadvisable to postpone this discussion. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely necessary that some sort of limit should be imposed on the operation of the Bill. Surely three years will be ample time for the Government to fulfil the numerous pledges they have made to the various sections of their supporters and the new pledges they will probably be compelled to make in the course of the next year or so in order to get this and other Bills through Parliament. At the end of those three years the Government may have thought out what their Preamble really means, and if they are still in office—which, in the interests of the
  1888
  country, I sincerely hope they will not be—they will have arrived at some sort of conclusion as to what their reformed Second Chamber is to be. I therefore strongly support the Amendment.
  Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: We ought really to press the Government to give an answer on the very important question raised by this Amendment. The Government's plan seems to be, whenever a difficult question is put to them, to ride off on a technical objection. At an earlier stage of the proceedings, when I moved to divide the Bill, the chief answer of the Prime Minister was that the proposal was not necessary at that stage, and that all we had to do was to leave out certain Clauses when we came to them in Commitee. When I pressed the point as to whether he would agree to leave out those Clauses he declined to give an answer. NOW when my hon. Friend has raised the very important question whether the Bill is to be a permanent measure or strictly limited in its operations to three years, the Home Secretary simply says that it is not convenient to answer at this stage. I think we are entitled to have a definite answer on this substantial point. On its merits there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment. The Bill is obviously a temporary measure. The word "provisional" is writ large all over it. I would direct special attention to the extremely strong words of the Preamble:—
  "And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution. …"
  And so on. The Government apparently insist that something totally different is to come into being at a future time. That being so, why do not the Government come forward and candidly propose a strictly temporary measure which will have effect until they are able to carry out the great changes which they say "will re quire hereafter to be made"? The question has been raised whether it is necessary that this limitation should be put in in this particular Clause. It seems to me to be far more important in this Clause than in Clause 2, because this Clause raises the whole question of what is to be the future relation of a newly-constituted Second Chamber in regard to finance. We know that it is the opinion of the Home Secretary that not only the existing House of Lords but also any newly-constituted Second Chamber should have no power whatever over finance. That is a most

  1889
  extreme doctrine. To set up a popularly-elected Second Chamber such as you have in foreign countries or in our own Colonies, and to say that it is to have no power over finance, not even power to refer a Finance Bill back to the House of Commons, or to amend it in any particular, is to introduce a principle which is unknown in the whole civilised world. For these reasons it is necessary to insert these words at this particular point, and I shall support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: This Amendment has more substantiality than the one previously before the Committee. I understand that its object is to bring the operation of the Bill to an end at the conclusion of three years, and its Mover urges that it will give the Government an opportunity for bringing forward their reform scheme either before or at the end of that period. Does the hon. Member seriously imagine that the Government are committed to bringing forward a scheme for the reform of the House of Lords in the course of the present Parliament? No Minister has ever said such a thing either inside or outside of the House of Commons. It is, therefore, altogether without foundation for hon. Members opposite to imagine that the operation of the Bill can be limited on that ground. It is true there is the Preamble. That is a pious opinion which will have to be dealt with when the time comes at a later period. It says "hereafter." When is "hereafter"? I have always understood that "hereafter" was a long way off.
  Mr. YOUNGER: We want to define "hereafter."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: When we come to the Preamble it will be time enough to consider it. It is not before us now. The suggestion is that we should do our work now, and that it should all come to an end in three years' time. No responsible Minister has suggested that we are to have a reform scheme in the present Parliament. I say that the Government has no authority, and would be ill-advised, to bring forward any proposal for the reconstitution of the Second Chamber in this Parliament. What may happen at the next General Election no one can at present tell, but, so far as this Parliament is concerned, we are not likely to see any proposals of the kind suggested. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be rejected.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The Home Secretary would considerably facilitate the discussion if he answered the reasonable request put to him by the hon. Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith). The Home Secretary suggests that we should wait until a new Clause was under discussion, but when he is asked whether we should have an opportunity to discuss that new Clause he remains silent. I appeal to him to give an answer to that very fair question. If it is intended to give that opportunity there can be no difficulty in saying so. If, on the other hand, it is not the intention of the Government to give such an opportunity, I suggest that the honest, straightforward course will be to tell us so. Am I to understand that we are to have no answer?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is usual in discussions in Committee that there should be time to discuss new Clauses, and the Government certainly hope that there will be time for the discussion of new Clauses on this Bill. In that case there will be an opportunity for the Clause to which the hon. Member refers. But, of course, the progress made in discussion is always a matter which must be taken into consideration by those who are responsible for the conduct of business.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am much obliged for that answer. I hope that it is not merely a pious hope. I hope that the hope which the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed will be given effect to, because he has the power to give effect to it. As the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has every hope of giving us this opportunity, I suppose it will be possible, and that he will see that it is done. I ask him one thing: The object of this Amendment is to limit the operation of this Clause to three years. I should like to know do the Government intend that this Clause shall be permanent or not permanent?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Permanent.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway answers for the Government. I am very much obliged to him, but I should prefer the answer from the Home Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman does intend that this Clause, shall be permanent it means this: that whatever change is effected in the composition of the Second Chamber then for all time that Second Chamber is paralysed as regards finance. I have no doubt that

  1891
  hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will take care to ensure that result. Whether they will succeed in their object or not, I do not know; but am I to understand that the policy of the Government is that when this Second Chamber is reformed, as they say it must be reformed, that it still has to have no power whatever to reject or amend the Money Bills? If that is the intention of the Government, all that can be said is, that it will be utterly unlike the Constitution of every civilised country in the world wherever there is a Second Chamber or anything like a Second Chamber. It is utterly contrary to the Constitutions the Government have conferred on our Dominions. If, on the other hand, they tell us that this Clause is not permanent then is it not obvious that there ought to be some limitation placed upon it in the terms of the Bill itself? What an enormous advantage it would be to the Government to have here a limitation of three years. It would force them, and I think perhaps they want a little coercion in this matter, to bring in their proposals for this reformed Second Chamber, because at the end of three years the matter would come up for reconsideration. This Clause would drop automatically at the end of three years, and the Government would have to bring in their proposals which, I assume, from their Preamble, they desire to bring in in order to reconsider the whole question of the reform of the Second Chamber. Therefore, if they are sincere in their desire for reform of the Second Chamber they should welcome this limitation, which will enable them to bring some pressure to bear upon hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note those cheers.
  I hope the Government will be able to bring some such pressure. Hon. Members seem to have the Government now easily enough in the hollow of their hand. If, on the other hand, the Government will not give effect to this Amendment by introducing some limitation, then I am afraid I must assume that this Preamble is a sham. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members below the Gangway agree with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes; have I the assent of the Government to saying that this Preamble is a sham? What, is there already a rift in the lute? Hon. Members below the Gangway declare that this Bill is a sham, a hollow, miserable sham, and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, at any
  1892
  rate at present, do not dare to differ from them! The hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy referred in terms of withering scorn—— [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] yes, withering scorn, to the word "hereafter." Possibly he is right in assuming that "hereafter" may be a long time to come. The object of this Amendment is to assist the Government against these rebellious people below the Gangway in putting in a time limit of three years, so that in that time they may carry out the excellent intentions expressed in this Preamble and bring in a measure for setting up a real reformed Second Chamber
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not want to make a second speech arguing the merits of the case, but I want to appeal to the Home Secretary, who surely must see that this Bill cannot be properly discussed without the House knowing something as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the Preamble. We know their intentions about Clause 1. It may be very proper to carry out the suggestion of the Home Secretary and focus the whole of the discussion on the second Clause, but how can we discuss the merits of this Clause without knowing what the policy of the Government is with regard to it? That is the real difficulty. I am sure the Home Secretary will agree with me that it is not a question of prolonging Debate or of deferring the real issue. This is one of the most fundamental of all issues. The position of the Government and the announcement of policy which they make upon it will cover the whole of the discussions from this time on to the end of our proceedings on the Bill. The Home Secretary, I think, will not be prepared to deny that this question of the Preamble comes up with special force and with special characteristics in relation to Clause 1. But both on Clause 1 and Clause 2 I think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway—indeed hon. Gentlemen in every part of the House—will feel that the Government ought not to keep us in the dark as to what exactly this Preamble does mean. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kircaldy made a speech just now, in which he told us that it was preposterous to suppose that the Government ought in the next three years to bring forward, or that they in the course of the next three years thought of bringing forward, their scheme for House of Lords reform. How then does he interpret the words of the Preamble? How does he interpret the words of the King's Speech immediately after the

  1893
  election of 1910? Hon. Members may have forgotten the terms of that speech which the Government then put into the mouth of the King. The words that I wish to quote were as follows:—
  "Proposals will be laid before you 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."
  So far everything is plain sailing. Then the Government go on:—
  "These measures, in the opinion of my advisers, should provide that this House——"
  The House of Lords.
  "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."
  The reason I quote that is that in 1910 reform of the Second Chamber was part of the immediate programme of the Government. We are now, in 1911, told that in the next three years there is not the slightest prospect of this Government or any Government thinking of undertaking that reform.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Those words were subsquently partially modified in a speech by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If it is the business of the Prime Minister first to recommend words to His Majesty and then subsequently to modify those words, it is quite a new view—it is new to me, at all events—of part of the duties ordinarily undertaken by the First Minister of the Crown. I do not remember the modification, though I daresay, this and many other things have been modified by the Prime Minister in subsequent utterances. At all events, we have the King's Speech of 1910, and we have the Preamble of 1911, and I do not see how to reconcile the two in the light of the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy—a speech assented to by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side. In spite of these loud-mouthed utterances that the Government mean to bring in reform of the House of Lords, we are now told that there is no such chance of their doing so for three years! Will the hon. Gentleman tell us that before the end of the three years, or before the House of Lords reform can be undertaken, there will not be another General Election? Apparently, therefore, his view is that that General Election may perhaps give us a third modification of the Prime Minister's policy! What then means this Preamble? It does not stand as an announcement of
  1894
  Government policy beyond three years. What does it mean? It may be obliterated three years hence by the General Election. What then is the use or the function of this Preamble? It seems to me that in the absence of explanation by the Government as to what is their policy, they will prolong the discussion needlessly by compelling us, whether we like it or not, to ask with regard to each provision: "What is intended by this?" This query, whether we like it or not, must come up again and again; possibly in this Clause, certainly in the next Clause, probably in the new Clause. Why? Until we know what the policy of the Government is as to the new Second Chamber, we cannot form a judgment about their Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite in his heart thoroughly agrees with me on that point. Everybody must agree upon that point. Here we have a Bill with a promise in its Preamble, and no time given for that promise, which promise must, when fulfilled, react upon every single line and Clause of the Bill itself. Well, then, we must ask over and over again what is the Government policy about the Second Chamber?
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What is yours?
  Mr. BALFOUR: In my opinion the hon. Member will know our policy long before that of the Government; because, though I have made this appeal with all the persuasiveness that is in my power, I am afraid, from the obstinate signs which the Government have shown, that I shall be as unsuccessful on this occasion as I have been on previous occasions.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has appealed with his usual persuasiveness, and I think I can in a very few sentences give him the answer of the Government to his question. The answer, I need not say, is no different to the answers which have been given by the Prime Minister in the speeches which he has made upon the subject last year and also in the present Session. We have expressed the view of the Government in the Preamble. We have also said that we do not propose to embark upon a reconstitution of the Second Chamber while the question of the Veto of the House of Lords is still unsettled. We regard the passage of this Veto Bill as an indispensable preliminary to the discussion of any grave questions in regard to the constitution of the Second Chamber. This is no mere

  1895
  obstinacy or perversity on our part. It is obvious that we could not embark upon discussion on equal terms while the last word rests with the House of Lords, and while we should be forced after all our suggestions and resolutions have been put forward to accept the decision of the House of Lords on all the points which have been under discussion. That position had been made perfectly clear from the very beginning of these discussions. The Government have no intention of departing from it whatever either during the currency of this Bill as to what will happen in that time in the future when there is a reconstituted Second Chamber. All I say on behalf of the Government is that while not assuming to prejudge these matters we do not prejudge them in either direction. They are matters which the House of Commons of the time, with the knowledge of the time, and in view of the facts before them, will have to decide, and it would be hampering altogether the discussion of this Bill for us to go forward into that future time, and having first of all to imagine a reconstituted Second Chamber then to proceed to consideration of the relations between that reconstituted Second Chamber and this House. We adhere with no desire to be unreasonable or discourteous to hon. Gentleman opposite to the simple course of policy in this Bill, and it is not until this Bill has been put upon the Statute Book that the consideration of these grave questions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred; that is the consideration of future questions which will arise hereafter, can be profitably undertaken.
  Mr. REMNANT: I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down could, if he had chosen to do so, enlighten the Committee upon the points raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. I know no one in this House, perhaps with the exception of the Prime Minister, who has greater power of expressing himself than the right hon. Gentleman, but he has carefully avoided the points raised, upon which I venture to think the whole support of this Bill rests. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy says there is no intention on the part of the Government to proceed during this Parliament with the reconstruction or Reform of the House of Lords. I submit that the present majority in this House would not exist if hon. Members had told their Constituents
  1896
  that that was the policy they proposed to follow. It is well know that a very large number of Members of this House, when explaining the Veto Bill of His Majesty's Government, distinctly said that, directly the resolutions which they had already submitted to the House of Commons were carried out by a Bill that was to follow, it would be immediately followed by reform of the House of Lords. Are we to take it now from His Majesty's Government that they do not intend, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to proceed with the reconstruction of the House of Lords. If that is the intention I appeal to the Home Secretary to say so. We want, as far as we can, to get from the Government the exact position in which they stand. Do they or do they not propose to proceed to the reconstruction of the House of Lords during this Parliament? Surely that is not an unreasonable question to ask the Government. I understood before the right hon. Gentleman got up just now he was going to give us some information about that. He is an admirable debater, but he fenced all round the subject, either because he did not wish to let the House know, or because he did not know himself. He is in charge of the Committee now, and I appeal to him direct to say, is it or is it not the intention of the Government to proceed forthwith to the reconstruction of the House of Lords? I do not believe the Government would command a majority of the Committee if it was known that they did not intend to proceed at once with reconstruction. If they pass this Bill giving us to understand they are not going to proceed at once with the reconstruction of the House of Lords they should say so. If they say they do not intend to proceed to reconstruction that would alter the whole course of these proceedings.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think it is high time that the Committee of hon. Members opposite who are drafting these Amendments came to an agreement and said the same thing. We have been assured, over and over again, in the course of the last few years, that the period of danger in regard to the Parliament Bill was what was called the interregnum. It was during that period we were told that the "Dollar Dictator" was to have his sway; that we were to have Home Rule and disintegration of the Empire. It is quite evident other hon. Members opposite think we should exercise that power for three years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, that is the meaning of their Amendment upon the Paper. I pass from that to the question

  1897
  of the words themselves. What is the case with regard to the position of this House in matters of finance. For a century, with the single exception of the year 1860, the House of Lords has not rejected any Money Bill, and the rejection of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill is now over fifty years old. During these fifty years constitutional practice has become constitutional usage. The proper and successful control of the House of Commons over finance has grown into custom; custom has grown into usage, and this usage has grown into an unwritten law which we call the Constitution, and surely during that period we have got it as thoroughly established as any constitutional doctrine can be that the Lords cannot touch Money Bills. Yet we are asked in framing a Bill the avowed purpose of which is to write part of what was heretofore the unwritten Constitution of this country to limit the writing of the period for three years. Surely we cannot listen to such a suggestion as that. Then I come to the really important point cited by the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I fully recognise in regard to that point his utterances in this House have always been perfectly consistent. I refer to the point as to what would be the position in the relationship of the two Houses with regard to finance if we are to set up, in time to come, a Second Chamber on an elected or purely elected basis. The Leader of the Opposition holds that if such a Chamber is set up it will have to have larger powers than have been possessed by the House of Lords in the past. Surely we cannot resign the function of deciding in their entirety what those relations shall be. It is true that certain other Second Chambers possess powers to a greater or a less degree with regard to financial matters. But those powers differ considerably as between the various countries——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I think the hon. Member is going a little beyond the scope of this Amendment.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I was only following the Leader of the Opposition's argument, which you, Mr. Whitley, may not have heard, but I will, of course, bow to your ruling. I think, however, I am entitled to point out in direct reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that those over-sea precedents which he quoted vary very considerably in their dimensions and scope, and we in this House, who have set up so many precedents for foreign and Colonial
  1898
  Parliaments—we, who claim to be the Mother of Parliaments—must claim that Clause 1 shall remain Clause 1 whatever Second Chamber we may seek to set up in the future.
  Mr. ROYDS: I wish to refer to the statement that has been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who said no responsible Minister on the Front Government Bench had stated that it was the intention of the Government to attempt to reconstitute or reform the House of Lords in the present Parliament. I desire to refer to the election address of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In that address he made no reference to the Parliament Bill or its provisions at all. What the right hon. Gentleman said to the electors of Bristol was that the House of Lords, having renounced the hereditary principle, it was the duty and the business of this Parliament to reconstitute and reform the Second Chamber. His colleague, the Secretary to the Treasury, who shares with the right hon. Gentleman the representation of Bristol, in his election address carefully ignored the provisions of the Parliament Bill, and made no reference to them. He appealed to the electors to support him on exactly the same grounds which were put forward by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There you have two cases of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Government Bench directly returned to Parliament by the electors of Bristol, not to destroy the powers of the Second Chamber and not even to diminish them, but to re-constitute and reform the Second Chamber. I do not know with what objects one Member on the Front Bench opposite appeals to his supporters on one ground, and another Member appeals on another ground, but obviously they have appealed on many grounds, and at any rate they have not appealed on the same ground. I rose to draw attention to that fact, and to reply to the inaccurate statement made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
  Sir W. MENZIES: I rise to reply to a remark which was made by the last speaker on the Opposition side who stated that in his opinion the supporters of the Government would not have been here in such large numbers if they had not undertaken at once to re-constitute the House of Lords. I have no authority to speak for any one on this side of the House, but for my own part I deny that assertion, because I took great pains in my constituency to assure the electors that I should

  1899
  very much have preferred it if the Preamble had not been there at all. It is a very easy thing to limit the powers of the House of Lords in the way it is suggested, but it is a very different and almost impossible task to re-constitute it, and whichever side in politics undertakes the task of re-constituting the House of Lords or the task of altering its Constitution in any way whatever will find themselves in a very great difficulty. In my opinion this Preamble, which I understand I shall not be in order in discussing, is the only blot on this Bill.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Before the Debate proceeds any further I wish to draw attention to the reply made by the Home Secretary to my right hon. Friend. We are placed in a very extraordinary position by the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy who informed the House that there never had been, was not, and never would be, the smallest intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of carrying out the statement contained in the Preamble at all events during the present Parliament. My right hon. Friend followed him almost immediately, and called the attention of the Government to the statement which had been made with regard to their intentions, and the Government sat perfectly still, never opened their mouths, and never repudiated the statement in any kind of way whatsoever. My right hon. Friend challenged the Home Secretary to state what was the policy of His Majesty's Government on that point on the ground that it was impossible to discuss either the first or the second Clauses of this Bill until the House was in possession of the views of the Government on that point. What was the reply of the Home Secretary? He referred to speeches made outside this House, and to some speeches made in this House, to the effect that the Veto Bill must be passed first, and he said it is quite impossible for us to deal with the question of the reform of the House of Lords until that Bill is out of the way. Nobody asked him to say anything else. Nobody disputed that point, but the question put to him was: Is it, or is it not, your policy, as attributed to you by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government of dealing with the question of the reform of the House of Lords during the present Parliament? The Home Secretary went further, and he said, "I adhere to the Veto Bill, and I adhere to the Bill
  1900
  which is now before the House." Is not the Preamble part of the Bill before the House? That was the question put to him, but to that question he gave no reply whatever. Nor did he even attempt to do so. I wish to place on record that at this moment that His Majesty's Government, in reference to a statement made by one of their most ardent supporters, are allowing it to go forth to the country to-morrow that they have not the slightest intention of dealing with the reform of the House of Lords during the present Parliament, whatever may happen to the Veto Bill, and there they have remained up to the present moment silent, without repudiating that statement from one of their supporters.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: This Amendment is to limit the duration of this Clause to three years. I think that is a point which has been lost sight of. The first answer we had from the Government was that this particular suggestion was in the wrong place, and that it was a sort of invitation on the part of the Home Secretary that if it was brought forward in the right place the Government would not only tell us how they propose to deal with it, but would be prepared to give some reasonable acceptance to the suggestion. When the Home Secretary was afterwards pressed to say how far he would go he entirely withdrew from that position. I will not say that we were very considerably "taken in," but that is what it amounted to by the earlier speech of the Home Secretary on this point. The complaint that this Amendment is brought forward in the wrong place is entirely owing to the manner in which the Bill has been drafted, because the measure does not lend itself to reasonable Amendments being brought forward in the way they ought to be brought forward and in the way we are entitled to bring them forward. I make no apology for addressing the Committee on this particular point. The question of the duration of this particular Clause and the real meaning of the Preamble are governing points which we ought to know the intention of the Government upon in order to enable us to deal with other points which may arise in the course of the discussion upon other subjects. The point we desire to put at the start is this: Are you honest in your Preamble, because in the Preamble it is elaborately explained that some day with a popularly-elected House of Lords there will have to be different arrangements made with regard to the relations between

  1901
  the two Houses. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel), who, I should say is about as honest a Member as there is in this House, has told us in the clearest possible manner that the Preamble was nothing but a pious hope, and that it was not the intention at all events of himself and of those who supported him—and at the time he made that statement they consisted of over three-fourths of the Members present on that side of the House—to allow Clause 1 to be ever interfered with again, whether the House of Lords was reconstituted or not. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs said no Minister had ever committed their party as to how long this should last. Of course, he had not; if any Minister had been honest and straightforward upon this question, we should not have been obliged to have moved this Amendment and to say, "Now, what do you mean?" Do you intend the arrangements in this Clause to be temporary or do you really intend to do what you say in the Preamble, and bring in a Bill within a reasonable period to define the relations of the two Houses in a permanent manner? The Home Secretary then followed, and he withdrew his first suggestion about discussing this point in another place, and said this part of the Bill is intended to be permanent.
  I submit the position is a very serious one. The Preamble indicates that the provisions of the Bill are of a temporary character, and we cannot get an answer from the Government of the day as to how temporary they are to be. They tell us, "We will discuss that perhaps if you put it in another shape." Then they withdraw from that position. Their principal supporters take up another attitude altogether, and finally the Homo Secretary says this portion of the Bill is intended to be permanent. Why do they not make it clear in the Bill itself? I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, I shall go into the Lobby to support my hon. Friend on this Amendment, but, before I do so, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he can give me a straight answer to one question. If the Government will not accept three years, will they accept four? What do they mean? They have deliberately evaded the point to-day on each occasion that it has been put to them. Would they accept four? If they would not accept four, would they accept five? I can understand the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill always preferring to accept two. Whatever period is put in,
  1902
  and however long these arrangements are to last, there is one very great difficulty. The Government of the day would not be able to collect a single sixpence from Members of the House of Lords for taxes, because whilst this Bill is in operation it is perfectly clear Members of the House of Lords, not being represented and not having taxed themselves, could not have taxes levied upon them. I consider for that reason it is very important to cut down the operation of this Bill, because I for one do not desire to see Members of the House of Lords walking off free from all taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will not accept a time limit, would he at all events accept some kind of Amendment that would oblige the Government to proceed with or introduce their new House of Lords Bill within a reasonable period after the passing of this Act? I think that might meet the case, but, whether they accept or do not accept any of these suggestions, I think it would be a great relief to everybody concerned in this Debate, and to the country generally, if somebody on behalf of the Government would get up and give us some intelligible answer as to what they do intend to do on this point.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: I rise to support my hon. Friend on this Amendment. I am surprised the Home Secretary, when the proposition was made to him, did not jump at it, because it would smooth the path of the Government considerably later on when they come to deal with hon. Members below the Gangway. My hon. Friend appealed to the Home Secretary and asked him what he proposed to do on this particular Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman gave the answer which we are beginning to expect from the Front Bench, namely, that it would come better later and this was not the right opportunity to deal with this particular suggestion. It was one of those vague answers to which we are getting accustomed, and we on this side of the House are right therefore in continually pressing the Government until we get some definite answer. Fortunately, we do get some sort of information from the other side of the House on the rare occasions when Members opposite other than those on the Front Bench open their mouths. We had a most illuminating speech from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel), who gave the House, and especially those who sit on this side, some very interesting information. In fact, the hon. Member seems to me

  1903
  rather taking up the part that we generally associate with the Lord Advocate. He seems to be becoming the understudy for letting the cat out of the bag. He informed us that the question would be dealt with, not within three years, which is the reasonable proposal of my hon. Friend, but hereafter, and, he added, that hereafter was a very elastic term, a remark which was cheered by hon. Members below the Gangway. Before this Bill gets through Committee, I hope we shall have been able to show to the country, which after all is the important thing, how absolutely fraudulent—I think that word is right and that it is in order—is the proposal of the Preamble. Hon. Members may laugh, but I tell them that outside this House there are men in the country who look upon this as very serious business; anyhow it is not a legitimate subject for joking, except possibly on those benches. We are now trying to put into a Workable shape this Bill, and we would like to know from the Government—it is very hard to extract information—upon what particular Clause or Amendment it will be in order to put this question. I hope we shall get some answer, instead of the matter being shirked and burked and run away from, as it has been by the Home Secretary to-night.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to point out the extreme gravity of this Amendment. With hon. Members opposite it may be a mere matter of amusement, but it is not so with us. We are dealing with a very important Clause, a Clause which has a very wide bearing upon the Bill. We are told by hon. Members opposite that this Bill has been very carefully drawn. It contains two Clauses and two Preambles. There is not only the Preamble which says:
  "It is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists, with a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitutions cannot be immediately brought into operation,"
  but the next Preamble, which, I assume, is also of some importance, has a great bearing on the statement made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. It reads:—
  "Whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this
  1904
  Act appears, for the restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords."
  Thus we are told in this Preamble we are to have hereafter another measure for effecting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, and we are also informed, on the authority of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, which is acquiesced in by Members of the Government present, that this Clause as to the powers on Money Bills is to remain constant in the Constitution in all cases. When the first Preamble is brought into operation there will be no need for the second. I do not think the Committee have fully appreciated what they have been asked to accept in the terms of the two Preambles contained in the Bill, and when we come into the House to debate a Bill which says, on its face, not only that there is to be another House constituted, but also that there will be the question of defining and limiting its powers, we naturally are astonished and surprised to find that Clause 1 is to be a permanent Clause in all circumstances, and that, under no circumstances, will any alteration be made in it. I doubt very much if the full effect of the two Preambles has been appreciated by hon. Members opposite. I hold we are perfectly right in asking that we should have some reason why this Clause, which we are now debating, is to be permanent, whatever the future may bring forth. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is very simple. Its object is merely to introduce a time limit as to the operation of this Clause. I have no doubt that the question whether it shall be three, four, or five years is comparatively unimportant. The point is whether or not there is to be some limitation of this Clause so that we may know the intentions of the Government as to carrying out the proposals foreshadowed in both Preambles. I desire to point this matter out because if it be the case that under no circumstances Clause 1 is to be altered, it makes a very considerable difference to us. It certainly renders unnecessary the second Preamble. We ask, in the uncertainty which exists, to be given some indication of the intentions of the Government and of the meaning of the two Preambles. Why are the Government unwilling to accept any form of time limit which, after all, would only be a guarantee that the Preamble would be carried out?
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: It seems to be assumed by nearly all the speakers on the other side of the House that, but for the existence of this Preamble many Members now seated on these benches would not be

  1905
  Members of this House. But as far as I am concerned, and as far as I gather from other hon. Members, the chief point raised was not as to the Preamble of this Bill. The hon. Member for Holborn certainly thinks that it is to the Preamble many of us owe our presence here.
  Mr. REMNANT: What I intended to convey was that a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be in the House to-day unless they had distinctly told their Constituents that the Veto Resolutions were to be immediately followed by a Bill for the reconstruction of the House of Lords.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: That, I understood, but I can assure the hon. Member that the main question before the country, both in the counties and in London, where I had experience, was the Veto Bill, which everybody assumed was simply a Bill to limit the Veto of the House of Lords. The voters did not care what the intentions of the Government may be hereafter. It may hereafter think fit to reform the House of Lords, but certainly my experience is that the country did not understand we were to have Veto first and reform immediately after. The hon. Member, in his Amendment, suggests a limitation of three years. I rather gathered from the speeches we heard on the Second Reading that that was deemed to be considered a dangerous period, because within three years it would be possible to pass Home Rule. I do not know what was the chief question put before the constituency of the hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Royds), but I am aware that over the Border it was quite understood that what was required was the abolition of the Veto of the House of Lords in order that a Liberal Government might have a chance of getting its measures through.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I sympathise with hon. Members on the other side of the House who wish that the Preamble was anywhere but in this Bill. But the Preamble is there, and I have always understood and I believe I am right in my supposition, that the Preamble determines the purport and the character of the Bill, and my hon. Friend's Amendment is designed to give to this particular Clause, at any rate, the character which the Preamble gives to the whole Bill, which is of a temporary character. I do not think anyone can read the Preamble with reference to the King's speech of last year and not see that the whole character
  1906
  of the Bill is designed to be temporary. The Preamble says:—
  "And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber. … And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament …"
  The Preamble clearly contemplates the creation of a new Second Chamber who are to have not merely powers such as are indicated in this Bill, because these are to be powers which are to be defined under a future Bill, and if language means anything the Preamble means that we are to have a new Second Chamber, with different powers, not merely from its existing powers, but different to the powers indicated in this particular Bill, and that new Second Chamber was to be constituted with something like promptitude because the King's Speech of last year stated that—
  "Proposals will he laid before you with all convenient speed to define the relations of the Houses of Parliament,"
  and goes on to speak of the re-constitution of the other House. Therefore, the Government clearly contemplate that this Bill is a temporary measure, and having promised the country in the King's speech of last year that a new constitution of the House, as well as the new powers of the House shall be laid before Parliament "with all convenient speed," surely we are entitled to ask when we are called upon to limit the powers of the existing Second Chamber how far these limitations are to be permanent and when the change is to take place? We are asked to reduce the powers of the Second Chamber with regard to finance, but not of this particular Second Chamber, but of another Second Chamber. Is that so? Will the new Second Chamber have different powers in regard to finance? We are entitled to ask that.
  9.0 P.M.
  The Preamble, as the Leader of the Opposition said, covers the whole area of discussion on this and every other Clause of the Bill. It is not merely the present Second Chamber we are speaking of, but the future Second Chamber, and what we want to know is what is that Second Chamber to be, and has the Government any intention of presenting this Bill within any limited period of time to give us some idea of what the powers of that Second Chamber are going to be? It may be going too far to ask

  1907
  the Attorney-General or the Chancellor of the Duchy to do what the Home Secretary evaded doing and what the First Lord of the Admiralty has run away from attempting to-day, and that is to give us some information on what the Second Chamber in the contemplation of the Government is likely to be. It is very difficult at any time and under any circumstances to constitute a Second Chamber, and I should be the last person to ask the Attorney-General to give us his impromptu version of what his Second Chamber proposal is likely to be at some indefinite period of time. But I would like to ask whether the Government in their Preamble mean business—whether they really have in contemplation a Second Chamber which is either to have the powers under this Bill or the powers to be defined by some subsequent Bill. We are entitled to ask that, and, unless we get an answer, I think we are justified in pressing that the provisions of this Bill should be made specifically temporary. In that case the Government will be bound, or, I may say, will be assisted, having regard to the utterances we have heard from below the Gangway, in the carrying out of their promises, and their real Parliamentary intentions "with all convenient speed," if I may use the expression of the King's Speech of last year, and in furnishing us with the details of the Second Chamber which they propose to give in lieu of the present House of Lords, and to define the powers which they propose to give to that Second Chamber. The Amendment merely gives emphasis to the character of this Clause in relation to the Preamble; it merely puts the purport of the Preamble in the Clause, and I heartily support it.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: On a point of Order, Sir. Would it be possible for any Member of the Government to respond to the challenge of the hon. Member and make an elaborate statement in regard to a reconstituted Second Chamber?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I shall have to deal with that when it arises.
  Mr. JOSEPH KING: I should like to recall the attention of the House to this fact, that we have now been engaged for about three hours in the Committee stage of this Bill, and what do we see? We see that the Opposition have already run away. They have run away from this Clause and and are trying to fix us down to the Preamble. It is so, and we all know it. Not
  1908
  only so, but in regard to the second Amendment which they proposed they ran away before they ever got to the Division Lobby, and this process of running away from the point will, I suppose, continue till the end of the chapter. Why? Because the Opposition know perfectly well that we are in favour of the Bill as it stands, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill, and we allow liberty of conscience on these benches for each man to interpret the non-operative Preamble according to his own individual ideas.
  The Preamble is in the nebulous stage of development. When we come to those Clauses we do not intend to be moved from them by one single letter or word. We are going to have those Clauses without any modification or any time limit. A time limit may be appropriate for other measures, but I trust and believe that the Government will not seek to attempt any time limit to modify such Clauses as this and the consequent Clauses of this Bill. The Opposition are treating this matter as if it were very serious. This Amendment is not very serious, and their opposition is not very serious. It seems to me that we are making very rapid progress with the Bill. An hon. Friend points out that we have only agreed to one word, but hon. Members opposite expected to occupy two nights upon the Instructions to the Committee.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not relevant to the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. KING: I will conclude by pointing out two things which strike me as being very remarkable. The first is the way in which we have been treated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their action has hardly been consistent with dignified Debate. The right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) began his speech by informing us that he sympathised with those who wished that the Preamble was anywhere but in this Bill. If he agrees that the Preamble ought to be out of the Bill will he move, or support those who move, that the Preamble be deleted when we come to it? I think I have said enough to show that the opposition to this Clause as it stands and the support of this Amendment are by no means sincere or sensible.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The speech to which we have just listened has, I think, cleared up the Debate a good deal. The Amendment is one to give statutory effect to the declarations made by a great many

  1909
  Ministers and their supporters in the country to carry the principle of the Preamble into the Clause. To that the hon. Member replied, very relevantly, that the Preamble is only intended to convey whatever meaning any supporter of the Government likes to put on it.
  Mr. KING: The Noble Lord is not at liberty to misrepresent me. What I said was that we allowed liberty of conscience and we know perfectly well that the Noble Lord is the last man to allow that in the schools.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: My objection to undenominational education is not in the least irrelevant to the discussion. Every one puts his own interpretation upon it. The advocates of the Preamble treat the House as the advocates of undenominational education treat the people, and that is precisely where my objection to both comes in. I understand the Preamble was put before the country, and the declarations of the Government made in pursuance of the Bill were put before the country, with a serious purpose. One was the declaration in His Majesty's gracious speech last year. These declarations were intended to convey something to the country. They were intended to convey that the Government policy included the policy of reform. When an Amendment is moved to limit, in point of time, this Clause, so as to secure that Parliament will deal with the matter within the natural life of the present House of Commons, how are we met? Owing to the rather inconvenient rules of the House I was obliged to be eating my dinner when I should have much preferred to be listening to the eloquence of hon. Members opposite. But I understand we had some striking declarations. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Dalziel) proposes not to deal with the subject of reform during the present Parliament. The Government are pressed to make a declaration, and they decline to make any declaration whatever. They decline to say that they are going to carry out the re-constitution of the House of Lords during the present Parliament. They decline to say also whether any part of the Bill is to be permanent when that re-constitution is carried out, or whether it is not, and they ask the House on these terms to reject an Amendment limiting this Clause to three years. We all understand why they hold this language, and why the hon. Gentleman holds language so much more definite. I suppose it is not ill-natured to im-
  1910
  agine that the hon. Gentleman is more keen about the general principles he professes than about the convenience of the Government, and therefore he says outright what they are very careful not to say. They are careful not to say it because they depend on two conflicting bodies of support. Part of their supporters want to deal with reform, and, if I understand correctly the declarations of more than one Minister, part of the Cabinet honestly and sincerely want to re-constitute the Second Chamber. On the other hand, part of their supporters—an indispensable part—are resolutely opposed to that policy altogether. It comes to this, that the Government are carrying by silence and ambiguity what they could not carry by straightforward speech. If they said the whole truth they would be in a quandary, so they do not say the whole truth.
  I remember very well with what scorn and indignation hon. Members opposite attacked the Leader of the Opposition seven or eight years ago, when he, depending on a party not united on the fiscal question, refused to declare himself. How can hon. Members reconcile it with their conscience to say in a much more aggravated way what they then, with language of passion and sincerity, denounced him for saying. Are we not getting into the habit of playing politics as a game, and not a very honest game? Is it creditable to hon. Members opposite that they should deliberately try to arouse, by refusing to answer a plain question, by conveying to one section of opinion one impression and to another section a directly opposite impression, support which they could not possibly get if they were perfectly candid and outspoken? I greatly regret that pressure of Departmental work prevents the Foreign Secretary from attending our Debates. I do not always agree with him, and I do not think he is always very wise; but I have been accustomed to thinking him an exceptionally honest politician. He has declared more than once—he declared himself at the time of the election—very strongly in favour of reforming the Second Chamber. I do not say he said—he probably did not say—he would do it within a specified time, but an election speech is normally understood to refer to the affairs of the Parliament about to be elected. It was natural to understand, and I am sure the great majority of those who heard or read his speech understood, that he intended, being a most influential and important Member of the Government, that the reform of the House of Lords should be part

  1911
  of the work of this present Parliament, and that as soon as the Veto was out of the way, then within a reasonable time the Government should proceed to deal with this particular matter.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. Is it in order on this Amendment to discuss the exact intention of the Government with regard to the meaning of the Preamble? If this discussion is carried on now on the meaning of the Preamble, will it be in order to repeat the discussion when we reach the Preamble itself? I submit that if we are to take the discussion now, we cannot take it again. I appeal for your ruling on the point.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether it is a fact that whenever a question has been put from the Chair that question can be debated, irrespective of the question whether it has been debated over and over again?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If a question is put from the Chair, it obviously can be debated unless it is one of those questions that can be put and decided without discussion. It may be that the Debate may be a limited or a wide one. I do not discuss that point at present. It is understood in taking the discussion on the words: "within three years after the passing of this Act," that naturally and formally it rules out any Amendment which attempts to raise the same question at a later stage.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The rules of debate will guide the Debates of the Committee, and no understanding will guide us. I am not discussing the Preamble, or whether it is expedient to put it in the Bill or not. I am discussing the declarations of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and whether in accordance with those Declarations this Amendment ought to be accepted. His words imply that the substitution for the present House of Lords of a reconstituted Second Chamber was to be a reform within three years of the passing of this Bill, and it is to these declarations that this Amendment applies. It is directly relevant. The question is whether the Government are not bound in consistency by the declarations made by their members at the election to accept this Amendment, or some other Amendment with the same purpose in view. I confess' that I cannot understand why a man of the scrupulous honesty of the Foreign Secretary should make these
  1912
  declarations if they are to be repudiated by the Members of the same Government. The Government were pledged absolutely by the Foreign Secretary to reform within the present Parliament, or within a reasonable time. We are now told by an influential supporter of the Government that no such reform is to be undertaken, and the Government do not give any articulate declaration on the subject.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): The Home Secretary has done so.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a declaration himself. The Government have not made any declaration to my knowledge. I am very sorry I was not here. It was not my fault. The Home Secretary made a speech which did not deal in any definite terms whatever with the problem before the Committee. He did not say whether the Government were or were not going to deal with the problem in the present Parliament. He did not say whether the Clauses of this Bill were to be permanent, or whether they were to depend on a subsequent Bill. I confess I do not think that fair dealing with the public. I think it would be outrageous and impudent if the silence is continued, and if the Government claim that they have a mandate to carry this Bill through this House and the other. If you obtained a majority at the election by declarations which are in effect misleading, you have no right to ask this House and the other House to accept the Bill carried by that majority. Therefore, I say we are in a grave position. The matter may be complicated, no doubt, and I think some hon. Members are inclined to regard the course which is now being pursued as an exhibition of clever tactics. You say when you talk about reform that you are in favour of a Second Chamber. It is not a question how the votes of hon. Members opposite were obtained, because their votes would have been obtained in any case, but it is a question how the vote of the balancing elector, the moderate man, was obtained. He was conciliated by the declarations of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He was conciliated by the hope and belief that within the lifetime of this Parliament you are going to set up an effective Second Chamber, that you are, in truth, Second Chamber men. The electors were led to believe that there were men in the party with such influence that they would make their view prevail. Now we

  1913
  are told nothing is to be done. I do not think that that is an honest way of dealing with the subject. I protest against it, and if there is a contest in the country—and there will be a contest, and it may come very soon indeed—it may be that hon. Members will again have to face their Constituents, and in that case, will it look well if they have against them the black mark of dishonest dealing with a great question?
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: The Noble Lord, according to his usual practice, has imputed dishonesty to hon. Members who sit in this part of the House. He seldom makes a speech without imputing dishonesty to the Liberal party. The Amendment is intended to pledge the Government to bring in a Bill which will make operative the non-operative part of the Preamble of this Bill within three years. I should like to call the attention of the House to one or two words in the Preamble. It sets out that it is intended to constitute an Upper Chamber. It says that "provision will require hereafter to be made" for limiting and defining the powers of the Second Chamber. "Hereafter" is quite an indefinite term. In another sentence it says, "such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation." If the English language means anything, these words mean that the question cannot be dealt with until this one is out of the way. That is the honest meaning of the Preamble. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson) said that the King's speech stated that this question should be dealt with as soon as convenient. I do not know who is to be the judge of convenience. We on this side of the House realise that this Bill has been made necessary by the rejection of a lot of legislation we are anxious to get on with. If the Government were to fall into the trap laid for them by this Amendment they would be postponing questions which the country is looking to them to deal with, and which we intend shall be dealt with in the near future. I trust the Government will be their own judges of convenience. I hope they will not disappoint the hopes of those who have gone through two elections for the purpose of getting out of the way the very block which has prevented other measures from coming into operation. The hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant), stated earlier in the debate that we owe our seats to our support of the Preamble.
  Mr. REMNANT: No, the Labour party resisted it all through.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I am speaking as a Liberal. The hon. Member said that it was well known that we Liberals had been supporting the Preamble. My election took place on the first day, and therefore I had the pleasure of going to a large number of other Constituencies right up to the end. Wherever I went I found that the one thing which had behind it the enthusiastic support of those who sent us here was the abolition of the Veto and the destruction of the power of the House of Lords, so as to make it possible to carry measures introduced by the Liberal party; and we found that the Preamble, the promise of reform—I confess there is a promise of reform—was as a millstone round our necks. So far as the rank and file of Radicals throughout the country are concerned nobody wants reform of the House of Lords. What we do want is such a limiting and defining of the powers of the House of Lords as would enable progressive legislation to go through not only this House, but theirs, and that is what we intend to get. I hope the Government will accept no Amendment that will pledge them to postpone other and more important measures in order to bring in a Bill of this kind until the other legislation is out of the way.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not welcome these cheers, for I intend to make very few remarks on the occasion of my maiden speech, and the idea of speaking at all was suggested to me by finding the dinner hour unusually interesting to-night. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Chancellor) complained that my Noble Friend below the Gangway (Lord Hugh Cecil) had accused the Government of being dishonest. Whether an accusation of this kind ought to have been made, or whether it has any value depends entirely on the ground on which it is made and the facts with which it is substantiated. I wish to examine that from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman. He said that the Government by their Bill intend to get reform, and then he said that this reform cannot be dealt with until the Veto proposals are out of the way. We accept that so far, but that is not the point. He entirely overlooked that we asked the Government to tell us, and that they refused to toll us, although they have been definitely asked, "when you have carried your Veto proposals, which you say are necessary to secure reform, do you intend

  1915
  to reform the House of Lords in accordance with the Preamble?"
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Immediately?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Before the other legislation is passed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Let me take that point. In the King's speech which announced the introduction of the Parliament Bill, it was clearly stated that the proposals for reform would be taken as soon as it could be conveniently done.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It did not say that.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course it did "with all convenient speed." The Government have undertaken by the King's Speech to introduce the Bill, and in the Bill itself, to have what they described this afternoon as a complete whole. They are asked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to state so far as he is concerned that by a complete whole he means only part of it. And none of the Members of the Government who heard his speech made any objection to it. They were definitely asked, "Do you accept by your silence the declaration of your intentions which the hon. Member has given?"
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: The Home Secretary has distinctly stated that the policy of the Government was declared in the Preamble of the Bill.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have heard many an interruption in my time, but I never had the pleasure of listening to one which had so little bearing on the subject. We all know the Preamble, and that it declared it was the intention of the Government not only to alter the relations of the two Houses but to reform the constitution of the House of Lords. An hon. Member who supports the Government says that so far as that part of the Bill is concerned he has nothing to do with it. We ask the Government is that their intention? The Home Secretary spoke, but he gave no answer. I say, without using any strong language, that this is the fact of the position. The Government went to the country with the Parliament Bill complete. Now hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the question of the reform had nothing to do with their majority, but that they found it rather a trouble, and that in all their speeches they never men-
  1916
  tioned it. If that is so, why did they put it in their Bill? What is the object of putting it in their Bill? There is not a man who sits in this House who will deny for a moment that the Government did get a great measure of support because of the views which were expressed by the Foreign Secretary above all others that this Bill did not mean merely curtailing the powers of the House of Lords, but that it did mean a real reform. And further, when we remember how close the votes were at the last election, when we remember in how many constituencies they were decided merely by a fractional number, I do not think there is any honest politician in this House who doubts that if the Government had openly said, "we intend no reform, we intend shortly to take away powers of the House of Lords without making any attempt to re-constitute it," they would not have had the majority which they obtained. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said, "we have nothing to do with the Preamble," and the Gentleman sitting behind him, with a frankness for which we are very grateful, told us that the Preamble is quite plain, that the operative part of the Bill is to take away the power of the House of Lords, and they have given the Ministerial party this liberty of conscience to treat the Preamble any way they choose. It seems to me without any exaggeration of language that the position is clearly this. The Government have put the whole Parliament Bill before the country; they claim to have a mandate for carrying it; if they deliberately refuse to declare now that the whole Bill is their policy, if they recognise that they cannot carry half of the Bill with their present majority, then clearly they have no right to go to the Sovereign or anyone else and claim that they have a majority for half of the Bill and not for the other half.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have been a good many years in this House and I never listened with a greater pleasure than I did a few minutes ago to the speeches of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Joseph King) and the hon. Member below him (Mr. Chancellor). The speech of the hon. Member for Somerset was an excellent one. He began by saying that the Bill was making excellent progress. That is what we all desire. He then proceeded to make the most obstructive speech that I ever heard in my life since I had the honour of sitting in this House. He began by remarking that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr.

  1917
  Chaplin) had referred constantly to "Her" Majesty's Government, and actually occupied two or thre minutes in making that statement. Of all the obstructive statements ever made with the least artistic sense——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Baronet will not follow the example.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will not; that is my, last desire. But I do wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the hon. Gentleman opposite was really delaying proceedings by making the most extraordinary remarks, which have no reference whatever to the subject before us. The hon. Gentleman talked about being in the clouds. Of course they are in the clouds, because they do not know what the Government really mean.
  Mr. KING: I acknowledge that the hon. Baronet is very courteous in Debate. What I said was that the Preamble was in a state of nebulous development.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad of that statement from the hon. Gentleman. The hon Member who sits below him (Mr. Chancellor) said he felt the Preamble like a (millstone round his neck during the election. Let the Committee consider what that means. It means that, after this House, sitting as a Single Chamber has worked its will, then the millstone may be applied, provided that the pressure below the Gangway is sufficient to remove the millstone from their necks and put it round the necks of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not know that I have ever heard a more instructive Debate upon this question. It shows perfectly why the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) is not accepted. It is because hon. Gentlemen opposite know that if it were accepted it would defeat their plans. Their idea is to have a Single Chamber. The more violent of them do not conceal it; the more prudent—I will not say anything further than that—above the Gangway make out that there is to be a reform "with all convenient speed." But we, who have been a certain number of years in the House, know perfectly well what all this means. When pressure comes from below the Gangway, it will be said that a Single Chamber represents all Radical ideas. I hope the country will study this Debate, because it will give them an opportunity of learning a lesson. They have been under the impression that when right hon. Gentlemen make state-
  1918
  ments they are to be believed, but when they come to read this Debate they will come to the conclusion that those statements were only made to deceive.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: We have heard interesting and very divergent statements from hon. Gentlemen, and from one right hon. Gentleman, who represent the Radical party. The hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. King) tells us that the Preamble is in a state of "nebulous development." I do not know quite what he means by that. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Joseph Pease), whose usual contribution to a Debate is an interruption damaging to his own side, told us that the policy of the Government was declared in the Preamble to the Bill. I do not know which is right and which is wrong—whether the Preamble is in a state of nebulous development, or whether the whole policy of the Government is contained in the Preamble. The hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) told us that he is a Single Chamber man.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I did not say anything of the kind.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I take it that if the House of Lords was a millstone round his neck he prefers a Single Chamber Government.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR Mr. CHANCELLOR rose.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the Noble Lord entitled to misrepresent me, for that is what he is doing.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is entitled to put his own interpretation upon what the hon. Member said, in replying to him.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I am very reluctant to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, and it is the last thing I would endeavour to do. But, when the hon. Gentleman goes as far as to tell us that a Second Chamber is a millstone round the neck of himself and his colleagues, I am entitled to draw the deduction that he desires to see an absence of a Second Chamber in this country. The hon. Gentleman went further and told us that in the future, the distant future, he believed that the Government were desirous of seeing a Second Chamber established, so that in the meantime, I suppose, by means of a Single Chamber, the Government desire to

  1919
  see certain measures placed on the Statute Book. It appears to me, after the words of the hon. Gentleman, that he has a finite programme of legislation; that he has in view measures which he desires to see passed under Single-Chamber Government, and when these measures have been passed he will then treat his task as ended, and may perhaps leave the House on that occasion. The Preamble is a decoy, and a most ingenious decoy, which is to satisfy hon. Members above the Gangway opposite. Their object in bringing forward this reform of a Second Chamber has been to rope in that moderate section of the electorate who like and desire to see a Second Chamber established in this country. They have endeavoured to rope those gentlemen in to support them at elections, for the purpose of obtaining their confidence, and under no circumstances representing them in this House. The Government could have given us a definite answer to the question which has been put on many occasions in this Debate. They have left a singularly meagre Front Bench, and none of the Front Bench seems desirous of answering the question formulated in this Amendment. The Amendment proposes to set a limit to the time in which there is to be this interregnum, as we are told in the Preamble that it is impossible immediately to bring about the reform of the Second Chamber. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is desirous that three years should be the limit. We have asked the Government whether they are prepared to accept four years or five years, or, in fact, what limit of time they are prepared to accept. Not one single answer can we obtain from any Member of the Government as to what their direct and real views are with regard to the suggestion contained in the Preamble with respect to the reform of the Second Chamber. I say that the Government merely with the intention of proving that they are sincere on this question, merely with the intention of upholding the word of no less an individual Member of the Government than the Foreign Secretary, would do well to give us some indication as to what they mean with regard to the words in the Preamble. This is the opportunity which has been given to the Government, and although I have very little doubt that we shall hear nothing more from the Government, although there is such an influential Member present as the Chancellor of the Duchy, I do not know whether his reper-
  1920
  toire of irrelevant interruptions are now ended or whether he proposes——
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): Will the Noble Lord kindly confine himself to the Amendment?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I certainly obey your injunction. But I was requesting the right hon. Gentleman, as I am entitled to call on Members of the Government, to give an answer to a specific question. As the right hon. Gentleman is the senior Member present, we are entitled to call upon him to give an answer to our question, and, therefore, I would call on the right hon. Gentleman to do so.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I have listened to the whole of the discussion on this Amendment, and I wish to say, before we take a vote upon it, what is the position of those of us on these benches with regard to it. I think we have always made our position with regard to the House of Lords, including the Preamble of this Bill, perfectly clear. As I have listened to the discussion I have been very considerably amused, because it has wandered very considerably from the Amendment. In order to justify the position that hon. Members have taken up on the other side, they have quoted, not so much from the Bill before the House or from the Clause with which the Amendment deals, but they have quoted very considerably from the King's Speech of a year ago. I would ask hon. Members who have concerned themselves with the language of that King's Speech as to whether they seriously accept the language of that Speech. I hope to be able to show that my queries are very pertinent to the discussion. I notice that they contented themselves by quoting one or two points which they seem to think embarrass the Government with regard to the Preamble. What we are concerned with is this Amendment which is proposed to the Finance Clause of this Bill. It seeks, so far as I can interpret its effect, to limit the operation of the powers of the Finance Clause to a period of three years. I want to show that that would be altogether inconsistent with the position that we have taken up during the whole of the Debates on this question, and, moreover, it would be entirely consistent with the position put before the country. Let me quote one or two of the sentences they have omitted from the King's Speech, and let me ask the hon. Member, who reminded us he was making his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law), who quoted from the King's Speech, if he ac-

  1921
  cepts the language of the speech which I am going to quote. A Bill, it said, was going to be laid before the House, with all convenient speed, to define the relations between the Houses, "so as to secure the undivided authority of the House of Commons over finance." It seems to me that that is a quotation which is much more pertinent to the Amendment before the Committee than the quotations that have been thrown over the floor to those of us on this side first by the Leader of the Opposition, and lastly by the hon. Member for Bootle. He wanted to know if the Government are prepared to stand by the language that he quoted. I want to ask, are the Opposition prepared to stand by the language in the same speech which I have just quoted?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not quite understand the point of the hon. Gentleman. I only quoted the language of the King's Speech as indicating, presumably, the opinion of the Government.
  Mr. A HENDERSON: The language that I am quoting represents the policy of the Government that has been approved of by the country, namely, that this House is to be predominant with regard to finance, not for three years, as proposed by the Amendment. I hold that that position would be inconsistent with the position declared for in this King's Speech, followed up in connection with the first Clause of this Bill and approved of by the country at the last election. Furthermore, that King's Speech also laid down that this House is also to have predominance in legislation. Again, I repeat, instead of quoting paragraphs from the King's Speech, which, in my humble judgment, are altogether irrelevant to the Amendment, whatever they may have to say to the Preamble of the Bill, and with the Preamble we on these benches are absolutely unconcerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I am perfectly straightforward. Not a single Member on these benches has spoken on this question from the day when I moved the Amendment to the Resolutions of the late Sir H. Camp-bell-Bannerman but has consistently declared for the one policy. Therefore, I say that we are not so much concerned with the Preamble of the Bill. But we are concerned with what we put before the country, namely, that the House of Commons should have undivided authority in the realm of finance. For that reason we hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: We do not accuse the hon. Member opposite of not being straightforward: he and his Friends are always straightforward to the point of absolute transparency. What the hon. Member does not see is that the King's Speech of last year does not bind us, but it is nevertheless useful to us as evidence of the intention on the part of His Majesty's advisers who framed that speech, and this Amendment is a test of the sincerity of that intention, reaffirmed as it is in the Preamble of this Bill. This is the first and probably it will be the only opportunity we shall have of asking from the Government some security that at some future time some execution will be given to the intention professed in the King's Speech. If that intention were not really sincere and were not intended to be put into execution I could understand something of the apparent loss of equanimity with which this Amendment is received on the Treasury Bench. We could then understand why Ministers felt great difficulty as to how otherwise than by accepting the Amendment they could give the country any kind of security that they ever intended to do anything remotely resembling that which they have declared their intention of doing. Let us credit them with sincere intentions. Their unfriendly criticis have been saying that this Bill is inspired largely by vindictive motives, that it never rises for a single instant above party motives, that it is devised as a temporary makeshift for the very narrowest of all possible objects, and for the purpose of carrying into effect schemes which may be the schemes of a party, but which certainly do not commend themselves to the people. We want some kind of security, and we invite the Government to give us the security which this Amendment would offer, in order to dispel these unjust and unholy suspicions.
  It is said that there has been and is a deliberate intention to keep in existence for all time the present hereditary constitution of the House of Lords, with the doubly convenient consequence that it locks up in that Chamber all those great men whose presence would be so beneficial in this House, and the further convenient fact that it presents, and will continue to present, the attractions which a seat in that House always offers to the loyalty of gentlemen sitting behind the Treasury Bench. We now have an opportunity to dispel those unholy suspicions. If this Amendment were accepted, the Government, by reason of the fact that at

  1923
  the end of three years they would lose the efficacy even of this Finance Clause, would be compelled to show the country that they were sincere in the announcement they have made. I therefore invite them not to show so much disinclination to discuss or to reveal their intentions, but to give my hon. Friend the credit which is due to him for his virtuous and benevolent action in providing them with an opportunity to dispel the unholy suspicions which have been aroused.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not think the importance of this Amendment has been sufficiently appreciated by the Government. It is not a question of honesty or dishonesty; it is test of the sincerity of what has been put forward by the Government themselves. The Government say the Veto first, with no limitation as to the time for which the Veto shall endure. What is the result of that as regards the constitution of the Second Chamber? The Second Chamber will be constituted entirely, if it is constituted at all, while the Veto may be maintained in perpetuity. Consequently you will have this Chamber really acting in the nature of a revolutionary Convention. We shall have given ourselves exceptional power as regards the Veto, and the Government will use that exceptional power to deal with any subsequent constitutional change in any way they think best, quite irrespective of the general opinion of the country and of what the best form of constitutional reform may be. Is not that wholly inconsistent with the Preamble and with what the Government said at the last two elections? What they then put before the country was the Bill as it stands, with the Preamble in it, and that Preamble expresses the intention to substitute "immediately" a new Second Chamber. The word "immediately" will no doubt be differently construed by different Members. What we desire by this Amendment is to give a definite definition—I think a rather wide definition—to what is intended when the Government say they intend "immediately" to substitute for the House of Lords a new Second Chamber. Three years is surely a sufficient time for the Government to produce their scheme. Having regard to what has been said by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, unless such an Amendment is introduced, the Government will not have the power to bring in their scheme. If the Bill confers a perpetual
  1924
  power, hon. Members below the Gangway who object to any reconstitution of the Second Chamber, and who are avowedly desirous of having a Single-Chamber system, will, by taking up that attitude, prevent the Government from instituting a reform of this kind, even if they desire to so do. They have got the power now, and they are using the power now. Without some limitation of this kind is introduced they will have the power in the future, and they will use it in the future. I will give all weight to what has been said by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, but it is because they are so sincere that we on this side want to have an absolute guarantee, an absolute security, that in due time what is said to be the intention of the Government shall be fulfilled whether hon. Members below the Gangway desire it or not. What has been said by the Government in the Preamble:—
  "Provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses … to substitute for the House of Lords. … a Second Chamber constituted on a popular, instead of hereditary, basis…"
  Will that ever be done without some limitation of this kind is introduced? Member after Member who has got up below the Gangway has declared not only his desire not to have any reformed Second Chamber, but has also expressed further his desire that the limited power contained in this Bill should be still further reduced to what will be an absolute nullity in regard to every useful legislative power! Therefore why will not the Government accede to a proposal of this sort? We are not asking at this present time—I do not think it is the proper occasion—for information as regards the form of their Second Chamber. We are not asking what are to be the powers proposed to be given to that Second Chamber. All we are asking is this: You have come into power boasting a mandate from the country based on the provisions of this Bill to maintain not only the Clause but the Preamble as well. We ask you on that ground to give some test of the sincerity of what you told the country at the time of the General Election. Why connot you do it? It is because hon. Members below the Gangway and of hon. Members from Ireland? Is that the way to approach a great constitutional reform, particularly in this country, where we boast of being in advance of other countries in the matter of con-

  1925
  stitutional freedom and constitutional methods? Have we sunk so low that the Government are not able to fulfil the promises they have made, and that they should refuse to accept an Amendment of this kind, which would be in accordance wit h their promises, because they are afraid of hon. Members below the Gangway? This is the touchstone of sincerity, and I ask the Government, at any rate, to give some reason why they are refusing the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs. If they do refuse to accept this Amendment I hope the country will take note of it. Instead of taking power to carry out their pledges which an Amendment of this sort would give them, the Government are placing themselves, as they know, in the impotent position of leaving us, so far as they can, under the absolute and tyrannical domination of a mere party majority in this House. It is inconsistent with every constitutional principle and inconsistent with everything that has been said as regards liberty and freedom by all the great Liberals of the past.
  Mr. PEEL: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister I think on the Second Reading, or in one of the Debates which took place on this question of the House of Lords and a Second Chamber, was discussing the various courses that he might adopt. He might on the one hand deal with reform of the House of Lords, or he might deal with the limitation of their powers. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "It is a simple matter to deal with the limitation of these powers, but it is a very difficult matter, and will ake a long time, to deal with reform in their composition."
  I confess when first I saw the Amendment of my hon. Friend that I wondered whether he was not a little over-generous in the time he had given the Government. I thought, considering the vast ability that resides in the Government Front Bench, that three years was not too long a time. Now, I think it would not be too long a time for a Front Bench with even less ability. Surely the time is not too short for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to excogitate a plan, to work out some scheme for reforming the composition of the House of Lords which they would not be ashamed to put before this House and the country.
  What I am afraid of is this—and I say this really in the interests of the party opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I do not pretend that my sym-
  1926
  pathies are very strongly engaged on behalf of the party opposite, but I do say that I have some respect for the way affairs are conducted in this House. I want to know what front this Government will present to the electors at the next election when they go before them and say: "True, we told you that we were going to reform the composition of the House of Lords, and we have not done it. We ask again for another mandate to reform the House of Lords." Will the electors give right hon. Gentlemen opposite much credence? Mark you, these three years will practically bring you to the end of this Parliament. If, after the passing of this measure, three years are allowed to elapse without your having fulfilled your pledges there is no possible opportunity for you at a later stage in this Parliament to fulfil them. It therefore means this, that if you refuse to accept this limitation you postpone until the next Parliament any dealing with the composition of the Second Chamber. After all, we have got many precedents for this sort of limitation. We had a precedent only the other day. We were discussing in this House the question of for how long a period the Land Taxes should be taken away from the local authorities and put into the Exchequer. It was a suggestion of hon. Members opposite that the time should be limited, and so strong was the pressure exercised upon the Government that we were actually ready to agree to a limitation of three years. It is quite true that the Government have not yet inserted that suggestion in their Bill, but I believe they will do so on some future occasion. Why was it? Surely it was not because hon. Members opposite did not believe in their own Government? It was not because hon. Members opposite did not think or believe that the Government were not fully pledged to transfer part of these Land Taxes to the local authorities. They recognise this, that so vast is the pressure that can be put upon any Government by a section of its followers to produce a measure and forget undertakings and promises that it was very useful to have some bond over them at some time that would force them in their own defence to deal with a question which under any circumstances they might be persuaded to shirk. The fact is that a limit of this kind is a little jog to the memory of the Government. Governments are apt to be very forgetful of statements made three years ago. There can be very different explanations given after a lapse

  1927
  of three years. There is some little limitation of a phrase that escaped for the moment the attention of those who heard the promise, and many gaps and hollows are found in the pledge that make it easy for the Government to scrape out of it. But if they are tied definitely by a limitation placed in a statute of Parliament, and that statute will cease to have effect after three years, unless the Government have regard to their promises and pledges, that is a very strong reason for compelling the Government to carry out the pledge they had given. I quite agree that hon. Members on the Labour benches frankly state they do not want any Second Chamber, and for that reason they do not agree with any limitation. I do not really know what is the attitude of hon. Members from Ireland, because, after all, I may point out to them that possibly by the end of three years Home Rule may have passed. In that case all their hidden constitutional feeling, which I feel confident is strong in them, although they are compelled to suppress it to-day, may come forth and they may have an opportunity of giving vent to their really Conservative Tory feelings, and it may be that at that time we shall find there are no stronger, more eloquent and keen supporters even of a hereditary Second Chamber than hon. Members who represent Nationalist feeling in Ireland.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I rise for the purpose of making one more appeal to the Government, and I think that Members of the Government themselves feel that it is due to their own position that by a few plain straightforward words they should dispel the doubts that have gathered about them since the Committee listened this afternoon to the elaborate evasions of the Home Secretary. We have reason to deplore the absence this evening of the Foreign Secretary. I wish it was possible for him to be present, particularly on an occasion of this kind, and I am sure the House would have listened with the greatest possible interest to what he would have to say with regard to the Preamble and what the Government meant to do with regard to it. There is another Member of the Government whom we cannot have here to-night because he has recently moved to another place, but failing him I wish we could have had the Foreign Secretary, and have heard what he would say upon this all-important point. The Government say they cannot accept the limit of three years. Will they tell us how many years would
  1928
  be enough for them to mature their plans I They will not have three years. Would four years do? Or five years? Or would nine years satisfy them? Will they tell them whether they mean business with regard to the House of Lords or whether they do not. The situation this evening is absolutely unexampled in the annals of this House. You got votes at the General Election by putting forward a policy of reform of the Second Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes you did, and you know it very well. Some Members of the party opposite say that the promise of a reform of the House of Lords was a millstone round their necks. Did the Government think so at the time? Did the Government not angle for the votes of those moderate men who so often turn the scale at General Elections in this country, and have hon. Members opposite any doubts in their own minds that they got a great many votes at the last election which would have gone to the other side if reform of the Second Chamber had not been part of the Government programme?
  What is the situation now? Your supporters below the Gangway openly scoff at the proclaimed intentions of the Government with regard to this reform. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy referred jeeringly to the Preamble, and said "Second Chamber to be reformed hereafter." What is to come is still not sure. Hereafter does not concern him. One hon. Gentleman on this side of the House asked, "is the Preamble a sham or is it not?" There were cries from hon. Members below the Gangway of "it is a sham," and the cheers which came in response from the benches opposite echoed what was said and confirmed it. The Government heard that, and what was the answer? Nothing but the evasive reply of the Home Secretary, which left everything perfectly open, and left everyone sitting on the benches opposite to understand that as long as they supported the Government they might hold what opinion they pleased about the Preamble. Can we not have some plain statement on the subject? I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is here. What I want to know is whether the Preamble is sincere or insincere. So far as this Debate has gone it lends itself painfully to the suspicion that the Preamble is insincere. It did its office in composing differences in the Cabinet and in winning the support of the moderate men at the General Election throughout the country. Is the Government sincere in the matter? Assuming that they are sincere in their intentions to reform

  1929
  the Second Chamber, and assuming that their supporters below the Gangway, and many of their supporters behind them will allow them to carry out that intention, what is it that they propose to do in the meantime? They propose to carry through some revolutionary measures while there is no effective Second Chamber in existence and before they have brought into existence that Second Chamber which they say should take the place of the present Chamber. Was the country ever face to face with such a position as this? It is said the Constitution wants amending. It is said the Second Chamber ought to be strengthened. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Not by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. What they desire is that the Second Chamber should continue in a weak and discredited position. That is what would suit them. Making the supposition for the sake of argument that the Government is sincere in its intentions of reform, do they or do they not, while the Second Chamber under this Bill, if it ever becomes law, is reduced to a state of impotence, mean to carry through changes in the capital institutions of the country? I say it is scandalous that such an intention——
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to the financial question?
  Sir R. FINLAY: No.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then how is it in order?
  Sir R. FINLAY: I am not, of course, transgressing your ruling. It is difficult to discuss the question of this Amendment without reference to the Bill as a whole, but I perfectly recognise what you have said with regard to the present Amendment, and another opportunity will present itself at a later stage of dealing with the topic which I indicated. I answered you at once that another subject was in my mind, and I do not know what financial changes may be in store for us while the Second Chamber is reduced to the state of entire insignificance and powerlessness with regard to financial matters. Mr. Gladstone was perfectly right when he said it was as essential for the security of our Constitution that the privileges of the House of Lords should be preserved as that our privileges should be preserved, and that the real meaning of the importance of the House of Lords retaining their rights with regard to financial matters
  1930
  was that they should be able to prevent measures being embodied in Money Bills which were not really of a purely financial character. What we have to do on this Clause is to secure, if this Clause passes into law, some adequate substitute for the powers at present enjoyed by the House of Lords, but I do not trespass upon that ground. What I say is that the Government, in the Preamble, after stating that it was intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists, a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis, have told us in the plainest terms:—
  "But such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation:
  "And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords."
  Then the enacting Clause follows. I do say, after a Preamble of that kind, and after the speeches that have been made throughout the country, it is essential that this House should have some guarantee that the Government mean business in this matter. It is not so important that the term of three years should be fixed, or, indeed, any term. What is important is that we should see that the Government are sincere in what they are professing.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have listened with interest and with respect to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I confess I have been unable to discover what reference it had to the Amendment actually under discussion. We are now dealing with finance. We are not dealing with the Clause limiting the operation of the Bill as a whole; we are dealing with the Financial Clause alone, and the Amendment now before the House proposes that the new arrangement set out under this Clause with regard to finance shall last three years. That is the sole issue on which the Committee will be called upon to decide. I can quite understand—and I dare say before we have got to the end of the Committee stage we shall see proposals made to that effect—I can quite understand the suggestion that the whole operation of this Bill should be for a limited period of time. But we are now dealing with the first Clause alone, and the question the Committee has to consider is whether that Clause should be limited in

  1931
  its operation to three years or to any specific period. In the opinion of the Government it should not. I can see no reason whatever why in the future, as in the past, this Chamber—this representative Chamber elected by the people of this country—should not retain its predominance in finance. I am quite prepared to deal with the larger question if and when the opportunity arises —— [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The opportunity will arise——[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I do not understand that interruption. I am quite prepared to deal if and when the opportunity arises with the question whether the general limitations proposed by this Bill of the powers of the House of Lords should be restricted in point of time. But this is not the occasion for doing it. We are dealing here with finance, and with finance alone, and in the opinion of the Government whatever changes may take place in the constitution of the other House this House must retain not for three years, but for all time its effective, undisputed, unchallengeable supremacy in regard to matters of finance.
  I will only say one word more with regard to the general observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and which, however, did not appear to me to have any relevance to the Amendment before the House, in respect of the Preamble. He tried to suggest doubts as to the sincerity of the Government in inserting these words in the Preamble. When this Bill was presented to the country as it was at the last election it was presented with its Preamble, and the assent given by the electors to the Bill was an assent given—I do not say in every particular or detail—to the Bill as a whole. The Government regard themselves as bound not only in honour, but bound by the strict letter of their pledges by the actual terms of the Bill itself to give effect to the Preamble as and when the proper time arises. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who supports you?"] That is not a very courteous interruption. Let me repeat the terms of the Preamble as submitted to the country. They are these:—
  "And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."
  Therefore everybody who voted in favour of this Bill voted, as he well knows, in
  1932
  favour of the scheme of which "the immediate substitution" would not form part. To represent the Government and their supporters as guilty of insincerity because they do not on this subject indicate the lines of their scheme is to reproach them as being guilty of nothing less than a fraud upon the electorate. The policy which we announced, which we put before the country, and which, as we believe, the country approved, was this: first of all, to regulate the relations between the two Houses. That is the business for which this Parliament was elected. That is the business to which we are asking this House of Commons to direct its attention. When that has been satisfactorily accomplished, then we shall proceed——[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Then we shall proceed in due time and season to deal with the other part of the plan, and I decline altogether to anticipate or to predict when that season may be any more than the electors when they gave us their confidence attempted to prescribe any time. Then and not until we have first accomplished this necessary preliminary task—then and not till then shall we proceed to the accomplishment of the other part of our task. I have said so much on that point, although I do not regard it as relevant to the Amendment in consequence of the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman. Let me bring back the Committee to the point which is really before them: whether the assertion of the unchallengable supremacy of this House in point of finance shall be limited in point of time. That is the issue upon which we are going to vote, and on that issue I claim with no want of confidence, but with perfect assurance, the support of all those who were elected to assist us.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have already troubled the Committee when it was rather thinner than it is now with some observations on this Amendment, but I would ask them before we go to a Division whether there could be a more conclusive speech in favour of it than the one which has just been delivered. The Prime Minister told us that the policy the Government presented to the country consisted of two parts, one a promise in honour some day orotherto have a popular Second Chamber, the other to regulate the relations between the present House of Commons and the present Second Chamber. That is the view of the Government. May I seriously ask any Gentleman whether under those circumstances it is

  1933
  not absolutely necessary to limit the duration of the time in which the avowedly temporary arrangement contemplated should last and beyond which it should not last? The Government not only admit, but they assert, as a cardinal part of their policy that that is a temporary arrangement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I misrepresent the Prime Minister. I will modify my statement. The Government assert that this Bill is to deal with the relations, not between two permanent bodies, but between two bodies only one of which is permanent, and therefore it is quite clear that the relations between the First and Second Chamber cannot outlast the reconstitution of the Second Chamber. Unless this Preamble is absolutely meaningless, unless it is a mere pretence and a mere fraud, to use the Prime Minister's words, surely you ought to make the relations you establish between the two Houses of Parliament as temporary as those two Houses are themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] How could you lay down a permanent principle when you avow at the same time that you mean fundamentally to alter the whole constitution of one of those Houses? The thing is on the face of it absurd, and it is all the more absurd if the Committee will call to mind the ground the Prime Minister gave for saying that this House is to retain permanently not only its general supremacy in matters of finance, but absolute and sole supremacy. What are the grounds he gave? That this Assembly was representative and elected. That is the only reason he gave. What is the new House of Lords to be? It is also to be representative and elected. So that on the only two grounds given by the Prime Minister for retaining the sole control of finance in this House, the new House, which will be constituted when all the more magnificent promises of the Government have been fulfilled, in that dim and distant future, will have as great a fundamental title to deal with finance as this House itself. They find themselves dealing with a Constitution in which there is one fully representative House, and they say, "So long as the House is representative let it control finance." They also promise a new Second Chamber, which is to be equally representative.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Not equal power.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I did not say equal power. I said they deserved equal power.
  1934
  If they have the same authority—they will draw their power from the people as this House draws its from the people—they will have as much title as this House to deal with finance. If that were not the ultimate or remote ideal but an ideal to be carried out as soon as possible, to give this permanent privilege to this House is an absurdity. You are bound to limit it in time. You are bound to say that if this House is to have, on the grounds of its representative character, solo control of financial matters, that Parliament should not last beyond such a period at which you may hope to reconstitute another Chamber equally drawn from the people, equally representative, having equal authority with the ancient Assembly to which we belong. In these circumstances I suggest that the very argument urged by the Prime Minister is itself the strongest proof that this Amendment should be accepted. The very line of reasoning he adopted showed that he contemplated, as a matter of honour, calling into existence a Second Chamber not less authoritative than our own, not less deeply based upon public approval, and I suggest that, even from the Benches of a Radical Government there' must be some time limit to pledges given as matters of honour. I admit that it is not an immediate pledge. I grant that the Preamble does not state that the House of Lords is to be reformed this Session, but if three years is too short a time for a Radical Government to carry out a pledge of honour, then let them say four years or five years. I do not know what length of time we must allow for carrying out a pledge of honour, but let the Radical Government state it themselves. Let them give us their own idea of honour if in this matter it comes to any period short of the day of judgment. If they will make any time limit to this pledge of honour, if within reason, if within the lifetime of those who gave the pledge, if within what insurance companies call the expectation of life, it would be an improvement on the Bill, and I think my hon. Friend would be prepared, if we cannot get anything better, to accept it. But to come down and tell us they mean, as a matter of honour, to establish a popular Second Chamber, and tell us at the same time they are going to give perpetually to this House privileges which it has only a title to accept if the Second Chamber is not representative, is an absurdity which nobody can justify, nobody

  1935
  has attempted to justify, not even the Prime Minister in the most able and inconclusive speech he has just delivered.
  Mr. HARWOOD: I wish to explain to the right hon. Gentleman what I think is the position generally on this side of the House in regard to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says, supposing there are two bodies and that we alter the constitution of one of these two bodies, then we alter the relationship between the two.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If they are completely popular.
  Mr. HARWOOD: Therefore the arrangement that we are now entering upon is contingent upon the other House remaining unpopular or non-elective. The position of a good many of us on this side of the House is entirely opposed to that. We say that the relationship now being fixed between the two Houses must be permanent. If the Government falter in that respect; if they make the present relationship only temporary, then I say they will be swept from power at once. I only say this because I know it is the feeling of a great many, and I know it is the feeling of the country. The feeling of the country generally is not one of dislike to the House of Lords. We have had a most marvellous exhibition of
  topsy-turvydom of politics to-night. The right hon. Gentleman in violent language abused the House of Lords. I was here ten years in opposition and they behaved quite well. They have been throwing out our Bills one after the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said quite recently that they were a perfect assembly. Now we have them abused and they must be reformed instantly. Why have not they reformed them before? Why have not they reformed themselves before? As a matter of fact, I do not think that the country is opposed to the House of Lords even in its present condition. It is all very well for some hon. Members to laugh, but the difficulty of reforming the House of Lords is an enormous one. The ablest and most subtle minds have tried it, and we see no scheme that is at all likely to obtain success. Therefore we on this side are-prepared to take the House of Lords as it is. But it is quite clearly understood that whatever change you make in the House of Lords, if you fill it with archangels, we are House of Commons men and take our stand upon this: That no change in the constitution of the House of Lords shall justify the slightest going back on the relationship between the two Houses.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 296.

  Division No. 106.]

  AYES.

  [10.55 p.m.

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

  Butcher, John George

  Fell, Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Campion, W. R.

  Finlay, Sir R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Fisher, William Heyes

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cassel, Felix

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fleming, Valentine

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cator, John

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cave, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chambers, James

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Grant, J. A.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Barnston, H.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gretton, John

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Bird, Alfred

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Boyton, James

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Doughty, Sir George

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Bull, Sir W. James

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Hills, John Waller

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Hoars, Samuel John Gurney

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanier, Beville

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Newdegate, F. A

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Sykes, Alan John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Larmor, Sir J

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Quilter, W. E. C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Winterton, Earl

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Royds, Edmund

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Macmaster, Donald

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Younger, George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Malcolm, Ian

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Viscount Valentia.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gulland, John William

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Alnsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hackett, John

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hancock, J. G.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Armitage, Robert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harwood, George

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Delany, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barnes, George N.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Barton, William

  Doris, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bentham, G. J.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hinds, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hodge, John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Brace, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Falconer, James

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Johnson, W.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Field, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Furness, Stephen

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Joyce, Michael

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Keating, Matthew

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Goldstone, Frank

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville C. (Peterborough)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Clynes, John R.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Kilbride, Denis

  1938

  1939

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Ogden, Fred

  Sheehy, David

  Lambert, George (S. Molton)

  O'Grady, James

  Shorn, Edward

  Lansbury, George

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Malley, William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Snowden, Philip

  Logan, John William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Soares, Ernest

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Summers, James Wooley

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sutton, John E.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Switt

  Pointer, Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Price, Sir Robert J.

  Toulmin, George

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Marks, George Croydon

  Radford, George Heynes

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Martin, Joseph

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Wardle, George J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Webb, H.

  Molloy, Michael

  Rendall, Atnelstan

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Morgan, Goorge Hay

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Muldoon, John

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Munro, Robert

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Needham, Christopher J

  Rowlands, James

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Winfrey, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
  Adjourned at Eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Government Stationery and Printing.
  Government Stationery and Printing.
  Imperial and Local Taxation (Committee).
  Imperial and Local Taxation (Committee).
  Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
  Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
  Crown Lands in Great Britain (Agricultural Tenants).
  Crown Lands in Great Britain (Agricultural Tenants).
  Increment Value Duties (Ireland).
  Increment Value Duties (Ireland).
  Inland Revenue Deductions.
  Inland Revenue Deductions.
  Annual Licence Values.
  Annual Licence Values.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Customs Promotions.
  Customs Promotions.
  School Grants (Ireland).
  School Grants (Ireland).
  Sugar and Tea Duties.
  Sugar and Tea Duties.
  Road Improvement (Ireland).
  Road Improvement (Ireland).
  Mineral Rent.
  Mineral Rent.
  State Insurance.
  State Insurance.
  Married Women's Income.
  Married Women's Income.
  Asylum Officers (Pensions).
  Asylum Officers (Pensions).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Magistracy (County Mayo).
  Magistracy (County Mayo).
  Vaccination (Ireland).
  Vaccination (Ireland).
  Dublin Metropolitan Police (Injury to Ex-Constable Cronin).
  Dublin Metropolitan Police (Injury to Ex-Constable Cronin).
  North Louth Election Petition.
  North Louth Election Petition.
  Estates Commissioners (Ireland).
  Estates Commissioners (Ireland).
  Loans to Fishermen (Ireland).
  Loans to Fishermen (Ireland).
  Enniscrone Pier, County Sligo.
  Enniscrone Pier, County Sligo.
  Store Swine (Ireland).
  Store Swine (Ireland).
  Average School Attendance (Ireland).
  Average School Attendance (Ireland).
  Belfast Distress Committee.
  Belfast Distress Committee.
  Labourers' Cottages (County Donegal).
  Labourers' Cottages (County Donegal).
  British and German Battleships.
  British and German Battleships.
  Royal Dockyards.
  Royal Dockyards.
  Triple Alliance (Naval Strength).
  Triple Alliance (Naval Strength).
  Colonel W. B. Brabazon.
  Colonel W. B. Brabazon.
  Barrow Defences.
  Barrow Defences.
  Royal Navy (Stores).
  Royal Navy (Stores).
  Guns, Gun Mountings, and Ammunition.
  Guns, Gun Mountings, and Ammunition.
  Royal Irish Fusiliers (Pension Claim).
  Royal Irish Fusiliers (Pension Claim).
  Territorial Force (Wessex Division).
  Territorial Force (Wessex Division).
  Boy Scouts.
  Boy Scouts.
  Cadets (State-aided Schools).
  Cadets (State-aided Schools).
  Ordnance Factories.
  Ordnance Factories.
  Claim for Army Pension (Thomas Smith).
  Claim for Army Pension (Thomas Smith).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

THE PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN.
His Majesty's answer to the Address of Thursday last delivered by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield), and read as follows—
"I have received your Address; and, relying on the wisdom of My Parliament, I desire that My Prerogative and Powers, in so far as they relate to the Creation of Peerages and to the issue of Writs of Summons to Lords Spiritual and Temporal to attend and sit and vote in the House of Lords, should not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure that may be introduced in the present Session on the subject of the constitution of the House of Lords."

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
WESTER URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
FURNESS RAILWAY BILL.
MARPLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
TAN WORTH GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Bristol Corporation.
London Electric Railway.
Metropolitan District Railway.
Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Marriages Provisional Order.
Board of Education Scheme (Alnwick Corporation Payment) Confirmation. [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional Provision of the Trustees of the Harbour of Dundee under their Common Seal together with the proposed clause and schedule annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to the second sitting day alter the Recess at Easter.
KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES BRIDGE BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  ENFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
EARL ROBERTS*EARL ROBERTS rose to move to resolve—
"That in view of the altered strategic conditions in Europe, this House views with grave and growing concern the inadequate military arrangements of His Majesty's Government for the defence of this country and of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel the difficulty, I may almost say the embarrassment, of my position this afternoon, in the midst of the excitement caused by the hope of a general disarmament and universal peace—at a moment, too, when in England, from every newspaper, from every pulpit, from the heart of this great City of London itself, we are told that this hope will

821
assuredly shortly be fulfilled—I feel I require more than ordinary courage to bring before your Lordships proposals for placing our military system in a more satisfactory condition than it has ever yet attained—a condition more secure than any at which we have ever even aimed. But, my Lords, a totally unexpected incident lightens my embarrassment.
I refer to the speech delivered by the German Chancellor in the Reichstag last week. That speech—that remarkable speech—so full of manly sense, appealed to me in a way I find it, difficult to describe. And when the Chancellor proceeded to define what he considered to be the true relation of any nation or of any empire to its armed forces, I found him putting into words a principle which during the past few months, had been repeatedly in my own mind. The German Chancellor, after pointing out the impossibility of applying in any practical way the proposals for the reduction of armaments, laid down as a maxim that, at the present stage of the world's history, the armed forces of any nation or empire must have a distinct relation to the material resources of that nation or empire. This position seems to me, as statesmanlike as it is unanswerable. But, my Lords, in applying the principle to our own country, I should be inclined to modify it by saying that the armed forces of any nation or empire ought to represent not only its material resources, but the spirit which animates that nation or empire. In a word, that its armed forces should be the measure of the nation's devotion to whatever ends it pursues.
Now, how does this country, this great Empire, stand the test of the German Chancellor's maxim, even modified in the way I have suggested? Can we suppose that our existing forces represent either our material resources, or the spirit which animates, or at any rate which ought to animate this country? On the contrary, I affirm that, so far as the Army is concerned, our military system is hopelessly inadequate; we have neither a Home Army such as is needed for the defence of this country, nor an effective Regular Army to protect our Imperial interests abroad. It is because I hold this view so strongly that: I feel impelled to bring to your Lordships' notice the Motion that stands in my name. I am encouraged to hope that this may be the last occasion I need address your Lordships on this
822
subject, from the fact that, such a large proportion of this House expressed their I strong approval of my views when I had the honour eighteen months ago of speaking to I your Lordships on this essentially important question. At the same time no circumstances have arisen since then to make us less anxious about our unpreparedness, or more hopeful as to au effort being made to render the Army better fitted for the various duties it may at any moment be called on to perform.
While, therefore, I feel that I have some grounds for hoping that your Lordships and the country are beginning to realise the urgency of the reform which I and those who of think with me have from time to time pressed upon your consideration, I cannot but be aware that there are still a large number in this House who, apparently, think that it is no business of theirs to inquire into the state of the Army, and, so long as the country makes no move, are content to let matters rest. But is it for you and for the leaders in the other House or for the country to make the move? Is it not to you and to those leaders that the country ought to look for guidance? And so long as you and they remain silent, is it not natural for the people to think that our military arrangements are entirely satisfactory, and that our Army is in all respects what is needed?
There was, no doubt, some reason for the ready acceptance of Lord Haldane's scheme when the noble Lord first took in hand the remodelling of the Army. It was clear to every one who had studied the subject that we had not got the Army we require; two Royal Commissions had spoken in no uncertain tone as to its unfitness for service both at home and abroad, and it was generally recognised that a radical change was absolutely necessary. Time will not admit of my referring in detail to the several shortcomings which were brought to notice by these Royal Commissions, but there are two of which I must again remind your Lordships, because the greatest stress was laid upon them by both Royal Commissions, and until they have been remedied we cannot hope to have anything like time Army we need. These shortcomings were, first, want of numbers, owing to there being no sound system of expansion; and, secondly, as regards the Home Army, insufficient training. Is it not inconceivable, my Lords, that, notwithstanding the supreme importance of

823
these two vital defects, no effort has been made during the remodelling of the Army to rectify them? On the contrary, they have been carefully ignored.
What did the Royal Commissions say on these two points? The Commission over which Lord Elgin presided recorded the following unanimous opinion—
"'No military system will be satisfactory which does not contain powers of expansion outside the limits of the Regular Forces of the Crown, whatever that limit may be."
This opinion was unanimously endorsed by the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, which, in referring to the Militia, stated that, in its existing condition—
"it is unfit to take the field for the defence of this country."
While with respect to the Volunteers, the Commission reported that—
"neither the musketry nor the tactical training of the rank and file would enable it to face, with prospect of success, the troops of a Continental army."
And again that—
"in view of the unequal military education of the officers, the limited training of the men, and the defects in equipment and organisation, the Volunteer Force is not qualified to take the field against a Regular Army."
The Commissioners wound up their Report by unanimously declaring that—
"The Militia and Volunteer Forces have not at present either the strength or military efficiency required to enable them to fulfil the functions for which they exist…and that a Home Defence Army capable in the absence of the whole, or the greater part of the Regular Forces, of protecting this country from invasion, can be raised and maintained only on the principle that it is the duty of every citizen of military age and sound physique to be trained for the national defence, and to take part in it should emergency arise."
No doubt I shall be told by the Secretary of State for War that the opinions expressed by the two Royal Commissions do not now hold good, as the forces to which they refer no longer exist. To this I would reply that the designations alone of these forces are changed. The Volunteers have become Territorials, and the Militia are called the Special Reserve; the Territorials being about the same strength as were the Volunteers. The County Associations and the Officers Training Corps are certainly a gain, and the training of the rank and file may be somewhat better, but it is far short of what is needed, and they get little or no more rifle practice. The Special Reserve being enlisted for foreign service is in that respect
824
an improvement on the Militia, but it is composed mainly of boys who could not possibly be depended upon to withstand the hardships of war, and it is by some thousands weaker in numerical strength than the old Militia.
The truth is that the forces which have lately been created are not, and never can be, much better for the purposes of war than were the old forces, which were so unanimously condemned by the Duke of Norfolk's Royal Commission. The same radical defects exist in the new as in the old organisation, and will never be remedied until officers and men are given prolonged and practical training; until they have learnt the discipline which that training alone can impart; until the men have been taught to use their rifles skilfully; and until they can have that absolute faith in their officers, that firm reliance on their comrades, and that implicit confidence in themselves which can only be attained by training, by discipline, and by skill in shooting.
What was it, my Lords, that threw such a lurid light upon the deep defects and utter insufficiency of our military system? Was it not a war that exposed our weakness to so great an extent as to imperil our Imperial interests, and so seriously compromised our credit as a Great Power that we have never wholly recovered it? It was the most costly war, in proportion to its duration and the number of our opponents, ever waged in the world's history. Never did a country pay so clear a price for a faulty military system as we then paid. Surely the humiliating reverses we suffered at that time ought to have brought home to us what a broken reed we lean upon if we trust to untrained troops in time of war; and they should have warned us to put our house in order, and never again to allow ourselves to be subjected to similar disasters—disasters which, if inflicted by a more warlike nation and a stronger adversary, would be irreparable, and might indeed cause the loss of the Empire and our downfall as a people. Nearly nine years have passed since peace was made, and I would ask you to put it to yourselves whether we have in that time done anything to show that we have profited by the lessons that the war should have taught us, and whether we have faced the problem squarely, and done what was incumbent upon us to do to render our Army better fitted for success in. future wars.
Let us see what has happened. The Regular Army—the only portion that can be depended upon to hold its own in the field—has been reduced by over 30,000 men, not only a present, but a serious prospective loss. The Militia has been done away with and replaced by the Special Reserve, the doubtful value of which I have already explained. With the money thus saved we have been given a Territorial Force, which is almost as lamentably inefficient in training, even more hopelessly insufficient in number and considerably more costly than were the Auxiliary Forces to which we were obliged to trust in the South African War. Above all we have remained content to allow our military arrangements for home defence to continue to be based upon the same fundamentally defective system which was the cause of all the evil, the length of the war, and the cost of the war—namely, voluntary training. I wish our people could be made to realise that an Army is meant primarily not to provoke, but to avert, war, and to preserve for the people the blessings of peace, in return for the cost and effort involved in keeping up an efficient military system. In 1899 the Boers understood, as the whole world outside these shores now understands, that our small Regular Army, without proper powers of expansion and with only its amateur auxiliaries behind it, was infinitely below the needs of the Empire, and totally inadequate for the prompt and thorough waging of war. If those who press for a reduction of our military forces would only remember that, had it not been for this fact, the struggle in South Africa never would, in all probability, have taken place, and its colossal cost would have been avoided, to say nothing of the bloodshed and misery that are the accompaniments of all wars—if they would only remember this fact, they could not fail to realise how illogical, how foolish, is their point of view, and how certain is the unpreparedness for war, which they advocate, to bring about the very thing which they so rightly dread.
Unfortunately, the true aspect of the case has never been put before the people by those in authority. The real condition of our military forces, the demands that may be made upon them when war breaks out, and the dangers against which we have to guard, are all, for political purposes, concealed from them. They are made to believe that we now have a far larger and more efficient Army than we had twelve years
826
ago, the truth being that, except that the Artillery is provided with a more powerful gun, and the Cavalry and Infantry with a more useful rifle—a rifle, however, very inferior to the rifle with which the German and French troops are armed—and except that the Regular portion of the Army is, in some respects, more highly trained, as regards numbers and readiness to take the field or being kept up to war strength while in the field, the Regular Army is neither stronger nor more efficient than it was when the Boer War broke out; while in the course of three or four years it will be much worse off, on account of the automatic decrease in the strength of the Reserve Force owing partly to the discontinuance by the late Mr. Arnold-Forster of Lord Midleton's three-years enlistment scheme, and to the heavy reductions made by the present Secretary of State for War. And with regard to the Home Defence Army, the people have also been made to believe that an inefficient and in sufficient Volunteer Force can, by a change of name and organisation, become an efficient and sufficient Territorial Force.
What, my Lords, was Lord Haldane's ideal, and what were the conditions, four in number, I think, on the fulfilment of which the success of that ideal depended? Was not the ideal which the noble Viscount put before us in such eloquent and persuasive language, and which he called upon his countrymen to work up to and make a reality, "A Nation in Arms"? A trained Army of seven, or eight, or even nine hundred thousand men, which number he calculated that the enthusiasm and national spirit to be aroused in the country would enable him to reach; with military training for the boys in the schools, with cadet corps for the youths, and with rifle clubs for all classes to teach them how to shoot. It was a dazzling picture that was presented to the country, and one likely to be admiringly and willingly accepted by those who do not understand that "A Nation in Arms" which does not know how to use its arms would be of no value as a means of expansion in time of war, and could do little or nothing to prevent an invasion of this country by a considerably smaller number of highly trained soldiers. Well, my Lords, what have we got after more than three years of waiting for the realisation of this fine ideal? Instead of the seven, or eight, or nine hundred thousand trained men hoped for, we have less than two hundred

827
and seventy thousand, all practically untrained, with the Infantry unable to shoot, with the Artillery unacquainted with the rudiments of their branch of the service, armed with an inferior gun, and, except in a very few cases, entirely dependent upon hired horses, and, as regards the Yeomanry, with, at the outside, one horse to every three men. We must not flatter ourselves that, because the Territorials can "march past" on Salisbury Plain and take part in peace manœuvres, they can be trusted in the field, and that because we are told there are so many thousand horses in the country for the Yeomanry they will be of any use in time of war. Neither men nor horses are of the slightest value for war purposes unless, as I have frequently said, they are properly trained; unless the Infantry can use their rifles with skill; unless the Artillery can work their guns rapidly and scientifically; and unless the Yeomanry can shoot as well as the Infantry, and are mounted upon horses they are accustomed to ride and know how to look after. Then, my Lords, the promised military training in the schools for boys has not been given, no cadet corps have been organised by the State for youths, and no rifle clubs exist, except those maintained by private people, who have come to realise the danger of our men being unable to shoot.
Now, my Lords, we come to the four conditions upon the fulfilment of which the success of Lord Haldane's scheme depended. The first condition was that the required number of men would be found to come forward on the voluntary system. This condition, as we know, after three years' hard toil, and most loyal co-operation from civilians and soldiers alike, has completely broken down, and as Lord Portsmouth, Lord Lovat, Lord Derby, Lord Esher, and other noble Lords, who have worked so enthusiastically in connection with the County Associations, pointed out in this House on July 18 last, and as Lord Esher has more recently explained in an article in the National Review, we cannot hope under the voluntary system to get a Territorial Force larger than we now have. It is because I was confident that this would be the case and also because I knew the requirements of war, that I reluctantly felt obliged to refuse to take any part in the organisation and administration of the Territorial Force. I thoroughly appreciate the value of the foundation upon which Lord Haldane has endeavoured to form a Home Defence Army, and it would
828
have been a real pleasure to me to have helped him to construct "an adequate edifice upon that foundation"; but I had no hopes of that being possible under the voluntary system, and I could not make myself believe that it was my duty to encourage a scheme which I was satisfied could never give us the Army we need. At the same time, my Lords, I can quite understand why men, who have had little or no war experience, considered it was their duty to do all in their power when the scheme was first started to make it a success by joining the Territorial Force or by becoming presidents and members of the County Associations. I have, however, looked forward with considerable anxiety, not to say impatience, to the clay when they would realise the mistake they were making, for I felt that so long as they gave the scheme their powerful support it was hopeless to expect that the country would understand that we had not got the Army that was wanted, and it was an intense relief to me when the noble Lords I have mentioned expressed their opinions so clearly as to the shortcomings of the Territorial Force. No one can now say with truth that the voluntary system for the Home Defence Army has not been given a fair and prolonged trial. The first condition—that the required number of men would come forward on the voluntary principle—cannot be said to be fulfilled, and those who are determined to continue to trust to that principle must, I think, either disbelieve in these islands ever requiring to be defended, or be foolish enough to imagine that men who have never been taught to fight can hold their own against highly trained soldiers, simply because they are their own countrymen.
The second condition was, as your Lordships no doubt remember, that we must have command of the sea. It is essential, my Lords, that we should have command of the sea, indeed our very existence depends upon our being supreme at sea; about this there ought to be no doubt. Whether we still have command of the sea in the true sense of the word, and if not to what extent we can claim that command, I do not feel competent to give an opinion, but of this I am certain, that however limited that extent may be, in order to ensure our supremacy over it at all times and under all circumstances, it is necessary that our ships should not be tied to these shores. On sea, as on land, it is the ability to attack that ensures success. It is unnecessary for me

829
to remind your Lordships that the fleets of other nations are rapidly approaching our fleets in the number, speed, and power of their warships; and what I would beg of you to note is, for it is the crux of the whole situation, that other nations are not dependent upon their navies for their food as we are upon our Navy; their fleets can be concentrated in any one direction, while a large proportion of our Navy must necessarily always be engaged in protecting the vessels conveying the required supplies, without the regular arrival of which we should either starve or be forced to make an ignominious peace.
As I said once before in this House, we have nothing to guide us as to what the result of a battle at sea might be under the altered conditions of modern warfare. We have no practical knowledge of the part which torpedo-boats and submarines may be able to take in war, and even if our ships were more numerous and more powerful than those which could be brought against us, it is within the bounds of possibility that we might meet with a temporary defeat, and thus give the opportunity for a fleet of hostile transports to reach our coasts. I am aware, my Lords, that the Admiralty authorities take a different view. The First Sea Lord is quite confident that nothing of the sort could occur, as he has explained in the Memorandum added to the second edition of the book written by General Sir Ian Hamilton, with an introduction by Lord Haldane, entitled' "Compulsory Service." But, according to Sir Arthur Wilson, the enemy is to be so considerate as to carry out the invasion exactly in the manner we would wish, and where we are prepared to meet it. Surprise is left out of the calculation. Our information is to be absolutely perfect. We are to have the benefit of wireless telegraphy, scouting ships, submarines, &c. Apparently, all these assets are to be denied to the enemy. He is to know nothing of our movements. A quite unnecessary number of transports are to be employed for the conveyance of the invading force, and they are all to come by the same route in order to make a better target for our warships.
I confess I cannot be so optimistic. I am obliged to think that the commander of an invading force may not fall in with all our arrangements for his reception. I cannot believe that he will not have as good, if not better, information of our plans than
830
we have of his, or that he will not have the benefit of wireless telegraphy, scouting ships, and submarines, or t hat his force—the avowed object of which would be to subdue this country—would not consist of more than 70,000 men, the maximum number laid down by the Secretary of State for War and the First Sea Lord. I should hardly have ventured to speak with such confidence on the naval side of this question had I not the support of many distinguished naval officers. No fewer than four Admirals of the Fleet and sixty-nine Admirals are at the present time members of the National Service League, and surely these officers would not have joined the league did they not feel strongly as to the necessity for this country being protected by a land force in order to admit of the Navy being liberated to perform its legitimate duties on the open seas. To give to our Navy this required freedom of movement, and to prevent the landing of an invading force, we must have an adequate home Army, and, so long as we remain without such an Army, the second condition—that we must have command of the sea—cannot be considered as fulfilled.
The third condition has now to be considered, which was that the invading force would not consist of more than 70,000 men, and that, therefore, we need not be prepared to cope with a larger number. How can we possibly lay down what the strength of an invading force would be? Six years ago we were told that not even a dinghy load of men could be landed on these shores. A little later we were informed that two raids of 5,000 men each were the outside we had to guard against. Then in 1909, on a reconsideration of the problem, it was agreed, both by the Prime Minister and Mr. Balfour, in the debate that took place in the House of Commons on July 9, that 70,000 was the number we had to be prepared for. I do not see, my Lords, how we can settle the exact number of men an invading force would consist of Surely that would depend upon a variety of circumstances about which we can have but little knowledge, and over which we can have absolutely no control. The only thing we may feel confident of is, that the better prepared we are the less chance there is of an invasion being attempted. The figure of 70,000 seems to have been fixed upon because, as explained by Mr. Balfour, that was the minimum number with which I myself stated, at a meeting of the Committee

831
of Imperial Defence in 1905, I believed any commander would venture to attempt an invasion of this country. And also because the naval authorities asserted that the transports required for a larger number would be so numerous as to make it impossible for them to evade our warships. But my opinion is that an invading force is far more likely to consist of 150,000 men than 70,000, and that it is for this number, at least, we ought to be prepared. Naval and mercantile arrangements are day by day becoming more perfect, and, for the short distance that would have to be traversed, 150,000 men could now be conveyed without risk or inconvenience in considerably fewer ships than it was calculated six years ago would be necessary for the conveyance of 70,000. It does not appear, therefore, my Lords, that the third condition—viz., that an invading force would consist of not more than 70,000 men—is any more likely of fulfilment than the first and second conditions. On all the occasions when these statements were made as to the numbers we might expect an invasion to consist of, we were led to believe that our Army was exactly what was needed at that precise moment, and yet, my Lords, while the numbers of the invading force rose from less than a dinghy load to 70,000 men our Home Defence Army steadily decreased in strength.
Now, my Lords, we have arrived at the fourth condition, which was that the Expeditionary Force would be kept in this country for six months after war had been declared, during which time the Home Defence Army could be trained. This is the most astonishing and fallacious condition of the four, and it is difficult to believe that the Secretary of State could ever have contemplated organising an Army for the defence of this country on such a condition, unless it had been forced upon him by those of his supporters who scout the necessity for having an Army at all, and had not Lord Haldane, in the House of Commons on March 4, 1907, given it as his opinion that "under the voluntary system the required amount of training could never be given in time of peace." I quite agree with Lord Haldane that under the voluntary system the required amount of training could never be given in time of peace, for the simple reason that the men who join the Territorial Force cannot afford the necessary time. But what I venture to assert is that the training could never be given after war
832
breaks out, because it would be impossible to keep our absurdly small Expeditionary Force, or any portion of it, in this country for six months if serious trouble broke out in India, in Egypt, or in any of our oversea Dominions. I need not dwell on the reasons which make it impossible, as I explained them fully when last I spoke in this House, so I will only say that, in the event of the Expeditionary Force being required to help our countrymen and women abroad, no thought of our personal safety could stand in the way of every available soldier being instantly despatched, for it is upon this help in time of need they confidently rely. Our honour would be at stake as well as our feelings of humanity. And if our Regular Army were required to assist in preserving the balance of power in Europe, upon the maintenance of which not only our position as a Great Power but our existence as a nation depends, it would be equally impossible to keep the Expeditionary Force at home. Therefore, I think you must agree with me that this fourth condition, upon which the training of the Territorial Force can alone be accomplished, is even more impossible of fulfilment than the other three conditions.
If, then, the four conditions upon which the success of Lord Haldane's scheme depends cannot be fulfilled, what is to be done? We cannot go on as we are, for, as I have said, we have neither a Home Army, such as is needed for the defence of this country, nor an effective Regular Army to protect Imperial interests abroad. The Regular portion of our Army (all, I think, will agree) must be formed on a voluntary basis, and in my opinion—an opinion considerably strengthened by reading "Compulsory Service"—there are no grounds for fearing that this would be interfered with if it were decided to adopt a compulsory basis for the Home Defence portion of our Army. The object of Sir Ian Hamilton's book is to try to prove that compulsory training would adversely affect recruiting for the Regular Army, but I venture to think it would require sounder arguments than are adduced in that book to convince the most casual reader that this view is correct. The fears of the Secretary of State for War and the gallant General are certainly not borne out by history or by our own experience, as I have endeavoured to show in "Fallacies and Facts," the recently published answer to "Compulsory Service."
We require, my Lords, one million of men—over and above the Regular Army—-the smallest number that would prevent invasion being attempted, and at the same time furnish a potential Reserve from which a large proportion of the men, who had been taught their duty as soldiers, could be depended to come forward of their own accord to serve with the Regular Army fighting abroad. The question, the vital question, upon which the country has to pronounce, is how this million of men are to be obtained, and in what way the required amount of training can be carried out with the least inconvenience to the general public. On the conclusion of their training the men would revert to civil life—better physically, industrially, and morally, for their short experience of the Army—and ready to take their part in any great national emergency that may arise. We were told a few months ago by Lord Ashby St. Ledgers that the country would not accept the obligation of compulsory training, except as the result of a national disaster. I wonder if the noble Lord has ever explained to the people, or pictured to himself, what a national disaster would mean? Whether he has ever given a thought as to the terms to which we might be forced to submit, if dictated to us by an invader on our own soil? We surely do not intend to wait until some great disaster—a Jena or a Sedan—brings home to us that we are not different from other nations, and that if we do not make ourselves strong on land as well as on sea, we cannot hope to escape the fate which has overtaken all great flourishing commercial maritime Powers which neglected that duty. It may be urged that these were Continental, not island, Powers, and that therefore the analogy does not hold good, but, although no doubt our insular position is an advantage in some respects, it is a disadvantage inasmuch as it makes us dependent for our food on foreign countries. And I submit that our tremendous land responsibilities in various parts of the world prevent us now being considered as altogether an island Power.
I fear that I have already taken up too much time, but, if you will bear with me for a few minutes longer, I should like to explain why I am so persistent in my endeavours to get our people to realise the absolute necessity for the men to whom we have to trust to defend this
834
country and to fight our battles abroad being in all respects well disciplined and properly trained. Insufficiently disciplined and insufficiently trained men, however keen, however numerically superior they may be, cannot nowadays be relied upon to hold their own against highly trained soldiers. They could not be relied upon, even before the days of arms of precision, and they most certainly cannot be relied upon now. All the talk about one volunteer being worth two pressed men "is sheer nonsense. The truth is that one man, whether pressed or not, if well disciplined and carefully trained, is worth at least half-a-dozen undisciplined, insufficiently trained volunteers. No doubt if I had to lead a forlorn hope requiring men determined to carry out the job, no matter what the odds against them might be, I would rather have half the number of men w ho volunteered than double the number ordered to perform it, provided all were equally well trained. But if it were a question of soldiers versus untrained volunteers, I would infinitely prefer to have ten well-trained and well-disciplined soldiers than fifty ill-trained and ill-disciplined volunteers.
If time admitted I could give you many instances from history in support of this view—the opinions of great commanders like Washington and Napoleon—hilt it will, perhaps, interest you more if I remind you of an incident well within the recollection of many in this House, and tell you something of what I know from my own experience of war. During the Franco-German War of 1870–71, the French, from having an army without any means of expansion, were forced, after the first few weeks, to employ hastily raised levies. These levies, even in greatly superior numbers, were no match for the highly-trained German soldiers. On one occasion towards the end of the war, 35,000 German soldiers found themselves engaged with a force of these recently raised levies, numbering between 140,000 and 150,000. They had been given such training as was possible while war was going on, for four and a half months. They were brave men fighting for their own country, and in their own country, and what happened? Within a month 60,000 of them were killed, wounded, poisoners, or missing, while the remaining 80,000 were driven over the Swiss frontier and there interned.
When giving my own experience about what happened in South Africa, I desire to speak with the utmost respect of the fine patriotic spirit which induced the one man out of five of the Militia, the one man out of fifteen of the Yeomanry and Volunteers, and the one man in a thousand out of the civil population to come forward to serve with the Army during the war. They set an excellent example to their comrades, and they deserve all praise for their courage and willingness to help their country in her time of need. That these men were unable to hold their own—unless aided by Regular soldiers—even against an enemy so lightly trained as the Boers, was not due to any fault of their own, but to the absurdly foolish belief which then existed, and which, I deeply regret to say, still exists amongst a great many people who ought to know better, that untrained, undisciplined citizen soldiers, unable to use their rifles with effect, and worse than all led by officers without military training, can be trusted in war.
For not a few of the "regrettable incidents" which occurred during the South African war this country was to blame, not the men, for the men were never given the opportunity to learn their duty as soldiers. And I would ask you what in all human probability would have been the fate of these same men had they been fighting against the highly-trained soldiers of a Continental Power? Is this country going to allow these things to happen again? Is it willing to consent to untrained men meeting the fate that befell the French levies? There was, perhaps, some excuse for untrained men being sent to South Africa. We had not been engaged in, any serious war for nearly half a century, and it was not then generally understood that owing to the introduction of rifled arms and smokeless powder war had become more scientific and that a much higher standard of individual intelligence and efficiency had come to be demanded both from officers and men. I know from my own experience that fifty years ago soldiers with far less individual training than is now necessary could be trusted to do well in battle. At that time fighting was carried on in close formations. Officers, non-commissioned officers, and men were all within touch of each other, and shooting took quite a secondary place.
Those of your Lordships who have been over the field of Waterloo or seen the model
836
of that great battle in the Royal United Service Institution in London can judge for yourselves what fighting in close formation meant. The English and French armies each numbered between 70,000 and 80,000 men. The length of the front occupied was about three miles, but the fighting chiefly took place in one mile and a half. And throughout the whole of that eventful day, except for a very short time, Wellington and Napoleon were never more than three-quarters of a mile apart. Owing to the altered conditions of modern warfare, such a battle would at the present time be impossible. An army of the size that Wellington and Napoleon each commanded at Waterloo would now occupy a front of about twelve miles, or nearly four times the length of the ground that was occupied on that occasion, and instead of the Infantry soldiers in close order firing at each other from a distance of forty or fifty yards, as was the case at Waterloo, they would be compelled to open out and adopt loose formations as soon as they entered the zone of fire. The extent of the zone of fire depends in a great measure upon the nature of the ground and the accuracy of the enemy's fire, but is usually now from 1,800 to 2,000 yards. Officers get separated from the men and the men from each other, consequently the strain on the individual man becomes far greater than in old days when he had the support of close contact with his comrades and knew that his officers were near at hand to guide him. The effect of these changes is to make it imperative for soldiers to be highly trained, otherwise they can be of no use in modern war.
My Lords, I have given you my reasons for the statement I made that we have neither a Home Army such as is needed for the defence of this country, nor an effective Regular Army to protect our Imperial interests abroad. If this statement is not accepted by the Secretary of State for War, I beg that your Lordships will not be content with a mere counter-statement, accompanied as it probably will be by a bewildering array of figures. My statement is based -upon facts—facts that are strictly true—and unless these facts can be proved to be untrue, I think your Lordships must agree with me that the safety of the country demands that the condition of the Army should be inquired into—not by a Royal Commission or by any Commission, which would probably have no more satisfactory result than the two former Royal

837
Commissions—but by a small Committee of experts who have no axe to grind, and who would have the confidence of the public. I beseech you, my Lords, to support me on this vitally important question. It is essentially a national not a Party question, and I trust that it will not be allowed to drop without the electors of this country being put in possession of your individual opinions as to the Motion T have brought forward, and without their being enlightened as to the true state of the Army.
I began this long speech by a reference to the optimistic and hopeful discourses upon the peace of the world to which we have listened of late. I am old enough to remember the enthusiasm excited on a somewhat similar occasion, sixty years ago. Then, as now, we were besieged from every pulpit, from every newspaper, by aspirations and promises of an immedate future in which our swords would be beaten into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks. This was in the year 1851—the year in which I got my commission. My Lords, there was not a single year in the next two decades that was not marked by some war in one portion of the globe or another. In 1852 we were fighting in Burma. In 1853 the Tsar Nicholas seized the Danubian Provinces—the beginning of the Crimean War. That was scarcely ended when we had to face the Indian Mutiny. In 1839 France and Italy were at war. In 1860 we were fighting in China; and in 1862 in New Zealand. In the following year we heard of Bull's Run, and Lee, Lincoln, and Stonewall Jackson became household words. In 1864 there was the Danish War. In 1866 the six weeks' war, which was but a prelude to one of the most heroic struggles of modern days—the Franco-German War of 1870–71.
Let us by all means listen to the aspirations and reasonings of the advocates of universal peace, and do all in our power to help but in the meantime, warned by what followed the prophetic outburst of 1851, let us in all respects be ready for war. There is no time to be lost if our Army is to be made fit for war. My deliberate opinion is that, while other nations are daily and steadily becoming stronger and more powerful, we are daily and steadily losing ground. Our margin of safety on the sea is rapidly disappearing, and should war come upon us with the startling rapidity with which it has come upon other nations in recent years, we shall be found absolutely
838
unprepared. Therefore I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That, in view of the altered strategic conditions in Europe, this House views with grave and growing concern the inadequate military arrangements of His Majesty's Government for the defence of this country and of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions.—(Earl Roberts.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, in the early part of the speech to which your Lordships have listened with such close attention the noble and gallant Field-Marshal dwelt on what he considered to be the shortcomings of the existing military organisation. In the second part of his speech he indicated the reforms which he considered necessary in order to put that organisation on a sufficient basis. In the observations I propose to address to your Lordships I will, for the purposes of convenience, invert the order awl consider first somewhat closely what the noble and gallant Field-Marshal adumbrated as the changes lie wished to make, and then the reasons why it seems to me that the existing system is preferable. But before I do so there is one thing I would wish to say. I would rather not have found myself on what is practically my first appearance in your Lordships' House in opposition to one for whom I entertain such feelings of affectionate regard as I do for my noble friend. No one connected with the British Army but can hold him in reverence. His name is associated with great and illustrious deeds, and so long as our history is recorded we shall remember that he carried our cause to victory under difficult and trying circumstances.
The Motion which my noble and gallant friend has moved asserts that, owing to the strategical change in the situation in Europe we are no longer in possession of military arrangements adequate for home defence or for the defence of the Dominions oversea. There is one factor which remains of the same strategical effect as it always was. Between us and any possible Continental enemy there intervenes a strip of sea, the same strip of sea which existed in the time of our ancestors. Between the Army and the Navy there exists a considerable divergence of view as to the possibility of an enemy crossing that strip of sea. It is held by sailors that so long as we retain the command of the sea an invasion in force is

839
practically impossible. A century ago a great Admiral, Lord St. Vincent, addressed your Lordships' House in a debate not unlike the present one. Having listened to the speeches he rose and said that he had considered the military opinions that were expressed, and would not himself give expression to any view upon them; but he could assure their Lordships that if an invading army ever arrived, it would not be by sea. That has been the opinion of sailors right through. I have myself sat upon two Committees which have been directed to investigate this question. After protracted sittings extending over months, and after examining all the witnesses, we came unanimously to the conclusion on both occasions that the Navy view was right. I was myself much impressed with this—that the question of invasion was very much more technical and difficult than it is apt to appear to soldiers. Some seaman once remarked that when a soldier went below low-water mark on the beach he was apt to get out of his depth; and I own that my experience on those Committees of the sifting of the conflicting views which we then had before us impressed me with this—that the matter is one to which the Admiralty have given at all times of our history long and thorough consideration, and is one on which their record entitles them to speak with an authority which no soldier can challenge.
But I do not desire at this moment to dwell on that point. I wish to turn back to the propositions expressed by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. What is the standard by which he asks your Lordships to judge, and by which he invites you to affirm or deny the proposition which he submits to the House? Unless we know what that standard is we cannot bring his reasons to the test. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal developed to some extent his remedy for the existing situation in the light of standards which seem to hint to be true standards; but, as he himself said, he has set these things out more completely in the book which he has recently published. I refer to the book, not in terms of reproach; rather I welcome my noble friend as a fellow author. In his book we have a much more detailed statement of the standards which he washes to apply and the changes which he desires to bring about. I remember a debate which took place in this House on the Motion by the noble Earl for the Second Reading of a Bill to establish compulsory
840
military training. That Motion was opposed by the Duke of Northumberland on the ground that, while the Bill was, as he said, a very small one, it gave sonic taste of the quality of the medicine; and he was afraid that the plan proposed in the Bill would develop into a much larger scheme than one for training Infantry for four months and other arms for six months. If the noble Duke were here this evening he would find that he was a true prophet for quite early in his book the noble and gallant Field-Marshal speaks of the profound discontent which is felt in the Army with the proposition of the National Service League that the training of the Infantry should be for four months only. He goes on to say that the National Service League has no special predilection for the four months period. Its desire, he says, is—
"to see the principle of universal service for home defence accepted, as it seems to its members that if this great principle once gets the consent of a majority of the people there will be no difficulty in adjusting the details of the scheme which will he necessary to reduce theory to practice."
I am not complaining of that. If compulsory service be necessary for the defence of these shores I think the nation would say, "Let us have compulsory service, and let us have the training for what soldiers say is the proper time—that is, two years."
The noble and gallant Field-Marshal goes on to say in his book—
"If this course it!adopted it will carry with it, not only its; own consequences, but an extensive reorganisation of the Regular Army."
I wish to call attention to the length to which that reorganisation seems to go. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal does not pin himself to any particular form, but lie indicates that what he favours is the separation of the Regular Army into a long service Army and a short-service Army, and a scheme which is not unlike that of the late Mr. Arnold-Forster for a compulsory Home Defence Army at the basis which is to form a reservoir out of which the volunteers for the two branches of the Regular Army for the future are to come. He goes on to say that not the command of the sea but our military allies enabled us to maintain the balance of power in Europe, and that now we need an Army of our own to do this. That proposition, he agrees, involves a radical reorganisation of our Regular Army and our Home Defence Army alike.

841
These are far-reaching propositions. He refers to Part II of his book—a part written by an expert—as containing the broad outlines and general features of the kind of reorganisation which he desires to see. I turn to Part II, which develops with great fulness the standard which the writer wishes to be set up as the standard by which to test the sufficiency of our existing arrangements, and, secondly, the plan by which he proposes to bring the military and naval organisations, for both are included, up to that standard. I refer to this because, from various remarks in the book, I infer that my noble friend does not dissent from the propositions advanced in Part II of the book. The first proposition is that, alike for service oversea and for home defence, our present military arrangements are wholly inadequate and powers of expansion are essential. And then he lays down the standard—
"The main lines of our naval and military organisations must take no account—
I ask your Lordships' attention to this—
"of present international relations, but must be laid with a view to dealing with any Power with which the Empire can possibly come into contact by sea or on laud. There can be no such thing in sound strategy as the exclusion from our calculations of any foreign Power, however friendly at the moment or however much we may dislike the idea of coming into conflict with it."
Further—
"The danger of finding ourselves at war with more than one Great Power at a time must be reckoned as a permanent factor in the situation, awl all naval and military preparations must take account of it."
"The command of the sea," he says, is not enough, "for this is not an end in itself"; and he contends that we want—
"an army strong enough to redress the balance of power in Europe against the premeditated Continental domination of a single Power."
Then he asks what is the case in the way of our naval strength. The writer says that the two-Power standard means Navy Estimates of from £60,000,000 to £80,000,000—that it is no use our gasping over this; and that the great wars for which we must prepare are, first, with Russia, for the defence of India; second, with the United States for the defence of Canada; and also possibly with Turkey for the defence of Egypt, with Japan, and with a European combination possibly of Germany, Austria, and Italy. He lays Clown that as the standard, and proceeds to develop his plan in the form of a new
842
Army scheme. It involves the abolition of the Cardwell system, with certain limitations to which I will refer presently. In the first place our oversea garrisons and soldiers in different parts of the Empire overseas are all to be long-service soldiers, enrolled for twenty-one years. They are to be got by voluntary service, and there will be no Reserves. In addition, there is to be a striking force of 40,000 men, of twenty-one years service. That brings you up to nearly 150,000 long-service men on a twenty-one years' basis. Then there is to be a short-service Army, the Infantry trained for one year and the other arms for eighteen months or two years. This is to be a voluntary force, but indirect compulsion will be used to assist in raising it. Then there is to be a national service, in which every young man eighteen years of age is to undergo from four to six months' training; and while in that force he will be paid not more than 6d. a day or possibly nothing at all according to the writer. It is predicted that large numbers will volunteer for the short-service Army, which is to be an oversea A-my and to produce a strength of 300,000 men. Of course, its peace establishment will not be nearly so large as that, but it is to mobilise at a strength of 300,000 men, and that is to take the place of the Expeditionary Force. Then the National Service Army is to consist of about 1,000,000 men, from whom the 300,000 are to be found.
Let us compare the Expeditionary Force with the National Service Army. In the Expeditionary Force you have got a force which, if small—it does not mobilise more than 170.000 men—consists on the average of highly trained and seasoned men who have had seven years' service with the Colours. Compare them with the 300,000 men spoken of. They will have had only one year's training. I am talking of the Infantry. After one year's training they go into the Reserve, and you have to make up the number of 300,000 with Reservists poured into the peace strength, which is something far under 100,000. These men will have had only one year's training, with refresher courses which are not indicated but are left to be developed in the future. I ask, Is that an Army that can be compared for quality with the Expeditionary Force which we have to-day Supposing they have to be sent to the Continent. It is contrary to all notions of military efficiency to put as your First Line Army

843
to meet the shock of Continental trained troops men who have had only one year's training with these vague refresher courses. I believe that if this doctrine were taken seriously it would spread alarm and consternation throughout the Army, because it would be felt that what is best in the Army—those splendid troops which we now possess—would be reduced in quality, and that instead of being made better by the increase in numbers the Army would be reduced to a position of great inferiority, not only as compared with its present standard but as compared with the troops whom they might have to encounter. Then there are other difficulties. Where are the officers to come from? Where am I to get the enormous increase of officers that would be necessary for the training of a force of this magnitude? They do not exist at the present time. Remember you are not offering a very attractive service. The only answer, with regard to officers, which the writer gives, is that a national system creates its own officers. I hope so. But that is all the comfort we are given.
Then, I ask, how does this work out in finance? I am not raising the question of money as though it were the paramount question. It is not. If our lives are at stake we will use up the last resources of the nation before we allow ourselves to perish. But in the case of a proposition for the reorganisation and recasting of the Military and Naval Forces in a time of peace—for that is what it comes to—we must take into account the burden which it is proposed to impose on our people by this new system. The Naval Estimates are proposed to be increased from the present £44,000.000 to the figure of from £60,000,000 to £80,000,000, at which we are told we need not gasp. As regards the Military Estimates we have no material for calculation. But after going into the matter as closely as I can I can only say I should not like to contract to produce an Army of one million men and to keep it alive under a figure of £40,000,000.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Is that the whole Army Estimates, or for this Army alone?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is for the entire Army Estimates, both for the National Service Army and the other Army. The writer says one million men
844
would probably be sufficient. But he goes on to qualify this by saying that we might have to take on not only all those Powers which he has mentioned seriatim, but all of them at once. Therefore his estimate is certainly not more than would be sufficient. I cannot help thinking that with the Naval and Military Estimates proposed to be raised to £100,000,000 there is something that would happen before we could use that force in any war. We should probably find ourselves in a condition in which the intellectual and material resources of the country would be so diminished that something like bankruptcy would be staring us in the face. I cannot help thinking of what was said by the great soldier Von Moltke, when in 1865 it was proposed to him that his scheme for the reorganisation of the Prussian Army did not provide for the contingency of Russia, France, and Austria attacking Germany at the same time. His reply was—
"No; I have not provided for such a thing to happen if it did happen, Germany would have to defend herself as best she could."
To associate the Army in the minds of the people with such an enormous scheme as this seems to me, unless we are driven to it by necessity, to be doing what Wellington declared would be the worst thing that could be done in the interest of the Army—namely, to associate it in the public mind with extravagance.
The sincerity of the noble Field-Marshal is beyond all question. We all know with what passionate devotion he has worked for his cause. But what I venture to call the fallacy of his reasoning seems to be this—that he is insisting upon preparing for the logically possible instead of for the reasonably probable. If you take the first course, then you will have to be prepared for conflict with a combination of all sorts of Powers beyond anything which has hitherto come into question, and the result is that you prove either too little or too much. I could quote a combination of Powers of which my noble friend does not speak in his book, and against which his plans do not provide, a combination against which we should be in such a state of unpreparedness that in the words of Von Moltke we should have to defend ourselves as best we could. But what is the present position? Remember that just at this moment we are engaged in communication with the United States of America in relation to a possible Treaty

845
of General Arbitration. The German Chancellor in the speech to which the noble Earl referred spoke of the willingness of his country to exchange naval information with this country, a course which, if taken, must tend in some degree to reduce the risk of scares, which have done so much to force up the Naval Estimates, not only in this country, but in other countries.
Moreover, with France and Russia we are in agreement, and a war in defence of the Indian frontier against Russia appears less likely now than it has appeared for generations. So far as the rest of the world is concerned the peoples of all lands are beginning to show signs of a desire that this tremendous burden of armaments should, if possible, be diminished rather than increased. Is this, then, the time when, if you take the standard of the reasonably probable, it is desirable to take the step we are asked to take? And if you take the standard of the logically possible what an example we should be setting to other nations at a time when, as we all hope, we are seeing a real beginning in a new movement for the world's peace. I have always thought that the true Commander of the Forces in this country, naval and military, is not the sailor or the soldier but the Foreign Secretary. On him it depends what our outlook is likely to be. I agree that we must defend our rights and be in a position to secure ourselves against defeat. But, atter all, you have to choose between a good many things in this world, for you cannot have them all. You cannot have prosperity and be crushed down in a time of peace by a burden of armaments which is only fitted for a time of war. You must take some risks. All the things of which the noble Earl spoke are, of course, logically possible. It is logically possible that one of your Lordships may be killed by a motor-car in crossing the street. But you do not refuse to go out for that reason. Nor do you decline to take a journey in a railway train because it is logically possible that there may be an accident. These things are things which you may exclude from the consideration in the handling of practical affairs, and you are brought, therefore, to the standard of the reasonably probable.
There are certain things which are not without a material bearing in considering what our military and naval organisation ought to be. In the first place, this island is the centre of an Empire the parts of
846
which are separated from each other by great stretches of the sea. The command of the sea must, therefore, be our first requisite. There, again, your standard must be any reasonably probable combination of the forces you may have to face. It may be a three-Power standard or a two-Power standard. The next point is that if you possess the command of the sea you can make sea-power your first line of defence against invasion, and that is what we have always done and ought always to do. If we command the German Ocean the difficulties of an enemy's commander seeking to transport troops across that sea can best be realised by anybody who attempts to put himself in the place of that commander. All the changes of recent times—wireless telegraphy and other variations from the old condition of things—are in favour of the de 'ending nation. Naval dispositions to-day do not merely depend on the mobility of squadrons of battleships. There is a second line of naval defence—the destroyer and submarine organisation along our coasts, which is ready to torpedo transports even if they evade the mobile squadrons which are watching them.
But is it likely that the transports will evade those squadrons? My noble friend spoke of the great facilities for transport which exist to-day. The movements of every ship even in time of peace are minutely recorded by agencies, and the Admiralty would be informed of the least departure from the ordinary course. Before a liner could be got oft with troops it is certain that warning to be on the alert would have reached us. Not only is that so in the case of individual ships, but still more is it the case with transports on any large scale. It is a difficult operation, even with the most perfect preparations on the other side of the water, to embark troops and get the vessels started without intimation being given either through commercial channels or by wireless telegraphy of what is happening. We are not to suppose that our Navy and the Admiralty are so stupid as not to be aware of all this. For years past—I might almost say generations past—they have realised the importance of these matters; and I have good ground for believing that they have never been more fully realised than by the present experts of the Board of Admiralty.
The justification for relying on what I call a Second Line Army for home defence

847
arises out of the fact that the First Line is naval. Supposing a bolt to fall from the blue without warning; what would be our position? If the Expeditionary Force were at home, with other Regular troops, the Special Reserve, and the Territorials, we should have 580.000 men to receive the invaders. Suppose, however, the Expeditonary Force had gone abroad—to India, for instance. Under the Act of 1907, unless the Government grossly failed in its duty, the Territorial Force would be mobilised at the moment of the mobilisation of the Regular Forces. The theory of the new Second Line Army is that you should never leave the country without an Army, and that yon should put one into war training as soon as the other is mobilised. The theory does not contemplate a Territorial Force which would become efficient in time of peace. The preparations that have been made are preparations for giving it as perfect an organisation as it is possible to give it, and enabling it by means of mobilisation on the Expeditionary Force's going abroad to progress in the perfecting of its war training. if the Expeditionary Force had gone abroad we should still have in the country from 416,000 to 420,000 men available, including a large number of surplus Reserves and the Special Reserve. That is a considerable force for an invading army to encounter. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal stated that the invading force might consist of more than 70,000 men. The Admiralty do not even admit the possibility of invasion by 70,000 men. That is a figure which is fixed because it is thought we ought to have two strings to our bow. In such a vital matter it is thought we ought to be so prepared as to force an enemy to come with not less than 70,000 men. The more men the enemy brings the larger the target for the Navy. With home defence resting on the command of the sea, we consider ourselves justified, taking into account the Reserve and other troops we should still have at home, in relying on a Territorial Force recruited by voluntary enlistment, and getting all the training they could in time of peace consistently with pursuing their ordinary vocations and improving it upon a general mobilisation.
The third requisite of the present system is an over-sea force. But I must say a word further about the second Line troops. What is it my noble friend proposes to pit against the army of 150,000 invaders which he postulates? An army of 400,000 men,
848
according to the National Service League estimate, with four months' training. These would apparently be expected to resist Continental Infantry trained for two years. I do not feel quite convinced that the Territorial Force with the enormous burden of extra training it took over out of the fulness of the Volunteer spirit is not a good deal better than any four months' trained compulsory force is likely to be.
There are many defects in the Territorial Force. We have not got our numbers vet. The main reason is, I think, that we have enjoyed the blessing—not an unmixed blessing from an Army point of view—of ten years' peace. In peace it is not easy to fill up your numbers, though they go up at once when war threatens. Still, the numbers are moving steadily, though slowly, according to the best judgment I can form from the reports that are sent in. We have at present five-sixths of the Force—272,000 officers and men. Five-sixths of the Force is something to have got. If anybody thinks he can create within three years an Army of fourteen Divisions, an organised Army complete in all its accessories—because that is what differentiates the Territorial Force entirely from the old Volunteers—an Army commanded by Regular commanders, men who are picked for the ability with which they have discharged their duty in command of Regulars—then he has a difficult business.
I often think in dealing with the Territorial. Force it is well to look at what those say who study the matter most closely. A discussion took place last Tuesday—reported in The Times of the following day—at a meeting of the National Defence Association on the condition of the Territorial Force. Divisional commanders were invited and attended, and they were told to exercise perfect freedom of criticism. We take the view which is taken in Germany, that it is a good thing that our officers should have opportunities of making their views known. At that meeting Colonel Repington, who has made a close study of this Force, said of it—
"The training and the amount of it had made great strides, and the Territorial Force appeared to be about three times as good as the old Volunteers, first, because it was well organised on the Regular pattern with all its arms and services, whereas the Volunteers were not organised at all; secondly, because it was better commanded, trained, and equipped, and had a definite róle in the defence of the country; and, thirdly, because it had fewer wasters."

849
And then he concluded—
"Broadly speaking and. taking a general average, three Territorial battalions were at present about the military equivalent of one Regular battalion, and at the end of six months' training the proportion would be reduced to two to one, given good training ground, ranges, Regular commanders from the active list, and Regular Staff. With the same conditions a Territorial Artillery brigade of three batteries, each of four guns, ought after three to four mouths' training and practice to hold its own with a six-gnu Regular battery. The Yeomanry he considered equal to about half its number of Regular Cavalry, but after three months' training might face with credit nearly equal numbers."
That is conjecture, but it is the conjecture of a man who has given close attention and scrutiny to this Force. General Bethune the Commander of the West Lancashire Division, for which he has done so much, said that—
"The Territorial Force in West Lancashire had increased in efficiency from top to bottom about 20 per cent. in each of the last two years. On February 1 they had an establishment of 481 out of 510 officers, and 15,609 out of 10,997 men, a proportion of 88 per cent. of strength. The men -were of a good stamp."
I mention these things not for the purpose of taking an optimistic view. Heaven knows I have to be optimistic enough going about the country to raise this Force. I am not here to be optimistic; I am here for the purpose of getting at the facts. I quite agree that there is an enormous lot to be done. All I say is I am not hopeless, as my noble friend is hopeless, of making anything out of the voluntary system. If I were, I confess I should feel myself in a position of very great difficulty, because what, is absolutely necessary is that we should have the garrisons of India and of our other places over-sets maintained at their present strength and quality, and my belief is—and the same thing is true of the Expeditionary Force—that you could not do that if you had a system of compulsory service PAM for home defence.
There has been a great deal of criticism of Sir Ian Hamilition for the views which he has expressed. But, my Lords, Sir Ian Hamilition possesses one important qualification. He has been to the Continent and studied the problem of recruiting on the spot, and whether you take Germany, France, or Russia the testimony is unanimous that you cannot raise a compulsory and a voluntary army out of the same material at the same time; that as soon as you apply compulsion you set up a
850
certain ideal. We see it in other things. For example, we all pay taxes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am not sure that any of your Lordships—certainly I do not—offer any benevolences in addition. Whenever an ideal is set up by the State we are prone to take it as a part of our duty, and in no case is that proved to be more markedly so than in Germany with its great military system, a system which is very highly appreciated on the whole by the people of that country. On the Continent the experience seems to me to be conclusive that if we had the compulsory system we could not rely on getting that enormous stream of Volunteers which we require for keeping up what is a necessity of our Empire—the greatest Army overseas maintained in peace that the world has ever seen, and, as I believe, the most efficient. But it is said, "You have not conclusively proved that you will not get them." The burden is not on me. I am content and thankful to be able to see the over-seas garrisons backed up anti the Expeditionary Army recruited as under the present system, and when I am asked to take to another system, that of compulsion, I have the feelings of a man who has a modest fortune invested in Consols on which he depends for his existence, and is invited to sell the Consols and invest the proceeds in a glittering gold mine of which he is handed the prospectus. My noble friend puts forward the prospectus, but that prospectus is not sufficiently attractive to induce me to sell out my Consols and invest my fortune, small though it may be, in his gold mine upon the inviting prospectus which be offers me.
My Lords, it is a great thing to get your numbers in the way compulsory service gives them to you, but there are worse things than having to struggle for numbers. It would be a worse thing if you did not get your numbers at all. My noble friend says, "How short you are falling with voluntary service"; and he says that my original idea was to raise the peace establishment to 900,000 men in place of the miserable Territorial establishment of 300,000 to which I have been driven. But, my Lords, I never said that I proposed to raise a peace establishment of 900,000 men. What happened was this. A noble friend of mine, Lord Wemyss, in a speech he made said that I had said it, and it got all over the country, and I have never been able to get rid of it. I wrote a letter to The

851
Times which appeared about three years ago, and it is there for your Lordships to see, in which I quoted what T did say. The quotation by my noble friend was from a speech of mine at Newcastle in September, 1906, in which I said that in time of war if this country were invaded and if we had this Territorial Force and the County Associations the men would pass through the Territorial Force, and with the Special Reserve and the Regulars we had at home we should be able to develop in great stress of war and national necessity 700,000, 800,000, or even 900,000 men. I included, as your Lordships will observe, the Regulars and the Special Reserve in that. I say so now; but that has nothing to do with the peace organisation, and I take this opportunity of saying that never at any time was I sanguine enough to think that I could get anything like as much as 900,000 men on a voluntary basis. I make my noble friend a present of that admission.
I have already detained your Lordships too long. What I feel is that we dare not try to organise a Continental army for this country. In the first place, I do not believe that the quality under my noble friend's plans would be nearly as good as that of the smaller Expeditionary Army of to-day, and, in the second place, you would imperil India and India is your greatest necessity. It is infinitely better to be weak from a military point of view on the Continent than to be weak in India. I am sure that our safest course, if India and the over-seas Colonies be our first concern, is to work with the Cardwell system. I know its limitations, but I also know its advantages. Its great advantage is this, that it gives you in your First Line Army—and I make all the distinction in the world between the First Line Army and the Second Line Army—a large number of highly-trained Reservists, more highly trained than the Reservists of any country in the world, who mobilise with your Regulars and make efficient fighting battalions.
Reference has been made to South Africa. I believe, notwithstanding what has been said, that we performed a wonderful feat there under the leadership of my noble friend. I ask what other nation in the world could have sent a quarter of a million men, and there were more, to fight at that distance over-seas? Has any
852
Power on the Continent an organisation adapted for that purpose? Not one. With their land frontiers they develop all their strength in the organisation of enormous citizen armies, highly-trained First Line troops for short campaigns but not trained for over-seas, as they only can be organised if you proceed on the basis of a voluntary system. My noble friend said that the Regular Army has been reduced in numbers and that it was no better than it was before, except, perhaps, in training. But I think the noble and gallant Field-Marshal has overlooked the whole effect of modern mobilisation arrangements based on the new organisation. What has been done is this. Those engaged at the War Office have worked with patience and determination during the last five years to put every arm, every auxiliary requirement, and every element in the Expeditionary Force into its proper proportion, and I believe at this moment that but for horses we can mobilise the whole six Divisions. It is a mistake to think that we are in such difficulty for officers as is supposed. We have provided for that, although I know we should have to draw a very heavy draft on the depots and units at home. Still, we have taken these things into account, and we are improving the system still further. Horses, I admit, are a great difficulty, but I hope shortly to have proposals to lay before your Lordships which may materially at any rate improve our prospects as regards the mobilisation of horses.
The Expeditionary Force is organised as our over-sea Army was never organised before, and the result is that. with fewer men—and I admit I have reduced—you can mobilise a large force and much more swiftly. I do not mean that it would not have been an advantage to have had these nine battalions if you could have added to them the other things that were requisite, but I had to choose between having an Army imperfect in its organisation, and an Army smaller in numbers but perfect, so that it was capable of more ready mobilisation; and, speaking for myself, I think that the quality compensates for the loss there has been in quantity. After all, my Lords, what were the reductions? They consisted of nine battalions, one of them being a very fine battalion of Guards. As to the other eight battalions, one was a battalion of Infantry created during the war and very short in numbers, and for

853
the rest they consisted of Chinese troops, Colonial coloured troops, miscellaneous Garrison Artillery, and other troops. The main reduction was the nine battalions of which I have spoken, and under other arms increases were made. That being so, I cannot accept the proposition of my noble friend that the Expeditionary Army is in a bad condition to-day. I believe it is in a very good condition. Bear in mind that it is purely for second line defence that the Territorial Army is wanted. The existence of the Territorial Force is justified for that purpose. I believe that the Special Reserve is a better force than the Militia. Its numbers are less, but it supplies what, the General Staff has worked out as the requisites for finding drafts and providing for the wastage of war during the early period of a war. Therefore I cannot accept the foundation on which my noble friend has based his case.
Let me hasten to say that I have always agreed with the value of physical training. I have always thought that the elements of discipline which military training gives, and the organisation which it brings, are good, and I would gladly join hands with him in any proposition to improve what I believe to be a shortcoming in our national education. I am speaking for myself in this. I have always held that the years from the age of fourteen to seventeen under our system in the education of boys shows a great gap in intellectual training. That is the period during which we manufacture hooligans instead of that finer type to be seen in our Boys Brigades and Boy Scouts; and if the proposition of my noble friend were to extend new functions to the Education Department in this respect I should, speaking for myself individually, cordially welcome the proposal. But I cannot think that to begin by calling upon the War Office to deal with boys of eighteen is a good thing from the point of view of our Regular Army system. My first purpose has been to show your Lordships what I submit you are invited to accept under the cover of this Motion, and my second purpose has been to show that our existing system is not the outcome of slackness or of a narrow conservatism, but the inevitable result of our strategical position geographically and historically, and I believe it to be the only system that suits us, and the only one that is really possible for us, island Empire as we are. Let us, therefore, beware lest
854
impulsively, in the desire to better our position, without considering where we are going we take a step which inflicts upon our military organisation a lasting injury.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, the noble Viscount, in a moving passage in the earlier part of his speech, drew a picture of himself sitting at the feet of the military experts of the War Office imbibing from them military wisdom. Some of us were under the impression that the process of inspiration had been rather of an opposite kind, and that in some cases at any rate it was rather the Secretary of State who had inspired the military expert than the military expert who had instructed the Secretary of State. But, be that as it may, there is evidently one generally accepted doctrine of strategy, which, whether he has derived it from his advisers at the War Office or from some other quarter, the noble Viscount has thoroughly laid to heart—that is the principle that the best defensive is a bold offensive. He is called upon to-night to answer a formidable charge brought against the efficiency of the military forces of the Crown to discharge the various duties involved in the protection of this country and Empire. It is a difficult task that he has to perform in proving that efficiency. How has he discharged it? He has discharged it by devoting far the, greater and the more energetic portion of his speech, not to any proof of the adequacy of our existing arrangements, but to a spirited attack upon a particular chapter in a particular book recently published which advocates a different military system from our own. I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount in the detailed exposition with which his speech concluded of the actual existing perfection of our military forces, or at least of the Regular Army Other speakers will come after me who are far more competent than I am to deal with the details of that question. What I wish simply to dwell upon are certain general considerations of policy and strategy which lead us to question the adequacy of our military system as a whole.
I cannot too strongly emphasise the fact that this Motion is not in any sense an attack upon the administration of the noble Viscount personally. We recognise his zeal, his ability, and the many improvements in detail which he has introduced, and we are impressed—at least, speaking;

855
for myself, I am always greatly impressed—by the minute command, admirable in a layman, which he possesses of a subject so difficult, so complicated, and requiring as a rule so much expert knowledge to handle. My Lords, this is not a personal question and it is not a Party question. In my humble opinion no Party and no Government in this country is in a position to throw stones at any other with regard to our military policy. From my point of view the problem has remained unsolved because it has never been courageously grappled with. The noble Viscount may be making bricks without straw as deftly, more deftly, perhaps, than any of his predecessors. But that does not alter the fact that as it seems to some of us, and for reasons which I will briefly try to explain, it is not possible for him under the conditions which he has laid down for himself, or perhaps it would be fairer to him to say under the conditions which he regards as inherent in. the circumstances of the case, to organise our military forces in such a manner as to deal effectively, not with all imaginable dangers, not with the logically possible (because I fully agree with the noble Viscount that we are not called upon to prepare against every danger which is logically possible), but with reasonably probable and I might almost say imminent contingencies.
I always feel a certain hesitation when I venture to address your Lordships on questions of this nature, speaking as a layman to a House which contains so many men of great military authority and military experience. But I am emboldened in this case by some words which were used by the noble Viscount himself in his preface to that much discussed book of Sir Ian Hamilton's on "Compulsory Service." The noble Viscount there wrote—
"The problem of our strategy is a problem which our history as a nation shows to have been one not for soldiers alone. It is too large and too far-reaching to be so confined."
I agree, and I agree also with the noble Viscount, as I believe we all do, that the command of the sea is "the essential foundation of our strategy." Where I perhaps differ from him is in my belief that a certain very considerable measure of military strength—not such a degree of military strength certainly as is possessed by
856
the great Continental Powers, but a far greater degree than we either possess or aspire to under our present system—is requisite in order to ensure that command of the sea. The noble Viscount himself is far from disregarding the necessity for a highly-trained military force. I will use his own words—
"A long range Army capable of rapidly assuming the offensive and striking a blow wherever it would be most effective."
But does he seriously maintain that the Expeditionary Force is large enough, or could be put into the field rapidly enough, or could be maintained at its original strength long enough, to exercise any considerable effect upon a great Continental war? I do not refer to such an absurdity as the idea of its striking an effective blow against a Continental Power, if we were engaged with that Power single-handed. The point is that we are not, I believe, strong enough, to give effective assistance to an ally or allies on the Continent of Europe; and that, my Lords, goes to the root of this very important question of the command of the sea.
The matter is so important that I venture, at the risk of being thought to repeat myself, to say once more to your Lordships, that we are too apt to think that we can maintain the command of the sea simply by willing it, by building more and more ships, and by out-building any possible rival or combination of rivals. We may possibly out-build a single Power, or perhaps two Powers. But, after all, there is a limit to our resources in this respect. We can build against one Power, or perhaps against two Powers, but we cannot build against the Continent of Europe; and if the balance of power on the Continent, which it has been our policy for centuries to try and uphold as bearing vitally upon this question of the command of the sea, were to be finally upset, I say it would be impossible for us to build against the combination of navies which might in that case be brought against us. That is the vital connection which seems to me to exist between, I do not say an army of Continental size, but an Army which can make itself felt and be of effective assistance to allies in a Continental struggle—that is the vital connection between the maintenance of such an Army and the command of the sea. In order to help to

857
maintain the balance of power in Europe we need to-day, precisely as we have always needed in the past, such a degree of military strength as will prevent our becoming a negligible quantity on land. And when we are warned, as we constantly are, that in urging the necessity of an increase of our present military strength we run the risk of impairing what is very much more important, our supremacy at sea, I am hound to say that I ask myself, though it may be a heresy, whether we have not now got to a point at which, even in the interest of the command of the sea, an increase in our military strength is not the most pressing strategical necessity.
I pass from that to consider the second of what appear to me to be the three vital points with which, on the broad question of strategy, we have to deal. I refer to the position as regards the defence of our oversea Possessions. It may be said that, though the Expeditionary Force, owing to its small numbers, could not exercise any important influence upon a Continental struggle, yet that is not its principal business—that its principal duty is the defence of our oversea Possessions, and especially of India. I do not deny that this certainly is one of its principal duties. But then I ask myself—leaving the question of participation in a Continental war entirely out of sight—whether, even for the discharge of this duty, of efficiently defending our oversea Possessions, we are at present adequately equipped. Why should any one consider that we are We were confronted a little more than twelve years ago with a serious danger—the first serious danger which had threatened any part of our overseas Empire for perhaps thirty years. And although we successfully overcame that danger, and although it may be true, as the noble Viscount says, that no other Power could have similarly overcome it, surely we cannot contemplate with equanimity the expenditure of 200 millions of money and 20,000 or more lives whenever a danger no greater than that arising from the opposition of two small Republics, whose total force did not exceed 90,000 men, confronts the British Empire on any of its frontiers. However much we may have admired the skill of our Generals, the gallantry of our soldiers, or the toughness of the country which carried us through, in spite of inadequate prepara-
858
tion, there was at the time very little satisfaction felt at the display which we then made of military preparedness or unpreparedness.
A very strong Royal Commission laid it down that our military system, and especially the Expeditionary Force for the defence of our oversea Possessions, suffered from one radical defect. That defect has been dwelt upon by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. It was the lack of power of expansion. But what has happened in tile last ten years to increase that power of expansion to any material degree? You have had the Special Reserve substituted for the Militia; the Volunteers have been re-christened the Territorial Army, and no doubt their organisation has -been considerably improved. But what is there in all this to fill the enormous, yawning gap in our military preparations which our experience in the Boer War revealed? Substantially the position as regards our power of expansion is unaltered to-day. As long as that remains the case, no criticism of others will exempt the Government of the day from the duty which rests upon every Government, though none has yet tackled it, of remedying that which experience has proved, and which the Royal Commission just referred to has laid down, to be the radical defect of our military system—the want of the power of expansion as affecting the Expeditionary Force required for the defence of our oversea Possessions.
Lastly, let me ask this: If our military system as it exists to-day leaves us a negligible quantity on land in any struggle for the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe, upon which our supremacy at sea depends; if from lack of the power of expansion it is unsatisfactory even from the point of view of the defence of our oversea Possessions, how do we stand with regard to the defence of these islands? We are told—the noble Viscount has insisted on it to-night, as he has often insisted on it before—that the virtual defence of these islands rests with the Navy. Yes, but what does that involve '? Even the most optimistic view of the power of the Navy to provide absolute defence for these islands rests or the assumption that the Navy can always be concentrated upon that particular duty, and consequently that no considerable portion of our naval

859
force has been detached from the duty of defending our shores. Unless the main body of the Fleet is devoted to the defence of these islands, that security. upon which we rely does not exist; and if the main body of the Fleet is always to be devoted to this purpose, then it is plain that it cannot do what it has done in the past, and what it might be essential it should be able to do in the future—that is to say, detach a considerable force for the protection of some distant part of our Empire. It is not only the Expeditionary Force which may be required for the defence of our oversea Possessions. The Navy may have to play a considerable part in that defence.
We talk about the command of the sea, but the most that we have at the present moment is the command of the narrow seas. One of the most regrettable changes in the strategic position in recent times is the fact that we no longer exercise that command of the sea, in distant oceans, which we formerly did. And. my Lords, is it not to a large extent due to our military weakness at home, to our anxiety about an inadequately-protected base, that that contraction of our naval power—the concentration of all the energies of the Navy upon the defence of these islands, to the detriment of its efficacy for the defence of the Empire—is largely due? it is in order that the Navy may give us that absolute protection, which alone would enable even the noble Viscount to rest satisfied with our present forces for home defence, that it is obliged to relax its former grip of other seas than those which immediately surround these islands. That to my mind, is the strongest condemnation of our military system as it at present exists—that neither the Expeditionary Force nor the Navy can be set free from the primary duty of the defence of these islands. It is a strange thing that the advocates of this essentially and purely defensive policy should reproach us, who wish to train the people of this country so that they may set free their regular Army and Navy for service in any portion of the world, with adopting a purely defensive attitude, and failing to realise the supreme importance for successful warfare of a policy of offence.
The noble Viscount has assumed that in the case of a bolt from the blue the Expeditionary Force would still be in this country. But that is just what I think is the least likely: I have said that I fully agree as to
860
the necessity of not exaggerating the dangers to which we are exposed, and I entirely deprecate the policy of imagining a conjunction of all possible disasters. But there is one conjunction of dangers which, so far from being impossible or unlikely, is so very probable that as reasonable men we cannot exclude it from our calculations; and that is that the bolt from the blue—or, not to put it quite so strongly, let us say a serious European danger—should arise at the time and perhaps in consequence of our being involved in trouble over the defence of some of our distant Possessions. It seems to me that, if there is any Power which envies our Possessions or our position in the world, it is precisely at the moment when we were involved in serious difficulties in India or Egypt that we should be likely to have that Power on our backs. That would be the moment at which the Expeditionary Force would be required elsewhere. Should we in these circumstances have the courage to send it, indeed, should we be justified in sending it? And the same applies to the despatch of such a naval force as might be necessary for the defence of our oversea Possessions.
It is very disagreeable to have to put hypotheses, in which you name or point to particular Powers. I am very reluctant to do it, but we are obliged sometimes, without offence to any nation, to put cases of this kind. We are at present discharged from the duty of policing the Eastern seas with our Fleet because of our alliance with Japan. But what of a position in which that alliance no longer existed, or a position in which our friendship had been converted into enmity, and we were called upon to protect or to assist in protecting, say, the North of Australia from invasion by a Power which had both considerable naval and military strength? Surely that is not such a wildly improbable contingency, nor is it in the least improbable that, if such a difficulty arose, it would arise concurrently with troubles in which we might be involved nearer home. And then we should be confronted with this dilemma—either we must retain the Expeditionary Force and the Navy here for the protection of these islands, in which case we should lose one portion of our Empire, or we should strike a bold blow for the defence of the threatened portion of the Empire, in which case we should no longer enjoy that absolute protection, or anything like that absolute protection,

861
against the invasion of these islands upon which the noble Viscount relies.
Now, my Lords, I ask is it really an unreasonable demand that we should have such a defensive force in this country, as would enable us, without fear, to part with the whole of our Expeditionary Force and its Reserves if it were necessary to do so at some critical moment in the defence of our oversea Empire? I maintain that that is not an unreasonable demand, and that it would not place a strain upon either our manhood or our resources greater than we can and ought to bear. I am not suggesting that we should attempt to rival the great Continental Powers in the extent of their military preparations. I am not ignoring the immense advantages which we enjoy in consequence of our island position, but I do say that in relying absolutely for the defence of these islands upon the Navy we are abusing the privileges of that island position. We are presuming too far upon it. The least we have a right to ask—and I believe that if it were firmly asked by leading Statesmen it would be obtained front the people of this country—is that they should undergo, for the protection of their liberties and of all those great blessings which they enjoy above all other nations, such a degree of military training as would enable the manhood of this country as civilian soldiers to protect our shores and set both the Expeditionary Force and the Navy absolutely free, if need be, for the defence of the Empire.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, the services which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal has rendered to this country are so considerable, and the authority with which he speaks upon military matters is so universally acknowledged in this House, that it is with the greatest deference that I venture to stand here and differ from the views which he has put forward to-night. But, after all, although it is the duty of experts to advise, the civilian mind must in the last resort judge as between experts, and we can none of us shirk the responsibility of forming our own opinion upon the views put forward by experts, even though they may be so acknowledged as those of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. My Lords, we are here to-night to resist a concerted, though long delayed, attack upon the efficiency and the sufficiency of our
862
military preparations. But what struck me as curious this evening is that neither the proposer of this Resolution nor the noble Viscount who has just spoken in support of it, although they have in general terms arraigned the military preparations of the Crown, put forward in any shape whatever anything like a detailed or even a general outline of the scheme which they would put in the place of our present arrangements. For that we are left to whatever guidance we can obtain from t he book, part of which has been written by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, entitled "Fallacies and Facts," although I understand he does not wholly identify himself with the conclusions and some of the details of the second part of that book, in which the proposed alternative which might be set up in place of our present arrangement is gone into in some detail.
Now, my Lords, lea me re-state what our position on this side of the House is. We consider that the military problem is intimately connected with the naval problem, and we believe that as long as we have supremacy at sea we have a very different problem before us from that which confronts ordinary Continental nations, and, from the military point of view, we claim that our system secures the maintenance of our foreign garrisons in India and other Colonial Possessions. It provides its with an Expeditionary Force quire equal to the task of dealing with those small wars which are incidental to the possession of a great Empire; and, further, in the Territorial Army we have a force which in itself, and also with the assistance of that part of the Regular Army which does not form part of the Expeditionary Force, is sufficient to compel an invading army to come in such numbers as would not easily escape detection by our Navy. That is our position. But I notice that the criticisms which are made against this position are always on the ground of the possibility of the invasion of this country, or, which is another part of it, of the tethering to the shores of this country of battleships which it is said, and said with truth, ought to have complete freedom of range. Just observe what the invasionists must assume to make -heir position tenable. They must assume five things to be coexistent. In the first place, this country must be at war with two Powers, and we must be without allies. Then those two Powers must be either America and Germany, or Russia and Germany, because

863
it is conceded that these are the parts of our Empire where the greatest frontier line exists, and where, consequently, the greatest military effort will be needed. I refer to Afghanistan, against Russian invasion of India, or on the frontier between Canada and the United States. Consequently we should have to he at war with Russia owing to a threatened invasion of India by Russia, or else we should have to be at war with the United States in consequence of a threatened invasion of Canada, and at that moment, quite unexpectedly, Germany is to make a descent upon our shores.
Another assumption of the invasionists is that the whole of our Expeditionary Force is absent at the time of the descent on our shores. They also assume the partial or temporary loss of our command of the sea, owing either to the defeat of our Navy or to its absence. They further must assume that this bolt from the blue comes in the early stages of the war, because admittedly, after a period of six months at any rate, the Territorials are very much improved in fighting value. Consequently the invasion, if it is to come at all, must come very early in the campaign. Next, they assume that there is to be a completely successful landing of the whole of the invading army, not one transport is to go astray, not one mishap to overtake the invaders, and, further, the immediate destruction is to follow of the whole of the Territorial Force in this country, and also of those 100,000 Regulars, or more, who form part of the Regular Army but do not form part of the First Line of the Expeditionary Force. In considering the possibility of invasion we have been criticised because it has been said—the noble and gallant Field-Marshal said it also—that the enemy are going to be so considerate as to come where we want and when we want them to, and to give us due notice of their coining. I do not admit that at all. But if we make such an assumption then these five other assumptions that I have alluded to, under which alone invasion is possible, are, I submit, very much greater ones.
LORD AMPTHILL:May I ask the noble Lord who has made those five assumptions? It would be interesting to know.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble Lord will find that it is only on the acceptance of those assumptions that the theory of invasion becomes at all tenable.
864
Unless the Expeditionary Force is absent we shall not only have the Territorials and the Regulars, but we shall have the whole of the Expeditionary Force amounting to about 170,000 men. Does the noble Lord consider that the flower of the British Army is not capable of meeting 70,000 invaders? Of course, it is. He must assume the absence of the Expeditionary Force, otherwise the whole of his argument tumbles to the ground; and if he goes through the assumptions I have alluded to, he will find that every one of those contingencies will have to be assumed before the invasionist theory has any sort of reality at all or anything in it to frighten anybody.
LORD LOVAT: Even the noble and gallant Field-Marshal?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: You have to assume those five things. They are assumed by all authorities. They may not be assumed by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, but they are assumed by all authorities. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal has referred to them in the book he has issued to the public, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech in this House I think about two years ago, admitted that in order to make the possibility of invasion anything like a real menace you must assume that we should be taken unprepared, that the whole of our Expeditionary Army would be absent, and that our Fleet would be either lured away to some distant place or had suffered some temporary defeat. The Leader of the Opposition made that admission himself, and it was in consequence of that admission that he scouted the idea of the imminence of an invasion of these shores. When I consider all the assumptions that are necessary to the argument for invasion, I am led to the belief that, although it is on that ground that noble Lords opposite make an appeal to the public, their real object is very different from that which they disclose, and in that respect I think I am borne out by the admissions of the noble. Viscount, Lord Milner.
The noble Viscount admitted that it was not so much a question of home defence as a question of having to participate in some great war on the Continent, or the loss of the command of the sea, which caused him anxiety. The real object of these criticisms is to produce an Army

865
which is capable either of intervening with effect on the Continent of Europe, or that the authors of these proposals fear in their minds that we may at some time in the future lose that command of the sea which we at present enjoy. With regard to that I have this to say, that neither of those two propositions appears to me to be imminent. For the time at any rate we have the command of the sea, and should we lose that command it might certainly be necessary for us to reconsider our position and see whether that loss, partial or complete, could be made up for by greater military preparations. It might then, indeed, be necessary; but so long as we do hold command of the sea I really do not think it is necessary for us to consider what our position might become if our command of the sea was lost or impaired.
With regard to the question of what part we are able to play in Europe in carrying out what is said to be our traditional policy of holding the balance of power in Europe, in the first place I have to say that there, again, I do not see that any great disturbance of the balance of power in Europe is imminent. There is no sign that we are going to enter upon a new Napoleonic age which would necessitate our making great sacrifices, as we did during his time, to preserve the balance of power and prevent the absorption and destruction of the smaller European States. No doubt if such a contingency arose we might have to reconsider our military position, as we did then, but I think it is a great mistake to assume that we are at the present time debarred from taking any part in European affairs and from playing any important part in the maintenance of the balance of power. Does the noble and gallant Field-Marshal mean to say that our Expeditionary Force would be quite valueless for that purpose?
EARL ROBERTS: Practically.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble and gallant Field-Marshal says it would be practically valueless. But surely he does not contemplate that our Expeditionary Force should single-handed engage any one of the European Powers. What he contemplates, I imagine, is that in the case of a war between European Powers we might throw into the scale what military forces we possess.
EARL ROBERTS: Hear, hear.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Well, my Lords, if that is the proposition, I submit with great deference that the six Divisions that we are able to send abroad would not be such a negligible quantity as the noble Earl seems to think. In the first place, our Array, small though it might be, would, man for man, be a very much better force that any of the conscript levies of the Continent. Surely the noble and gallant Field-Marshal does not mean to tell your Lordships' House that British soldiers who have served on an average seven years with the Colours, stiffened as they will be by some of the Reserve who have passed through the ranks, are not better, man for man, than any of the conscript levies of Europe? I should be very much surprised if the noble Earl were to rise in his place and tell your Lordships that. But, whatever his estimate may be of the value of British troops man for man, surely it is going a long way to say that this country is incapable of playing any important part in maintaining the balance of European power which is considered necessary for our interests when it possesses such a military force as we possess and such a preponderance of naval power as is ours to-day.
Coming back to the only source of definite proposals on this subject—the book issued under the authority of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal—I see that the writer of the second part of that book clearly has in mind the necessity of our intervening in European affairs. What he proposes is not only a long service Army by which the Empire may be garrisoned, with a very small striking force behind it, but also a short service Army capable of playing an important part in European affairs. My noble friend the Secretary of State for War has drawn your Lordships' attention to the fact that this short service Army would be not nearly so good, man for man, as our present striking force. But observe what the proposal involves. The proposal of the writer of the second part of this book involves this, that he admits that we should have to get 70,000 recruits a year for the long service Army and for the short service Army, and he admits that 70,000 recruits can only be obtained by the indirect pressure of compulsion for home defence. He says—
"Only indirect pressure of compulsion for home defence would make this possible."

867
It is difficult for me to understand quite how that compulsion would come into play. Put yourselves in the position of an individual who has got to submit to a very short period of training in the national Militia, and who, to escape that, volunteers to enter the short service Army which involves a period of one or two years service. Of course it may be that the longer military service may appear to a man who is unwilling to serve to be less onerous than a shorter military service; but personally I think we must admit that to trust to that, and to that alone, to fill up the ranks of the short service and the long service Armies is to indulge in a very great gamble.
I do not suppose anybody would deny that there is a great advantage from au Imperial point of view in possessing a long service professional Army. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal, I think, would himself admit that any proposals which weakened or destroyed that arm of our service would be disastrous. The question then arises in its simplest form whether, in view of the fact that the Territorial Forces are not up to their strength, and according to noble Lords opposite not even then sufficiently numerous, it is possible for a voluntary service to co-exist with a compulsory service? The noble and gallant Field-Marshal alluded to an observation which I made in this House last year to the effect that I did not believe that the British people would accept a compulsory system except as the result of a disaster such as I indicate. Does the noble and gallant Field-Marshal deny that fact? Does he think that the people of this country would accept a compulsory system unless it was brought home to them and they realised it as the result of some disaster?
LORD NEWTON: Will the noble Lord say what use compulsory service would be after disaster?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble Lord, I think, interrupted me when I made this observation before. I am glad to have an opportunity of putting my position before him, because I do not think he understood it. But may I first conclude what I was saying. Does the noble Lord think that the country is prepared at the present moment to adopt a national system of compulsory service?
868
If he does not think so, his duty is to go and educate and try and convert the country to his way of thinking, instead of admonishing Ministers.
LORD NEWTON: That is exactly what we are doing.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: If the noble Lord can persuade the country as to the necessity of compulsory service he will then be in a very different position from that in which he is at the present moment. I do not think that at present the country is prepared for such a change, and I doubt myself whether anything short of a disaster would make them attempt it. Your Lordships will remember, to take the ease of France that it was only the disaster of 1870 that made them adopt compulsory service. Before that they had a different system. The real question is whether it is possible to combine our voluntary service Army, effective as it is for oversea purposes and campaigns of considerable duration, with a compulsory system for home service? Of course, it is not very easy to say; but I observe that writers on this subject rely to a considerable extent upon the fact that the three-year service men, for which system the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, is responsible, signed on for the longer engagement in the proportion of 40 per cent. I do not myself think that that is any guide as to what might happen under the system we are now considering, because, in the first place, those 40 per cent. were only got, many of them, as the result of very considerable bonus inducements, and, in the second place, they belonged to a class of men who had volunteered for military service; they were not the class of men with whom we are concerned when we are considering how far the national conscript Militia would be available for voluntary service. They were men who intended to take up a military career from the start, and the only question in their minds was whether they would serve for three years or for a longer period.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Will the noble Lord forgive me? He has left out one great inducement to those men not to extend. If they did not extend they had to look forward to nine years in the Reserve at fid a day for doing nothing unless the Reserve happened to be called out. That would not be the case under Lord Roberts's measure.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: In any case, you cannot take the 40 per cent. as at all representative of the percentage that might be expected to volunteer in the national Militia for the short or long service Army. Perhaps it has no bearing on the subject at all, but, anyhow, it is no indication whatever as to the percentage that would volunteer under the system proposed by the National Service League, because they are a different class of men altogether. Another thing upon which the promoters of this scheme rely is that 40,000 Special Reservists enter the Army every year. Neither is this a fact which gives us very much enlightenment on the subject, because nobody knows better than the noble Viscount himself that the Special Reserve, or Militia as it was in those days, is one of the recognised doors by which the Army is entered. Some 80 per cent. of those 40,000 men, I venture to say, were men who failed to get into the Army direct, and who were told by the recruiting sergeants that if they would go and do six months in the Militia they would then pass the recruiting test. The noble Viscount knows that perfectly well, and, if that be so, then the fact that 40,000 Special Reservists entered the Army last year does not prove at all how many might be expected to enter the Army under the new circumstances. I feel that, whatever view we may take as to the desirability of substituting a compulsory national Militia for the Territorial Force, we do run a very grave risk that we may come to grief over our recruiting difficulties. If the recruits are not forthcoming, where are we indeed? We shall be in a much more difficult position than we are at the present time.
Then there is another point. If you develop a national Militia, it will no doubt be an expensive thing. What it will cost is difficult to say. It has been estimated to cost £4,000,000 more than the present Estimates; it has also been estimated to cost £9,000,000 more than the present Estimates; in any case the excess in cost will be considerable, and I venture to say that to some extent that additional cost will be met at the expense of the Regular Army. You will find that ultimately the financial problem will tell against the Regular Army. Once the nation has established a national Militia system, especially if on the compulsory basis, there will be a tendency to starve the Regular Army. That certainly is what has
870
happened in France. Ever since the French reversed their policy and substituted compulsory military service for the conscript service, they have found greater difficulties in maintaining either the numbers or the standard, or, indeed, the popularity of their foreign legions. Previous to 1870 the French possessed an Army which was capable of going anywhere and of playing an Imperial part. No doubt that Army was unsuitable for home defence. The German critics stated at the time that it was the French Imperial policy which brought about her downfall in 1870; and, much as she has improved her Army in other respects, she cannot be said to have improved her Army as an instrument for Imperial purposes.
It seems to me that on the whole the noble and gallant Field-Marshal and those who have spoken with him have not gone very far to make out a case for the proposals with which their names are associated. They have not given us, in this House at any rate, anything like a complete or detailed scheme of what they propose to set up in the place of our present military arrangements. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal contented himself with remarking that the fundamental defect of our Army was the voluntary training. That is a general assertion. The noble Viscount. Lord Milner, was still vaguer. He said that the people should have such a degree of military training as would enable them to protect our shores. I venture to suggest to those two noble Lords that it is one thing to make vague criticisms upon our military organisations and quite another to translate those criticisms into practice. If they were, as they may be, responsible for the protection of these shores and for the maintenance of our garrisons in India and in the Colonies, and were obliged to have regard to the possibility of having to meet those smaller wars with which our Imperial expansion is inevitably connected, I wonder whether they would be so ready to scrap the present system and substitute for it the rather vague proposals which have hardly been worked out and which are the property and the policy of the National Service League? At any rate they have not said enough to convince me, and I do not think to convince anybody sitting on this side of the House, of the wisdom or the necessity of their policy; and I only hope when noble Lords opposite come, as they will

871
do no doubt in time, to occupy the position of responsibility from which they are at present divorced, they will give this question more definite and more earnest consideration before they take the step they contemplate.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, in rising to speak on the Motion which has been so forcibly and at the same time so eloquently moved by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, I trust the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War will not consider that I wish to approach this question in any political or Party spirit—nothing is further from my thoughts—or with any desire to disparage what we all recognise as his honest endeavour to solve the problem of Imperial and national defence on economic lines. I believe that is the wish of every Member of your Lordships' House, although there are some of us who do not find ourselves in agreement with the noble Viscount as to the best way of solving the problem of how to increase our military efficiency and at the same time decrease the expenditure thereon. Nevertheless, I am sure we all recognise the many difficulties that the noble Viscount has had to contend with and the strenuous work he has put into the solving of the problem, and I venture to think that he will be the first to acknowledge that without the loyal support of so many members of your Lordships' House, on both sides, his Territorial scheme would not have made the headway it undoubtedly has attained. I am sure every one of us will agree that to those who have come forward in that true patriotic spirit of devotion and self-sacrifice and joined that Force all honour is due, more especially when we recognise that the services of those recruits who have joined the Territorial Army are purely voluntary in the true sense of the word. I make use of the phrase "voluntary in the true sense of the word" because we are always hearing that our Army is recruited on a voluntary basis. I think that any one who has been in the Army for any length of time must know that the majority of recruits are not recruited voluntarily in the true sense of the word, but simply owing to stress of unfortunate circumstances.
The noble and gallant Earl has often reminded us in this House that not only is a strong and invincible Navy requisite for the defence of this vast Empire, but that a strong military force is also absolutely
872
essential for the safeguarding of its interests all over the world. I venture to think that past history has shown us the truth of that—namely, that Fleets alone have never brought any war to a satisfactory conclusion, but that it always has to be fought to a final decision on land, whether the assailants be island States or not. We had good experience of Russo-Japanese War. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal has told to-night that in his opinion our forces are inadequate—at any rate our forces are forces—and therefore he considers that our country is in danger. Such a statement coming from one who must be regarded as the greatest military expert in this House would appear some justification. My Lords, I regret to think that it can be justified, and for this reason. We know very well that there is all over the Continent at the present time a widespread feeling of dislike against this country. This feeling has not emanted from one cause, but from many, and the most powerful of all is envy of this great country and its prosperity, which I contend constitutes a real and growing danger.
I think the statement can be justified for yet another reason. We know only too well that all foreign Powers have determined to prepare for war on sound and scientific lines, whilst we, on the other hand, have failed to do so by simply declining or neglecting to base our military organization on any definite or accepted principle. My reason for saying that is that no one at the present time can even pretend to say for what functions the different branches of His Majesty's military forces are intended, or on what basis the numbers of those different forces are set down, and no explanation as a rule is forthcoming as to why a particular force is proposed to be increased or decreased. I will endeavour to prove my statements with regard to that. In doing so I would like to refer to a force with which I have been connected for some years, and which I have had the honour now of commanding for over thirteen years as the old constitutional force, the Militia, was a few years age transformed into a new force new force now known as the Special Reserve, and twenty-seven of its battalions were changed and called Extra Reserve battalions. Every one of

873
those battalions was reduced in establishment both in officers and men for some unknown reason, although they had more important functions to perform, and we were then told that the functions of the rank and file of the Special Reserve were to make good the wastage of war among the Regular battalions, whilst the officers of these Special Reserve battalions were told that their duty was to ensure that all units, services and departments were complete in officers on mobilisation. The rank and file of the extra reserve battalions were told that they were to work by units and to be available to reinforce oversea garrisons in time of war, or to reinforce the Army in the field. Owing to the undoubted shortage both of officers and men, more especially among the junior ranks in that force—and when we know that the rank and file of the Special Reserve comprise merely a few Militiamen whose time in 1914 will expire there remain in the Force only a few immature lads who have failed for some weakness or another to pass on into the Regular Army—for these reasons I have not the least hesitation in saying, and I say it with regret, that the Special Reserve would be unable to perform on mobilisation the functions for which it has been designed, and I venture to think that my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who also, like myself, has commanded a Special Reserve battalion for many years ill conjunction with the Militia, will endorse that assertion.
The recent military debates in another place clearly illustrated in my opinion the lack of knowledge of military matters possessed by the majority of the Members of the other House, because on reading through the Debates it will be noticed that very little mention was made of the Special Reserve, which any one with any military experience will be aware is in a most unsatisfactory state at the present time. I am aware, however, that there are certain Members in the other House, I hope not many, who advocate peace at any price, and who suggest that because we have alliances and ententes with other countries our naval and military expenditure should be greatly reduced. To those individuals I would venture to suggest that an alliance is only made when sonic mutual gain is to accrue thereby, and that an agreement of that kind should be regarded as a question not of sentiment
874
but of business. If that is so, surely it is safer to act as we have done in the past and rely upon our own right arm—that is, upon our naval and military resources; for, depend upon it, if a great and wealthy nation like our own is not prepared to take the field at short notice it must inevitably court disaster. There can be little doubt but that that pernicious system, which I regret to think has been so often practised in this country, of trying to economise by cutting down our military forces, has cost this country millions, whilst it only leads to fabulous expenditure when war threatens. Experience in the past should have taught us this lesson, that the essence of all military efficiency can only be obtained by judicious expenditure, and that money well spent on armaments is the best insurance against war that any country can obtain.
My Lords, the complaints which we are so constantly hearing in another place with regard to armaments should, in my opinion, be regarded as puerile and waste of time, for there can be little doubt that other countries are not going to reduce their armaments, and I believe that the race of armaments is likely to continue until we make up our minds to have an unquestionably supreme Navy and a National Army. The shortage of officers and men, not only in the Regular Army but in every other branch of our forces, emphasises the fact—I think proves it—that our voluntary system is beginning to break down, and that some other scheme will have to be adopted such as that advocated by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal of universal military training or service. If, as has been asserted, this country is not likely to entertain that idea, then, my Lords, we have but one alternative, and that is to spend far more money on our military forces than has been the case hitherto, more especially with regard to increased pay of officers, if those forces are to be equal in discipline, training, and numbers to the forces of those who may be regarded as our possible enemies. Our Colonies have begun to realise that their security is dependent on some form of universal military training, and is it an unreasonable question to ask why an Englishman, of all men in the world, should be exempt from performing the first duty of citizenship—that is to say, to learn to defend his country. I fail to understand

875
what are the objections. I know that some have been raised, and with your permission I will deal very shortly with a few of them.
One favourite argument of the opponents of this proposal, who are always so fond of designating it as Conscription, which is an absolute misnomer, is that it will interfere with our trade and industries. In reply, one might reasonably ask has it ever interfered with the trade and industries of France, Germany, and Russia? Facts prove that the reverse is the case, and that the more perfect the military training the better is the trade. That is exemplified in the case of Germany, who themselves attribute their industrial efficiency to their good military system. Another objection so often raised is that military training would harden a man and brutalise him. If that is true, how is it that Germany is well known at the present time to be far ahead of any civilised nation in the world in the matter of education? Also if that is the case how is it that German musicians, scientists, and doctors are well known all over the world, all of whom have gone through some form of naval or military training? There is one more objection that I would like to refer to. I think it is the worst, because in my opinion it savours of unpatriotism. It is said that it would be disastrous to any political Party who introduced such a system as universal military training. I do not believe that that is so. I am one of those who contend that the British working classes are patriotic to the backbone—that is to say, if they are taught patriotism—but whether I am right or wrong on that point I contend that questions affecting the Army and Navy are so vital to our Empire that they should not be regarded as within the pale of Party politics. No matter what our convictions with regard to other political matters may be, we should always remember that upon a statesmanlike solution of naval and military matters must depend the security and well being of our country, and that a false step or any injudicious action may result in such disastrous consequences that I am sure I am voicing the opinion of every member of your Lordships' House when I say that it should be our endeavour to do our best to prevent the possibility of such consequences arising. For these reasons, my Lords, I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Motion
876
moved by the noble and gallant Fie id-Marshal.
[The sitting was suspended at fire minutes to eight o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the noble Lord who addressed the House from the other side shortly before the adjournment for dinner laid down several assumptions with which I think many members of this House are inclined to disagree. I do not propose to follow him at length into those assumptions, but if think one or two of them are worthy of some consideration, if only between himself and the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War. He started by laying down the assumption that invasion was absolutely impossible. It. seems fairly obvious that if invasion is utterly impossible the home defence Army is not required at all, and that is a point which I hope he will clear up with the noble Viscount opposite. Then he went on to state that before invasion was possible every kind of thing must happen—either a war with Russia or with the United States. I throw out the suggestion that it is possible that if we should have much unrest in India our Expeditionary Force would have to go there.
A great point has been made throughout the country, and it was touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, that Sir Arthur Wilson has furnished a Memorandum in which it is stated that invasion is practically impossible. I do not pretend to gauge how far such a qualification extends, but I venture to think that some qualification is necessary, and that for more than one reason. The noble Viscount went on to say that in all such questions affecting sea power it was obviously the naval experts who should be considered rather than the military experts. That is a statement with which every member is inclined to agree, but there is, perhaps, yet another expert who is to be considered, and that is the historian. I think if we examine history we will find that it has constantly been stated that invasion is practically if not altogether impossible, but it has not necessarily followed that invasion has not taken place. I would instance the Chief of the Russian Naval Staff referring to the question of the possibility of the Japanese landing troops in Manchuria before the war. He went so far as to state—

877
"So long as our fleet is not destroyed, the operations named are impossible."
As every member of your Lordships' House is aware, the Japanese did land troops in Manchuria, and they did so before the Russian Fleet was altogether destroyed. We have an instance even in our own history, in Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. That invasion was undertaken by a considerable force, and. we certainly would have claimed to have had the command of the Mediterranean at that time. That invasion did not take place under the eyes of an Admiral who might he called an. incompetent fool, because the Commander-in-Chief of the British Navy at that time was Lord Nelson himself. It is perfectly true that Napoleon was extremely fortunate in escaping observation by the British Fleet, but fate, or luck, or Providence, or whatever you may call it, is just as likely to arise in the wars of the future as in the wars of the past. I think that even the Admiralty themselves support the view that they cannot really defend the shores of the British Empire. If that were not the case, it is surely obvious that all that would be required at coaling stations such as Malta, Bermuda, or the Mauritius, would be a sufficient force to prevent, pilfering from the dockyards and the observations of foreign spies. As it is, there are 1,700 Regular troops in Malta, apart altogether from the Colonial Corps which exists there. If the invasion of Malta was quite hopeless, I think that a few gunners would be all that would be required. But I need not press that point, because if invasion were really considered impossible it is quite obvious that there would be no occasion for a Home Army.
There are many members of your Lordships' House who are far better qualified than I am to discuss how great could be the strength of any force which might invade these islands. I do not, therefore, propose to go into that question at, all, but will take the War Office figure of 70,000 men. Now, suppose the Expeditionary Force of this country were away in India, or possibly elsewhere, there is virtually nothing left that is worth consideration except the Territorial Force of 270,000 men. Then supposing our Expeditionary Force had been away some time, and the greater part of the Special Reserve had been already called up to fill the ranks wasted by losses in battle and by sickness.
878
The Secretary of State for War rather ridiculed the idea that men after one year's training would be capable of meeting a Continental army. If that is the case, what can be said of troops that get ten drills per year, and. a fortnight's training? Because that is what the Territorial Force get. One year's training is not sufficient in the opinion of the Secretary of State for War. Therefore still less can fourteen days be sufficient for what is necessary.
The noble Viscount went on to allude to a speech made the other day by Colonel Repington, in which it was stated that three battalions of the Territorial Force were now at this moment the equivalent of one Regular battalion. As the Territorial Force numbers 270,000 men, and the possible figure of the invading army is placed at 70,000, it would follow on the surface that we have at the present time a surplus of Territorial troops. But, as every one knows, these Territorial troops are not in one particular place, or near a particular position where an invading force would land. They are scattered throughout the whole of Great Britain. No one knows better than the Secretary of State for War and the noble Lord who was so recently Under-Secretary that these troops are scattered more or less in brigades, and it would take a considerable time before they could be brought together to meet the invading force. So far from the Territorial Force being in the proportion of more than three to one to the invading force, the probabilities are that the proportion would be exactly in the inverse ratio.
Perhaps I might be allowed to give a personal analogy. Supposing I take four noble Lords opposite. I should not be allowed to pick noble Lords in any way, because the officers commanding the Territorial battalions have no means of picking their recruits. They must take the first that are offered. Supposing I took the first four noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite and suggested that they should be given ten lessons in boxing, and then put them into training for a fortnight, and at the end of that time put them into the ring and asked them to face the best professional boxer I could find. It is perhaps "logically possible" that the four noble Lords might be victorious, but I think it is far more "reasonably probable" that they would stiffer very considerable loss. Being a member of the Territorial Force and of a County Associa-

879
tion I venture to think that I cannot very well be accused of attacking this subject from an anti-Territorial point of view, but I do none the less contend that the Territorial Force is neither competent in numbers nor efficiency nor discipline for the work it might possibly be called upon to do.
Let me take the question of numbers first. I have already pointed out that the Territorial Force is scattered throughout Great Britain, and that therefore at any given point there would be very much less than three battalions to one of any possible invading force. Sir Ian Hamilton has said that supposing the Territorial Force were defeated, such a defeat would have a most disastrous effect. It is perfectly obvious that if the Territorials were put in the position of having to meet an invading army with an inferior force, defeat would be not only probable but certain, because they would be deficient not only in numbers, but also in training and efficiency. Take the question of discipline. I dare say some of your Lordships who have been in camp with the Territorials or have seen them at manœuvres, as I have constantly, will know that when the bugle for "lights out" is sounded, it is by no means a signal for silence in the camp, although, as we know, silence is one of the rules of all camps after "lights out." It is impossible to enforce that rule of silence, and that is because there is no discipline to enforce it upon the troops. If there is no discipline in a small point, is there any reason why there should be discipline in a great point, particularly when that point is emphasised by the personal element which arises in so many cases?
I do not wish to weary the House with minor points, but I desire to refer to a point as to military training. As many of your Lordships know, at any rate those who have shot in rapid competitions at Bisley, the physical exhaustion of keeping up rapid rifle fire is very considerable, and the only possible way to acquire that efficiency is by constant practice. I have pointed that out to a good many Territorial officers, and it is a fact with which they all agree. I have suggested that on field days they should train their troops by getting them to pick up targets in various directions, whether of advancing troops or particular objects, and getting them practised in constant and prolonged operations of rapid firing. Many of them have tried, but
880
nearly all have told me the same thing. They say that the troops will shoot for a certain time, and then they get bored with it and stop. Now, the military profession, like everything else, has a good deal of drudgery connected with it, and if you are only to give orders that are popular with the troops and not those that involve drudgery it is obvious that the training is going to be extremely faulty. Then on the question of training itself. Owing to the low trajectory and the very high carrying-power of the modern bullet, it will become, I think, more and more probable that a great deal of the operations of war will be carried on by night, and if it is difficult to attack by day it is twenty times more difficult to attack by night. But there comes a further consideration. The bullet is practically valueless at night, and the bayonet is considered by all experts the best weapon of offence and defence. So strongly do the Japanese realise the value of the bayonet that every one of their men is trained in barracks an hour every evening in exercises conducive to the strength of the arm and agility with the bayonet. Not only that, but every officer has to pass before his General in the use of the bayonet. How many men of the Territorial Force have ever been trained with the bayonet at all? If it were not for the competitions at the Military Tournament there would not be a couple of hundred men in the whole Force trained with the bayonet, and I think even now the number who know anything about bayonet fighting would not work out at one per cent. of the whole Force. The Japanese on every occasion when they met the Russians on a hill in about equal numbers were invariably, I believe, successful because of their greater skill with the bayonet. The Russians had also considerable skill with the bayonet, and so would any Continental army which invaded these islands. Yet we would propose to pit against these troops men never trained in any bayonet fighting at all, and who know nothing whatever about that part of the art of war.
I believe the Secretary of State for War has said that no one contends that the Territorial Force is ready at the present moment to meet an invading force. If they are not to get their training in peace, when are they to get it? We are told that when the Expeditionary Force is mobilised the Territorial Force is also to be mobilised

881
and to get its training. I think the House would be glad to know whether the noble Viscount would say that, had he been responsible at the War. Office in 1900, he would have mobilised the Territorial Force while the greater part of our Expeditionary Force was away and the greater part of our Reserves were mobilised. I venture to think that the noble Viscount would not make any statement of that kind. We should have been told by whatever Government was in power that as everything appeared to be peaceful throughout the world it was obviously unnecessary to mobilise the Territorial Force. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War shakes his head. Well, that is a thing which at any rate should be made clear to the Territorial Force. I am convinced that nine-tenths of them have not the faintest conception that supposing they had been in. existence in 1900 they would have been mobilised for six months. If that were known to the Territorial Force, the recruiting to that Force would not only diminish, but would practically cease altogether. If it can be stated that things appear peaceful throughout Europe and that therefore it is unnecessary that the Territorial Force should be mobilised, it will obviously be still more difficult to mobilise when matters are not so peaceful on the Continent. The diplomat will come down and say, "It is impossible for you to mobilise that force now. It will be taken as a threatening act against the Power or Powers with whom we are having some difference of opinion. It will make diplomacy still more difficult, and it will almost inevitably involve this country in war." Unless all these precautions are taken before we get into such a. situation, we shall not dare to do it when we are face to face with the situation itself.
There is one further point. If it is necessary that the Territorial Force should have six months training before they meet a Continental army, I think the Secretary of State for War is squandering a good deal of public money under the scheme he has now in operation. Let him get up and say, "We will give the Territorial officers certain theoretical instruction. We will have the men of the Territorial Force up every year for one day in which they shall be medically examined and measured for their clothing and equipment, and then in time of mobilisation we shall give them seven months training instead of six," by
882
which time I think most experts would agree they would be as well trained as if they had six months training and a fortnight in each year. If we are wasting money on the Territorial Force at the present time and the Territorial Force is not fit to meet an army such as I have named, obviously the scheme I have suggested is preferable. We all know why such a scheme would not be adopted. The reason is obvious. At first the scheme might be popular throughout the country. It would lower the Estimates, and then the country in a short space of time would realise that the Force was entirely a paper Force, and that there was no second line between the Expeditionary Force and themselves, and there would be a demand for a proper Territorial Army. The Territorial Force is nothing better than a paper army, only it is put in such a way that the public do not realise the fact. If it were put forward that the men should come up for one day a year and then have seven months training on mobilisation the country would then realise what its position really is.
I may be criticised for attacking the Force to which I belong, but I look at another side of the question. During the South African War a certain section of the Press and public made attacks which I think were, on the whole, utterly unjustified, against the training and the knowledge of officers and men of the Regular Army. It is a curious coincidence that the same section of the Press, and I believe to a large extent the same section of the public, are now attacking us for criticising the Territorial Force. If the Regular Army with the training it had before the war was not competent or considered adequately trained for fighting such a war without making grave mistakes, it is quite obvious that the Territorial Force cannot be adequate to the task that may be put before it by a possible invasion by 70,000 men. I feel that it is wiser and kinder to the Territorial Force that criticisms should be made now than that they should be made after they have been tried by the only trial which is worth having, the trial of actual experience of war, and have failed.
It is not a question of public spirit, or a question of keenness, or a question of bravery with the Territorial Force. It is none of these. It is a question of the system, as was the case in South Africa.

883
The system has to be blamed, not the men. There are few if any Regular officers who are not prepared to say that the Territorial Force is extremely good. I agree with them. That it has a considerable amount of knowledge I entirely agree. But in every one of those cases you will find that these Regular officers qualify their statement with three extremely important words—" under the circumstances." I entirely agree with those words. It is perfectly true that the Territorial Force has arrived at a stage of training a great deal above what could have been expected of it—under the circumstances. The men know a great deal more, and, owing to their keenness, have arrived at a greatly higher stage of training than could possibly be expected of them; but to say that that stage of training is sufficient to place them opposite to an invading force of 70,000 of the best troops in Europe is a suggestion to which I for one cannot agree. For those reasons, and because I believe it is essential for this country that we should have an adequate home defence force, I shall warmly support the Motion proposed by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am satisfied that there is no noble Lord, in whatever part of this House he sits, who will not rejoice at the advent of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War in our debates, and more especially that his presence here is heralded by a debate of this importance. We have had a long and able statement from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, who will not be angry with me if I say he is the protagonist of the system of universal military service, and we have had a reply from the Secretary of State for War, who is the creator of the present Army system under which we now live. I have one word of criticism which I hope the noble and gallant Field-Marshal will pardon. He said that the reductions carried out by the Secretary of State for War amounted to 30,000 men. I think I can prove to him in a few minutes that that is a very considerable exaggeration. The real reduction is only 18,500, as I can show from the Annual Reports. I think if the noble Earl who last spoke will reconsider his speech, he will find one considerable fallacy in it, because in his description of the state in which the Territorial Army would be he forgets altogether the 90,000 men of the Regular Army who would stiffen the Territorial Force and fight with them in defence of
884
these shores. If the noble Earl will look at the White Paper issued to us he will find that the total number of men liable for the Expeditionary Force is 163.000 men and officers; but on the next page be will find that there are 251,000 men fitted to go for service abroad, and the difference between these figures would be the men left behind to stiffen the Territorial Army. That makes a considerable difference in the noble Earl's calculation, and certainly in the result.
Being anxious to be perfectly certain as to the amount of reductions which my noble friend has made in the Army, I have consulted the Annual Returns of the present year, and compared them with the last period for which the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, was responsible, and I will very shortly put them before the House. In the Cavalry and the Horse and Field Artillery, which, as we know, are very delicate arms and cannot possibly be improvised, there is no change whatever. The Household Cavalry have not been altered; they stand as before. The Cavalry of the Line on October 1, 1905, numbered 18,365 men; on October 1. 1910, there were 18,285. The Cavalry, therefore, are exactly as they stood before. The Royal Horse and Field Artillery numbered 29,363 in 1905; they number 29,587 in the present year; so that they have increased by 224. Then I come to reductions. There has been a large reduction in the Garrison Artillery, but, as the Secretary of State for War has explained very fully in another place, his main reason for changing these was to convert them into a sort of Reserve of the Royal Artillery. He found that of the batteries to go with the Expeditionary Force only 42 out of 54 batteries could be completed, so he turned some of the Garrison Artillery into ammunition columns and the Reserve of the Artillery. The Garrison Artillery, therefore, which stood at 23,121 on October 1905, stood at 17,592 in October, 1910, showing a reduction of 5,529.
Now I come to the great reductions to which my noble friend has alluded. In the Infantry of the Line in the time of the noble Viscount opposite there were 146,147 men; now there are 137,390, or a reduction of 8,757. Noble Lords will recollect that during the war there were certain regiments, particularly the Northumberland Fusiliers and the Lancashire Fusiliers, which were increased from two to four battalions, but it was obvious that these were actually redundant to the general

885
system. They were the only regiments which had four battalions except the Rifles, and therefore my noble friend took the opportunity of reducing those extra battalions in order that they might be fitted into his scheme, which was, that there should be exactly the same number of battalions abroad as at home, viz.: 74 at home and 74 abroad. Then there was a reduction in the Colonial Corps from 6,023 in 1905 to 3,830 in 1910—a reduction of 2,993. There is also a reduction in the Guards of 650—namely, from 7,730 in 1905 to 7,080 in 1910; but the fact was that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, when in charge of the Department, raised those extra battalions of Guards in order that they might relieve the Mediterranean garrisons, to which they never went at all, and consequently they were found to be redundant. Two battalions were about to be disbanded, but one was found to be wanted in Egypt, so that battalion was saved from extinction, and one battalion only was reduced as redundant—namely, the extra battalion of the Scots Guards.
The total of the whole strength of officers in 1905 was 10,788; they are now 10,722. Warrant officers numbered 1,310 in 1905; now they number 1,292. Noncommissioned officers and rank and file numbered 260,035 in 1905; they now number 240,479. That is where, I think, the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Roberts, was a little wrong. The aggregate reduction is, of course, 19,500; but you will find on looking at the Returns that 1,000 of these men are accounted for because in the time of Viscount Midleton 5,000 men were taken from the Indian Line and employed in China and in other garrisons, and only 4,000 in the present year. Fewer men by 1,000 were borrowed from the Indian list, but are not reduced, and that makes the total reductions only 18,500. I think we ought to see what we have got in compensation for these reductions. The first is the splendid Reserve which we possess. The Army Reserve in September, 1905, taking sections A, B, and D, was 94,770. The present total of the Army Reserve, taking the same sections, is 135,712—a magnificent Reserve, and I believe my noble friend the Secretary of State for War stated the other day that it has since increased to 137,000.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the
886
Army Reserve which he quoted front 1905 was not the full Army Reserve which we now employ, and which has been reduced in three years time by the present Secretary of State?
LORD HAVERSHAM: I was just coming to that point.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am glad to hear it.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I wish first to say that of this splendid list of 137,000 men there are 93,000 under thirty years of age, and 132,000, virtually all, under thirty-five years of age. All these men have gone through Colour service, some for seven years and some for less, but they are all seasoned soldiers it the prime of life. When connected with the War Office I had the opportunity of seeing them when called out, owl except being slightly older, they could not, be distinguished from their comrades. I am aware, of course, that there will be a large reduction in two or three years time, when men will go out, and we shall have the normal Reserve very much reduced, but it will be reduced only to about 103,000 men; it will still be, according to my noble friend's calculations, over 100,000. But there is this to be remembered, that if the men are not in the Reserve they are longer in the ranks, and that is a very important consideration. If they are to remain seven years in the ranks, they will be equally as good as if they are in the Reserve. In addition to that, it is possible that my noble friend the Secretary of State for War may increase the feeding cadres, and then you would have larger numbers going to the Reserve. There is such a plan as giving men bounties to exchange from the Line into the Reserve. There are various ways, but you cannot tell what the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War will do two years hence. He is, however, keenly alive to the need of keeping up this magnificent Reserve; in fact, he pledges himself to watch carefully how it is reduced, and will take steps to see that the Reserve is not emptied too rapidly.
Then my noble friend spoke of the Expeditionary Force. As to that I think we only require to hear what the Secretary of State for War said in the other House—
"The six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force, as I said last year, have the whole of their fighting personnel, non-commissioned officers and men, ready. The equipment and stores are there."

887
I do not think we need be very much afraid as far as the Expeditionary Force is concerned. But I would like to say a word with regard to the supply of officers after the Expeditionary Force is supposed to have gone. There, I think, my noble friend has some apprehensions, but he has taken precautions to find a very large number of officers by means of the Officers Training Corps, and it is now of very considerable strength. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War said on March 7, 1910—
"For efficient mobilisation we look to the Officers Training Corps, which was called into existence for the purpose. To mobilise the six Divisions there is no deficiency, but to provide for units left at home be should require to draw largely from the Reserve of officers."
The great benefit of the Officers Training Corps is that it is worked in connection with the public schools and the Universities. The young men are selected for their physique by their masters, and are given particular advantages in obtaining commissions. If they pass certificate A they get off three months, if they pass certificate B they get off six months, and these are great attractions to them in qualifying for commissions. The noble Viscount was able to say in March, 1910—
"The Officers Training Corps, which was designed to give us the means of tilling up our great deficiency—namely, subalterns—will, I hope, next year reach the very respectable total of 21,000 candidates in the public schools and Universities. Just now it is nearly 20,000."
There is every reason to hope that we shall obtain the 21,000 in the current year. Besides that, the noble Viscount is taking other steps. He has spent a large sum upon the enlargement of Sandhurst, and the terms are all changed now, so that a very much longer course is given to the officers who join there. But what I think noble Lords will look upon with great sympathy is the system of scholarships inaugurated by my noble friend, because although we may not look upon it as a magnificent thing when a man gets a scholarship of £50 a year and a grant of £35 for his outfit, yet it is established that when these candidates are successful they will save one half of their expenses in their Sandhurst course. The most excellent part of that is, that it will attract a great number of the sons of clergymen and barristers, and so on, and will enable people of that class to send their sons into the Army at much less expense than heretofore.
888
I will say one or two words about the Territorial Army. I happen to be the Chairman of one of the County Associations, and I must say we are very much indebted to the noble Viscount for what he has done for us this year. For the moment I should like to compare this Force with the old Volunteers. The Volunteers were isolated corps, scattered in different parts of the country, and never called together except in a battalion. They rarely had a Brigade drill. They were inspected once a year, perhaps, by a General officer who never saw them again. Now we have a great force, larger than the Volunteers, divided into fourteen Divisions, every one of which is commanded by an officer of distinction. They have Brigadiers and Brigade Majors from the Regulars. A certain proportion of the Force were taken for manœuvres this autumn with Regular troops, and went out on absolutely campaign conditions. But the best feature of all is the number who attended camp. There were 168,000, including 7,000 officers, who attended camp for fifteen days, and 73,000 for eight days or less. Including the Yeomanry, 243,000 members of the Territorial Force attended camp last year, and that is against 179,000 who attended camp in the year before.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps he will state how many did not attend camp. That is the other side of it.
LORD HAVERSHAM: It would be very few out of 277,000. Of course, there must be a considerable number of so large a force who were away on reasonable excuse, although I know there were a few who had no excuse. Altogether 62 per cent. attended camp for fifteen days, and 28 per cent. for eight days—that is 90 per cent. of the total number. In addition to that, upwards of 1,000 officers and 17,000 men have undertaken engagement for foreign service. Something has been said as to the statement which fell from my noble friend in reference to the meeting at which Colonel Repington's paper was read. We had important evidence from the General officers who attended that dinner, and who expressed their opinion of the Territorial Force. I will quote them. General Macready said that—
"Discipline was the paramount necessity of good fighting, and in that matter the Territorials were far superior to the old Volunteers."

889
General Bullock said—
"They who were working with the Territorial Force believed that the present system of the Territorial Army was a scientific and honest endeavour to give them the defensive force they required."
I think that is very important. General Bethune said—
"The Territorial Force in West Lancashire had increased in efficiency from top to bottom about 20 per cent. in each of the last two years."
General Henniker said—
"There was an enormous improvement in the Artillery, which only wanted more training."
I am very glad to give those views, because I think we ought to have some counterblast to the rather cold douche which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal poured upon us from the Cross Benches.
I should like to bear my testimony to the gallant way in which my noble friend Viscount Haldane has supported the Territorial Force this year. He is going to spend the sum of £206,000 more. He is going to add £68,000 to the establishment grant. Travelling expenses are to be increased from 127,000 to £45,000 to enable men to attend drills. The sum of £30,000 is to be given to General officers' for carrying out training, and £50,000 for the upkeep of targets and rifle ranges. We wish to thank him very much for all that. We had a meeting on Saturday of my Territorial Association, and every officer was loud in praise of the way in which the noble Viscount has treated us. It is not only that he has given us money. He has settled, as Lord Dartmouth well knows, a very difficult question. He has settled the vexed question of the secretaries' salaries by raising the maximum to £170 a year, and, as I said before, he has given us a large sum which we may use for travelling allowances in bringing men up to drill and to meet the battalions. I have felt it my duty to say these things on behalf of the Territorial Force, and I am sure that the noble Viscount, when he gives up his office, will be able to feel that in establishing the Territorial Force he has added very much to the security and strength, and, therefore, to the material prosperity of this country.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I will not follow the last speaker into the figures as to the increase or decrease of His Majesty's Forces in the British Islands.
890
The counting of the men in buckram has been a very favourite habit of debaters on both sides of the House, and unless the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War can give us absolutely certain information as to the exact number of men there are—
LORD HAVERSHAM: I was quoting from the Annual Returns of the Army.
LORD LOVAT: We shall, no doubt, have other facts to-morrow, quoted also from official returns, and they will certainly bring out details but not quite the same numbers.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Why?
LORD LOVAT: If you wait till tomorrow, perhaps you will see. I would like before I pass from the last speaker to ask one question. I agree with most of the laudatory comments which were made on the part of the Generals who attended the dinner the other night. I would entirely subscribe to what was said as to the encouragement which the noble. Viscount the Secretary of State for War has given to the Territorial Force, and especially the great thought and care which he has taken in every particular branch of it. I recognise the admirable work which these men have done, the attempts that the officers have made to qualify themselves for the work, and the improvement which has been made in the Territorial Force. But I would like to ask, Did any one of those Generals say that these men were fit to take their place in war? As to the 90,000 men who the noble Lord (Lord Haversham) said were not counted, but who would reinforce—"stiffen" was the word used—the Territorial Force, I think the only way I should be able to use that term towards those 90,000 men would be in the way that a Scottish gillie talks of a fish being stiff at the bottom of a pool. Certainly any one who examined these 90,000 men would see that almost all of them are under twenty years of age; they are not organised in brigades; the majority of them would join the Special Reserve, but they have no means of transport. How they would "stiffen" the Territorial Force is not exactly to be seen on the face of it. If they would stiffen them, they would stiffen them in the sense of remaining behind while the others would do the fighting.

891
There is no means of knowing how these 90,000 boys would be taken into the field, so that the term "stiffen" is not altogether applicable.
I turn to the speech made by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War. He raised certain points which I would like for a moment to consider. The first of these, on which he based a great deal of his argument, was the question of naval opinion. Earl Stanhope has dealt admirably with that question. But may I be allowed to add a few instances to show how naval opinion has always said invasion was impossible? The noble Viscount referred to a certain meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence at which this matter of invasion was considered. May I remind him of instances where naval opinion went wrong? The most recent, and the most often quoted, of course, is that of Russian naval opinion, which definitely laid down that invasion was absolutely impossible as long as the Russian Fleet remained in being. Lord Nelson was one of the Admirals quoted by the Secretary of State for War. May I mention also that Lord Nelson, to a large extent, held that opinion. Yet at one of the most critical times in our history he was three weeks late with the whole of our Fleet. Naval opinion is a thing we can use for argument, but it is not one necessarily on which we can absolutely rely.
There is a second point in this connection. The Secretary of State for War referred to the two Committees on which he sat and which considered the question of invasion. The first Committee, which sat under Mr. Balfour, gave a limit of 10,000 men. The next Committee gave the figure of the possible invading force as 70.000. Admitting the last figure, and that 70,000 men landed, those 70,000 men can tie exactly the same number of men as the original 10,000, and therefore, pro tanto, our Expeditionary Force and the Fleet is constantly reduced. The noble Viscount passed on to another point; in fact, it was almost the most important point that he made in his speech; and that was the question of the "possible" and the "reasonably probable." He said that we were not to consider a combination of Powers which was not of a reasonably probable order. The weak point of this argument lies in this, that what is reasonably probable to-day need
892
not be reasonably probable five years hence. It takes ten years to create an Army. I need not argue that point. We have seen the experience of Germany, and we know that of France. In every case ten years is the time accepted by military critics. Let us glance at the big Powers of Europe, and see how we stood with them ten years ago. With Russia we are friendly to-day. Who could have said that ten years ago? Germany in those days was our friend, and France was supposed to be the most likely nation to invade us. Well, we have France now on the best of terms. Can any one prophesy what, ten years hence, may be the combinations against us? I think this absolutely breaks down the question of the logically possible and the reasonably probable.
The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, raised another point about the question of submarines and the fleet of transports which is to come across to these shores. He says that even if this fleet escaped our battleships, how would they escape our submarines? Why should not the Germans blow up some of our: battleships? This is one of the largest of all assumptions. Why should our Fleets be able to lie off the large German ports from which invasion is possible, when we know that for five years now Germany has been pushing on with submarines at the rate of a million a year in their Naval Estimates? Why should we imagine that one of our battleships could lie off a port—a most dangerous naval operation—whilst no,-, one of the enemy's warships had been placed on the protection of the transports which were to fall victims to our submarines?
We have had now from headquarters a statement that the Territorial Army in theory is never to be an efficient Army in time of peace. We have heard the reassertion of that wonderful old idea that we are going to have six months' war before we need use our Territorial Force. Our Expeditionary Force cannot be in two places at one time. If you send two Divisions away, no one can tell when you will want others to reinforce them, and if you send any considerable portion of your Expeditionary Force away it presupposes absolutely that at any moment it may have to be reinforced with the remainder or you abandon those two or three Divisions to their fate. It is curious that we should

893
go back to this six months idea. If you took abroad you see the nations straining at the leash. I went along the French frontier not long ago, and visited some of the houses there. Every peasant knew exactly where he had to go and where to send his horse and his cows on the outbreak of war. At a single moment everybody and everything was to go to the appointed place. It was the question of a day that they were reckoning on. Here we are counting on six months. The whole of Europe is turned into one great armed camp, and still we talk of six months notice before anything is to happen at all. I am sure that future generations will wonder, when they come to read the reports of the various debates on this question, that there were people who imagined there would be this warning of six months.
We do not wish in this debate to make disparaging remarks about the Territorial Army. We want to get the Territorial Army up to that point which we wish it to arrive at—namely, that it shall be properly efficient and be of real serviceable use to the country. I would recall the quotation made by the Secretary of State for War from what fell from Colonel Repington, to the effect that at the present moment two regiments of Yeomanry were equal to one regiment of Regular Cavalry, and that after two and a-half months training two Yeomanry regiments would be practically equal to a Continental Cavalry regiment. I do not wish, of course, to doubt the noble Viscount's statement, because he read it from a newspaper But two Generals who were at the dinner stated that Colonel Repington made the statement only for purposes of discussion when he raised these two points. I challenge him to prove it in any print he wishes. He has great opportunities of stating his views in The Times, and perhaps he will show exactly on what he bases this statement that two Yeomanry regiments are equal to one Continental Cavalry regiment. Look for a moment to the two things. The period of training of the British Yeomanry is very short in comparison with that of the Cavalry in Continental armies. Our Yeomanry have no training with the arme blanche. The Japanese, so far as the bayonet is concerned, give their men the most excellent training. Yet we have no bayonet in the Yeomanry; we have not seen a bayonet;
894
at least, we have not seen one for three years. Neither have we swords. If we are attacked by Cavalry we have no bayonets with which to drive them off.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Does the noble Lord suggest that the Cavalry should be armed with bayonets
LORD LOVAT: I believe the Germans are going to retain the lance and give their Cavalry the bayonet.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I only asked for information.
LORD LOVAT: I am delighted to supply it. Then with regard to the rifle, may I point out that our Yeomanry would be armed with weapons with fixed sights at 500 yards. The Continental Cavalry have rifles which have fixed sights at over 300 yards further. We do not compete on fair terms. If there was one point which the Boer war brought out absolutely—and I am sure all Cavalry men will support me in this—it was the fact that we went into that war with a very inferior weapon. I am sure that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal will support me in that, that no body of men could have been in a worse condition than our Cavalry were when they fought the Boers. On the question of horses I need not say anything to-night, as I understand that Lord Willoughby de Broke will speak on that. On the question of Staff, I may say that if we are to wait until the day of mobilisation occurs we shall not be as right as the Germans. Then with regard to the question of the movement, of Brigades. There are very few officers who handle Brigades twice in a year, and that as a rule in camp. The average Brigadier only handles Yeomanry four or eight times in the whole of his period. The handling of a Yeomanry Brigade is quite different from the handling of a Cavalry Brigade. The time and calculation and space are all different. They are absolutely and entirely opposite. And finally, you have the question of the machine guns and transports. We have a very second rate machine gun. Almost all Continental armies have a very much better one, and one which is fairly easy and much better to manipulate. As regards transport, Cavalry transport is practically universally conducted now on motors and by rapid methods of that sort, while we still have our improvised trans-

895
port, without general service wagons. I do not wish to labour this point; but Colonel Repington's statement that one regiment of Yeomanry to-day is equal to half its weight of Cavalry trained on the Continental system is one that it is very difficult to defend. I do not wish for a moment to ignore what the Yeomanry have done. I believe the keenness of the Yeomanry throughout is excellent; but can you expect these men to do in a few days training the proper amount of work necessary to pit themselves in any way against Continental trained troops or to face anything like a fifth of their own number? The noble Lord, Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, has challenged us for not producing some scheme. I do not think it lies with the Back Benches of the Opposition to produce any scheme.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I did not challenge the noble Lord. I challenged the noble and gallant Field-Marshal.
LORD LOVAT: I beg your pardon; but Lord Roberts sits on the Cross Benches, so he has still even less opportunity for producing a scheme. But if we do not produce a scheme, we can produce an object; and the object of the majority of noble Lords on this side of the House and of the nation is that we should have a sufficient defence force for this country so as to free absolutely our Fleet to carry out its duties anywhere in the world and to free the whole of our Expeditionary Force to leave these shores.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, when the formation of the Territorial Force was under discussion your Lordships were good enough to allow me on two or three different occasions to speak more or less on the Territorial Artillery, because that is a question on which I have a certain amount of experience, and I think perhaps I was the only one in this House who had done any actual work with the old Volunteer Artillery previous to the formation of the Territorial Force. For that reason, I do not want to touch much upon the general question to-day, except to say that it seems to me that all this talk in which we are indulging with regard to the Expeditionary Force, and 150,000, or 70,000, or any other number, is so purely conjectural as to be really rather beating the bush, and almost a waste of time when we are considering the very much larger questions
896
raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Milner. What I think we have to remember is that great and important rôle which this country might be called upon to take in having to bear a share in the preservation of the balance of power in Europe, and that the. possibility of offensive action along with another nation on the other side of the Channel may be, after all, the real means of defending this country against dangers which we cannot combat afterwards. That is the great question which we have to remember, and it opens up the weak point in the Territorial Army—the weak point of the scheme which says that the Territorial Army is not really supposed to be ready for immediate use because it will always have six months to prepare during which time the Expeditionary Force will remain in this country. If the Expeditionary Force have to leave in a hurry in order to take its part in preserving the balance of power in Europe and preventing a situation which would afterwards produce a sort of panic on our shores, then it is all the more necessary that our Second Line should be as well prepared as we are able to get it.
And that brings me to the question of the Artillery, because it is a notorious fact admitted by everybody, that the Artillery is a branch which it is most difficult to train. It not only takes longer to train than any other, but it requires certain special circumstances and facilities to enable you to train it at all. There is no denying the fact, therefore, that if you admit that the Expeditionary Force might be called away upon very short notice, it is all the more important that the Artillery upon which the Territorial Force will have to rely should be really effective, and should not be a sham force which might simply be an encumbrance to other troops when they came to enclosed and difficult country. When we had the discussions in your Lordships' House with regard to the formation of the Territorial Force the point which I ventured to bring out as a result of my own experience and observation of several years was that I did not believe in the possibility of the effectual training of large forces of Territorial Artillery in this country. I do not in the least wish to depreciate the hard work which is done by all the Territorial Artillery, both officers and men. I join in everything which fell from my noble friend behind me and from the noble

897
Lord opposite, who spoke in favour of the spirit of the Territorial troops and the way in which they work, the keenness whit they display, and the remarkable manner in which they have improved since they came into being; but I do maintain, with regard to the Territorial Artillery, that I is quite impossible that a large force o Territorial Artillery such as we have at the present moment can have a fair chance o making themselves really efficient under the circumstances in which they have t work. The main reason is that with a volunteer force such as the Territorial Fore you are obliged to study the convenience of the members of that force. If you do riot, you will not get the men. You an obliged to study their convenience ii laying down the times that they are to come out into camp, the length of time they are to stay there, and the stringency of the regulations which you are going to impose upon them for the purpose o trying to get them to stay the full length of time. You may have all sorts of systems of fines and regulations, but any practical man knows perfectly well that if you are going to make these fines and regulations too hard or too stringent; if you are not going to allow individual cases of hardship amongst the men to be considered; if you are not going to give them leave to be absent from camp on very likely what appears to be flimsy excuses but which may be very important ones connected with their private business, you will injure recruiting, and you will not get the men. There is no getting away from that. Therefore you must administer the regulations in what may be regarded as a somewhat lax spirit. The fact remains that as long as you have this volunteer force, you are obliged to consider the convenience of the men and the officers as to when you are going to get them out to training.
The time of training, unfortunately, owing to these considerations, has to be very limited. The greater portion of the Territorial Force are obliged to come out either at Whitsuntide or the first fortnight in August. Now, what does the training of Territorial Artillery consist of? Some- times attention is called to the actual time they are in camp and the practical work they do there. That is of the utmost importance; in fact, it is quite impossible to train them properly unless you get your men in camp. At the same time I think
898
it is an exaggeration of the case to ignore too much the excellent work which is done by the Territorial troops at their head, quarters and on odd days during the year, without which it would be quite impossible for them to put themselves into such a state of efficiency as to make their time in camp really useful.
Let us see what the training of the Army really consists of. You have, first of all, your company training. You have your battalion training and your Brigade training. You harden your men by constant marches; you do night work and other sort of work, finally culminating in a great burst of autumn manœuvres where yon put to a practical test all that the men are supposed to have learned during the drill season. I submit, as the result of expel licence now extending over a good many years, that the only way in which you can get work out of Auxiliary Artillery is by making the culminating point during the year their camp, followed immediately by practice on the range. There is a good deal of work that can be taught in barracks. You can teach the ordinary Artilleryman, the gunner, five-sixths of his work in barracks, because modern gun drill is so very much mechanical, and the gunner is more or less a machine. The whole efficiency of the Artillery depends upon its working together, under the commanding officer and the officers. The whole efficiency of the Artillery depends upon the powers of observation of the commanding officer, and the efficiency of the gunners. If the commanding officer cannot be certain of the precision with which the gun layers have laid the gun; if they say they have laid it right and they have laid it wrong, it is perfectly impossible for him to have a correct observation of fire, and if his gun-layers play him tricks simply from the fact of their bad training, it is impossible for any commanding officer to conduct good gun practice with any battery. Therefore the efficiency of the Artillery depends upon the accurate preparation of the men, working, if you like, like machines, but at the same time it is absolutely necessary that the commanding officer and the gun-layers and the officers should have practised outside the barrack square, because you want to make them realise what distance targets are, and you want to teach your gun-layers that laying on a distance target 3,000 or 4,000 yards

899
away is a totally different thing from laying on a white spot on a barrack wall at 50 yards range. Those are all practical questions which very likely do not appeal to the ordinary person who has not had experience of Artillery, but the point is this, that all this work, in order to be really effective, should be followed by your camp, where you teach your men in manœuvres; and in manœuvres it is quite as important as shooting, though not quite, that you must be able to get your battery into a certain position and get it away if necessary with case and speed. At the same time it is not a bit of good getting a battery into position if it cannot shoot, but manœuvring is nearly as important as the actual shooting, and you have the practice in that culminating in what ought to be three or four days at least of actual practice upon your gun range.
One of the noble Lords who spoke tonight—I think it was 'Lord Stanhope—spoke of the drudgery which has to be undergone by the ordinary individual who comes from civil life and sets himself to work to learn the duties of a soldier. If you want men to put themselves not only to very great inconvenience in giving up their private time, but very often to considerable personal loss in neglecting their business to undergo this drudgery, it is of the greatest importance to make that drudgery as interesting as possible. If you do, you get it done twice as well. My experience is that you can make the work of Artillery fifty times more interesting if you can cultivate a spirit of emulation amongst your different batteries, and if you can close your season with gun practice, the results of which will enable you to see, and also allow the men to see for themselves, what the real efficiency of the battery is in practical work. But, unfortunately, the time is short, as I said before. You can only bring out your men as a rule at two periods in the year. The ranges available in this country are few. All the Regular forces have to be trained as well as the Territorial Force, and the result is that during the last five years practice has been absolutely spoiled for the whole of the Territorial Artillery, and has been reduced very nearly to a farce. Ever since Salisbury Plain was opened in the year 1900 I have been down there with the two batteries which I have the honour to command. For the first eight years up till the time of
900
the formation of the Territorial Force we conducted our practice upon the lines which I have mentioned. We carried out our work at headquarters, and had a great deal of drill on Saturday afternoons, in which we were greatly helped by the Horse Artillery at St. John's Wood and by odd afternoons at Aldershot, where we were also helped by the Horse Artillery, and then we went down to Salisbury Plain and finished up by having our three days gun practice upon the ranges there. I am perfectly certain that the good reputation which I am proud to think the Artillery batteries earned amongst Artillery officers was very largely caused by our being able to follow that routine.
What happened when the Territorial Force was created? There was a general scramble for the ranges, and the result was they were spoiled for everybody. The year before last we were all down at Salisbury Plain. It was impossible to use the ranges there, and batteries had to be sent down to Okehampton. They went down by night train, with their horses, arriving at Okehampton about 6 o'clock in the morning; they went on parade about 8 o'clock, fired off a great many rounds in a very hurried way for three hours in the morning, and the same thing next morning, and then went back again. They were replaced by another battery, which also came down in the night. One battery followed another at these Okehampton ranges, with the result that although we had a great many recruits that year no one got proper instruction, and I maintain that the practice was to a great extent wasted. Last year the whole of the practice that our two batteries got was confined to one day, as it was impossible to get half the batteries on to the ranges. This year we were to be permitted to go down for two Saturday afternoons to Shoeburyness—an absolute waste of ammunition and public money—for the purpose of training Horse Artillery. Fortunately I had been able to arrange something. I found there was a hiatus between two Regular brigades at Salisbury Plain just when we were in camp, and so by special favour of the officers commanding the Royal Horse Artillery Camp we were able to make arrangements to have our three days practice there this year, but it was pure chance that we were able to get on.
That sort of thing is going on all over the country, and I respectfully maintain that it

901
is perfectly impossible to train a large force. of Auxiliary Artillery upon lines of this description. One thing is most important—it is too often overlooked—namely, that you must have ample opportunities beforehand of teaching your men to ride and drive before they go down to camp. If when your men arrive in camp they are not well up in what I will call the elementals, a great deal of your time in camp is wasted, and therefore the practicability of training Territorial Artillery depends, in my humble judgment, very largely upon the locality in which they are. I do not believe it is possible to efficiently train this large force of Territorial Artillery at the present moment; but I believe if you select your place, more especially in conjunction with batteries of Regular Artillery, and where it is possible for them to go out into the country and get some experience of working in close country, which we cannot possibly do in London—and that is one reason why London is an unsuitable place for a large force of the Territorial Artillery—if you do that, you have a much better chance of making your batteries really efficient and able to do useful work when you do get them into camp.
I do not wish to labour these details too much, but still they are details upon which the whole question of Artillery training depends, and it is a great mistake to ignore the opinions of those who have had the working of them and who realise their importance. Therefore it comes down to this, that it is quite possible to have a certain number of very useful and efficient auxiliary batteries of Artillery in this country, but if you want to have and to continue to maintain the large force of Artillery which you have at present, you must be content to regard them not as efficient Artillery to your Territorial Force, but merely as a sort of reserve of men accustomed to the handling of guns and ammunition. I can tell the Secretary of State for War that that is the deliberate opinion expressed to me in private conversation of officers high up in the Royal Artillery, who have had ample opportunities of judging for themselves of the real value of the Territorial Artillery. I do not know what they may put in official reports, but very often people say a great deal more of what they think in private conversation than they do in official reports; and what I have been told by men whose judgment I am certain the Secretary of State for War
902
himself would place great reliance in is that you must not look upon the large mass of Territorial Artillery as more than reserves of men who have learned gun drill, and who may very likely be wanted as extra reinforcements to the general forces of Artillery in the event of war.
There is only one point of detail I should like to mention. It is as to whether we have not far too many of these batteries armed with field gum. I am sure it would be very much more practical to arm them instead with what is known as "pom poms," or a weapon of that description, which would be of more use, and more handy for the class of fighting which would probably go on in our enclosed country, in our country lanes and in the parts of the country where you can very often get a range of not more than about 1,500 to 2,000 yards on account of the hedge rows and the hedge-row timber. I do not believe it would be possible in many places in our eastern counties to do any good whatever with large forces of Artillery. I believe that in the event of fighting in many of our enclosed districts the Artillery work would very likely be carried on by sections of Artillery. It would not be a question of fighting Artillery in mass but in sections, and very often the work would have to be quick and sharp and the Artillery would have to be moved about from one place to another.
It would be of very great assistance if some arrangements could be made for providing a range or an exercise ground where the Territorial Artillery could have some experience of work Jin enclosed country. Take these London batteries; they never get anywhere except to Wormwood Scrubbs, Primrose Hill, or Woolwich Common. They go into camp, at Aldershot or Shoeburyness or Salisbury Plain, but they never get an opportunity of going down a country lane, or going in and out of a gate, or of manœuvring in enclosed country such as they would be obliged to move in if they were called upon in an emergency to meet a foreign invader on these shores. We never train our men to fight upon the very places which we know would only be chosen by an invading army. We give them no possible opportunities of perfecting themselves in work on enclosed country. No wonder our Territorial batteries ate found deficient in training. One noble Lord whose military opinions I know your Lordships all value

903
very much—I will not mention his name—was telling me this afternoon of an incident which came under his notice in connection with a Territorial battery last autumn. He went to look at it, and saw the gate through which they had passed on turning out of the road. He was particularly gratified that they had not carried away the gate posts, and he remarked upon this fact, but a farmer who was standing there and had seen them come through made an observation which caused the noble Lord to inquire further, and he found that they had carefully taken their horses out, and drawn the guns through the gate by hand. There was no difficulty with regard to this particular gate, but still you cannot expect troops even to try to perform simple manœuvres such as going through a gate unless you give them proper opportunities of practising.
I thank your Lordships for allowing me to give vent to these particular views on this subject. I only wish to say, in conclusion, that I cordially join with all that has been said with regard to the many good points in the Territorial scheme. I do not deny for one minute that the Territorial Forces are a very great advance upon the old Volunteer Forces. The organisation is a great improvement. The work done by the men is a great improvement. I think the County Associations were a stroke of genius on the part of the Secretary of State for War, and have been the means of bringing public interest into the life of the Territorial Force. The Officers Training Corps is a very valuable institution, and altogether the spirit and work of the men are of the very best. But we cannot expect impossibilities. We have to remember that the good points which have been praised must always be taken in conjunction with the phrase which fell from Lord Stanhope—" Under the circumstances." I do not believe that it is possible to have a really practical and efficient force of Territorial Artillery and one which can be regarded as competent to take its line and place, even after a considerable amount of training, if it is necessary to maintain so large a one as we have at present in the Territorial Artillery.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, in rising to support the Motion which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal has moved I shall confine my remarks, as the previous
904
speaker, Lord Denbigh, did, to the Territorial Artillery. I have paid some attention to this branch of the Territorial Army, and I am bound to confess that I view their slow progress with considerable concern. In saying this it is far from my desire to disparage the efforts of the noncommissioned officers and men of these batteries, for I can say with all sincerity that I have never come across more zealous and painstaking soldiers. But I honestly think, more so now than ever, that under the present system of training you will be unable to get efficient Field Artillery, and I am still of the opinion expressed by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal some three years ago that partially trained Artillery in war are useless, and only a danger to their own side.
I presume that nobody will deny that these Territorial batteries at the present moment are quite unable to take the field against trained Artillery, leaving aside entirely the very serious question of the provision of horses. I think their staunchest adherents will admit that. What we have to consider is whether under their present system of training these batteries will ever be able to reach such a standard even at the end of the six months training which our opponents are to so graciously allow us that they will be fit to meet trained Artillery in the field. I think I can convince your Lordships that, generally speaking, they will not be able to do so. I say generally speaking, because units vary to a great extent. I have in my mind one or two in a northern county and one in a midland county commanded by officers whom it would be very hard to replace, and units which are trained under these exceptional circumstances might prove of some service. I also except, of course, the Honourable Artillery Company, where the batteries have existed for many years and where there is an excellent school of training. They are commanded by Lord Denbigh, an able Artillery officer who has been a great factor in promoting their efficiency.
A battery must be able to move, and it must be able to shoot. If it fails in either respect, it is useless for war purposes. Let me first take the question of mobility. One of the lessons that we learned during the South African war was the waste of horse flesh owing, to a very large extent, to a lack of the most elementary principles

905
of horsemanship. Yet His Majesty's Government expect three untrained men—I will not call them untrained, but under-trained men—to drive six untrained horses, arid to take a ton and a half any distance and get into any position. The experiment was carried out last, autumn, when a Division was mobilised at the manœuvres, and Special Reservists were employed as drivers of the ammunition wagons. Your Lordships are, of course, unaware of the difficulties that Regular officers in charge of these men have to contend against, moving along roads with untrained horses and with drivers who have only had six months training. Can Territorial Artillery drivers be expected to do any better, particularly when you have only very inexperienced officers to assist them? The Secretary of State for War can, no doubt quote opinions of General officers on the excellence of the driving of these batteries in the past year, but I think Lord Stanhope brought out the same point that I wish to make—namely, that if you examine these reports carefully, in nearly every case you will find some such qualifying remark as "considering the amount of training," or "under the circumstances."
It must not be forgotten, also, that these batteries carried no service ammunition, which means a very great reduction of weight behind the horses. I will only add that at one practice camp last year serious delay occurred and considerable difficulty was experienced in bringing a battery into action, and that over a distance of only a few hundred yards. What will such batteries do on service? Last autumn the practice of some of these batteries, presumably the pick of them, came under my personal observation. I will acknowledge that the drill of the organised part of the service was quite good. They were quick and smart in the little details of the service, and all ranks exhibited intense keenness, but to those who know and understand the general effect was very slow. The work of the specialist was very indifferent and unreliable, the observation of fire was bad, and the results of the practice extremely poor. And this against an easy target visible to the naked eye, one that would rarely occur on service, and one that would make a Regular battery commander's mouth water. The optimistic statements on public platforms and the glowing accounts in the newspapers each year
906
give, to my mind, an entirely false idea to the public of the standard which has been achieved.
I will ask you to allow me to quote one such account, by no means the most flattering or eulogistic, to serve my purpose. The Daily Chronide at the end of last September, in describing a practice which had taken place, said—
"The tests to which le specific batteries were subjected at Okehampton were the same that would be applied to Regulars, and they were judged by Regular officers."
Of course, these batteries were not judged by the same standard as Regular batteries, neither in respect to their drill, nor the conduct of fire, nor of the length of time that they were firing. I am quite convinced that the practice shooting of the Territorial Field Artillery, as they are being trained at present and as at present constituted, will never be more than purely instructional and elementary. If it is the case that their training is carried out. as it is now under the supervision of efficient Regular officers with instructors and with horses which are easily obtainable, how in the world will they be able to reach the necessary standard after mobilisation in the stress and strain which will inevitably occur, when there will be immense difficulty in providing the necessary instructors and horses, and when all the batteries would be required to use a limited number of ranges at about the same time?
I think I am right in stating that at the present moment there are only three ranges available in this country where practice can be carried out. I am not counting the one in Ire/and. There is, I believe, no range in the north of England; it has yet, to be provided. No doubt it is partly owing to the paucity of ranges that the Secretary of State for War stated that Territorial batteries would practice every other year instead of annually. So that instead of the opportunities for shooting being increased, they will actually he diminished. To obtain anything approaching efficient Territorial Artillery you must either considerably lengthen the present period of annual training and give them more officers as instructors and a larger Permanent Staff, or you must train them on the lines of the Special Reserve by giving them their initial training of six months with a shorter period in successive years. In present conditions I do

907
not see how they are to improve themselves. The officers and non-commissioned officers have not had sufficient experience to instruct their men, and they have to rely on the Permanent Staff and the adjutants. A great many of the adjutants are subalterns of only a few years service, and it is perfectly ridiculous to suppose that under these conditions the senior ranks can be properly instructed in practical work. One thing I am quite sure of, and that is that if hard work and zeal could make a battery we should have the finest Artillery in the world, but the business of the drill book and all the rest of the work have to be applied on the field, and there is no opportunity, or very scanty opportunity, for doing this.
The Military Correspondent of The Times, in an issue of that paper last October, compared the French methods of Artillery with our own. I do not intend to express an opinion on that matter now; but I should like to mention that a very capable Artillery officer and one very well able to give an opinion wrote an article in the Artillery Journal last December, in which he explained that our Artillery had been armed on certain principles of conduct of fire, and that the adoption of the French method would probably entail the rearmament of the whole of our Artillery. But the writer of the article in The Times endeavoured to show that the simpler methods of our neighbours were far better suited to Territorials. I will ask you to believe me when I say that celerity of decision and promptness of action are of equal importance in either case, and these cannot be obtained without experience and practice, in addition to which under the French method the waste of ammunition is a very serious consideration indeed. Under modern conditions the battery gains which is quickest in finding the range and bringing an effective fire to bear on its opponent. Not only that, but it would probably be only with great difficulty that the beaten battery would be able to withdraw its guns into safety. No preponderance of numbers would be of any use, since it is perfectly possible—I know the noble and gallant Field-Marshal will bear me out—for one effective battery to silence three of its inefficient opponents. Moreover, as the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, stated, it is questionable whether we require this enormous number of batteries, whether in such enclosed country as this is we would
908
ever be able to find positions for them. We are wasting money, I maintain, on our Territorial Artillery under present conditions, and, what is far more important, we are wasting excellent personnel. We have zealous officers and very keen men, and I am firmly convinced that we could get better value out of them by using them in other arms.
I cannot conclude my remarks without referring to the criticisms of the Territorial Force by the German officer, Colonel Gädke, a summary of which appeared in most of the daily papers towards the end of last September. He thought that of the three arms the Artillery was the best, and he mentioned that the shooting left nothing to be desired. I have been at considerable pains to discover what practice this particular colonel attended, and I have been unable to learn that he attended any last year; hut taking for granted that he did, if His Majesty's Government are prepared to place any value, which I am not, on his favourable remarks, they must put an equal value upon the unfavourable remarks which he made on the troops of the Regular Army which took part in the manœuvres. One would be almost inclined to think that Colonel Gãdke wishes us to give up our Regular Army and to rely entirely on our Territorials.
There is one other quotation I should like to make before I sit down. I should like to quote to your Lordships the opinion of an officer who was not long ago one of our most gallant opponents but who is now one of His Majesty's most loyal subjects. General Smuts described what should be the military policy of South Africa at Pretoria on August 10 last year, and a month ago, in the Union Parliament in Cape Colony, he used these words in describing the military policy—
"The country did not want a large Army, but the training of citizens in a manner similar to the Swiss system with a small nucleus of a striking force which could be mobilised at a moment's notice, with a permanent corps of instructors and a permanent Artillery service."
He has learned a lesson which I hope His Majesty's Government will follow. I will not say more, except to again join in supporting the noble and gallant Field-Marshal in the Motion which he has moved. I view with considerable concern the continued tendency of His Majesty's Government to rely on these untrained batteries for service, and in saying so I believe I express the opinion of a vast

909
majority of the officers who are best able to judge in this matter.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War alluded to Lord St. Vincent having said that if an invasion of this country took place the invaders would not come by sea. But that was at a time when our superiority at sea was acknowledged on all sides, and we had many more ships and far better officers and men than the French, the French Navy, whose officers were nearly all Royalists, having been ruined by the Revolution. If Villeneuve had beaten Nelson, he would have had to win two more battles with his damaged fleet before he could have protected the landing of a French army in England. There are undoubtedly great difficulties connected with invasion, but they have been much exaggerated. It is often assumed that as much tonnage per man is required for a North Sea voyage as for one to the Cape. For instance, the noble Viscount, in his introduction to the booklet on "Compulsory Service" recently published by General Sir Ian Hamilton, quotes as an authority a most misleading article that appeared in the Contemporary Review in February, 1909, signed "Master Mariner.' The writer assumes that an invader would bring with him. 14,000 horses and any number of transport wagons. I think it unlikely that our enemy would be such an utter fool as to take the trouble to bring with him anything that he could obtain with greater facility by commandeering. "Master Mariner" can never have studied the campaigns of Wallenstein, of Napoleon, or other Generals, or he would know that there is such a thing as living on the country, and making war support war wherever the population is sufficiently dense.
An invader might be expected to bring with him guns and harness for his Artillery, saddlery for his Cavalry, bicycles for his Scouts, and plenty of ammunition. His troops could carry three days' rations on their backs, and rely on England to provide them with food, horses, carts, and wagons. With the help of various printed documents any intelligent soldier would know on what farms to find them. They would soon be as well horsed as our Territorials were at manœuvres. An enemy would not attempt to bring horses and wagons unless he had full command of the sea, or had already seized a harbour. The noble Viscount's
910
"Master Mariner" allows 200,000 tons of shipping to carry 70,000 men. That is about three tons per man. Now one ton per man, and room to lie down, is all that is required by our own Board of Trade Regulations for vessels carrying passengers to ports between Brest and Hamburg; and one ton per man is quite enough for troops coming from ports between Jutland and Brest. Being under discipline, soldiers would not crowd up and inconvenience one another as much as independent tourists would. Why a soldier should be expected to require treble the tonnage of an ordinary passenger to carry him is one of those things that I do not understand. The weight of the necessary ammunition, harness, and field pieces would be scarcely enough to ballast the ships. The requirements of a Horse Artillery Battery, without horses, amount to about thirty-five tons. Until they had captured horses, the gunners could use drag ropes, as sailors do, and take up positions to protect the disembarkation as soon as they were landed.
" Master Mariner calculates that 150 ships are to carry 70,000 men, which works out at 470 per ship. Why, we did better than that in the Crimean War. Some ships took 1,000 men from England to the Crimea. I myself came home from the Crimea in a ship with about 900 men on board besides her crew. There are many German ships capable of carrying 4,000 or 5,000 men for a short voyage. Allowing 2,000 men per ship, only thirty-six ships would be required to carry 70,000 men. If 3,000 men are taken as an average, then only twenty-four ships would be required instead of 150. "Master Mariner" talks about the convoy of ships covering at least twenty miles from van to rear. The length of a column of thirty-six ships at three cables distance, in three columns, would be under four miles, of twenty-four ships about three miles. He then goes on to talk about three weeks elapsing from the first move in the game to the day on which the invading army would be ready to advance inland. This last sentence appears to be too much even for the noble Viscount, for in a note he says that it must not be assumed that the General Staff adopts this conclusion as the basis of its preparations. If it had done so, I should consider that the General Staff had gone mad. But if the General Staff are not in agreement with "Master Mariner" why did the noble Viscount quote such a misleading authority? I should like to know where "Master Mariner" gained

911
his experience. I doubt if lie has seen much of short voyages with troops in times of pressure. Certainly he has never studied the German mobilisation of 1870, and he evidently knows nothing of the greater rapidity with which German troops can now be assembled.
Besides many other experiences of the same kind, I have served as second in command of two different troopships, and have been responsible for the details connected with the embarkation and disembarkation of thousands of troops under most varied conditions as regards climates, landing places, anchorages, and weather. I have also been present at the embarkation of troops belonging to foreign. Powers. I wonder if the Vikings and other hardy Norsemen allowed more than one ton to a man in the time of King Alfred and the other Saxon Monarchs? Many of those who believe an invasion impossible talk of the necessity of assembling armies in one place, near one harbour for embarkation, as Napoleon did at Boulogne, before railways, steamers and telegraph wires were thought of. They forget that few Continental barracks are more than five miles from a railway, and that there are at least a dozen places from which troops can be embarked between Emden and the Frisian Islands. If we can send a hundred thousand undisciplined men to a racecourse and back in a day, how much easier it must be to handle a disciplined crowd of the same number. There need be no accumulation of troops until the troopships meet at sea at a pre-arranged point. An invader's armies are by no means likely to land all in one place, but would try several places, at some of which they might not be completely successful. Harold Hardrada's failure was the chief cause of William the Conqueror's success. Had there been no battle of Stamford Bridge, we should have won the battle of Hastings. If the enemy run their troopships on shore, it will not be possible to sink them with torpedoes. Submarines will then be harmless, the troops would be safe from being drowned, and the hull of the ship would serve as a breakwater for landing the men in boats. If we were beaten, England would have to pay for the ships. Now the difficulty of bringing over an invading army increases at a greater ratio than its numerical proportion. I consider that it is four times as difficult to bring over 50,000 men as it is to bring over 25,000. So that if we are able to beat a
912
fairly large army it will never attempt to come until our naval powers of resistance have been destroyed or temporarily interfered with.
On this question of the possibility of invasion naval opinion is divided. The present system under which very few officers on the Active List express their opinions and retired officers who write or speak are denounced by a portion of the Press as holding obsolete opinions is one I that I consider to be fraught with danger to the country. Senior Naval Lords ought certainly to be unmuzzled. Naval Lords may not ask it for themselves, and personally it may be inconvenient for them that they should be, but it would certainly be to the advantage of the country. They ought to be ex-officio Peers, and retain their Peerages for life after having been Senior Naval Lords for one year. Of course the Senior Naval Lord could not be expected to attend this House regularly or to take part in public affairs unconnected with the Navy, but he could attend whenever naval questions came on, and he should while holding office, sit on the Cross Benches. I must say that I wish Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson had a seat in this House on those Cross Benches so as to be able to explain to us the full meaning of the Memorandum that has been recently published by the noble Viscount. Sir Arthur Wilson's Memorandum concludes by saying that an enemy would probably decide, as the Admiralty have done, that an invasion on even the moderate scale of 70,000 men would be practically impossible. On October 10, 1903, similar assurances were given by the Chief of the Russian Naval Staff to their own military authorities. He said—
"So long as our Fleet is not destroyed, the operations named are absolutely impossible."
Yet four months after, the Japanese armies were landing wherever they chose, regardless of a Fleet still in being. Let us hope that history will not repeat itself.
I take Sir Arthur Wilson's Memorandum as meaning that we require a standard of two and a-half keels to one as compared with any Continental Power if we are to be absolutely certain of being able to stop invasion and protect our commerce, and shall give my reasons for doing so. Two years ago I moved for a Return of the number of days in a year that our newer battleships and cruisers were in dockyard hands. The average is over three months.

913
So that you require twelve ships on our coasts to meet nine of the enemy's if you wish always to be able to meet him with equal numbers. For the weaker Power can choose the day for his sortie, leaving the stronger Power in command of the sea until the day that all his ships are ready, the day in question remaining a State secret. We ought, therefore, always to be prepared to accept his challenge on any day he may select. This gives the weaker Power an immense advantage. We should recollect that there are two exits from the North Sea, one through the Channel and another round Scotland, and that the close blockade of a shallow coast, suitable for the employment of mines, is not practicable. Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson talks about the possibility of an enemy drawing off half our Fleet. That assumes that the Admiral in command of one half of our Fleet believes himself to be strong enough to beat the whole of the enemy's Fleet if he can catch it, and that the other half of our Fleet is strong enough to beat him also if he attempts to return. Taking into consideration the ships in dockyard hands that will not be able to take a part in the contest, we should require at least a two and a-half keel to one standard if we are to be absolutely certain of being able to do this. Students of German naval literature know that schemes for dropping mines at the entrances of the naval harbours of Great Britain before this country is aware that hostilities have commenced have been worked out in detail. It will take some days to clear away these mines, and that will be the opportunity of the invader. It is true that we may go to sleep in our beds, but we may wake up some fine morning and find our harbours blocked, and our big ships unable to come out. I have seen it stated in the Press that between 1908 and 1911 we have spent £34,500,000 on new construction, as against £29,500,000 spent by Germany. This will not give us a two keel to one standard, as Germany builds almost as cheaply as we do.
Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson commences by stating that the danger of interruption of our trade and destruction of our merchant shipping is more to be feared than an invasion. There I agree with him. But if our Fleets are to be always in the North Sea because we have no Home Army, how is our trade on the high seas to be protected against the fast armed merchant-ships that will start up from the distant seas to prey upon our commerce? Every one of our
914
enemy's converted traders ought to have a man-of-war of greater power and greater speed in chase of her, shepherding her as the phrase is; and if the greater part of our ships and men are to be kept near our coasts, how can this be done?
The German Government are utilising their own Socialists by permitting them, nay encouraging them, to mislead their British comrades by inculcating a belief among them that they arc strong enough to prevent war, and thereby enabling our Socialists to preach that it is unnecessary for England to be prepared for eventualities. Our political Parties in these islands are unfortunately so balanced that it may be possible for the Keir Hardies to prevent our preparations from being made in time. But the German Socialists are but a fly on the wheel of the German Government, and will no more influence its proceedings than they did those of Bismarck in 1866. Few wars have been more unpopular than that of 1866 in Prussia, yet every man marched and fought well when the order was given. On peace being made the people forgave their Government because it had been successful. It is no new thing fog the German Government to utilise their Socialists. I recollect a speech of Bismarck' 3, who, when called to task for having in his younger days entered into a political flirtation with Lasalle, declared that he and Lasalle had many points of agreement, one of them being that Lasalle was in favour of German unity. "The chief difference between them," he said, "was that when unity was once established Lasalle would have preferred a Lasalle dynasty, whereas he (Bismarck) was satisfied with that of the Hohenzollerns." lie had utilised Lasalle, just as the German Government are utilising their own Socialists and ours. Mr. Keir Hardie and his supporters are mere puppets dancing on strings pulled by the German Government.
Not long ago I received a circular, described as a "Notable Pronouncement," signed by a number of labour leaders who objected to universal service. I should recommend them and their co-signatories to read a work recently published in the United States called "The Valour of Ignorance." They will then have a better understanding of the problems they attempt to deal with in such a light-hearted and optimistic manner. The cost of universal service will be largely, if not completely, recouped by the habits of punctuality and exactitude that will be taught to the men

915
in their early youth. Universal service would also provide us with officers. Men who objected to serving in the ranks would make themselves efficient as officers, learning their work as cadets, largely at their own expense. After 1870, substitutes were abolished in the French Army, and in consequence it is much better officered than it used to be.
I honour the Territorials for coming forward to learn what they can under the present system. But to rely on volunteering alone for a Home Army, is, I think, most unfair on the Territorials. Why should they alone pay in their own person the tax for self-defence? The whole country benefits by it. Try a volunteer Income Tax. Let those pay who choose to do so. How much would the Chancellor of the Exchequer get? No heroism that is too late can save the situation. This country can never be in the position of Spain a century ago. A thinly-populated, mountainous country may defeat a more powerful enemy by pertinacity and heroism, but in England there would be nothing left
916
to do but to sit down and starve if once a foreigner could land and seize our chief railways, or interfere with our food supplies at sea. Every man who is physically fit to serve ought to have some place in the arrangements for the defence of the liberties won by our ancestors. Every able-bodied man ought to have his station, just as in the case of a ship when the fire-bell rings. I hope the noble and gallant Field-Marshal will continue his campaign in the education of the people on this matter. I think opinion is growing, and I hope it will grow still more and that before my lifetime is out public opinion will enable the occupants of both Front Benches to take up this question prior to the disaster which we are told must happen before the question is effectually dealt with.
On Question, further debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.