Sitting of 24 April 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill, Read the third time, and passed.
Luton Corporation Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Charles Sheil's Charity Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire whether the Promoters have made adequate provision by the Bill for the supply of water at reasonable rates to the agricultural community within the area of supply, and to any person or persons from whom any existing or natural supply is, or may be, withdrawn owing to the works or undertakings authorised by the Bill; and that they further have power to insert in the Bill such clause or clauses as they think necessary to impose upon the Promoters the obligation to provide such supply.—[Mr. Stanier.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  ST. ANDREW'S AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to St. Andrew's
  1334
  Ambulance Association," presented by the Lord Advocate; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Wednesday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received the resolution passed by the Central Chamber of Agriculture regarding foot-and-mouth disease; and whether he is going to take any action in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I shall be happy to consider any observations which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, to whom the Resolution has been sent, may desire to make on the subject.

  Income Tax Collection.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state upon what dates during the present year Mr. Morgan, tax assessor, Pontypridd, visited Mountain Ash in connection with his duties as Income Tax assessor, the address of his office or place of call in Mountain Ash, and the number of disputed claims adjusted by him at Mountain Ash; and whether, as each visit paid to Mr. Morgan at Pontypridd under compulsion and threats by him involves the loss of a day's wages by workpeople and of loss and inconvenience by business people, he will instruct Mr. Morgan to visit Mountain Ash and see objectors there at a time and place which would put them to least inconvenience?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am informed that Mr. Morgan has visited Mountain Ash during this year about a dozen times in connection with his duties, namely, on January 31st, February 7th, 10th, 14th, 21st, 28th, March 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and April 4th, and also on other dates of which no exact identification is now possible and also that a considerable number of claims have been settled by him there. In order to further meet the convenience of the taxpayers, Mr. Morgan, who is both assessor and collector,

  1335
  holding his office not from the Board of Inland Revenue, but from the District Commissioners of Taxes for the locality, will be provided with an office in Mountain Ash as from the end of May next.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked what was the amount of Income Tax collected in the first eight days of April, 1896, and April, 1906?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If by the term "collected" the hon. Baronet means paid into the Exchequer, and by the term "first eight days" the first eight working days, then the figures, though not strictly comparable in all respects, are as follows:—

  1896.

  1906.

  £1,122,000

  £1,725,000

  The rate of Income Tax being 8d. and 1s. in the respective years.
  Sir F. BANBURYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state on what principle the eight railway companies who were asked to defer payment of Income Tax were selected?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The eight railway companies referred to were approached, as being the largest and most important companies, and therefore the largest payers of tax, which, as I have repeatedly explained to the House, was intended to be collected on the 30th of March.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the North Eastern Railway Company, which is a very much larger company than the majority of the other companies, was not approached.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My recollection is, although I cannot say off-hand with certainty, that the North Eastern has not got its head office in London.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why is it necessary to expedite the collection of Income! Tax from railway companies because they have their offices in London?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: An official of the Inland Revenue can visit the head office of a railway company in London, but he cannot do so if the head office is in York.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Could he not write a letter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly. I believe I that is one of the requisitions of the Civil Service Commissioners?
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Why were these railway companies asked to pay on the 30th of March instead of on the 20th or before then?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the House when, at the end of last week, I explained the matter, and stated that we were following a practice which has obtained for a considerable number of years past.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he stated on a previous occasion that the tax was not due until a date subsequent to the 20th of March, and whether in the Income Tax Act the case is not distinctly the opposite, and that the tax is due on or before that date?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of it.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Official Report?
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked what was the amount of Income Tax standing to the credit of the Commissioners or collectors on various accounts a I the Bank of England on 31st March last but not transferred to the credit of the Treasury: and at what date these sums were so transferred.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have no separate accounts at the Bank of England for the several Duties under their management; but their Departmental Cash Book showed in respect of Income Tax a cash balance of £148,000 on the morning of the 31st March and of £164,000 on the morning of the following day. Round sums of £160,000 were transferred on Income Tax Account to the Exchequer on each of those two days. I have no knowledge of the amount of Income Tax standing on the 31st of March to the credit of collectors of Income Tax?
  Captain TRYONasked whether collectors of Income Tax in Brighton and other towns of between 100,000 and 200,000 inhabitants are paid at fixed rates or by poundage; whether the payment of collectors in the whole of England is on an uniform basis; and whether the whole salaries are paid at regular stated intervals like other offices of the Civil Service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The rates of payment to collectors are regulated by the provisions of 54 and 55 Vic, cap. 13, sec. 4, which are applicable to collectors referred

  1337
  to as well as all other collectors in England. Payment of the remuneration is made in periodical instalments at varying dates according to the progress which the individual collector has made towards the completion of his yearly duties. Remuneration is to be prescribed by the Inland Revenue with the assent of the Treasury, but not less than that paid in 1890.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether the Board of Inland Revenue claims that under the statute local Inland Revenue Commissioners, in making retrospective assessments, are bound to assess all incomes at the full rate, without abatement for earnings within the limit; and, if so, seeing that this construction of the law puts a premium upon official negligence or dilatoriness in the issue of notices, inasmuch as the Revenue in such cases profits by all delays beyond the statutory date for appeal, whether the Government would undertake legislation empowering Commissioners to make retrospective assessments on the same principles as others?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Where a claim for relief in respect of the "Earned Rate" of Income Tax has not been made before the 30th September in the year for which the tax is charged, Income Tax at the full rate is chargeable. The obligation to claim is on the taxpayers, and I do not see my way to propose legislation in the matter.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is there not negligence in sending out these notices. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are cases where the omission has occurred two years running?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have been in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman as to a particular case, but I do not think I can admit there is negligence to the extent suggested.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: But are there not cases of omission for two years running?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can only say the Inland Revenue officials are required to act under the terms of the statute.
  Mr. MILLSasked the amount of Income Tax, exclusive of Super-tax, collected during the first eight days of April in each of the following years, 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As regards 1908, 1909, and 1910, I beg to refer to my reply to the
  1338
  hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on 12th instant. The corresponding figure for 1907 is £2,420,000.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether surveyors of taxes are in order in issuing notices demanding returns of income for Income Tax purposes, seeing that no Income Tax is in existence for the year 1911–12 in the absence of a Budget, or whether their action is due to another misunderstanding?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The authority for the action taken is contained in Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890.
  Captain CRAIG: Do I understand that there is a penalty attached to any person refusing to return his income until the Bill is actually passed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman likes to make the experiment he will see what the result will be.

  Industrial and Agricultural Development.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Development Commissioners will consider favourably the grant of money from the Development Fund for the purposes of industrial as distinct from agricultural development?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Development Commissioners are of course bound to consider any application coming within the scope of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909. The questions how far the purposes named in the Act include industrial as well as agricultural development, and whether any particular application is within the scope of the Act, are not questions to which it seems possible to return a general answer.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the application from the Stoke-on-Trent Council was not refused by the Development Commissioners on the ground that their powers did not include the provision of money for industrial development?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; that is not my recollection. The refusal had reference not to the general, but to the particular question proposed by the Stoke-on-Trent Pottery Association.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware I went to the Development Commissioners, and they told me that was the ground of their refusal? Can I see their letter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not know what the Development Commissioners told my hon. Friend. All I know is what they stated in their letter to me.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can I see the letter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I see no objection.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is not the money for economic developments, whether industrial or agricultural?
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Would not any grant for the purposes of industrial development be ultra vires?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: This only shows the difficulty of answering questions raised by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Gentleman opposite at question time. Surely these are matters for debate?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware I raised this question on the adjournment of the House, and got no answer.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am aware of that, and I endeavoured twice to reply to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the statement in the recently issued Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners that a considerable number of county councils have already expressed their desire to appoint organisers of agricultural co-operation if the necessary funds are placed at their disposal, he will specify which of the county councils have expressed this desire?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): Formal applications for grants for the purpose in question have been made by the county councils of

  Carmarthen,

  Cornwall,

  Glamorgan,

  Gloucester,

  Monmouth,

  Northumberland,

  Oxford,

  Salop,

  Somerset,

  Wilts,

  Worcester,

  York (West Hiding).

  In other cases the Board have been approached informally on the subject by the
  1340
  officers of the councils, but no further action has been taken on their being informed that the Board had themselves submitted proposals to the Commissioners which would enable grants to be made.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if it is the intention of the Board of Agriculture, if possible, to make grants not only to county councils, but to the Agricultural Organisation Society for this purpose; and, in that case, will it not be an additional responsibility which will not make for efficiency?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think the hon. Member must not take it that the Board of Agriculture are going to bind themselves in any particular way with regard to these grants.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Board, before applying to the Development Commissioners for a grant from the Development Fund to be applied by the county councils towards the promotion of agricultural co-operation, consulted the councils as to their financial requirements for this purpose, or whether the application of the Board was spontaneous, and based entirely on its own initiative and calculations?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Informal communications took place between the County Councils Association and the Board, before the Board submitted their application to the Development Commissioners.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, before applying to the Development Commissioners for a grant out of the Development Fund to be used for the purpose of promoting agricultural co-operation, the Board consulted the Agricultural Organisation Society as to the amount required for this purpose, the method of its application, and the proper channel for its appropriation?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No. Sir, but the Board are represented on the Committee of Management of the Society, and they were well aware of the views entertained on the subject by the more active members of that Committee.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is this a point on which the President of the Board and the hon. Baronet are in agreement?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that.

  Royal Dockyards Establishment.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, what was the number of men employed in the Royal dockyards at the time establishment was suspended and what was the number of established men; at what date was the establishment reopened, and what was the number of men on the establishment at the date of the reopening; what number of men has been established since the reopening, and how many of these men reached the age limit for eligibility for establishment during the period of the suspension; what is the number employed at the present time; and what is the number of established men?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The figures asked for are approximately as follows:—

  Number of workpeople employed in His Majesty's dockyards at home at the time the establishment was suspended

  28,295

  Number of established men

  6,978

  Number of men on the establishment at the date of reopening

  6,166

  Number of men established since the reopening

  669

  Number established who reached the usual age limit during the period of suspension.

  99

  Number of workpeople at the present time

  37,867

  Number of established men

  6,604

  The establishment was reopened on the 2nd June, 1910.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how it came to pass that it was not opened until the 2nd of June, 1910, when he told me the previous February that it would open forthwith? And can he tell me how many of those ninety-nine people who were eligible for establishment at the time, and how many of these have been established?
  Mr. McKENNA: With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. Member must give me notice, because I could not say without enquiry. With regard to the first part of the question, I refer him to the answer I frequently gave him upon the same question.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Accident).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention
  1342
  has been called to an accident to John McCafferty at 12.30 on the night of the 17th April, on the new dock works Rosyth; and whether he can state the kind of conveyance used to carry the injured man to his lodgings, and the time which elapsed from the accident till the man was seen by the medical attendant?
  Mr. McKENNA: It has not been possible in the time available to obtain the information required to enable me to reply to this and the next two questions put by my hon. Friend, and I must therefore ask him to be good enough to postpone them.

  Protection of British Subjects Abroad.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to cases of absence of ships of the British Navy when the presence of a British warship was urgently wanted for the protection of British subjects, property, and interests in British possessions or Protectorates, or British Colonies; whether a German or American warship was there or in the immediate vicinity; whether he can state instances other than those of Jamaica, St. Lucia, Zanzibar, and the present one of Lourenzo Marques, Delagoa Bay, where British subjects have had to look to the German or American flag for protection and assistance; and whether, in every instance, suitable and appropriate thanks have been tendered by the British Government to the German or American Governments for its courtesy and efficiency in protecting and assisting British subjects?
  Mr. McKENNA: In reply to the first part of the question, it is not admitted that any cases of importance have occurred in which a British warship has not been available within a reasonable time when urgently required for the protection of British subjects. It is not correct that British subjects at Lourenzo Marques have to look to the German flag for protection and assistance at the present time.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British ships were not on the spot, and may I ask whether, in view of the alleged superiority of the British Navy over the German and American Navies, is it not somewhat humiliating to this country to have to look to foreign countries for assistance, and whether the Admiralty will not take immediate steps to provide the requisite number of cruisers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a variety of questions. The hon. Member had better put them down.

  National Debt Office (Appointment of Assistant Controller).
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state at what date the post of Assistant Comptroller of the National Debt Office became vacant; what were the qualifications requisite for the post; and by whom have the duties of the post been performed during the vacancy?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The post of Assistant Comptroller of the National Debt Office became vacant on 30th July, 1910. The occupant of the post should be able to render assistance to the Comptroller-General in the legal and financial questions connected with the Department; and be capable of conducting the business of the Office during the absence of the Comptroller-General. The duties of the post have been performed during the vacancy by the present Comptroller-General.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me in how many instances previously any one has been appointed to this post who have not been previously members of the Civil Service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must have notice of that question. I do not think it would be difficult to find a precedent.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether any of the Civil servants are qualified for this post who had previously been serving in that Department or any other Civil Service Department?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; I think not.

  Sylviculture (Scotland).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if provision will be made during this financial year for carrying into effect a scheme of sylviculture in Scotland, if such a scheme is recommended by the committee recently appointed by the Secretary for Scotland; and, if so, what is the amount of the sum so allocated?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am unable to make any statement on this subject until the report of the committee has been received and considered.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does that mean that no money has been put by for afforestation in Scotland this year?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir, I meant what I said, which was that nothing could be said about the matter until the report of the Committee had been received and considered.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Has any money been allocated for the purpose of afforestation in Scotland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not the question on the Paper.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That is the question I ask.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: perhaps the Noble Lord will put a question down and give me notice.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether, in view of the difference in the administration of the Old Age Pension Act in Great Britain as compared with Ireland, any special instructions were issued to pension officers in Ireland; and, if so, will the same be laid upon the Table of the House, and thus afford an opportunity to Members of seeing how and by what means the annual income of applicants for pensions in Ireland has been ascertained?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot admit that there is any difference of principle in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland as compared with Great Britain. General instructions, in reference to the method of estimating means, were issued directing pension officers in all cases to estimate means derived from the occupation of land in Ireland on the same basis as that followed in other parts of the United Kingdom, namely, by reference to the actual stock and crops.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what occupation value is placed upon a single room in a house where the value of the whole premises is only 30s.?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. LUNDON: If it is true as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that there is no difference of principle in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in

  1345
  Ireland as compared with Great Britain, how is it possible that a man with fifteen or sixteen acres in England can obtain a pension, while a man with ten or twelve acres in Ireland cannot?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There may be a difference in the value.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an occupation rent of 1s. per week is charged on the room of a house when no rent is charged on the whole house?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether payment of pensions has been sanctioned to people who had, previous to their application for pension, held forty, and in some cases fifty, acres of land; has the Local Government Board received appeals from the pension officers against the granting of pensions in such cases by the local pension committees; and, in view of such, as stated above, being the case, by what means is the annual income of applicants arrived at?
  Mr. LUNDONalso asked whether appeals have been received against the granting of pensions to applicants who have an annual income of only £10 per year and the use of a room; and, if so, have the appeals been upheld; and why applicants whose sole income is the amount stated in the question should be deprived of the benefit of the Act?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The particulars given are not sufficient to enable me to trace the individual cases to which no doubt the hon. Member refers. I can only say generally that every endeavour is made to arrive at a fair estimate of the means of the claimants as they are required to be calculated for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act.
  Mr. LUNDONasked what evidence of age is sufficient to enable an applicant for an old age pension to become eligible under the Act when no record of the same can be found in the census returns and no baptismal certificate can be produced?
  Mr. BURNS: In the absence of documentary evidence of age the Board are willing to give consideration to any other kind of evidence which may be adduced.

  Board of Education (Meetings of Inspectors).
  Sir JAMES YOXALLasked the President of the Board of Education if at any recent meetings of His Majesty's inspectors, convened by circular from the Board, the sub-inspectors were excluded from presence at some of the meetings or parts of the meetings; and whether, in these instances, admission was given to the junior inspectors?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): It has not been the general practice for twenty or thirty years past for sub-inspectors to attend divisional conferences. Their large number would, if present, entirely alter the nature of the meetings and the kind of work that can be carried out there. As the number of junior inspectors is small this point has not hitherto arisen in their case, and they have been present at divisional but by no means at all conferences of inspectors. As their number has of late considerably increased I have already had under consideration a return to the earlier practice of restricting the divisional conferences to His Majesty's inspectors. But the decision as to the particular officers who are summoned to attend any particular conference depends of necessity upon the nature of the subjects to be dealt with, upon the kind of discussion or deliberation that is wanted at the time, and various other considerations.

  Tottenham Polytechnic.
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the fact that, of 1,344 students attending the Tottenham Polytechnic and evening continuation classes, 312 work at their employment between fifty and fifty-five hours, 113 between fifty-five and sixty, thirty-nine between sixty and sixty-five, twenty-two between sixty-five and seventy, and eight between seventy and seventy-five hours per week; and that, of the 1,344 students, 316 do not reach their homes before 7.30, 124 before eight, and sixty-one before 8.30; whether he can state if these conditions are general throughout the country; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the provision of continuative education which will place no strain upon the mental or physical powers of young people?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The particular facts with regard to the students in the technical and evening schools at Tottenham

  1347
  were first brought to my attention by my hon. Friend. I think it may be taken for granted that similar conditions prevail in many parts of the country, with the exception that the distances between the homes of students and the places where they are employed are probably greater in London and its neighbourhood than in most provincial towns. The question how best to secure opportunities for such instruction under conditions which may render it effective without imposing a strain upon the pupils which may render it more harmful than beneficial is at present engaging my attention.

  Drumree (County Meath) Postmaster.
  Mr. SHEEHYasked the Postmaster-General whether it is optional with a postmaster not to deliver letters and telegrams to a man with whom he is not on friendly terms on the grounds of insufficient address, though he has no reasonable grounds for supposing that the letters and telegrams are for another man of the same name whose position and occupation would not suggest the probability of such being sent to him; whether he is aware that Thomas Geraghty, postmaster of Drumree, county Meath, is in the habit of thus treating the correspondence of Mr. Patrick Fox; and, if so, will a stop be put to this practice?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Letters and telegrams addressed "Fox, Drumree," are, in accordance with instructions, properly treated as undeliverable for want of a true address, as there are two persons both named Fox, both jobmasters, and both living in Drumree, who lay claim to anything addressed "Fox, Drumree."

  Dublin Post Office (Staff Overtime).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state what amount of money in the way of payment of overtime, etc., to the staff at Dublin was saved by the shamrock pressure arrangements for 1911, and if he considers such a saving justified the delay to public correspondence which occurred on the occasion; will he say what punishment, if any, has been meted out to the officer responsible for the 1911 arrangements; and whether he will consider the advisability of adopting different arrangements for 1912?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A saving of £47 in overtime and trip allowances in
  1348
  Dublin resulted from the revised arrangements made this year for the shamrock pressure. These arrangements were, however, made not with the object of reducing expense, but with that of ensuring more expeditious treatment of the packets, and they appear to have been largely successful. The result of this year's arrangement will of course be taken into consideration in arranging for the shamrock pressure next season.

  Post Office (Supplementary Third Class Clerks).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Post master-General, whether, having regard to the number of patronage appointments which are being made to various departments of the Civil Service, he is considering the possibility of transferring to some of these appointments the surplus supplementary third-class clerks in departments of the Post Office, other than the secretary's office; whether, seeing that that surplus supplementary staff was created as a result of the report of a departmental committee, he will say what steps are being taken to reduce the various establishments to the authorised numbers; whether the surplus supplementary staff is awaiting with anxiety information regarding its ultimate disposal; and if he will state the amount of saving which it is anticipated will result in each Department when the staffs have been reduced to the numbers authorised in the revision following the report of the Departmental Committee?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of the disposal of the redundant Clerks referred to is engaging my attention, together with the representations which have been made to me on the subject by the officers affected; but I am not at present in a position to state what measures will be taken to reduce the establishments to the authorised numbers. The estimated savings when the revisions have been fully carried out are as follows:—

  Central Telegraph Office

  …

  £860

  Engineer-in-Chief's Office

  …

  474

  Factories Department

  …

  444

  Money Order Department

  …

  1,558

  Returned Letter Office

  …

  853

  Coronation.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, after hearing a report as to the representations of the important deputation of women trade unionists which was

  1349
  received by the Under-Secretary on Wednesday, 19th April, he had decided not to proceed further with the contemplated variation of the hours of dressmakers and others during the two months prior to the Coronation?
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the facts laid before the Home Office by the deputations recently received, he was now prepared to withdraw the Draft Order relating to the hours of work of milliners and dressmakers?
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the repeated representations made on behalf of those employed in the dressmaking trade, he would now decline to proceed further with the proposed Order varying the hours of employment during the next two months?
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in reply to the representations that have been made to him with regard to the Draft Order altering the working hours of workpeople engaged in the making of wearing apparel, he can now state if it is intended to proceed with the Order?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have received a report of the deputation which waited upon my hon. Friend and also the results of a special investigation in the subject which I ordered to be made by the lady inspectors of the Factory Department. Both reports demonstrate that while a certain number of firms and their employés would prefer the extra hour of work at the end of the day to an hour at the beginning, the great majority of the women and girls would rather desire the additional employment in the early morning; and a large proportion of the firms which might be affected did not propose to make use of the Order. In these circumstances, I do not propose to make the Order.
  Major WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements have now been made for accommodation for Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans to view the Coronation procession, beyond that on the Crimean Memorial in Waterloo Place; and what will be the total number who will be thus provided for?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Arrangements will be made for the attendance both on
  1350
  22nd and 23rd June of in-pensioners from the Royal hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham and of a representative detachment of the Veteran Reserve. Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans are included in both these categories, but I am not able to give the exact numbers at the present time. The total representation of veterans of all categories will probably exceed 1,500 on each day.
  Major WHITE: It is to include both arms of course—the Army and the Navy?
  Colonel SEELY: No doubt there will be veterans from the Navy as well as from the Army.

  Fairfield Shipbuilding Yard (Accidents).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary the number of accidents reported and entered upon the accidents register at the works, which have occurred in the Fairfield shipbuilding yard since the beginning of this year; how many of these have been fatal; and whether his inspectors have taken special notice of this yard?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of accidents at the Fairfield shipbuilding yard reported under the Factory Acts since the 1st January is 283, including three fatal accidents. The figures refer to the whole of the works, where more than 5,000 persons are employed. The works in question have received special attention from the inspecting staff, six visits having been paid this year.

  Control of the Feeble-Minded.
  Mr. JAMES PARKERasked the Home Secretary what action it was proposed to take on the report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, and whether he would consider the possibility of introducing a Bill embodying at any rate some of the recommendations contained in the report?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am most anxious for action in this field; and work preparatory to legislation is proceeding. I am not wholly without hope of being able to introduce a Bill this Session, but only universal goodwill could carry it forward into law.

  Taxi-cab (Tariff).
  Colonel YATEasked the Home Secretary whether the time had now come when he could hold out hopes of the tariff for taxi-cabs being fixed at 6d. per mile, or, at any rate, at 8d. for the first mile and 6d. for each succeeding mile?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot make any statement on this subject pending the receipt of the report of the Committee which I have appointed to inquire into the question of taxi-cab fares.

  Prince Henry Motor Cup Competition (Speed Limit).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he had received applications from any local authorities for an extension of the speed limit on public roads when the Prince Henry motor cup is to be competed for; and if he would cause full inquiry to be made with regard to the said competition before giving it is his approval?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received no applications of the kind referred to. I do not gather from the information before me that the competition is a speed competition, and I may say that I am not empowered to give or withhold any approval with respect to it.

  Brighton Workhouse.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board, if his attention had been called to the charges made against the master of Brighton Workhouse by a Poor Law officer named James Pigeon when charged at the police court for stealing from the workhouse; and if he purposes to instruct one of his inspectors to investigate the charges by means of a public inquiry into the administration of the workhouse?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter, and investigation has already been made by my officers. It is still under my consideration.

  Belmont Workhouse.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board if a labour master at Belmont workhouse, who was one of the chief witnesses against the men charged in connection with the recent riot at that place, was formerly employed by the Bermondsey Board of Guardians and dismissed owing to his being found guilty of indecent behaviour; that since the riot he has been dismissed by the Belmont workhouse authorities for a grave breach of discipline; and whether, under these circumstances, he will cause inquiry to be made as to how it was possible for a man with such a record to obtain so responsible
  1352
  a position as that of labour master at Belmont within a few weeks of a police conviction?
  Mr. BURNS: The facts regarding the man's leaving the employment of the Bermondsey Guardians are, I understand, generally as stated in the question. The Fulham Guardians did not communicate with Bermondsey when he was engaged at Belmont as his appointment was only a temporary one. When permanent appointments were made at Belmont he was given a week's notice of the termination of his temporary engagement, and I am informed that it was during this week that the breach of discipline, to which the hon. Member refers, took place. He was one of the witnesses at the police court proceedings last December, but I understand that no inmate was convicted on his uncorroborated evidence.

  Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister the names of the three Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt who meet to transact the business of the Commission, and who are empowered by the Act 58 Geo. III., c. 66, to transact such business on behalf of the whole body of Commissioners; and how such business is transacted if the three Commissioners never meet?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question—
  Mr. FELL: On a point of Order. Do you not consider, Sir, the Prime Minister should answer a question relating to the administration of one of the Departments?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): It has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. FELL: It is a question of irregularity on the part of one of the Departments?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If you can obtain the information from the Department you had much better get it direct from them.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The names of the National Debt Commissioners were supplied to the hon. Member on the 6th instant, and the Statute referred to authorises any three of them to act on behalf of the whole body. It is the practice for the Secretary and Comptroller-General to embody in the form of a Minute

  1353
  any transaction requiring the authority of the Commissioners, and to obtain the signatures of three of them before proceeding in the matter.
  Mr. FELL: May I submit that no answer has been given to my question. I asked the names of the three Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt who meet to do the business of that body. Three is a quorum, and without that they can do no business.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I pointed out that the Secretary and the Comptroller-General obtain the names of any three of them.
  Mr. FELL: Do these gentlemen meet to form a quorum?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer he would have understood that any business required to be transacted was embodied in the form of a minute and that the signatures of any three Commissioners were obtained to that minute.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if the proceedings of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt are now governed by the Act 26 Geo. 3, c. 31; and, if so, how the proceedings to be heard before such Commissioners are transacted and entered in proper books, as provided by such Act, if a quorum of the Commissioners does not meet from time to time to transact business?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Act 26 Geo. 3, cap. 31, to which reference is made, is repealed, with the exception of Sections 14 (in part), 15, and 16, which are still operative as regards the National Debt Commissioners. There are no formal meetings of the Commissioners, the business being transacted in the manner indicated in my answer to the last question.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if the portion which is not repealed is not that part of the Act which provides that the Commissioners must meet, especially with regard to making appointments?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put any questions down about those three particular sections which he wishes to ask.
  Dr. HILLIER: May I ask if these Commissioners never meet?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I answered, in reply to a question, "not within my memory."

  Public Service (Private Contractors).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if, in view of known cases of undue profit made by private contractors for the public service, and of allegations which have been repeatedly made as to profits obtained by private contractors for various items of armament, and in view also of the small number of firms which in some instances form the sole market from which the Government can draw its supplies, and of the consolidation of capitals and adoption of price agreements in British industry in recent years he will appoint a Select Committee of this House to consider and report upon the whole subject of the relations of the various Government spending departments and private contractors and the precautions taken to secure that the taxpayers' money is spent economically?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The question raised by my hon. Friend has long been engaging the closest attention of the Departments concerned. The Government see no necessity at the present time for the appointment of a Select Committee, as they have every reason to believe that the interests of the taxpayer are being carefully safeguarded.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are some hundreds of contractors in the country capable of carrying out great public works, and that only about a dozen are ever invited to tender?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There are special reasons for that.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the India Office do publish their requests for tenders in the newspapers, and that it is only other Government Departments which have this system to exclude competition?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It depends on the character and subject of the contracts concerned.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask if it is not becoming increasingly difficult for Government Departments to safeguard themselves in this matter?
  Mr. MacNEILL: May I ask whether, in reference to these contracts, the Government Departments view with peculiar jealousy offers made to them by firms whose directors are sometimes Members of this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would ask for notice of that.

  Election Petitions.
  Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the result of the election petitions for King's Lynn and Exeter, he intends to introduce legislation to remedy defects in the present law relating to election petitions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that experience shows that there are features in the present procedure which are not satisfactory and which require careful reconsideration. I cannot for the moment go further.
  Mr. MacNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in contemplating legislation in reference to this question he will take into consideration some arrangement whereby puisne judges who have been actively engaged in politics should not be on the rota of judges to try election petitions. Is he aware that chief judges are excluded under the provisions of the Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  Royal Visit to Dublin.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant facilities for discussing the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Down relating to the action of the Corporation of the City of Dublin in refusing to present an address of welcome to His Majesty the King on the occasion of the forthcoming Royal visit to Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is the only person who can give an opportunity to the House of voicing its indignation in the way indicated in my Motion? Will he not, for the dignity of the House, allow some discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is worth so much attention.

  Scottish Bills.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister if he can yet give a date for the Second Reading of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, and of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Amendment Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to give a date for the Second Reading of these Bills.
  Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to assure the House that either or both Bills will be passed this year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope they will, at any rate, get a Second Reading.

  Imperial Conference (Naval Defence).
  Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the greater exposure of the Eastern Crown Colonies to attack from the sea, and of the larger volume of the sea-borne trade of the Eastern Dependencies as compared with that of the self-governing Dominions, he will take steps to ensure that Imperial Naval Defence shall be discussed at the imperial Conference in regard to the interests of the Dependencies as well as in regard to the interests of the self-governing Dominions; and whether, in view of the influence which the naval defence of the Dependencies must, on account of their strategical position, necessarily have on that of the self-governing Dominions, he will reconsider the advisability of having these strategic problems discussed as a whole at the Conference, rather than as separate and unconnected problems at different times?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As the safety of the Eastern Crown Colonies as well as that of the self-governing Dominions depends on our power to secure the command of the sea—the discussion at the Conference of Imperial Naval Defence must naturally and necessarily involve consideration of strategical questions affecting the defence of both.

  House of Lords.
  Captain WARINGasked the Prime Minister whether he no longer anticipates proceeding with the reform of the Second Chamber on the lines indicated in the Preamble of the Parliament Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see the necessity for my hon. Friend's question, as the Government have not in any way modified their policy in the matter referred to.
  Captain WARING: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to his previous declarations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
  Captain CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the Preamble of the Bill before or after the introduction of the Home Rule Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Preamble of the Bill must be considered before the Bill passes through Committee.

  Hours of Labour (Bakehouses) Bill.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Prime Minister whether, owing to the long hours and sweating prevalent in the baking trade, he can see his way to give any facilities for the Second Reading of the Hours of Labour (Bakehouses) Bill?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The whole subject of the conditions of work in bakehouses, in regard to the effect both on the health of the workers and on the public health, is being investigated by my Department in conjunction with the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board; and until the inquiries are completed I am afraid I can make no statement on the question of legislation.
  Mr. WILKIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill at present before the House has been more than once blocked by friends of the Noble Lord? Will he use his influence with them to get the block removed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know that I have any such influence.

  Cost of Living in America.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether, for the better information of the working men of Great Britain, he would arrange that the prefatory note in the report entitled "Cost of Living in American Towns," recently issued by the Board of Trade, be printed in leaflet or pamphlet form and distributed from the various labour exchanges throughout the country?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The American report has been published in exactly the same manner as the other reports of the series, and a comprehensive summary of it appears in the Board of Trade "Labour Gazette" for this month.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Why was not that report published prior to the recent General Election? or, if the report was not ready, why was not the election postponed, seeing
  1358
  that in many constituencies throughout the country the main issue was Free Trade v. Tariff Reform?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the published reports one on the percentage of unemployment amongst unorganised workers in the State of New York for the last five years?
  Mr. BUXTON: That has, I believe, already been published, but the suggestion is well worth consideration.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked how many small holdings have been constituted by landowners since the passage of the Small Holdings Act, 1907, without the intervention of the county councils, on the occasion of farms falling vacant on their estates; and whether such holdings are included in the figures given in the recently issued Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have no means of obtaining the information required. The figures given in the annual report relate only to those cases in which applications made to a county council have been satisfied by private landowners through the intervention of the council.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Baronet consider that the statistics relating to small holdings are reliable when they omit altogether a large number granted by private arrangement?

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Provident Assurance Company has transferred its engagements to the London and Provincial Insurance Company, Limited; has any inquiry been made as to the position of policy holders under the first-named company as to the moneys paid in by them; are they properly safeguarded; whether moneys paid by them since the amalgamation have been accepted as bonâ fide payments by the agents of the company; and will the Board of Trade see that no loss is suffered by the policy holders who have paid in large sums of money on the strength of the policies issued by this company?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no exact knowledge as to the position of the Irish Provident Assurance Company. So far as I

  1359
  am aware no amalgamation has taken place between the Irish Provident Assurance Company and the London and Provincial Insurance Company, Limited; but I am informed that individual policy holders in the former company have, by agreement, been transfered to the latter company. I may add that my attention has been called to the reports of certain legal proceedings in Dublin before Mr. Justice Barton in December and January last, from which it appears that the court has approved the preparation of a scheme of arrangement by two well-known actuaries. Before, however, any such scheme can become binding on the policy holders, it must, under Section 120 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, be agreed to by a majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the policy-holders present either in person or by proxy at the meeting, and it must be approved by the court. The interests of the policy holders seem, therefore, to be safeguarded as far as possible; but it is not within the powers of the Board of Trade to see that no loss is suffered by the policy holders.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. gentleman see that no amalgamation takes place between the two offices without some opportunity being afforded for discussing it in Parliament?
  Mr. BUXTON: We have no power. It is a question of transfer of policies. The transfer cannot take place without the assent of three-fourths of the policy holders themselves, and I hope therefore they will be able to protect themselves.
  Mr. FLAVIN: What protection have they?
  Mr. BUXTON: Unless three-fourths of them agree the transfer cannot take place. Therefore if a large majority are against it obviously they can prevent it.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the policy holders of the Irish Provident Association get their money back if they refuse to become amalgamated with the other company?
  Mr. BUXTON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Nigeria (Ekiti Country).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a petition from the Olofa and chiefs of the Iloffa country in the Ekiti country, Nigeria, praying that they may
  1360
  be relieved from the oppressions under which they suffer through their country being arbitrarily divided; and if he will consider the possibility of affording them redress by restoring the country to its position as a tribal province of Southern Nigeria?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have received the petition to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have requested the Acting Governor of Northern Nigeria to furnish me with a report on the subject.

  Malta Executive Council (Unofficial Members).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State whether he was aware that the Governor of Malta had appointed Mr. Howard and Dr. Mattei as the unofficial members of the Executive Council, notwithstanding that the elected members belonging to the popular party on the Legislative Council had expressed a desire to see Mr. Howard and Mr. Muscat appointed; and whether, seeing that an undertaking was given on the 27th July, 1909, on behalf of the Government, that the members of the popular party should be consulted in making these appointments, he would communicate that information to the Governor, with an intimation that that course must be followed in future?
  Mr. HARCOURT: There are two parties among the elected members of the Legislative Council of Malta, and I do not know that one has more claim to be called the popular party than the other. Definitions of popularity are always difficult. The Governor advised that one member from each party—namely, Mr. Howard and Dr. Mattei—should be submitted to His Majesty for appointment to the Executive Council. I concurred, and advised His Majesty accordingly.
  Mr. POINTER: Did not the Under Secretary for War (Colonel Seely), when he occupied a similar position to the right hon. Gentleman, state on the 27th of July, 1909:—
  "The two new if embers will, I can assure them, be gentlemen who would hare been selected by their colleagues on behalf of what is known as the popular party in the island."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th July. 1909, col. 1066].
  If there is no popular party what was the full effect of that statement to the House?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think my right hon. Friend understated the case. There are two popular parties.

  Crown Colonies (Military Contributions).
  Colonel YATEasked the rules at present governing military contributions of the Crown Colonies, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, and Hong Kong; the revenue, less land sales, etc.; the amount of military contribution; the actual proportion which the latter bore to the former for the same Crown Colonies last year; and the revenue and expenditure for purposes of defence of the Federated Malay States?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Straits Settlements and Hong Kong contribute 20 per cent. of their revenue, less land sales, and certain other deductions, which it would take too long to specify, and Ceylon contributes 9½ per cent. of its revenue, with similar deductions. The maximum contribution is, however, limited in the case of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements to the cost of the garrison; and in that of Ceylon to three-fourths of the cost. The last year for which figures are available is 1909. In that year the revenue of Hong Kong, less land sales, amounted to $6,732,529, and the military contribution to $1,210,739; the revenue of the Straits Settlements to $8,708,942, and the contribution to $1,582,262; the revenue of Ceylon to Rs.38,169,494, and the contribution to about £86,000. Ceylon also provides the cost of land and buildings required for military purposes. The revenue of the Federated Malay States for 1909, less land sales, amounted to $24,962,617, and the expenditure on defence to $448,213.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State whether the military contributions of the Eastern Crown Colonies are regulated solely with regard to immediate local requirements as to military garrisons; whether, in the case of Ceylon, these latter are greatly minimised by consideration of the nearness of India and of the security of Singapore and Hong Kong; whether this system of fixing contributions results in this Crown Colony expending on defence a very much smaller proportion of its revenue than do the other dependencies mentioned above; whether, with due regard to the financial position of Ceylon and to the fact that the security of the Eastern Dependencies and of their seaborne trade depends on naval as well as military defence, he will consider the advisability of treating the contribution of Ceylon as a defence rather than as a purely military contribution, and of putting it on a footing as regards proportion
  1362
  of revenue similar to that of the other Eastern Crown Colonies with a view to the provision of more effective naval defence in the East; and whether, in consideration of the financial resources of the Federated Malay States, and the protection they derive from other imperial units, he will consider the practicability of securing some form of co-operation on their part for the same purpose?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Under the arrangement which has been in force for about fifteen years the maximum limit of the military contribution in the case of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements is the whole cost of the garrison; in the case of Ceylon, for special reasons, it is three-fourths of the cost. The strength of the garrisons and the contributions of the colonies are determined by a variety of considerations, both imperial and local, which it is impossible to discuss by way of question and answer. The Federated Malay States, although they are not British territory, already make a very substantial contribution to the defence of the Empire by maintaining, in accordance with the Federation Agreement of 1895, a highly efficient regiment (the Malay States Guides) which is intended to reinforce the garrison of Singapore in time of war.

  Beerhouse Compensation (American Stores Stepney).
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in August last, determined the compensation to be paid in respect of the American Stores beerhouse, Stepney, at £530, although the total trade done at 14s. per barrel profit only produced £62 10s. per annum, and the county licensing committee for the county of London had considered £80 amply sufficient to compensate all parties for the extinction of the licence; whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue gave the county licensing committee, or its valuer, an opportunity of appearing before them before allotting this sum of £530; and whether, in the future, the county licensing committee will always be invited to-appear before the Commissioners before the amounts to be paid in cases of compensation referred to the Commissioners are determined?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second and third parts, it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,

  1363
  before making their award, to invite both the Compensation Authority and the persons interested in the award to make a full statement of all circumstances relevant to a proper determination of the compensation value, and this practice was followed in the case to which the hon. Member refers. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

  Dublin Police Bill (Sunday Drink Traffic).
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the areas to which he proposes by Clause 4 of the Dublin Police Bill to restore Sunday traffic in drink comprise four parishes with a population of about 20,000 people; that they have had total Sunday closing since 1878; that the Dublin Corporation Act, 1900, which added them to the city, expressly preserved the exemption from Sunday drink traffic in those areas; that the clergy, temperance societies of all denominations, and the respectable inhabitants are strongly opposed to the change; and is there any precedent in modern British legislation for the reopening on Sundays of public-houses where they have been closed on Sundays for over thirty years.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts mentioned in the first three paragraphs of the question. Resolutions have been received in opposition to the proposed change, but there is a precedent for it. It is a great anomaly to have a small part of the Metropolitan Police District deprived of the power which is granted to by far the greater part of the area.

  Police Tax (Ballybeg Farm Dispute).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a resolution of the Strokestown guardians and council protesting against the police tax occasioned by the employment of extra police in connection with the Ballybeg farm dispute, caused by the action of Government officials in transferring to this farm the present occupants from an adjoining county, in view of the fact that the late owner in disposing of it expressly requested that it should be divided among his congested adjoining tenants?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My right hon. Friend has received the resolution referred
  1364
  to. There is no foundation for the statement that the late owner of Ballybeg farm, in disposing of it, expressly requested that it should be divided among his congested adjoining tenants,

  Bee Pest (Importation into Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked whether the bee pest in the Isle of Wight is that known as foul brood; whether it is spreading to the mainland; and if any steps have been taken by the Irish Board of Agriculture to prevent the importation of queen bees from infected areas into Ireland?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The disease known as foul brood or bee pest, which the Department of Agriculture have power to deal with under the provisions of the Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, is totally distinct from that known as the "Isle of Wight Bee Disease." The latter disease has now spread to the mainland of England, but it has not yet appeared in Ireland. The Department have no powers under which they could prohibit the importation of bees or bee-keeping appliances from Great Britain, but they have recently issued a notice warning Irish beekeepers against the danger of purchasing bees and bee-keeping appliances from districts in Great Britain other than those in which it is known that disease does not exist. They have also issued a memorandum to all inspectors appointed under the Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, giving particulars as to the symptoms of the Isle of Wight Bee Disease and instructing the inspectors to watch for any signs of this disease.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Irish Department of Agriculture for the protection of Irish bee-keepers co-operate with the Board of Agriculture in this country?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Yes; I have no doubt where it is possible they would do so as a matter of course.

  Police and Evicted Farm (County Waterford).
  Mr. O'SHEEasked the Chief Secretary what numbers of policemen were brought to guard the evicted farm of Michael Veale, in Old Parish, county Waterford, on Sundays the 9th and 16th instant; what is the principle on which the property of an Irish landlord is regarded as deserving of special protection even from the possibility of being slightly trespassed upon; whether, at the time various contingents of police were being conveyed to the

  1365
  vicinity of this farm on the 16th instant, a case of housebreaking occurred in Dungarvan, and property was stolen; whether the police have any time left to protect the property of the general community when their services are requisitioned to preserve the grass on derelict farms where there are no cattle to graze the same; has any person been made amenable for the burglary referred to; what is the cost of the concentrating of the police on the 9th and 16th instant; and who is to bear it?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Thirty constabulary were employed on the 9th April, and seventy on the 16th April, to prevent intimidatory meetings being held on the farm from which Michael Veale had been evicted. They were not there to prevent trespass, and the ordinary duties of the police in Dungarvan were not interfered with. A case of burglary which occurred in that town on the 16th April was immediately investigated by the police, but no person has so far been made amenable. The cost of the police employed on the two occasions referred to will be paid out of the Constabulary Vote, and no portion of the expense will fall upon the local rates.
  Mr. DAVID SHEEHY: Will the landlord of this farm be required to contribute any portion of the expense of these policemen?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The answer is already contained in the reply I have given, namely, the cost will be borne by the Constabulary Vote.
  Mr. O'SHEE: Who was it who was anticipated would be intimidated? There was nobody in charge of this farm. The landlord lives in London, and the agent fifteen miles away. Who was to be intimidated?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The police authorities came to the conclusion that the whole object of the meetings was to intimidate, and so they took action.
  Mr. O'SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the police who they anticipated might have been intimidated? The only living animals on the farm are the sea gulls that fly over it.

  8th Hussars (Discharge of Thomas Curran).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will order the discharge of Thomas Curran, New Boss, who enlisted under age, having joined the 8th Hussars on the 4th April last, although he
  1366
  will not be eighteen years of age until the 1st September next, and who wishes to go back to his former employment; whether his mother, who is a widow with two younger children, and whose principal support he is, has demanded his discharge; and will he comply with the widow's request?
  Colonel SEELY: The application for the discharge of Thomas Curran was sanctioned on the 13th instant, and his discharge was carried out on the 22nd instant.

  Veteran Reserve.
  Major WHITEasked what are the conditions as to age limit and health qualifications for service in the Veteran Reserve; and what objects this Reserve is expected to fulfil?
  Colonel SEELY: The Veteran Reserve is a register of trained officers and men organised under the auspices of the county associations, and encouraged by the military authorities with a view to increasing the military resources for national defence. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the Provisional Regulations issued last May, and the memorandum subsequently issued to the county associations, which explains in greater detail their position and qualifications, and the probable methods of utilising their services.
  Major WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans have been advised to join the Veteran Reserve if they wish to secure places in the procession? What use will they be to the military resources of this country?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know anything about that, but I do know it is hoped that all classes of men will join the Veteran Reserve for social purposes, apart from national defence, as explained by my Noble Friend in this House.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What have social purposes to do with national defence?
  Colonel SEELY: I think everyone who knows the working of our military institutions knows that they have a great deal to do with it.
  NEW MEMBER SWOKN.—John Deans Hope, esquire, for the County of Haddington.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Has the Prime Minister anything to add to the statement he made on Thursday with regard to the business for to-morrow and Wednesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: My original statement holds good. The Parliament Bill will fee taken to-morrow, and at the morning sitting of Wednesday.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on the Parliament Bill, if under discussion at eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 138.

Division No. 168.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Ginnell, Laurence

Millar, James Duncan

Acland, Francis Dyke

Glanville, Harold James

Molloy, Michael

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Money, L. G Chiozza

Alden, Percy

Goldstone, Frank

Mooney, J. J

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, George Hay

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Morrell, Philip

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Hackett, John

Muldoon, John

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

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

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hancock, John George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Neilson, Francis

Barnes, George N.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nolan, Joseph

Barton, William

Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Beale, William Phipson

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Beauchamp, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. Geo.)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bentham, George Jackson

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Doherty, Philip

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Henry, Sir Charles S.

O'Dowd, John

Black, Arthur W.

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

Ogden, Fred

Boland, John Pius

Hinds, John

O'Grady, James

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hodge, John

O'Malley, William

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Shee, James John

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Byles, William Pollard

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Johnson, William

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jones, Edgar R (Merthyr Tydvil)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Clough, William

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Joyce, Michael

Pointer, Joseph

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Kelly, Edward

Pollard, Sir George H.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kilbride, Denis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cotton, William Francis

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Crooks, William

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

Crumley, Patrick

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Cullinan, John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pringle, William M. R.

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

Radford, G. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Logan, John William

Reddy, Michael

Dawes, J. A.

Lundon, Thomas

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Delany, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dillon, John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Doris, William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Duffy, William J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robinson, Sidney

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rowlands, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Callum, John M.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Scanlan, Thomas

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Manfield, Harry

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Essex, Richard Walter

Marks, George Croydon

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Falconer, James

Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

Fenwick, Charles

Martin, Joseph

Sheehy, David

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ffrench, Peter

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shortt, Edward

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Menzies, Sir Walter

Spicer, Sir Albert

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Wilkie, Alexander

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wardle, G. J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Tennant, Harold John

Waring, Walter

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Toulmin, George

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Walters, John Tudor

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

NOES.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Frewen, Moreton

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

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gardner, Ernest

Newman, John R. P.

Astor, Waldorf

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Baldwin, Stanley

Gibbs, George Abraham

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gilmour, Captain John

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Gordon, John

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Barnston, Harry

Greene, Walter Raymond

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Gwynne, R S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bigland, Alfred

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rothschild, Lionel D.

Bird, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Royds, Edmund

Bottomley, Horatio

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Hills, John Waller

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Campion, W. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Spear, John Ward

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cassel, Felix

Ingleby, Holcombe

Starkey, John Ralph

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cave, George

Jowett, Frederick William

Stewart, Gershom

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Swift, Rigby

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sykes, Alan John

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lane-Fox, G. R

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lansbury, George

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Larmor, Sir J.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast North)

Craik, Sir Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootie, Lanes.)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Croft, Henry Page

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Dalrymple, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

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

Valentia, Viscount

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ward, Arnold S (Herts, Watford)

Doughty, Sir George

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Duke, Henry Edward

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Mackinder, Halford J.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fell, Arthur

Malcolm, Ian

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mallaby-Deely, Harry

Younger, George

Fleming, Valentine

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Stanier.

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Eighth Day.]
Bill considered in Committee.—[Progress, 20th April.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Eighth Day.]

  CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills.)
  (1) If any Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by the House of Commons in three successive Sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each
  1370
  of those Sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords has not consented to the Bill: Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  (2) A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed

  1371
  by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses.
  (3) A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding Session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session.
  Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third Session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords.

  HOME RULE.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: On a point of Order. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that an Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, and dealing with the same subject as the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale) has been omitted from the Paper. This is the second time on which Amendments have been omitted from the Paper. They were reinstated on my making representations to the Clerk of the Table. I should like to know whether this practice of omitting Amendments dealing with the same subject as other Amendments on the Paper is to be continued?
  The CHAIRMAN: Where was the Amendment of which the Noble Lord gave notice?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The Amendment was after the word "a" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill "] to insert the words "Bill establishing a legislature for any part of the United Kingdom, or a Bill repealing or altering the powers of any such legislature, or a "—That is an entirely different proposal, and
  1372
  it has been removed from the Paper without any representation being made to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord has not answered my question. I wish to know what word it was before?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: It was before "Money" and after "a."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment moved the other night by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) takes us to a later point in the Bill than those words, and that is why the Noble Lord's Amendment is not on the Paper.
  Mr. LONSDALE: I beg to move after the second word "Bill" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill "] to insert the words "or a Bill to establish a separate Parliament and Executive for Ireland."
  I propose by this Amendment to exclude entirely from the operation of this Bill any measure of Home Rule for Ireland. In other words, I desire to see the question of Home Rule removed altogether outside the region of this controversy. If this can be done, if we can be assured that no attempt will be made to satisfy the demands of the Nationalist party, during the time the Second Chamber is in a state of suspended animation, then I venture to think that the greatest obstacle to a final settlement of the constitutional question will be removed. I cannot say that I make this proposition with much hope that it will be accepted by the Government. I have no doubt there are several hon. Gentlemen on the Radical benches who would feel very much more comfortable in their minds if Home Rule could be postponed. But that is the last thing the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) will permit. Indeed, it is on this point that the Nationalist Leader has been most dictatorial.
  "We will not tolerate any postponement of the question."
  That is what he said at Chicago.
  "We will make the Government toe the line."
  That was his elegant phrase at Buffalo. The hon. and learned Gentleman has also said:—
  "If, when the veto of the House of Lords is abolished, the Liberal Party go back upon their pledges to Ireland, we will hurl them from office."
  That is a clear and explicit declaration, and it is not surprising to find that the Government have made a virtue of necessity. The Prime Minister has toed the line. The right hon. Gentleman has stood at that Table with an independent

  1373
  bearing which I am afraid has disguised a subservient soul, and he has declared that the first task to be undertaken after the Veto Bill has passed is a measure of Home Rule for Ireland.
  Although I do not cherish any illusions as to the fate of this Amendment, I move it as a matter of duty, and I believe I shall be able to support it by the most convincing arguments. I presume it would not be in order for me upon this Amendment to argue the pros and cons of the Home Rule question. At all events I have no intention of doing so. We on this side believe that Home Rule would be ruinous to Ireland as a whole and fatal to the liberties of Ulster and the loyal minority. We believe further that it would involve serious dangers to Great Britain and be absolutely destructive of Imperial unity. On the two occasions when it was submitted to the electors as a clear and definite issue the people of the United Kingdom showed in the most unanimous manner that they are utterly opposed to Home Rule.
  4.0 P.M.
  There is not a scintilla of evidence that the country is now prepared to reverse that verdict. So far as the last three elections have any bearing upon this question, the results go to prove that the electors are still of the same mind as they were in the years 1886 and 1895. What happened in 1906? The Radical party deliberately placed Home Rule outside their programme, and they were returned to this House with a majority of seventy-six over all other parties combined. In 1909 the Prime Minister made his famous Albert Hall speech. Speaking for his party, he resumed liberty of action on the Home Rule question. He went further, and gave a pledge to deal with it, and laid down a formula, which appears to him so perfect that he is not able to improve upon it. What was the effect of that declaration upon the country? In the General Election of January, 1910, the Radical party lost 100 seats. Their independent majority was swept away. The Government were placed in a position of subservience to the Nationalist party, and the December election did not relieve them from their humiliating position.
  The Prime Minister—when he introduced this Bill—spoke boastfully of his majority of 120 for the United Kingdom, and of sixty in Great Britain. But why did he stop short in his analysis? What has become of his majority in England? England is the predominant partner in the United Kingdom, and England still re-
  1374
  turns a majority of Unionists. I maintain that these facts and considerations justify our belief that if Home Rule ware submitted as a definite issue to the electorate—whether by a Referendum or a General Election—the verdict would be unchanged. No one knows that better than the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) himself, and that is why any suggestion of submitting Home Rule to the electors is so repugnant to him. We deny that the Government have any mandate to deal with Home Rule. Whatever may be said of the authority which they claim to have received to settle the constitutional question, it is a preposterous contention on their part that the country has declared itself in favour of Home Rule. Home Rule was not so much as mentioned in the election address of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Minister for Education, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Postmaster-General, and fifteen other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who occupy positions of less responsibility in the Government were equally reticent.
  An hon. Member of this House has examined 883 election addresses, and he has given the results of his investigation in a letter to "The Times." Of 432 Radical and Labour candidates in England and Wales at the last election 241, or 56 per cent. of the total, made no reference whatever to Home Rule in their election addresses. In other words, 44 per cent. of the Ministerial candidates made no allusion to this subject at all; and it is a remarkable fact that there was a larger proportion of defeats among the Radical candidates who declared themselves to be Home Rulers than among those who preserved silence on this subject. In fact, throughout the election, Members of the Government and of the Radical party said as little as they possibly could about the Irish question, and it is both absurd and dishonest for them to pretend now that they have authority from the electors to pass a Home Rule Bill into law. I must say I agree most profoundly with one sentence which I find in the report of a speech made by the Chief Secretary, at Bristol, on 1st December. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Home Rule is one of the questions which ought to-he left to the judgment of the whole people."
  I am satisfied to base my case for this Amendment upon that contention.
  The Government, however, do not intend to leave Home Rule to the judgment

  1375
  of the people. The programme which they have laid down—or which has been arranged for them by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford—is somewhat on these lines: Having abolished the Veto, a Home Rule Bill may be brought in early in the Session of 1912. It may be taken for granted that the measure will be strenuously opposed in this House. It must reach the House of Lords a month before the end of the Session. To accomplish that it will be necessary to prolong the Session to an inordinate length, or to adopt the custom which has been very prevalent in this Parliament of curtailing debates in this House. Whichever of these courses the Government may adopt the House of Lords may quite reasonably contend that a bare month is not sufficient for the consideration of what must be a long and complicated measure—involving questions of the highest constitutional importance. They may reject the Bill on those grounds. That will be rejection No. 1. If the same Bill is brought in again in 1913, it will no doubt be passed by a most summary process through this House, and the House of Lords may then give it a thorough examination, but I anticipate they will reject it. That will be rejection number two. Then, in 1914, the Bill may be brought in a third time under the Closure—thrown at the heads of the Lords under a time limit, and, if not passed by them, will, in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, become law—in about three years from the present time.
  I ask the Committee is it to be expected that the people of Ulster and the Loyalists of Ireland will recognise the validity of a law passed under such conditions? They would, of course, regard it as having no moral sanction whatever. They have declared already that if an Irish Parliament is set up they will not acknowledge its authority, and they will neither obey its decrees nor pay its taxes. I venture to say that if Home Rule is forced through—without a mandate and under a mutilated Constitution—this House, and the Government responsible to this House, would have no moral right to coerce the people of Ulster. The Prime Minister has said a great deal about the safeguards which he claims to have provided against the risks of Single-Chamber Government. He says, first of all, that a House of Commons may outstay its mandate; or it might pass a Bill by a small and accidental majority; or it might force through a piece of hasty and slovenly legislation.
  1376
  What are the right hon. Gentleman's so-called safeguards? He proposes to shorten the duration of Parliament. He proposes to allow a delay of two years in cases where the Suspensory Veto is brought into play. He says, in the third place, that every House of Commons has power to reverse the legislation of its predecessor. It is not my purpose on the present occasion to discuss the question whether these safeguards are a sufficient protection against the dangers which the Prime Minister admits might arise. I will only venture to say this—that for a statesman of his position and experience the right hon. Gentleman shows a curious levity of mind when he contemplates, with apparent unconcern, successive Parliaments busily engaged in undoing the work of their predecessors. But whatever view we may take of these so-called safeguards, the point I wish to make is that they have no sort of application to a measure of Home Rule. The Prime Minister says:—
  "It is certain as daylight that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 a new House of Commons both could and would reverse legislation which had been shown by a General Election to be opposed to the will of the mass of the electorate."
  The Committee will observe that the right hon. Gentleman admits there is a hundredth case to which the power of reversal could not be applied; and I think it will be generally admitted that Home Rule would come within this category. I submit, therefore, that in this Parliament Bill the Government have ignored entirely the greatest danger which could possibly confront us under a Single-Chamber form of government; that is to say, the danger of a House of Commons, controlled by a Government, which in its turn is absolutely dominated by a faction, and forced to pass legislation which has not been approved by the majority of the electors, and which, if once passed, could not be reversed. That is the situation which confronts us to-day. This Government is at the mercy of the Nationalist party; a party which, as one of its own Members admitted on the Second Beading of the Bill, constitutes an alien and hostile element in this assembly. They care nothing for the British Constitution or the British Empire. Their purpose is to smash the Constitution in order that they may dismember the Empire The Government not only make light of this danger, but they seem determined to throw down the great Parliamentary barrier which has for so long stood between the Nationalist party and their goal. That is why I move to place Home Rule outside the scope of this Bill. If the absolute Veto

  1377
  of the House of Lords is to disappear, let us at least preserve means by which the Veto of the people shall be effectual in a matter of this supreme magnitude. What does the country know of the details of this stupendous change which the Government propose shall be made in the Constitution of the United Kingdom?
  The Prime Minister has told us there is to be an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive responsible to that Parliament. Beyond that we know very little indeed, except that this Irish Parliament and Executive are to have control of all Irish affairs. But we know quite enough of the intentions of the Nationalist party to convince us that any scheme of Home Rule which they will accept will not settle the Irish question. It will certainly bring about a bitter conflict between the two races in Ireland. It will, beyond question, increase irritation and ill-will between Nationalist Ireland and Great Britain. Home Rule will be worked by the Nationalist party to drive Ireland towards what the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford described last year at Buffalo as the "great goal of national independence." The Member for Waterford and other Members of his party have during the last few weeks been exhibiting themselves as models of loyalty and toleration. They appear to imagine that by a lavish display of rhetoric they can efface the memory of crime and outrage, of countless acts of disloyalty and of repeated demands for separation which are associated with the Nationalist movement. I think they overrate the effects of their own eloquence; and they certainly underrate the intelligence of the British public. At all events, we who represent the Unionists of Ireland demand that, before Home Rule is carried into law the people of the United Kingdom shall be invited to pass judgment upon it, with a full realisation of all that it means, and the vital consequences which it must entail. The Prime Minister talks glibly about maintaining the "indefeasible supremacy" of the Imperial Parliament, and he appears to think that having coined the phrase he has laid once and for all the bogey of separation.
  I would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: How does he propose to make that "indefeasible supremacy" effectual when he is proposing to destroy the Second Chamber for all practical purposes? When this Veto Bill has passed—if it does pass—the House of Commons alone will remain as an effective force in the Government of the Empire.
  1378
  This House may be in the future, as it is now, under the dominance of the Nationalist party, determined to weaken the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and to secure complete independence for Ireland. How would it be possible to maintain the "indefeasible supremacy" of the Imperial Parliament in those circumstances? The difficulties and dangers of Home Rule cannot be disposed of simply by calling them "unsubstantial nightmares," as I think the Prime Minister called them. They will prove real and tangible, and I submit that this House owes it to itself, and to the people of the United Kingdom, to make quite certain that the will of the electors is effectively ascertained, before establishing a system of Home Rule, which, once granted, it would be beyond the power of any Government and of any Parliament to withdraw.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The question which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite is one in which the Labour party takes special concern. I am not going to follow the hon. Member into his discourse upon the merits or demerits of Home Rule. We will deal with that in about a year from now. The question which has to be settled by the Committee on the present occasion is whether—using the much misunderstood and too frequently used word "mandate"—the mandate which the Government received includes a mandate to pass Home Rule under the cover of this Parliament Bill. Dealing with this question of mandate, I am not quite sure whether the inferences drawn from the two Home Rule elections, in which Liberal Governments were defeated, are very sound. I have noticed for a great many years past that hon. Members opposite are not exceedingly anxious to analyse their own election addresses in those two elections. I remember very well an experience I had. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who now represents the two Scotch Universities, and then represented Inverness Boroughs (Sir R. Finlay), was a candidate. I happened to be a member of his constituency during the second of those Home Rule elections, and I walked one afternoon along the Priory of Beanley Road, and on the way I was confronted by a number of large bills announcing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a candidate, and also detailing his programme. There were other bills which attracted my attention, but not a single one of them referred to Home Rule. The

  1379
  most frequent appeal was, I remember, "Vote for Finlay and Social Reform." I was also compelled, quite recently, for other purposes than this debate, to go very carefully through the speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham during those years. Going through those speeches, without the least touch or taint of partisan feeling—because this was not for political purposes at all—I was very much struck by the fact that if the Unionist party of that day received a mandate that could be covered by the great political speeches delivered by the leaders of the country, that mandate to the Unionist Government was far more in favour of Old Age Pensions than a stand against Home Rule.
  What was the result? The people of the country waited twenty years before they got Old Age Pensions, and then they got them from the other party and not the Unionist party. I only recite these points because I dare say to-day we shall hear a great deal about mandates. We have heard a great deal already, and I suppose the cry will be renewed this afternoon. I refer to the last contest when the Liberal Government was defeated apparently upon a Home Rule issue to remind this House that mandates are things which are very easily talked about, but which are exceedingly difficult to define. Then there is another interesting light upon mandates. I do not know if my election address was one of those supervised by a writer of German mind, whose letter appears in "The Times" of this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I mean "German mind" in another sense than that in which it is apparently understood by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am exceedingly sorry, and only this moment it has flashed across my mind that my words might have a double meaning. What I mean is that the "German mind" is a mind that goes laboriously into details, and I mean the words in that sense, a complimentary sense I think. I thought the peculiar type of mind that went through some hundreds of addresses in order to analyse and classify them was a German mind. I am exceedingly sorry if any other possible meaning was likely to attach to my words; it was not intentionally on my part. In his detailed labours, analyses, and investigations I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman examined my election address. If he did he would dis-
  1380
  cover that I did refer to Home Rule. My address, as originally drafted, did not include a reference to that subject, and it was only when I got my proof of it that I inserted a paragraph about Home Rule. Why? Not because I regarded Home Rule as occupying a secondary position at all in the election, but because I had assumed all through that this Parliament Bill, if we got a mandate to pass it, involved everything.
  I am bound to confess that I assume that the British elector has got a certain amount of common sense, and that if you asked the British elector to vote for something which gives this House larger authority than it ever has had, and something that puts this House in a sovereign position of the Constitution, that the British elector knew perfectly well that certain things were going to happen as soon as the Parliament Bill was carried, and that one of the things that was bound to follow was a measure giving Home Rule to Ireland, and various other things as well. I am borne out in that' contention by the addresses of Conservative members themselves. I happen to have the honour of being represented in this House by two Conservative Members. In both their election addresses they appealed to me to vote for them because, if I did not, Home Rule would be sure to come. I did not vote for them, and one of the reasons why I did not vote for them was that I wanted Home Rule to come. I am bound to assume that the great mass of the intelligent electors voted in precisely the same way. We knew perfectly well that the Parliament Bill was not an end in itself, and that certain things were bound to follow the passing of the Parliament Bill, and that any mandate given to the Government to-pass a Parliament Bill included a mandate to pass certain other first-class proposals on the Liberal legislative programme. That is not the whole situation. I feel convinced, and I am not at all sure that I shall not carry with me the assent of a good many Members opposite, that the time has now come when a substantial number of people who voted Unionist previously are convinced that something must be done for the establishment of some kind of Home Rule in Ireland. From the point of view of this House we must have Devolution, from the point of view of Imperial organisation we must have Devolution. The very interesting series of speeches delivered in this House last Wednesday night had the Devolution

  1381
  idea in the background. You cannot have Imperial Federation until you have some system of Home Devolution.
  That is not all, we are congratulating ourselves at the present moment that the Foreign Secretary has advanced the Peace propaganda to a stage that it has never reached before; we all devoutly hope and rejoice at the beginning of the settlement of a treaty of peace between the United States and ourselves that will make war between ourselves and the United States absolutely impossible. How is that possible? It is because hon. Members opposite believe that within twelve months a responsible Government is going to produce a Home Rule Bill. It is possible simply because the idea of Home Rule being about to be granted, and of some substantial measure of justice being done to Ireland, has so seized upon the mind and imagination of our hon. Friends' compatriots abroad that they are willing to unite with the other sections of the American people in order to make that treaty possible. If you take home affairs, if you take Imperial affairs in relation to the world, and if you take the forces of peace and war all over the world, Devolution, Home Rule, and the prospects of something being done in connection with both are the most precious things that are aiding our Ministers at the present moment. To return to the question of mandate, which, after all, is really the only question with which the Committee need concern itself to-day, there is not an elector in the country, I do not care how mean his intelligence that voted for the Liberal, Labour, or Nationalist candidate at the last Election that expected there was to be any exception to the scope of, this Bill. They were naturally encouraged to come to that conclusion. I know that so far as I was able to keep trace of the contest, this was the one point I kept my mind most vigilant upon. I think I read every speech delivered by the Prime Minister, and wherever this question was raised no expectation was given to the weak-kneed elector, but that everything he was afraid of was going to follow, so far as it was on the Liberal programme, as the result of a mandate in favour of the Parliament Bill. The Parliament Bill, he was told, was going to come into operation at once, and as soon as it came into operation he was informed that the Liberal programme was going to be put into operation. Nothing could be clearer from that very set of speeches, and if mandates mean anything at all, then undoubtedly
  1382
  the Government has got a mandate to accept no exception either of Home Rule, Disestablishment, or anything else.
  Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, was perfectly explicit in his Albert Hall speech, and that was admitted by the hon. Member who has just spoken for Ulster. The Liberal party came into office in 1906, pledged not to raise the question of Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in opening his appeal to the country, at the end of that Parliament said perfectly clearly that Home Rule again took its place on the Liberal programme. What more do you want to have? But that is not all. That pledge was repeated and reiterated in the election of December last year; it was supported by the speeches and the addresses of hon. Members opposite, and it is really an insult, if I may put it in that way, to the intelligence of the electors of this country to come and tell us to-day that those of us who are in favour of the Parliament Bill and in favour of Homo Rule have only got a mandate for one, and that a doubtful one, and no mandate for the other at all. As a matter of fact, so far as the imperfect machinery of elections can ever be a mandate, and in so far as you will ever be able to get a mandate in a country like this, with its huge population and its complexity of interests, in so far as any political machinery can ever be devised which will enable any majority in this House to come and say to the whole House, "We have got a mandate to carry out a programme," then the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and those who are going to support him in carrying this Parliament Bill are entitled to say that we have got that mandate as openly, as honestly, as clearly, and with as little reserve, as any majority in this country will ever be able to get any mandate at all.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I cannot say I agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), but I think he is to be congratulated on the fact that in some remote corner in his address he had the honesty, which other hon. Members did not have, of saying that he was in favour of Home Rule being granted to Ireland. The attitude which the Prime Minister has taken up admits of very little misunderstanding on our part now. He has told us that the country was perfectly well aware that it was his intention to introduce a Home Rule Bill when the machinery of the Par-

  1383
  liament Bill has been set up. I think that is indeed a bold assertion to make, and it only shows to what lengths a harassed Prime Minister will go when he depends for his position on two or three factions of his party. The action of one faction of the Coalition concerns us directly tonight. All I can is, that if Home Rule for Ireland is the result of this unholy alliance, the electors of this country will have been tricked and deceived in the most shameless manner possible. The Prime Minister now asserts that the electors of this country were fully aware of his determination when once this new machinery was set up, and that they understood it in the clearest and most explicit manner. I must say I disagree with that profession of the right hon. Gentleman. Does no reference whatsoever in the address of the right hon. Gentleman carry out that contention? Does no reference in most of the addresses of hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite support that same view? To my mind the whole contention that the electors of this country were aware of this departure on the part of the Government is a delusion. I do not believe there is a Member on the opposite side who is prepared to say that the majority who returned him to the House of Commons were absolutely aware of the fact that it was contemplated to pass into law a Home Rule Bill as the direct corollary of the passing of the Parliament Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly."] My hon. Friend says "Certainly," but I will venture to say if there are no electors in that position in his constituency, there are electors in all parts of England, which, after all, is the predominant partner, who have supported this Government, and who are deliberately opposed to the granting of Home Rule for Ireland.
  The Prime Minister considers that Amendments dealing with exemptions from this Parliament Bill should be brushed on one side, because he asserts that the electors, in returning him in December last, have given him the opportunity to do exactly as he pleases. That is a view which has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman who represents Leicester, that we are to understand that the electors, by returning hon. Gentlemen with a majority in December last, have given the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the opportunity to use this new machinery which we are setting up for passing any measure which he desires into law, with
  1384
  or without the express mandate of the people of this country. Representative Government theoretically contains a certain amount of independence, but I venture to say that that independence will be contrary to the duly expressed wishes of those people who send representatives to this House. Undoubtedly you have had no opportunity of knowing what the direct views of the electors of this country are on this subject in reference to Home Rule. What is known about the question of Home Rule in this country? We know that twice it has been referred to the electors and it has been condemned. We know that in the last two elections it has been kept studiously in the background, and no more studiously than by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. I am perfectly convinced that any individual contemplating this action of the Government from a dispassionate point of view could only assert that every principle of democracy, to say nothing of the ordinary canons of honesty, have been broken by the methods which the Government are taking in this matter. There are widely divergent views about a mandate. The hon. Member for Leicester has very curious ideas of mandates, if I may be allowed to say so; but if the Government received a mandate at the last election I am perfectly prepared to admit that it was that some change should be brought about in the Constitution of this country. I go further, and I say they received a negative mandate, and that was with regard to the food question in this country. Beyond that they have received no mandate whatsoever. I admit it is the fault of the Government themselves that they have received no further mandate; they did not ask for any. I say that when you receive a mandate to alter the Constitution and to set up a machine you have no right to pass legislation through that machine without receiving the direct sanction of the people with respect to that legislation. That is the moral side of the question.
  The practical side of the question is that it is recognised on all sides that any legislation dealing with the Constitution—that is, altering the manner in which this country is to be governed—must certainly be placed upon an entirely different footing from legislation of a domestic character, such as the ordinary Bills which are passed through this House. In all civilised foreign countries of importance there are no two views on this point. In most of those foreign countries it is expressly laid down that no great constitutional legislation

  1385
  shall be carried out without the direct and express will of the electors being first ascertained. Rigid procedure is laid down, so that no such changes can be carried out by a bare majority of the electors. What is the course the Government are endeavouring to adopt? They propose to allow a great constitutional change to be carried out by a bare majority of the electors, and by means of that change to carry out a particular proposal which a large section of this House are desirous of seeing carried. It is for that reason that they are going to use this entirely new constitutional machinery. With respect to granting Home Rule to Ireland, it is only within the last few days that we have been absolutely certain that that is the intention of the Government. It is true that most of us have never lost an opportunity of endeavouring to persuade the electors that, although the right hon. Gentleman did not say so in his address, and although it was not stated in his speeches in various parts of the country, it was the intention of the Government to carry a measure of Home Rule for Ireland. But surely it must be recognised that a change of this description cannot be carried out without vitally affecting the Constitution of the country; because no such grave anomaly would ever be allowed as that Members of this House should be unable to have any say whatsoever in the Government of Ireland, whereas hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would be able to control English affairs. That supports my contention that if you ever grant Home Rule you will vitally affect the Constitution of this country and Empire. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), who I am sorry is not in his place, occupies a somewhat curious position. He endeavours to persuade us that he is a great supporter on democratic principles, and yet his frenzied actions on these occasions are due to the fact that he considers that this is a wonderful opportunity to smuggle through the House of Commons a Home Rule Bill without the democracy of the country being consulted. He no doubt holds the view concerning democracy which is held by hon. Members opposite, namely, that the democracy is right when it agrees with them but entirely wrong when it does not, and whenever they think the democracy will not agree with them that is the time when the democracy is not to be consulted.
  The defence of the hon. Member for Waterford alters from day to day. I do not know whether at present he goes in
  1386
  for separation. I think he carefully tells us that he does not. The attitude of hon. Members behind me as to a Parliament in College Green should be a warning against setting up a Parliament in Ireland. Whatever may be the view of the Nationalist party in this House, it is necessary and only right that the electors of this country should be consulted on this question. The hon. Member for Waterford is naturally in a hurry. He sees that this is the one opportunity that he will ever have of vindicating his political career. He knows that if he waits a little longer there will be no desire in Ireland for Home Rule. He knows that he and his colleagues depend entirely upon agitation, and that as soon as beneficial land legislation has had its effect there will be no demand whatsoever for an alteration in the Act of Union. I have no doubt that in the course of this Debate we shall have his usual plaintive cry that we who are connected with the North of Ireland are always endeavouring to belittle our country. I deny that contention. It is true that we endeavour to throw merited discredit on the hon. Member of Waterford and his colleagues, and we shall continue to do so, for the simple reason that they depend for their political existence upon grievances—
  The CHAIRMAN: We are not concerned with the merits of Home Rule except so far as they bear upon Clause 2. It is simply a question of exempting Home Rule from the category of Bills which can be dealt with under Clause 2. I hope the Noble Lord will remember that.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I entirely bow to your ruling. But as the Amendment will be supported very strongly by hon. Members from Ireland, who are always declaring that in our efforts to withstand Home Rule we are endeavouring to throw discredit on our country, I should have thought we were entitled to assert the position we occupy in this matter. By this kind of argument hon. Members from Ireland endeavour to throw dust in the eyes of the electors of this country, and we who live in the North, who really fear that Home Rule will be carried, are surely entitled to show-that Nationalist Members do not represent Ireland, but that they simply represent themselves and a small caucus which lives upon agitation, and which endeavours to foment and foster grievances which are not really in the minds of the people of Ireland. For these reasons I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting

  1387
  the proposal that a measure for Home Rule should be exempted from the operation of the Parliament Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Amendment, which is the only subject before the Committee, is to exempt from the operation of this Clause any Bill for establishing a separate Parliament and executive for Ireland. It seems, therefore, to be irrelevant—and you, Sir, have already intimated from the Chair that it will be out of order—except incidentally and by way of illustration to discuss the merits or demerits of what is called Home Rule for Ireland. I think it is equally obvious, although it seems to have been lost sight of by those who have supported the Amendment, that it is not a question of passing a Home Rule Bill here and now. Any Home Rule measure which may hereafter be brought forward will have to pass through the ordeal of this Clause, and I for one, so far from regarding this Clause as setting up anything in the nature of Single-Chamber Government, regard it as interposing a most serious obstacle and, indeed, making it impossible to carry-through Parliament and to obtain the Royal Assent any ill-considered measure which cannot stand the brunt of public opinion and public criticism. Any Home Rule proposals which may hereafter be brought forward under the operation of this Clause, if this Clause becomes law, will have to pass through three Sessions in two years, of Parliamentary and public discussion, and if they can survive that ordeal I am perfectly satisfied that, they will not be fraught with any sort of injustice or injury to any class of His Majesty's subjects. The point of this Amendment, which has been put with can-dour, I might almost say with crudity, both by the hon. Member who moved it and still more by the Noble Lord opposite, is this—a suggestion that His Majesty's Government are going to take advantage of the operation of this Clause, if and when it passes into law to secure the assent of Parliament to a measure which, to use the language of the Noble Lord, would be a measure of trickery and deceit. [Opposition cheers.] They are very faint cheers, but still that charge receives a certain volume of rhetorical support on the other side of the House. That is the only charge which I am concerned to answer. What I am prepared to demonstrate—it is a very easy task and will take me a very few moments—is that, from the very first
  1388
  moment that these propositions were put before Parliament and the country, it was made perfectly clear by Members of His Majesty's Government, and equally clear by the Opposition, to everybody concerned, that if the electors of the country returned a majority in favour of this Bill the powers conferred by the Bill would, and must, be used for the purpose of carrying into law a measure of Home Rule for Ireland. That is the proposition I am going to demonstrate, and I never had an easier task in my life.
  I will begin with what I said on 10th December, 1909—that is to say, before the General Election of January, 1910—in a speech in which, speaking on behalf of my party, immediately after the House of Lords had rejected the Budget and a dissolution of Parliament became necessary, I explained what would be the policy and the programme of the Liberal party if they were returned to power. It is quite true, as has been said in this Debate, that the Parliament of 1906 was disabled in advance from dealing with the question of self-government in Ireland. But on the date to which I have referred, dealing with the subject of Ireland, I said, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, and, I believe, of my party:—
  "The solution of the problem can be found only in one way—by a policy which, while explicitly safeguarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full self-government in regard to purely Irish affairs. There is not and there cannot be any question of separation. There is not, and there cannot be, any question of rival or competing supremacies. But, subject to those conditions, that is the Liberal policy, for reasons which I believe to be adequate, the present. Parliament (that is, the Parliament of 1906), was disabled in advance from proposing any such solution, but in the new House of Commons the hands of the Liberal Government and the Liberal majority will lie in this matter entirely free."
  5.0 P.M.
  In face of that declaration, made before the beginning of the election, it was impossible for any elector voting in the election of January, 1910, for a Liberal candidate not to know that he was voting in favour of a party which would use the recovered freedom of the House of Commons to grant Home Rule for Ireland. I pass now to the next stage in the history of this transaction. The electors returned us, with an adequate majority as we thought and as events proved, to the House of Commons. In pursuance of the pledges which we had given to them we introduced, in the first place in the form of a Resolution, proposals upon which this Parliament Bill is founded. The second of those Resolutions was in terms substantially identical with the

  1389
  Clause which is now before the Committee. When it came on for discussion on 14th April, 1910—I am passing now from December to April—an hon. Gentleman, I believe the representative of an Ulster Constituency, moved an Amendment substantially the same as that which is now before the Committee; an Amendment to omit from the operation of the Resolutions Bills dealing with the delegation of administrative or legislative powers to subordinate Parliaments of the United Kingdom. That Amendment was discussed at some length. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, used these terms, than which nothing could he more explicit and emphatic. He said:—
  "We consider that if a Home Rule Bill passed through the House of Commons in three successive Sessions, and over a period of two year", that immense and prodigious process of parliamentary strength and sustained exertion of the national will through the only recognised channels, and the only imaginable machinery by which the national will can be expressed, namely, through the elected representatives fresh from contact with their constituents. …"
  He considered that if all these processes were carried out—
  "Ample safeguards will have existed, and that the measure which finally receives the assent of the Crown will embody the settled will and convictions of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1910, col. 1473.]
  After that declaration the House divided upon the Amendment, which was rejected by a majority of over one hundred.
  Mr. LONSDALE: In April?
  The PRIME MINISTER: 14th April, 1910, more than a year from the day on which we are now considering it. Therefore, you have my declaration at the Albert Hall before the election of 1910; then the Resolution submitted to the House of Commons; an express point raised by way of amendment, an explicit declaration on behalf of the Government in the terms I have just quoted; and a considered decision by the then House of Commons. After that came the Conference, when it was found impossible to arrive at an agreement. That was followed by the General Election of December of last year.
  Much has been said about the omission of expressions of opinion in favour of Home Rule from the election addresses of myself and other Liberal candidates. My election address was confined, as I suspect many of those of my hon. Friends were, to one proposition, and one proposition only. I said: "Give us, the Parliament Bill; give us power to limit the Veto of the House of
  1390
  Lords, and not only Home Rule, but all other causes on which the purposes, intentions, and desires of Liberal and Progressive politicians are set will, at any rate, have an even chance of being carried into law." I think it is absurd to attempt to argue from the omission from election addresses of the specific enumeration of particular measures that any one of those measures are left out of account either by the candidates or those whom they address. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite seem to be sceptical about it. Let us see. Let me go one step further. Election addresses are one thing and election speeches are another. I took the opportunity at the very earliest possible moment before the election began, indeed before, if I remember aright, Parliament was dissolved, certainly before the earliest Writs were issued, of speaking again, not only for myself, but as far as I could for the party which entrusted me with its confidence. I spoke at the National Liberal Federation gatherings at Hull. In contemplation of the approaching election, I spoke on 25th November. I am sorry to trouble the House with my own words, but as I am accused of trickery, fraud, and chicanery in this matter I am bound to do so. The language I used before the election, before a single poll had taken place, was:—
  "In a speech I made at the Albert Hall nearly a year ago I dwelt on some of the causes that. I believe are in our keeping. I adhere to everything which I said then."
  I spoke of Welsh Disestablishment, and proceeded to this point:—
  "I spoke—and in view of the shameful things which are being said, I feel bound to emphasise that point—I spoke of our views of the proper solution of the problem of Irish self-government. What I then said I repeat: to it I adhere, and I believe the Liberal party adheres. I do not in the least grudge the Tory party any electioneering capital that they can extract from Mr. Redmond's American dollars—"
  [HOY. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not finished yet. I went on, with regard to that ridiculous and grotesque charge, to show the source of the so-called American dollars, and added:—
  "There is indeed a great deal of significance in it. In our efforts to secure self-government for Ireland in the future, efforts which I hope will be followed by further efforts to set free the Imperial Parliament from much local work which congests its machinery and which of necessity it does so ill, we shall have with us, I believe, the sympathy of an overwhelming majority of the great Dominions over-seas who have learned how easy it is to combine local autonomy with Imperial loyalty."
  That was the programme which I laid down at Hull in the name and on behalf of the Liberal party before the General election of December last, I made one or two other speeches, and, after being detained

  1391
  in various parts of the country for that purpose, I went to my own Constituency. I have been told I omitted any mention of Home Rule from my election address. Well, the first night I met my constituents I made two speeches. This was on December 7th. I have refreshed my memory on these matters by referring to the reports in "The Times" newspaper. I see in large letters heading the column which reports my speeches "Mr. Asquith pledged to Home Rule." I made a speech at St. Andrews. I am very sorry it was not more fully reported, but that was not my fault. "The Times,"' which summarised their report, said:—
  "Mr. Asquith said that they were told that it was really Mr. John Redmond who had dictated the Dissolution, and that he (Mr. Asquith) and his colleagues were puppets and marionettes whose movements were being controlled by Mr. Redmond's omnipotent power. Mr. Redmond had no more to do with the Dissolution than the man in the moon. To-day they had got another phase of that multiform and variegated method to which Mr. Balfour had just given currency. 'What,' he asked, 'was the meaning of all that suspicious silence about Home Rule?' 'Depend upon it,' he said, 'they had received the word of command not to mention Home Rule, or to mention it in the vaguest and most ambiguous terms lest they should frighten the British electors.' Mr. Asquith said he was sorry to dissipate that fiction also. It had not had much success; at any rate it was not likely to have much success in Scotland. He had not said much about Home Hole because he had been talking about a matter which came before Home Rule, which came before any great progressive legislation of any kind, namely the emancipation of the House of Commons from the thraldom under which it at present lay. He had never given any uncertain sound about Home Rule. A year ago he laid down at the Albert Hall a programme which was universally accepted by his colleagues, a policy of Home Rule which was free from ambiguity, a policy which commanded the whole-hearted support of Liberalism throughout the length and breadth of the land."
  On the first occasion that I had the opportunity of meeting my own Constituents I repeated those statements in language which was as clear and as explicit as I could find. I repeated those statements at Bury St. Edmunds, and at Gloucester in the following week. So far as I am concerned, what is my record in this matter? I made a speech in the Albert Hall in December, 1909. My colleagues repeated the assurances on amendment in this House in April, 1910. In the speech I made at the National Liberal Federation before the Election, I, in most explicit and emphatic terms, repeated those assurances, and on the first opportunity on which I met my Constituents I reiterated them in language quite as explicit. Is there anybody that, in view of these facts, will venture to repeat and persist in the charge, so far as I am concerned, that I tried to trick and deceive the electors,
  1392
  that Home Rule was not an issue at the last Election? It is not merely what I said, but what other people said. It is not merely what other people said, but what the general understanding of the country was! It was what the general understanding of the country was. A week ago, during our very brief Easter holiday, I was driving, on a beautiful sunny day, through a sequestered part of the county of Surrey, and amid romantic surroundings which I am bound to say were very much disfigured by what I am about to describe to-the House. I saw on an old-fashioned English barn a placard which had survived the stress both of our winter and of our spring. It had evidently been there since the month of December, 1910. What did it say? I was curious. One sometimes recognises a familiar but forgotten object. "Vote for So-and-So"—I think the hon. Member is now a Member of the House, and I will not give his name, because I would be sorry to associate him with the reason given to the electors for voting for him.
  "Vote for so and so and … shall British votes, be sold for foreign gold."
  For the moment I was a little, puzzled. Then old memories revived. What did it mean? What was it intended to convey to the electors? What did it convey to the electors of that constituency I Was it not this, that the issue before them was the issue of Home Rule, with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford with the American dollars in his pocket, pulling the strings, to revive the quotation I have already cited to the House, of us puppets and marionettes, and that the passage of this Parliament Bill was merely the first step towards the granting of Home Rule to Ireland. But it does not depend upon isolated placards in some Surrey village. I see that Lord Lansdowne, the accepted Leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, and the authorised exponent of the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite at the last election, speaking at Glasgow, apparently on the very same night on which I made the speech to which I have already referred at Hull, on Friday, 25th November, 1910, used this language—
  "What would happen suppose this now dispensation comes into force."
  That is the Parliament Bill.
  "Some of us have strong views upon Home Rule."
  Like the hon. Member who moved this Amendment.
  "Home Rule will go through at once without further ado. We defeated it in 1893". Next time"

  1393
  Observe Lord Lansdowne's prescience.
  "Next time in 1913 it goes through."
  1913! Two years from the time in which we are now assembled here—
  "In 1913 it goes through if a composite majority can be secured in the House of Commons in its favour."
  That is the opinion of the Leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] And the hon. Gentleman opposite agrees. Another very distinguished Member of the Front Bench opposite, who unhappily, for reasons we all regret, is not with us this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), speaking on 8th December—I think it was the same day I was addressing my Constituency in Fife—said:—
  "What was the Government going to do if they had do majority? They are going to abolish the veto of the House of Lords, and next they are going to establish Home Rule for Ireland."
  Something has been said about election addresses. Therefore I will venture to trouble the Committee with a quotation from one or two election addresses from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), said:—
  "Mr. Redmond has declared this election is above all and beyond all else an Irish election, and states that the Prime Minister is pledged not to devolution but full self-government for Ireland—in a word to the 'Home Rule of Parnell.' The Parliament Bill once passed, a Radical Government, if faithful to its pledges, would carry Home Rule."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long), in his election address, said:—
  "To destroy the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland is the professed policy of our opponents."
  I am not going to trouble the Committee with further quotations. I am sorry to have troubled them with so many. Has anybody ever seen, either on the floor of this House or in a Court of Law, a more complete catena of proof drawn from both one side and the other, that whatever else was in doubt at the last General Election, no doubt was left either by us who support the limitation of the Veto or by those who are opposed to it that one of the results, and indeed one of the first results of that change in our constitutional system would be the carrying through Parliament of a Bill for the grant of self-government to Ireland. If that is the case, what is left of the charge of the Noble Lord who has just sat down that I and my friends tricked and be-fooled and deceived the electors, and that we have
  1394
  kept stealthily and to set purpose in the dark this sinister intention to use the new power, but what I call the recovery of the liberties of the House of Commons with regard to legislation, to grant a measure which over and over again, in the clearest and most emphatic language, we have declared to be, in our opinion, necessary to-the reconciliation of two unhappily estranged peoples and setting this Parliament free for the discharge of its proper duties for the consolidation and real unity of the Empire. That is the case I submit to the House of Commons, and I should be glad to hear what answer there is to it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman in his closing words expressed an ardent desire for an immediate answer to the case which he has just made. I hasten to the best of my ability to gratify his curiosity. Shortly before he reached the end of his speech he said he had made a case which would satisfy, I think he said, either Westminster or any Law Court in the land. If the case for us at this moment was as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had or had not declared in favour of Home Rule, and if the Trial before us was as to whether many of the Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite had done the same thing, I say nobody ever doubted that. Nobody has ever doubted it. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote from any of my speeches, not because he could not have quoted from my speeches sentiments of precisely the same tenour as those he quoted from the addresses of my right hon. Friend, the Member for St. George's, and my right hon. Friend, the Member for the Strand, and my right hon. Friend, the Member for East Worcester, and many other Gentlemen sitting round and behind me—I am quite sure if he brought down my speeches, I do not recollect them, but I am quite certain I must have over and over again said exactly what they said—namely, it was quite clear that the Government from their declaration did mean if they got these powers to use them for the purpose of carrying Home Rule. Has anybody ever doubted that? Did I for one say anything contradictory of that? What we complain of is, not of course that the Government abstained from making declarations on-Home Rule—there was the declaration at the Albert Hall, referred to again later in the day—what we complain of is that through the whole course of the elections they laid the emphasis of their whole

  1395
  dialectics and rhetoric upon the immediate prejudices connected with the Upper House, and upon the immediate prejudices which they raised against the Upper House and all else was thrown into the background. That is our argument. Take the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself at Hull, from which he quoted. It has been put into my hands while he was speaking by a friend of mine, and there is in that speech, which took three columns to report, no doubt the passage about Home Rule to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is a brief statement, I quite agree it is clear and that there is no ambiguity about it, I have not suggested there was. Hon. Members opposite do not know the ground of our complaint. [HON. MEMBERS: "Trickery and deceit."] Is it trickery to a great electorate who cannot from the nature of things follow these matters as we follow them, to be treated as they were treated. I do not think I ever used the word trickery, but is a Minister absolved from a perfectly just condemnation if he makes a statement as clear as grammar can make it, but yet throws the whole emphasis of countless speeches, and of countless speeches made by his friends as well as by himself, not upon that issue but upon other issues; and that is what the right hon. Gentleman did. I have here his speech at Hull, the first speech in which, as far as I am aware, he referred to Home Rule at all during the General Election; that was on 26th November. He made the statement at the end of a very long and very able speech about Home Rule which he has just read to the House. Then, as a peroration, he said:—
  "How easy it is to combine local autonomy and Imperial loyalty—(loud cheers)—but for the moment, and this shall be the last thing that I shall say to yon, let us concentrate on our first and greatest' task of passing the Parliament Bill."
  That statement was perfectly clear in itself, and I think the Prime Minister was amply justified in saying that he stated during the election that Home Rule was part, of the issue. He did state it, but I appeal to any man who went through the election whether I am not absolutely right in saying that what the country decided upon was not Home Rule, what they had before them was not Home Rule, that what was present to their minds, what moved their votes, and stirred their passions was not Home Rule. It is vague to tell me that because here and there in the great and vast and obligatory mass of rhetoric
  1396
  which we are obliged to call forth on these occasions there was a clear and precise statement from the Prime Minister on this matter that that deals with the charge which I have made against hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is no new view of mine. I have felt that all through this long dispute, and over and over again, I have done my very best to explain it to my countrymen, to bring home to them as far as my voice would carry that they were not deciding, as they thought, simply upon some change in the relation between the two Houses or the hereditary principle; I tried to explain that and to bring home what is the truth, that the verdict they were giving upon one general issue was going to be used to deal with other general issues in a way they totally disapproved of. When I hear speeches like those delivered by the Prime Minister and others in this Debate, it seems to me that they really shut their eyes to the verities of our electoral system by talking as if everything formally put forward in any speech by a man in authority was present intelligently to the mind of every man who gave his vote.
  We know that was not the case, and it cannot be the case. We know that the most you can hope for at a General Election is that the country shall give some broad decision in favour of a particular party, perhaps even of a particular leader, and that will be very often, though not always, associated with a general expression of approval of one particular line of policy on one particular subject. That really is all you can ever hope to get at a General Election, and everybody knows that that is so. A friend of mine who is not a member of this House, but was an unsuccessful candidate at the last election, was speaking to an audience obviously hostile in a county constituency, and he said: "I quite recognise that you do not agree with me, and that I have very little to expect from you in the way of votes, but I should like to ask how many of you are in favour of dealing with the hereditary principle." The whole audience, with one consent, held up their hands. Then he said, quite recognising that verdict: "I saw that you did not take my view, but I should like to put to you another question. How many of you are in favour of Home Rule?" A mere fraction of the audience held up their hands. That may show, of course, that that audience really only thought of one thing, and very likely many of them had only thought of the thing that loomed largest in the

  1397
  controversy of the moment. But supposing both issues were present to their minds, how could they vote for both at that election? Supposing a man felt strongly, what the Prime Minister feels strongly that the House of Lords ought never to have thrown out the Budget. Supposing he felt strongly, what the Prime Minister does not feel strongly—namely, that the House of Lords ought to be reformed; supposing, holding those views strongly, and feeling that the only way to give expression to them was to vote for the Radical or the Labour candidate at the moment, how else was that man to vote, whatever his view might be on Home Rule? Supposing, as many of them do from the bottom of their hearts, they fear and distrust the whole policy of Home Rule, whatever Home Rule may mean; supposing from the bottom of their souls they distrust and fear it, still they would have voted for the Radical party, because the immediate issue before them was one on which they felt strongly, and on which they thought that the Radical party, and not the Unionist party, would carry out their wishes. Everybody knows that was what happened, and that is what must happen.
  That makes the theory of "mandates," as it is sometimes rashly and loosely expressed in this House, utterly absurd and misleading. I associate myself in this respect with what fell from the hon. Gentleman who is the leader of the Labour party when he said that the word "mandate" is much too often used and much too often abused; but I think it is an unhappy word to introduce into politics as a term of art. The fact is you cannot expect, and if you do expect you will inevitably be deceived, that the whole complex field of possible politics will be present to the mind of the elector when he gives his vote at the General Election. It cannot be done, and the essence of my complaint against hon. Gentlemen opposite is not that they did not say now and then in perfectly grammatical and unambiguous terms that they were in favour of Home Rule, but that that greatest of all issues was disguised from the electorate and that the electorate, without seeing the full results of what they were doing, are in process of bringing into being a legislative machine by which their own settled will will be overridden by a Single Chamber. That is what it comes to, and I do not see that a single word which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman has touched that
  1398
  which is the main essence of the matter. I do not think anybody wants confirmation of that general view, which I do not think will find many honest dissentients in this House.
  You may say that the country knew perfectly well that Home Rule was going to be passed if this new machinery was carried into existence. Did they know what Home Rule was going to be passed? Does the Government know what Home Rule it means? I noticed on the Paper au Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen, in which he gives expression to the opinion held by some of his political friends in Scotland that Home Rule should include Home Rule all round. All the analogies which the Prime Minister is now so fond of drawing from our over-sea Dominions point, not the least in the direction of what Mr. Gladstone called Home Rule, but in the direction of some new provincial scheme which shall embrace and divide the whole United Kingdom. But now these are two quite different policies, different in origin, essence, and results, requiring to be embodied in Bills utterly different in framework. If the country at a General Election knew that they were voting for Home Rule they must have known which of these two rival and absolutely inconsistent schemes they were voting for Well, which were they voting for? Does the Government know for which they were voting? I do not believe the Government have the least idea which of those two rival schemes they themselves mean. I do not believe the hon. Member for Leicester, who spoke earlier in the afternoon of Home Rule in enthusiastic terms, had the least, idea what kind of Home Rule would be passed Yet the two are utterly different. Home Rule which is to bring into being an Executive and Parliament into Ireland is evidently utterly distinct from the Home Rule Bill which is to bring in an Executive and Parliament in Wales, and Executive and Parliament in Scotland, and an Executive and Parliament in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Those are not modifications of one scheme, but they are utterly different schemes, as everybody knows who has considered the question.
  Mr. PIRIE: Is it not possible for one scheme to be an extension of the other scheme?
  Mr. BALFOUR: That argument may appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I make this observation to the hon.

  1399
  and gallant Gentleman in perfect confidence as to what his answer will be. Does he not know that Mr. Gladstone, who was the greatest, the most enthusiastic, and the most powerful advocate of what, ten or fifteen years ago, was known as Home Rule, would have regarded with nothing less than horror the suggestion which commends itself now to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends. If you told Mr. Gladstone that after all four Parliaments, four executive Executives, in addition to the Imperial Parliament and the Imperial Executive for the United Kingdom, were a modification of what he conceived to be a restitution of the liberties of Ireland, he would have laughed in your face, and he would have been quite right to laugh. Do not let any hon. Gentlemen suppose that those are two modifications of one root idea, because they are quite different ideas, to be carried out in quite different ways, and it is folly to tell me that the constituencies at the last election gave an intelligent and self-conscious decision as to the form of Home Rule, when even those whom they sent to represent them have not the least conception of what kind of Home Rule it is that is going to be introduced.
  When the right hon. Gentleman tells us, as he told us at the beginning of his speech, that it is an adequate safeguard against any eccentric aberrations on the part of this House that the matter should be discussed three years in succession, when he told the Committee that no ill-considered measure, no measure which had not behind it a great mass of popular support would have a chance of surviving those three years; when, in other words, he puts those three years as a substitute for the safeguard we have hitherto possessed in the form of an effective Second Chamber, I say he utterly deceives himself and the Committee. The Government that has committed itself to Home Rule in one Session of Parliament and has carried Home Rule through by anything like a majority which they see fit to accept as representing the views of the people on the question—do you think they are going to be frightened by being told that during the three years in which it is in process of being passed into law there will be hostile meetings and hostile resolutions carried against it—will they be frightened by the reflection that it may turn out that at the next General Election they will
  1400
  not be brought back with a majority. That is not the way our Parliamentary institutions work. A Government which has determined upon anything so momentous as Home Rule in the first or second Session of a Parliament, which has committed its whole fortunes to that question, which has been given the machinery by the country which will enable them to carry it through, they are not going to falter in using that machinery to its utmost extent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite assent to what I have said. And they are right. Therefore, we are brought back to this position. You have got your present position in this House, as a collection of three separate parties, by joining together and using all your forces to raise, legitimately, from your point of view, a feeling upon the relation of the two Houses, and upon the constitution of the Upper House. Having got that, and having induced the country unknowingly to part with that which is the greatest safeguard of the Constitution, you are going to use the powers you have thus obtained surreptitiously for a purpose on which I have not the smallest doubt the country would express the strongest possible view could that issue, and that issue alone, be presented to it in isolation. I do not care what the opinions of hon. Gentlemen are. I know I am speaking the absolute truth, and a truth in which hon. Members, wherever they sit in this House, will agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You have not heard it yet. Let me tell you what it is. After a Home Rule Bill has gone through the ordeal of full discussion in this House, with all the complex problems it raises as to the relations between; the different parts of the United Kingdom, all the questions it raises with regard to the minority in Ulster, all the questions it raises with regard to Imperial finance and the contributions to be made out of British pockets to Irish needs—after that, there is not one of you, I do not care where he sits, who would not view with the utmost distrust and doubt the result of putting that issue, and that issue alone, to the test of a General Election. Some of you might think the election would be successful, and others might be pretty confident it would be unsuccessful, but none of you would regard it as a certainty. For my own part, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who so ably moved this Amendment, that at this moment the opinion of the country is what it was in 1885 and in 1893, and that if the issue

  1401
  could be put before it as it was in those years the same results would be declared. Therefore, those who under cover of this Bill are going to pass Home Rule are deliberately running in face of what they know to be the opinion of the people of this country.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: The only conclusion the House must draw from the speech to which we have just listened, is that the Leader of the Opposition has a miserably poor opinion of the intelligence of his countrymen, the electors of this country. This Amendment is one of a very long series, and it proposes to exempt from the operations of the Parliament Bill the question of Home Rule for Ireland. I should say that of all the questions which are dealt with in these Amendments, the very question which it would be most unjust and monstrous to exempt is this question of Home Rule for Ireland, because more than any other question dealt with in these Amendments it has been before the people for many years, and has been fully debated. The party to which I belong, and which for thirty years has now maintained its position of isolation and peculiarity on the floor of this House, exists for one object and one object alone, and that is to win Home Rule for Ireland. Are we to be told in face of that extraordinary phenomenon, unparalleled in the history of the British House of Commons, that the people in this country are not aware that such an issue is in existence at all? I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the party that sits behind him, that the very name of their party is a fraud and a delusion if this question has not been fully debated. What do they call themselves? On what have they appealed to the electors of this country; not at one election, but at four successive elections? What is the issue on which they have appealed for confidence? They have appealed to the electors, because they are "the defenders of the Union, and the opponents of Home Rule for Ireland." That is the new name of their party, and I say the name is an imposture and a fraud if the electors of this country do not know what is the meaning of Irish Home Rule, as we were told by the Leader of the Opposition, and do not know it is a main and leading issue of the politics of this country.
  Let me turn for one moment to what was said by the mover of the Amendment. He fell into a very common error, an error which has been accepted almost un-
  1402
  contradicted in this House when it has been frequently repeated. He spoke of what happened in 1895 when, according to him, Home Rule was last defeated. I deny that Home Rule was defeated in 1895. Anyone who went through that election will remember well that, in spite of the efforts of the Irish party, Home Rule was not a clear issue at that election. I say, therefore, Home Rule has never been defeated by the electors of this country since 1886, when it was really put as a clear issue, and I say no man in this House can prove, or has any right to say, that Home Rule as an issue has ever been defeated by the electors of this country for the last twenty-one years; and, when the hon. Member says it was again defeated or laid aside in 1906, I absolutely deny it. What is the real reason why Home Rule was not put as a clear issue to the people in the interval between 1892 and the last two elections? It is exceedingly simple. It is because Liberal Ministers had come to the conclusion it was no use, to use the words the Prime Minister used many years ago, "to plough the sands," and that, until the Veto of the House of Lords was limited an appeal to this country on the issue of Irish Home Rule was idle. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear," but I think it clearly makes out my case. The Leader of the Liberal party and the Irish party had come to the conclusion that in order to win Home Rule the first necessary work to be done was to clear away the obstacle of the Veto of the House of Lords. It is entirely untrue to speak of Home Rule as having been defeated at three different elections in this country.
  The hon. Gentleman in moving his Amendment went on to analyse the results of the last election, and he asked why the Prime Minister stopped in his analysis when he spoke of the majority of sixty in Great Britain in favour of Home Rule, and why he did not go on and examine what the majority was in England. These are the Gentlemen who call themselves Unionists! They put up the doctrine that no measure of Home Rule is to be passed until a majority is obtained in England. They indulge in the extraordinary and unconstitutional theory which I think I may fairly and truthfully describe as separatism gone mad, and propose to split themselves into Welsh, Scotch, and English votes, and say no reform is to be allowed until a majority of each separate nationality is obtained. It reminds me of a speech I read in the London papers on

  1403
  Thursday by an alderman in the City of London, a gentleman very well qualified to voice the sentiments of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. What did this respectable City alderman say? He said the people of this country were witnessing in the visit of the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. John Redmond) to Holyhead the development of a great Celtic conspiracy to conquer and trample upon the superior race of these islands, the superior race, he then went on to explain, being the English race. These are the Gentlemen, I say, who call themselves Unionists! [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] "Hear, hear," says an hon. Member, that is their idea of Unionism, Unionism based on the theory that the English people of these islands are the superior race, and that the Celts, I suppose, must be a servile race under their control! That is their idea of Unionism! I think any intelligent politician of this country will see to what results such separatism will bring the country. Take the last General Election. I do not think it is necessary for any one to add an extract to the quotations given by the Prime Minister in order to prove—and this is my point—that, if the electors of this country are decently intelligent and are qualified to take any voice whatever in the Government of the country and in making the laws of the country, they must have known that by voting for the Parliament Bill they were clearing the road for Home Rule for Ireland. After the General Election, we heard the old hackneyed expression used by the Leader of the Opposition:—
  "They did not know what kind of Home Rule."'
  How long does the right hon. Gentleman think it will take to debate Home Rule and pass it through this House and into law? Is it not enough that it was debated for twenty-five years in every shape or form? If the electors have any intelligence, they must have known what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke of "setting up a Parliament in Ireland with an executive responsible to it to deal with purely Irish affairs." Let me add two more quotations to those given by the Prime Minister. I take the first from Professor Dicey, an old enemy of ours and a prophet of the Unionist party in this House. He wrote a manifesto on the eve of the General Election, in which he said:—
  "He who supports the Parliament Bill most assuredly gives a vote for Home Rule for Ireland."
  1404
  Then the hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), who, I think, has been already quoted, said:—
  "The Veto Bill would enable the Government to pass measures through Parliament in a most peremptory manner, and one of the measures they would pass would certainly be Home Rule for Ireland."
  That was on 5th December last. The hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), who is a very important Gentleman on the Benches above the Gangway, although not a Member of the late Government, said:—
  "If the Government were returned, they would have to pass in two months—"
  He put it more vehemently than any of us.
  "a Bill which would hand over the police, the magistrates, and the judges in Ireland to the Nationalist party."
  It would be perfectly easy to multiply to any extent quotations of this kind, and, although these quotations become somewhat wearisome, yet, when the issue in Debate is whether the people got sufficient warning, you have to establish your case by the multiplication of warnings in order to judge to what extent this question was before the electorate. The Prime Minister quoted from Lord Lansdowne at Glasgow, but Lord Lansdowne did not only speak in the North. He went down to Portsmouth, and on 31st December he said:—
  "If the Government were returned to power, the Nationalists would be paid in full, and would get Home Rule of the Parnellite type."
  That was what Lord Lansdowne said in Portsmouth before the election. He did not tell the electors there was any vagueness about the Government programme when they were looking for votes. He told them the Government were quite clear and distinct in their programme, and that if they passed the Parliament Bill the Irish Nationalists would get Home Rule of the Parnellite type. I do not know whether it would be offensive to say it is trickery to tell the electors before the election that the Government were quite clear as to their programme, and after the election to say the Government were vague. Then I come to the Leader of the Opposition himself. He had no doubt he had said something on the same lines. He certainly did. He sent several messages in all directions. Here is one to Mr. Parker, the Unionist candidate for Barnstaple:—
  "The avowed intention of the Government is in substance to abolish the Second Chamber, and then, without any reference to the electors, to grant a sweeping measure of Home Rule to Ireland."

  1405
  6.0 P.M.
  Mark the words, "The avowed intention of His Majesty's Government." To the Unionist candidate for the Market Harboro' Division of Leicestershire the Leader of the Opposition sent word that—
  "It was the intention of the Government to destroy the Second Chamber … and this is a policy most dangerous to the interests of all classes of the community and humiliating to the nation."
  Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) sent a message to the candidate for East Wilts to the effect that the present election meant settling two quesions, Tariff Reform and Home Rule; and, in another message, on 8th December, to the Unionist candidate for North Worcestershire, he stated that:—
  "The issues are first Home Rule, to which Redmond attaches chief importance, and which every Unionist will do his utmost to defeat once more and secondly, Tariff Reform."
  Therefore it is absolutely idle, and, I really think, hardly honourable, for any man to stand up in this House and say that Home Rule was not an issue at the last election and at the previous election, and that the people of this country were not perfectly well aware of that fact. Surely when it is proposed to exclude from the operation of this Clause this question of Home Rule it is something peculiarly cynical and cruel. All sections of Members of this House have suffered bitterly from the oppression of the House of Lords, but there is no section that has suffered like the people of Ireland. We have a long score against that House. There is not one single representative there of this country; there never has been a representative there of the people of Ireland. All other sections of this House have representatives in the House of Lords. They may be in a great minority, but the fact remains that the Irish people have no representatives there at all, and never have had. Therefore they have a particularly strong case to be emancipated from the obstruction of that House.
  Let us consider for one moment the plea of the utter ruin which is to be done to Ireland by Home Rule. I am not going into the American case at all. We have here representatives of the Loyalists in Ireland. They have given Members of this House a very interesting display of the Ulster idea of loyalty. It consists of going to the head of this House, and saying, "You must do as we tell you, or our loyalty ceases." That is Ulster loyalty, and the Leader of the Opposition is not
  1406
  ashamed to tell us that if this law is passed and the King's sign-manual put to it the people for whom ho speaks will never obey it. Personally I do not believe in these things coming to pass. I only allude to them for the purpose of showing to this-House what is meant by Ulster loyalty. I want to say this, and I say it with the deepest conviction, I do not know whether the hon. Member will bear me out or not supposing that his Friends were to-day or to-morrow faced with the alternative of being forced to make a choice between twenty years of Radical Government in this House and Home Rule for Ireland: which would they select? I believe that they would select Home Rule; in fact, I am convinced of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] Twenty years would be a long time for either my hon. Friend or myself to wait, but I believe that if he had to select an alternative that alternative would be Home Rule for Ireland. Hon. Members use a great deal of strong language about the results of Home Rule and the ruin and destruction and disorder it may produce in Ireland.
  I want to put a point to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to hon. Members who may doubt the wisdom of this policy. I would ask them to cast their minds back three or four years to the Debates about South Africa. What would have been the position if the Lords had had a Veto on the South African question? When the Liberal Government came into office in 1906, owing to the genius of that true Liberal, Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man, a great measure of liberty was offered to South Africa. But that Government would have been no more able to give that liberty to South Africa than they are to give it to Ireland, though willing and anxious to give it, had it not been for the discovery that they could give it by Royal Proclamation, which they cannot do in the case of Ireland. If they had been blocked in the case of South Africa, as in the case of Ireland, South Africa to-day would have been in a very different position indeed; and when the Coronation-comes South Africa, like Ireland, would have been absent. You would have had no-Ministers present at the Coronation entitled to speak for South Africa, as you will have none for Ireland. I ask hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House to recall the language used by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton)

  1407
  describing the awful sufferings of the loyalist minority and the tyranny of the Boer majority and of an association called the Het Volk in very much the same language as the Ancient Order of Hibernians has been referred to in the case of Ireland.
  The history of England shows she has done a great many glorious things and a great many bad things, but never has she done anything so glorious as giving the Constitution to South Africa. Don't you see, don't you think, like our friend the London alderman, who was concerned lest there was going to be a revolt of the Celtic race, that the only real path to union is the path of conciliation, equality, and liberty. At the conclusion of a very powerful speech delivered on Thursday last, the Leader of the Opposition turned round to these benches and charged the Government with throwing over the history of the past in order to satisfy those who care neither for you nor for your Constitution. If those words had been true it would have been the greatest condemnation ever laid against this Government. If, after governing Ireland for twenty years, the only result has been to send into this House eighty-two Members, speaking for four-fifths of the people of Ireland, who care neither for you or for your Constitution, the Government which had produced that effect stands condemned. I tell the Leader of the Opposition that his words are false; it is not true to say that we, or those who went before us, care neither for the people of England nor for the Constitution. We have never enjoyed your Constitution, but, in spite of all that we have suffered under it, I am one of the greatest admirers of it, and it is because I am under it that I want to bring its blessings to Ireland, where we have never enjoyed it. Our people have had no voice in the government of their country, and when you turn to us and make that reproach I say it is a cruel reproach. From the days of Daniel O'Connell down to the days of Parnell and Redmond, the Irish Nationalist Members have always been the champions of the millions of workers in England. I tell the Leader of the Opposition that while it is perfectly true we are enemies of the House of Lords and of reaction in this country, we are and always have been, and I trust always will be, the friends and champions of democracy.
  Mr. PIRIE: I beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by adding at the
  1408
  end thereof the words "unless such Bill provides for the establishment of legislatures for the other parts of the United Kingdom."
  I confess I had some fears as to my duty when I put down the Amendment which stands in my name, but those fears have been removed by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. As a very strong Liberal and a very strong supporter of the Government, I would be the last man to wish to embarrass them, but if I want any reassurance as to the policy and necessity of taking the risk I have done, I think the speech of the Leader of the Opposition has removed any doubt as to the wisdom of the course I am taking. After a long experience of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, I do not think I have ever known a case in which he gave himself so completely away as he has done on the principle of Federal Home Rule and Devolution in his description of what he supposes very wrongly to be the action of Mr. Gladstone on that question. I should have thought he would have been more accurate on that point. I will relate an interesting incident which constitutes my only connection in any way with Mr. Gladstone. At my first election, in 1895, when I had the honour of standing for West Renfrewshire as an untried politician, I had no personal knowledge of Mr. Gladstone, but some kind friends of mine, who knew him, forwarded him a copy of my election address, in which, as in all my addresses ever since, I dealt with this question of Scottish Home Rule. Having received that address, Mr. Gladstone wrote a letter to the electors of West Renfrewshire warmly eulogising the address and warmly supporting the view of reform and of Scottish Home Rule I had advocated. That is a most complete refutation, I think, of the imaginary attitude which the Leader of the Opposition has ascribed to Mr. Gladstone. Equally erroneous was his description of the attitude of the Irish leaders on this question of Devolution, or Federal Home Rule. I could read quotation after quotation from the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and other members of the Irish party, especially the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), to the effect that part and parcel of their programme was a perfect willingness and readiness to fight for the smaller nationalities of the United Kingdom in the same way as the smaller nationalities are fighting for them. But I

  1409
  even go to the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, and I hark back to last October and November, when Unionist paper after Unionist paper, Unionist writer after Unionist writer, were all advocating this very system of Devolution and Federal Home Rule on which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to cast ridicule to-day. I have in my hand a quotation from the "Observer," by Mr. Garvin, who is now writing for another Conservative paper. It is dated 30th October, and he says:—
  "In resisting even a strong and safe scheme of Irish or general devolution, in repudiating the federal solution which is the very principle of union for all modern States in dealing with problems like this the sister States would not be with us. Even the party of Preference and Tariff Reform would find itself appealing to Greater "Britain in vain."
  Mr. BALFOUR: Was that published before the election?
  Mr. PIRIE: That is before the election. They were advocating a public conference, and I still hope that the question of Federal Home Rule may be considered by a public conference of representatives on both sides. Under these circumstances, I am happy to move my Amendment to the Amendment which is on the Paper. My view on the question of Irish Home Rule is absolutely at one with that expressed in a letter written by the hon. Member for Denbighshire which I saw in the papers last Friday, in which he said:—
  "With regard to Irish Home Rule, I am profoundly convinced that to press the claims of Scotland and of Wales, is to advance rather than to retard the prospect of accelerating Home Rule for Ireland."
  It is because I think that advocating Home Rule for other parts of the United Kingdom accelerates and is an advantage to the cause of Home Rule for Ireland that I put this Amendment on the Paper today. I wish this Government to avoid Mr. Gladstone's error which he made in 1884 and 1885. Had Mr. Gladstone introduced a Home Rule measure on federal principles, I am convinced that the question would have been settled very many years ago. I should like to clear up a question which is exciting many ardent supporters of Home Rule as to the possibility of the scheme of federalism causing a difficulty in regard to the question of priority. I can see no difficulty in the Government bringing in a scheme of devolution dealing with a much larger question than that of Ireland, for it has been proved to us to-day that in all probability the Irish Home Rule Bill may have to go through this House for two or three Sessions before it becomes law. Therefore a scheme for one country could
  1410
  only be dealt with by means of one Bill in a Session, but there is no reason why a broad scheme for several countries might not come into simultaneous operation and that would do away with all questions of priority as regards the question of date. The connection of this Parliament Bill which we are discussing and the Home Rule Bill is a most important one and I should like the Committee to consider the possibility of what may happen in the future.
  Supposing this Parliament Bill is passed this year—and I look upon it as a certainty—there are two alternatives. Then the Home Rule Bill goes up to another place, having passed this House next year, and is rejected. Therefore it will go up for two Sessions afterwards before it will become the law of the land on the supposition that we maintain a Government and remain in power. Let us look for a moment at the other alternative. This Veto Bill passes this House and goes up to another place and is refused by the House of Lords. That would result at once in all probability in a sufficient creation of Peers to give a majority. Then this Veto Bill becomes law. What would be the effect of that upon the Home Rule Bill if it is passed next year in the House. It would be sent up to the other House and there would be a larger House of Lords, and it would become the law of the land. I think those plain facts give plenty of food for reflection and ought to be taken into consideration. I would only say in conclusion that I do venture to express the hope that this great constitutional question may find its solution by the absolute consent of both sides. I hope the precedent which was set last autumn will be revived and we shall get both parties to consider this question of Home Rule so that the welfare of the State and of the Empire generally would be advanced on the basis of integrity, nationalism and Imperialism.
  Mr. MORETON FREWEN: This is the first opportunity which I have had of contributing to the Debates in this House, and nothing can exceed the pleasure which I feel in following the Member who last spoke. I have long watched the development of the Irish question, being largely Irish myself and domiciled for some years in Ireland, and I have come to the conclusion from studying the younger democracies of the world that if this question is to be settled satisfactorily it will have to be settled on some federal lines.

  1411
  I cannot help thinking that at the present moment there is a great chance of settling this question without appeal to party faction. I believe that in this country, if only this sentiment can be avoided, there is the strongest possible desire in this Coronation year to settle a constitutional question of this magnitude without smashing National assets. I am aware that my Friends on these Benches are not at one with me in the attitude that I take to the Parliament Bill. I find that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and more particularly the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), are desirous of destroying the only simulacrum of a Second Chamber which we have, and yet in their speeches both in Canada and the United States they have announced themselves to be good Federals. For my part I can no more think of a Federal system without a strong Second Chamber than I can think of a monarchy without a king, and in the course of the very interesting speeches that my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division made in Canada, he emphasised on every possible occasion his adherence to the entire system of Federalism obtaining in Canada. He said that the relation of the governing Parliament, which ought to be kept at Westminster, was the relation which the Imperial Government occupied with reference to the Federal Government at Ottawa.
  I maintain that every speech that was made by those two illustrious Irishmen in Canada last year was made on the Federal solution. I know that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in supporting my friend the Member for the Scotland Division—actually supporting him with a money contribution—is, of all men in Canada, one of the most ardent Federals, and the idea' that anybody should entertain the notion that in securing a Federal arrangement of these islands, we are going to dispense with the security which a Second Chamber gives us seems to me to be absolutely preposterous. There is the constitution of the United States of America, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Pirie) would like to see copied in these islands. We have there a Senate which the promoters of that Constitution, whose services in securing it have attracted the acknowledgment of all our modern philosophers, invented in order
  1412
  that democracy should be protected against democracy. They invented a Second Chamber, which is absolutely immutable. I wonder if hon. Members here are aware that, whereas you can secure any amendment of the United States Constitution by the consent of the majority of the States legislatures and by consent of a majority of the Congress, yet the representation of the States in the Senate is absolutely unchangeable. There are forty-seven States in the American Union, and yet if forty-six of those States or their representatives in Congress agree that the representation of the State of New York, with its ten millions of people, in the Senate shall be greater than the representation enjoyed by the little State of Nevada, notwithstanding that forty-six of the States are in favour of that amendment, without the consent of Nevada it cannot be obtained.
  The position of the Federal system I take to be this. When I was in Canada, as long ago as 1879, I was staying at Ottawa, and my relations with the then Sir John Macdonald became very intimate. Sir John, who was not then thinking at all of the solution of the Irish question, said to me one evening, "Look at the problem that we in Canada settled by the British North America Federal Act," which was then eleven years old. He said, "In Canada half of our people were Celtic Catholics. They hated us for our commercialism and pushfulness. They regarded us as their conquerors, and for a hundred years half of our people had been on the threashold of civil war. We deliberately broke up the union existing in Canada, which had been arranged under the Durham Act, and made seven States with seven legislatures, and so far the system has been working admirably. "But," he said, "if you cross the room and speak to the then Leader of the Opposition and ask him what he thinks of the British North America Act you are likely to hear some lurid language." I crossed over, and my friend, who is still alive, said, "Yes. The British North America Act has been working for eleven years, and so far with no disaster, but you handed over the property of our coreligionists in the great State of Quebec to be plundered by Papists." That settlement of a long-existing quarrel by the British North America Act has worked like a charm. No property has been plundered by Celtic Catholics. The relations of the States within Canada to one another has become closer and closer, and

  1413
  if ever a tree was known by its fruits the emergence of Federalism in the last fifty years has entirely justified itself. I think there is much more in the proposed Federal structure than we who are attempting to build it at present know. I believe that the congestion of business in this House is a most serious bar to the National education. The intention of the legislatures of the world has not been merely for the purpose of making laws. The intention of legislation is that the useful Debates of that legislation shall go round and shall act as the nation's schoolmaster. Do we get useful and interesting Debates in this House to-day? Are the great questions of the Empire possible of discussion here?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interfere with what I understand is a maiden speech, but I am afraid the hon. Member is treating the matter much too widely. It is not a question of whether we are to have a Federal system or not, as opposed to Home Rule for Ireland; but whether a certain exception under Clause 2 is to be made with reference to Home Rule for Ireland alone or with reference to a Federal system for the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask whether the Debate is now confined to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pirie), or whether both the original Amendment and the Amendment to the proposed Amendment may now be discussed.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the general convenience of the Committee. Unless a special arrangement is made, it will be confined to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: May I appeal to you, Sir, with the assent of the House, to say that, as time is limited, it will be very much more to our general convenience if the whole question can be debated together.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I venture, if I may, to concur in that appeal.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is quite agreeable to me on the usual understanding that we decide both matters at about the same time.
  Mr. MORETON FREWEN: I will revert to the question of Ireland. I entirely agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friends behind me that there is no question
  1414
  that Ireland is so interested in. But, on the other hand, I think the passage of the Parliament Bill will be a real blow to those who, like myself, believe that we can get a Federal solution, and in that way settle the question of Ireland. I think the statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. Pirie) to the effect that Mr. Gladstone favoured a Federal solution is in error. All Mr. Gladstone's utterances at the time were distinctly anti-Federal, and I think it was the extreme anti-Federalism of Mr. Gladstone that made it impossible to pass the Home Rule Bill. If we can get a Federal measure before the country, if we can show that the State Legislatures of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales will occupy themselves with local business, leaving the affairs of the Empire to a Federal Chamber, we shall have gone a very long way indeed to settle the most important problem of our time. Mr. Gladstone's mind was distinctly anti-Federal. In the throes of that great Federal crisis which resulted in the war of secession, Mr. Gladstone declared that Jefferson Davis had made a nation. Gladstone's mind was rather bent on nation making. I think he was anti-Federal and that statement, which did so much harm to our diplomacy in the West, was the statement to which he adhered for the rest of his days. The Federal system is being held up to us as a solution of this question, but I believe there is much more in the Federal question than merely the settlement of the political relations of these Islands. As the Federal system emerges peace has followed it. If you take out of the forty-seven States of the American Union—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not in order. The hon. Member is discussing the question of Federalism at large. That is not the point before us at all.
  Mr. MORETON FREWEN: I represent probably a small minority in the South of Ireland extremely anxious for a settlement of the Irish question, and extremely anxious to be once more able to play a part in the politics of their country. Surrounded as I am by Catholics in Ireland—for I myself am not of that creed—I should feel perfectly happy if there were a State Legislature in Dublin with those powers which each of the Federal States, both of Canada and the United States, possesses. I believe, holding that view of the settlement of the Home Rule question, we can all look forward to conditions of peace and security.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: The party opposite are trying to wriggle out of the consequences of their proposal. This Clause, if passed without any Amendment, leads to nothing but the autocratic despotism of a Single Legislative Chamber. It is not necessary to say that the people's representatives on the Benches opposite will refrain from plunging into an orgy of constitutional revolution. They will take care not to be too extreme for their own sakes when they have to face the constituencies at a later stage. That consideration might act as a moderating influence, other things being equal, but I do not think that is any safeguard when the spirit of revenge is abroad. Such a party will be quite prepared to risk unpopularity in the country if it can only deal a damaging blow at its political opponents. We have a signal instance of this in the last Licensing Bill. We had another conspicuous example in the Budget of 1909, which wiped 100 off the majority of its promoters at the subsequent General Election. The Government did not study the political barometer then when they wanted to give vent to their political rancour, and I do not think there is much chance that they will pay much heed to it hereafter, when their weapons are even sharper than they are now. The best thing to do is to save them from themselves and to exclude, at any rate from the ambit of this Clause, those more important classes of legislation which might give them an opportunity of satisfying those illiberal tendencies to which I have referred. Their incitements to class hatred during the last few years show the bent of their minds. If I may use the expression, they are out for blood, and I do not believe any consideration, not even the instinct of self-preservation, would be allowed to stand in their way. This Clause places an all-powerful instrument in their hands. I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite are anxious to keep its purview as wide as possible. They see their opportunity. It may never present itself so favourably again. If they can abolish the Veto and stave off reform much may be done in the next three or four years. At the end of that time the electors will probably desire a change of administration, but the present Government will take the risk and will argue to themselves that what by then will have been accomplished will never be able to be effectually repealed. Therefore I feel that it is of extreme importance for hon. Members on these benches, and also the duty of all fair-minded politicians wherever they
  1416
  may sit, to exclude the graver kinds of legislation from this Clause before it is carried into law.
  It is especially important, considering the Cymmerian darkness in which we have been left as to the intentions of the Government in regard to Home Rule. The Prime Minister has stated that a measure will be introduced next year for setting up some sort of Executive in Ireland which is responsible to some sort of representative body. What the Prime Minister has not vouchsafed to explain in explicit terms is whether he intends, however meagre his majority on that Bill may prove to be, however strongly feeling may develop against it in the country, to force it into law without in the last instance referring it to the decision of the electors. We heard not long ago that the last election was won by the party opposite on Free Trade. We have also been told that the Veto of the House of Lords was the dominant issue before the electors. We now see that the Government have an exclusive mandate for Home Rule. The Prime Minister seems to be in a somewhat awkward predicament. He is between the devil and the deep sea, between Moderate Liberals, on the one hand, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) on the other. Up to now he has spoken fair to both and preserved an attitude of benevolent inactivity. But the situation has now become acute and requires the manipulation of a master hand. It is a case to draw out all those great gifts of Parliamentary finesse which the right hon. Gentleman has brought to such perfection. He has to convince Moderate Liberals that Home Rule on separatist lines will never form part of ins programme. On the other hand, he has to persuade even the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) that Home Rule, thorough-going Home Rule as Parnell understood it, will be placed without further delay on the Statute Book. The task is worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's abilities and his supreme faculty of promising everything, satisfying everybody and being committed to nothing. No doubt during the coming months he will emerge triumphantly from the ordeal. It is this ambiguity in regard to the policy of the Government which makes this Amendment all the more vital. The Irish party know very well that if there is no prospect of something being done in the near future the generous stream of subscriptions which comes to them from America will very soon cease

  1417
  to flow. Irish-Americans are not going to contribute year after year to hunt a will-o'-the-wisp. They are business men who know their own minds, and their hearts are full of haste. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) is a very gifted and eloquent speaker. He exercises great authority in the Nationalist councils of Ireland, and in the United States they crowd his meetings and cheer him to the echo, but does anyone in his senses suppose that the Irish in America are organised in their thousands for the purpose of listening to a series of perorations from the hon. Member, and to let the matter rest there? They will admire the hon. Member's oratory so long as his oratory means business. They have not forgotten the emigrant ships which carried their ancestors over-seas. They have not forgotten the horrors of the '40's. They want to see the separation of Great Britain and Ireland, and parish pump devolution is not going to satisfy these people. It has got to be snapped once and for all, and hon. Members know that their allies in America subscribe with that object, and with that object alone. They want to see something done. Having paid large sums out of their pockets for that purpose, and for that purpose alone, who can from their point of view blame them if that is their purpose? If the Prime Minister wishes to force Home Rule through Parliament under colour of altering the relations between the two Houses, is it very likely that it is going to be a devolution to Ireland of the management of purely local affairs? Is that what Americans have been asking for all these years?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask if the hon. Member is entitled to discuss the merits of Home Rule on this Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: He is entitled to discuss the merits of Home Rule only in so far as they affect this particular Amendment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will do my best to keep my remarks in order. Is that what the Irish party are going to accept at the hands of the Government which they have kept in power and had at their mercy during the last twelve months, and which they hold at their mercy still? Surely that would be very inadequate remuneration for such services. IE it is not that kind of devolution what is it going to be Is it to be the Home Rule which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)
  1418
  preached in Canada, or the Home Rule which the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) preached in the United States? Is it going to be the Home Rule so parsimoniously and grudgingly expounded by Liberal candidates on platforms at question time during the General Election? I am sure the hon. Member for the St. Ives Division of Cornwall (Sir Clifford Cory) would be gratified to have an answer before he gives his vote on this Amendment.
  Surely we have a right to demand that such a grave constitutional issue as Home Rule should be submitted to the people before it passes into law. Surely the Government trust the people. If so, they cannot have any objection to referring Home Rule to the people, or do they shrink from the result of such an ordeal? Are they afraid that their scheme would stand no chance if the electors were consulted before it was passed? We are not living in the eighteenth or the nineteenth century. The historic hatreds between Great Britain and Ireland are gradually fading away. Old sores, the result of ancient persecutions and misconceptions, are healing. The Irish people are better known and better appreciated, and there is an effort to understand their particular grievances, and to deal with the various problems affecting the land in which they dwell. A settlement of the Irish question can never be effected except by a proper understanding of the two peoples, and the mutual consent of both parties in the State. That is not the object the Government have in view. They propose recklessly to reshape the Constitution in order to facilitate the consummation of certain legislative experiments in the future. Hon. Members on both sides of the House—certainly those on this side, have a perfect right to demand that before this very great constitutional issue of Home Rule is decided it shall be, at any rate, excluded from the machinery which this Clause provides. If the Government refuse to accept the Amendment, hon. Members on this side of the House cannot be blamed if they do their utmost to oppose the Bill at every stage of its discussion.
  Captain WARING: It was my intention to support the Amendment to the Amendment, but I understand from your ruling that we are not entitled to discuss the merits of the Federal system. I shall bow to your ruling. The Debate is now confined to a very small issue, and I hope that

  1419
  the Government will give a sympathetic reply to the principle which lies behind the Amendment. Most of us who stood as candidates for Constituencies in Scotland put this question of Federal Parliaments, including Home Rule for Scotland, in the forefront at the General Election. I have always spoken in support of it in my own Constituency, and I know that my Constituents are in favour of it. I would merely echo in support of this Amendment the words of one Cabinet Minister. Lord Haldane said:—
  "It is our hope at a later stage to endeavour to free Parliament from the burden which is paralysing its power to deal adequately with great questions, such as those of Foreign Policy and National Defence, by delegating the mass of local business by which the House of Commons is to-day overwhelmed. Ireland—which has advanced markedly within the last ten years in the development of its people and their industries—presents a case where we think this should be done, and Ireland is not the only case in point."
  That is an extract from the last election address issued by the Noble Lord to the electors of East Lothian. Therefore, at least one Cabinet Minister included the question of Federal Home Rule in his programme. I have every reason to believe that the present representative of that county (Mr. J. D. Hope) has, if anything, enlarged upon and emphasised that particular point. We claim, as Scottish Members, that this Amendment to the Amendment is entitled to some consideration and to a sympathetic reply on the part of the Government. I believe the whole country desires it, and if the Government can see their way to accept the Amendment to the Amendment, at all events, in spirit, I believe that ultimately they would succeed in obtaining a solution of this constitutional question, and securing a settlement which would procure in the end lasting peace and contentment to the country on those matters which are exercising our minds at the present time.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: In the few remarks I have to make to the Committee I do not propose to deal with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie), for the simple reason that if Home Rule is ever granted to Ireland it would be a matter of absolute indifference whether Scotland, England, or Wales had Home Rule also. Home Rule for Ireland will so extinguish in my part of the country interest in the question that the fate of England, Scotland, or Wales will be of very little interest to us. I propose to deal with the remarks that fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo
  1420
  (Mr. Dillon). He said he was a great admirer of the British Constitution. Well, it was news to me to hear that either the hon. Member or any of his colleagues was an admirer of the British Constitution, for, in spite of his assertion on the subject, I must say that every speech which I have ever read, I do not say by the hon. Member for East Mayo, but certainly by the majority of hon. Members below the Gangway, has been in exactly the opposite direction.
  Mr. DILLON: I defy the hon. Member to quote a single passage in which I have referred adversely to the British Constitution.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I said I excepted the hon. Member, for I do not remember any speech of his in that sense, but I am sure it will be in the recollection of any Member of the House who has read the speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway on the subject of Home Rule that almost on every occasion they have said everything bad they could of the English Government and the English Constitution. The hon. Member went further, and said that in Ireland they had never enjoyed the British Constitution. I ask, how is that? It is simply because they have never made any attempt to enjoy it. They have refused to take part in the government of this country. At any moment hon. Members from Ireland might have joined themselves to one or other of the parties in this House, and, if they had done so, they, with the ability which everybody acknowledges they possess, would have received their full share in the Government of the country, and they would have risen in some cases to the highest offices which the Government have to give them. They have deliberately thrown that opportunity away, and they have for years banded themselves together on the question of Home Rule. If they have never enjoyed the British Constitution, I say it is altogether their own fault. They might have enjoyed it to the extent of other Members of this House. The hon. Member said it would be most unjust to exclude the question of Home Rule by the Amendment now before the Committee. He said that the question has been before the country for the last twenty-six years. I venture to say that during the last twenty years in the ordinary constituency in England there has been no question in which less interest has been taken than the question of Home Rule. As lately as 1906 a friend of mine went over from Ireland to try to

  1421
  influence the electors of England in the direction of keeping sound the Union, and time after time he was refused a hearing on the ground that the Home Rule question was not before the country. That was the case as lately as the General Election at the beginning of 1910. I admit that at the last General Election it was more before the country than on the previous occasion, but only to a very small extent. The hon. Member for East Mayo read a considerable number of extracts from speeches of hon. and right hon. Members of this House. May I ask why he did not refer to statements by the rank and file of hon. Members opposite? Throughout the whole Debate we have been referred to speeches by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. DILLON: We have not referred to their speeches because they are not running away from their statements. They stand by them.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Had the hon. Member tried to prove that the Home Rule question was before the electors, he would have pointed to a number of speeches by hon. Members opposite to that effect. We fully admit we did all in our power in this country to move the country to an understanding of the fact that Home Rule was the most important issue at the Election. We did that, and we failed, I admit, or we did not seem to make much impression on the minds of the people, for the reason which, I think, is a very plausible one, at any rate, that if a Unionist came on to a political platform and said that this Bill meant Home Rule, and if, immediately afterwards, a Radical candidate got up on a platform and never mentioned Home Rule, people were entitled to believe, or probably thought that the Unionist was simply drawing a red herring across the trail. I see an hon. Member opposite laugh; but if this question of Home Rule is as important as we assert it is, and as I believe the majority of Members of this House admit it to be, quite as important an issue as the Veto Bill itself, is it conceivable that two-thirds of hon. Members opposite, if they thought this Bill was so imminent and important as it undoubtedly is, would have left out any reference to it from their addresses?
  Out of 272 Members, only eighty-four mentioned it in their addresses at all, and 186 left it out altogether. The Prime Minister, speaking this afternoon, said
  1422
  the question of Home Rule was left out in the addresses because the Parliament Bill included all these other issues. I admit that possibly if an hon. Member opposite had said that the great question before the country at the present time was the Veto Bill that might by some be taken to include these other issues, but if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the election addresses of the vast majority of hon. Members opposite he will find that not only did they refer to the Veto Bill at the beginning of their address, but that they then proceeded to deal with other political questions which they considered important. I say in the case of hon. Members who referred to the Veto Bill in their addresses and then spoke of other questions, but did not speak about Home Rule, that the Home Rule question was not put before their constituencies as it ought to have been. In face of those figures that only eighty-four out of 270 Liberal Members in this House mentioned the words Home Rule in their election address, it is absolutely absurd to say that the question was properly put before the electorate.
  The Prime Minister claims that because he, as head of the Government, made a more or less specific statement in the Albert Hall more than a year ago, and that he referred again to that statement at the last election on three or four occasions, and that he elaborated, in very little detail I must say, this question of Home Rule, therefore the country was fully aware of the intention of the Government to introduce a Home Rule Bill. I think he even goes so far as to say that they knew practically what that Home Rule Bill was going to contain, and that because he, as head of the Government, made it perfectly clear that the Government was going to introduce a Home Rule Bill at some convenient opportunity, therefore we were debarred, no matter what else happened, from claiming that Home Rule was not an issue at the last election. That is a perfectly absurd claim. The statements of the Prime Minister are, of course, read by a large number of people throughout the country, but there is also a very much larger section of the community that never reads the statements of probably the leaders on either side of the House, and when it comes to an election these people have to depend entirely on what they hear from the candidates.
  The practice in the past—they have changed it now—undoubtedly has been for every candidate to put fully before the

  1423
  constituency, not only in his election addresses, but in his speeches on public platforms what are, so far as he knows, the intentions of the party to which he belongs. That was not done at the last election, and it is absurd to say that it was done. That is proved by the figures which I have read, and by the still more significant figures that I might read of the number of Ministers of the Crown who left out all reference to this question of Home Rule. Only about half the Cabinet Ministers mentioned it, and even a smaller proportion of other Ministers mentioned it in their election addresses; and the records show that there was no reference to the question at all by most of these gentlemen, and that, in the cases where there were references, they were very meagre and very few. The Prime Minister said he regarded this Bill as interposing very serious difficulties in the way of passing a Home Rule Bill. Where does the difficulty come in? Apparently he means that the fact that this Bill has to pass the House of Commons three times constitutes a difficulty. He has got a majority of 130, or whatever it is. Suppose, as presumably will be the case, a Home Rule Bill is introduced next year and passed by the House of Commons, where is the particular difficulty of passing it through a second time? Having voted for the measure a first time, presumably hon. Members will not have changed their mind and will vote for it in the June of the next year. Then how are we to expect any serious falling off in the number of those who vote for it in the June of the following year?
  Suppose there is a change in the feeling of the country, or suppose, what I say is the simple truth, that the country has not given a mandate on this subject at this last election, and desires to show that it is not in favour of Home Rule as has been claimed by the Prime Minister, how is it going to do that? It seems to me that, owing to the fact that Home Rule is to be passed by the same Parliament as passes this egregious Veto Bill, there is no possibility of the will of the country being manifested so as to affect the particular Parliament, and I would point out to hon. Members opposite that though a future Unionist Government may revise or repeal altogether the Parliament Bill, nothing can possibly annul or revise a Home Rule Bill except an armed force sent by this country to Ireland. There is a very great
  1424
  difference between this question of Home Rule and all other questions. You cannot go back on Home Rule without sending an armed force to Ireland and causing bloodshed and making the position of Ireland much worse than it is to-day. All these other questions are a mere bagatelle compared to this question of Ireland. Therefore I claim that special attention should be given to this question, and, far from being unjust, as the hon. Member for Mayo has said, for a Home Rule Bill to be excluded from this measure, it is nothing more or less than the merest justice to that portion of Ireland which is so determined in its objection to Home Rule that this question should be fairly and squarely put before the country. For those reasons I shall support this Amendment.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The very short time which the Government see fit to allow us to discuss the different parts of this Bill and the different Amendments which arise in connection with it make it impossible to deal in anything like an adequate manner with this among other grave questions. But I think my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale) will feel, if he entertained any doubt at all upon the subject, that his action in moving this Amendment has been abundantly justified even by the very short Debate which we have had this afternoon. Let us remind the Committee of what has been discussed this afternoon. This is the first occasion on which it has been possible to approach the Government on one or two of these issues. We have discussed to-day not only the position of the Government in regard to Home Rule, but also the much wider scheme of Federal Home Rule for the whole country upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Captain Pirie), and we had the advantage of a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. Frewen) who speaks with great experience and knowledge on this federal question.
  It would be interesting to learn from the Government their reception of this federal question; I shall be very much surprised if we do not find that the advocates of a federal form of Home Rule led by the hon. Member for Aberdeen will have to find consolation in the adoption of the practice which the Government have already made their own, namely, that when the Home Rule Bill for Ireland is introduced, there will be included in it a preamble, setting forth with the necessary preliminary language that later on Home Rule is to be

  1425
  granted to Scotland, Wales, and perhaps to different parts of England. But I question whether they will get any more consolation from the Government than that which they may derive from having a paragraph in the preamble to the Home Rule Bill. My belief is based on the fact that while the hon. Member for Aberdeen and others have comforted themselves with the knowledge which they tell us they possess that Irish Members are in favour of the federal scheme and offer no opposition to it, yet their support of Federal Home Rule has been of a purely negative kind. What they have said to Federal Home Rulers is: "By all means come on with your plan, but Ireland must come first and the Irish scheme should be considered by itself." Therefore, whether I judge of the future by the action of the Government or by the previous actions of the Nationalist party, I do not think that the Gentlemen opposite who have declared themselves so firmly attached to the federal scheme will not get much comfort out of the Debate which we have had. Let me come to the allegations to which the Prime Minister has taken such great exception, namely, that the attempt of the Government to carry this Parliament Bill, to be followed by the immediate introduction of Home Rule, is really taking the country by surprise, which is unaware what it is really proposed to do. The Prime Minister objects to the use of such words as "trickery," and so forth. I do not want, nor has it ever been my practice, to indulge in language personally offensive to anybody, but I am bound to say, as a very ordinary and plain individual, that I cannot understand what the meaning of language is if it does not imply and correctly imply that, in circumstances to which I will refer in a moment, the people have been deceived by the action and policy of His Majesty's Government. We were told in a previous Debate that the Parliament Bill had been clearly put before the country. In that Debate I do not think that anyone will be able to contradict me, when I say that while undoubtedly the Parliament Bill had been before the country in the sense in which it had been declared by the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues to be the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet it had been pressed upon the people, how? Not by explaining what the Parliament Bill means, not by expatiating upon its merits or the advantages that would flow from its passage, but, in order to secure votes for it, they told the people, in their cottages
  1426
  and in their homes, that certain terrible results would follow if they supported their political opponents.
  We have heard to-day a Debate that has ranged over a very considerable field—Federal Home Rule and Home Rule for Ireland—but we have not yet heard in this Debate one word from the Government indicating what their idea of Home Rule really is. The Prime Minister made his speech to us early in the afternoon, and it would have been easy indeed for him, with his great Parliamentary gifts, to have yielded, if only for an inch or two, and told the country something of what is meant by Home Rule. Was the country told anything during the election? What was the policy adopted in the constituencies? I am going to quote an instance in the county adjoining my own. I think the Prime Minister will find that with methods like these—and this is not a singular instance—you made it impossible for the electors of the country to know what was meant by Home Rule, or what was the real intention of the Government. I take the address of one Radical candidate—plenty of others can be obtained. He issued, as a form of address, a reply to "misstatements." I call the special attention of the Committee to the address of this Gentleman, standing as a Radical candidate, and who was directing the notice of the electors to what he called the "misstatements" of his opponents. What were those "misstatements"? Amongst others one was that the Government was pledged to Home Rule on the passage of the Parliament Bill. I have here a list of the "misstatements," and I pass over the earlier ones which are not now germane. No. 10 is this:—
  "The liberals are not in favour of Home Rule, Mr Asquith says—"
  And then he quotes, in inverted commas, whether accurately or not I do not pretend to say:—
  "We will give to Ireland more power to deal with purely local affairs, but there must be no question at all of separation."
  It is quite obvious what the "misstatement" was, and that is the contradiction of it, and how it was made perfectly clear to the electors of this country that Home Rule was to be the immediate result of the Parliament Bill. The Prime Minister himself was subjected to what is known as heckling, and, of course, if the Prime Minister has to undergo that fearful process, small people must necessarily also be subjected to it, and in the particular

  1427
  case to which I refer, this is what happened. The question was asked the candidate:—
  "How, under Home Rule, can we safeguard the interests of the Protestant minority in the North of Ireland?"
  Here is the answer:—
  "We shall not give to Ireland any further power than merely to deal with local affairs such as the County Councils do here."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] This was in a county where they returned a majority of candidates who support the Unionist cause. But if hon. Members attach more importance to declarations of this kind when made by those who won, we will have one. In my own county there was a very well-known case. A gentleman who is not now a Member of Parliament, and who has been translated to a more distinguished position, then made a direct statement upon the Home Rule question, and he preceded his statement by giving a very interesting domestic history of the Front Bench opposite. He told us that he was on the most intimate terms of friendship with the Patronage Secretary, and that he was his right hand man. He then went on to tell us about the hierarchy of power and the Patronage Secretary, the other ego of the Prime Minister; that whatever the Prime Minister knew the Patronage Secretary knew, and whatever the Patronage Secretary knew, he knew, "and you may take it from me," he said, "that I am in a position to make a full and accurate statement of Liberal policy." Then he went on to make his speech, and he told us that there were two Home Rule policies before the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quote."] I am quoting from memory; this is a very well-known case. I was present on the occasion, and I think the Committee will take my word for it. He then proceeded to lay down quite clearly that there were two Home Rule policies—one advocated by "us"—that is the hierarchy—and the other advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. He explained what the difference was, and he made it perfectly clear that one form meant limited local Government, whereas the other meant a much more extended form of Home Rule.
  Hon. Members know perfectly well that it is of no good trying to belittle the value of what I am saying by asking whether a man was elected or not; they know perfectly well, whether it was in regard to the Parliament Bill or Home Rule, that in order to win elections, in order to get
  1428
  votes, the electors were told, not what would be the effect of a full Home Rule measure, not what would be the effect of Single-Chamber Government by passing the Parliament Bill, but, on these matters, the case was put before them in the most agreeable form, and Home Rule was represented to be something very different from that which we anticipated it would be; and not only what we anticipated it would be, but something very different from what hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House would allow the Government to produce, or accept if they did produce it. The Prime Minister may take exception to the use of language of the kind to which I have referred. All I can say is, for my part, that I do not know what the meaning of words is if it is not deceiving the people to ask them to give the Government powers to use for a particular purpose, described in vague and general language, while saying that the dangers we talk of and the statements we make are not true. Yet they come here and claim that they have a mandate from these same people, under the powers of this Parliament Bill when it passes, to give full effect to their policy, not as they and their friends have described it, but as we, their political opponents, have described it. I want to say a word upon what is the strangest argument of all used by the Prime Minister himself and by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They say: "You declare Home Rule was not before the country; you declare that the Parliament Bill was not fully before the country. Why, you yourselves have brought them before the country." In other words, they are suggesting that the Government are justified in claiming that their policy was explained by those who are opposed to them. What does that really mean?
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated the case for the Opposition fully and completely on many occasions. We naturally backed him up, and made our statements in a smaller way. Did the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite accept my right hon. Friend's definition of policy as being correct? Did they at the time agree that lie had given a true interpretation of their plans and proposals? If they did not accept his view as being correct, if they did not admit that he was rightly interpreting their views, they have no right to come here to-day and say, because the Leader of the Opposition made that speech, and because the Opposition took

  1429
  this or that view, that therefore they are justified hi stating to-day that their policy was before the country at the time of the election. It is not possible now to discuss the gravity of the proposal of the Government, which is to be forced through this Bill. This Bill has a Preamble, and when the Prime Minister tells us that this Parliament Bill was before the country, and that on that Bill the people voted, he is surely strangely forgetting or ignoring the fact that it is only a part of the Bill we are now discussing. We know now that as soon as they have got part of the Bill giving the necessary powers to pass other legislation, the Preamble will disappear from sight, and we will hear no more about it. If you get your power under the Parliament Bill you intend to use it and force upon the country Home Rule, of which the electors know nothing, and of which you have told them nothing. I venture to say, without using language which may be held to be personally offensive, that this is unworthy of a great and powerful Government; it is not a course likely to lead to good legislation and wise reform; and if you really believe in this policy, and are really convinced that the country is behind you, then lake the country into your confidence. You are fraid to do that. We at all events are not afraid. We believe that the action of the Government and the course they are taking is one which is unworthy of themselves and full of danger for the country over which they preside.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The right hon. Gentleman began by pointing out the wide extent of the topics which have been touched upon in the course of the discussion. It is quite true that a number of matters have been touched upon in this Debate, but the question which is involved in the Amendment is a short and simple question. I venture to think that the Committee will consider that the actual question raised in this Debate is one which does not admit of so varied an answer as seems to be suggested. The question is this: Assume that the Parliament Bill is a Bill which this House is prepared to adopt in principle; assume that Clause 1, dealing with Money Bills, is already incorporated in the measure, then come to Clause 2, and ask this question: Is there any justification for excepting from the general operations of Clause 2 the measure pointed out in the Amendment of hon. Gentlemen opposite? I make bold to say that whatever may be the ex-
  1430
  tent of our dispute as to what happened at the General Election, however varied one man's experience may have been as compared with another's, there is not a Member of this House, on one side or the other, who ever heard of a candidature being put forward or a speech made on the issue, Shall we have a Parliament Bill which applies to everything except Home Rule? I care not whether you take those who speak in the name of the Government or those who speak as representing the leaders of the Opposition; I care not whether you take hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Labour party or to the Irish party, or to any English party, or to any English combination—some may have held one view of the Parliament Bill, others another—but nobody held the view which is embodied in this Amendment that the Parliament Bill was to be applied as a solution of disputes between the two Houses, but that it was not to be applied to what is the classic case of the opposition of the House of Lords to democratic aspirations, and that it was not to be applied to the special case of Home Rule for Ireland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, who intervened in this Debate in order to raise the special case of Scottish Home Rule, I am sure will agree with me when I suggest to him that he does not desire, and those who feel most keenly upon Scottish Home Rule do not desire, to cut out from the general application of the Parliament Bill any particular topic of legislation whatever. He and his friends agree with the Government and with the rest of their supporters. May I point out to my hon. Friend, whose intervention we all appreciated, what I am sure he, with his long devotion to the cause of Scottish Home Rule, well knows—namely, that this very subject of Scottish Home Rule was, in the year 1894, brought in the form of Resolution before this House. I think on that occasion the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) moved the Resolution. The Government of the day supported that Resolution, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who then as now opposed Home Rule, made a speech against that Resolution. Many of those who now form the present Government supported that Resolution in the Lobby, and it was carried in that year, 1894, by the unanimous approval of those who represent Liberal opinion. What was true in 1894 is true now. The enemies of the natural and proper aspirations of Scottish nationality are the enemies of the proper

  1431
  and natural aspirations of Irish nationality. The Friends of Ireland in this matter are the Friends of Scotland in this matter, and I recognise no such difference of opinion or of temper, or of spirit, as would justify the attempt, artfully made as it is from the other side, to distinguish between those of us who feel keenly on behalf of Scottish Home Rule and those who feel keenly with regard to Irish Home Rule.
  I will venture to make one observation about it, and that is this: that the Scottish case is a case which it is well worth while to consider, because it disposes for ever of the unfounded slander that the nationality which desires a measure of self-government is disloyal to the British Government. This Government happens to contain a great variety of Scottish Members, who may be expected to be not unfriendly towards the aspirations of their constituents. Whatever may be the view which Irish Unionists take of their fellow-countrymen who ask for local control over local affairs, at any rate it is due to Scottish Unionists to say that they never had the hardihood to accuse their own fellow-countrymen of want of loyalty, of want of devotion to the British Constitution, because they believe it to be possible, as I believe it to be possible, to combine a measure of self-government with the essential solidarity and union of the United Kingdom. The situation which is presented by hon. Gentlemen opposite really has its element of humour. The situation is that they are faced with the undeniable and uncomfortable fact that as the result of the election a Home Rule Government is in power, supported by a Home Rule majority and pledged to introduce a Home Rule Bill. So far that is a fact which no one can gainsay.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What do you mean by Home Rule?
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I understood this whole Debate proceeded on this assumption that the Government in power was supported by a Home Rule majority, that it was proposing to introduce a Home Rule Bill, and that the difficulty is that some explanation should be made of the situation which has produced that result. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are so certain that there can be no honest or reasonable explanation of that that they are driven to explanations, most honestly given I am
  1432
  sure, but explanations which certainly do not do much credit to hon. Gentlemen on the other side, or indeed do much credit to the electorate themselves. The real explanation is simple enough, and it is that the British electorate is not as frightened of Home Rule as hon. Gentlemen opposite are. That is a perfectly simple and easy explanation, but the right hon. Gentleman and his friends opposite cannot give that explanation, and they cast around for some other. What is the explanation that is to be offered of this uncomfortable and undeniable fact that there is a Home Rule Government in power going to produce a Home Rule Bill? The first explanation is that it is a fraud, that it is trickery, that it is chicanery and all the rest of it. That is an explanation which I desire most frankly to acknowledge has not been put forward in any way by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It is an explanation which falls to pieces when it is examined, and that explanation having gone, what is the next explanation which the Opposition are driven to adopt to explain the uncomfortable but undeniable fact that the electorate has returned a Government supported by a Home Rule majority? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There are some topics on which I might admit the contention of hon. Members opposite, but they will excuse me for saying that those who sit on these benches are the best judges as to whether this is a Home Rule Government or not.
  What is the next explanation; it being no longer possible to say that this dreadful consequence is due to fraud or chicanery or trickery? The second explanation is that it is due to the fact that the electorate are so stupid, and that they cannot have understood what was meant. The right hon. Gentleman on Thursday almost in terms delivered himself of this very curious statement. He says, "I and my friends did our very best to point out to the country that Home Rule and all these dreadful consequences would follow the passage of the Parliament Bill, but," he says, "in spite of that the country has put in power the Government that is going to carry the Parliament Bill." What could be the explanation? The only explanation that occurred to him was that they did not understand it, that he addresses the British electorate "we mourned unto you, but ye did not lament." He thinks that the only explanation is that the British

  1433
  electorate did not hear him mourning. Why, the British electorate are sick of his lamentations. There was not a hoarding in the land that was not plastered with those fine appeals to national sentiment in the form of American dollars and "Dollar Dictator." There was no election carried through but in which the greatest efforts were made, and most successfully, by hon. Gentlemen opposite to point to the awful fact that Home Rule would follow the Parliament Bill, and the country does not mind.
  Lord HUGH CECILmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: If the hon. Member the Member for Oxford University will allow me to say so, the hoardings of Oxford University were not. When he asks me whether a Referendum on Home Rule is going to take place I can give him a very plain and short answer—the answer is "No." Allow me to point out that that suggestion is not made now for the first time. It was made for the first time at the Albert Hall by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Why? Why was it made if Home Rule in his view and in the view of those he was addressing was no part of the issues he was discussing? The only explanation is that in his view and in the view of reasonable people who took part in this contest this Instrument we are now engaged in forging was going to be used to carry through the British Parliament that which we believe the British democracy desire in spite of the House of Lords. The real truth is that the delusion hon. Gentlemen opposite have is that they do not understand that the people of this country may perhaps desire a reasonable measure of Home Rule, and that produces confusion in the arguments they address to us.
  With all respect, I venture to say that they are labouring under two delusions. The first is that they seem to think that no English Liberal desires Home Rule for its own sake, and that no Liberal desires
  to see what he regards as a tardy measure of justice carried, whatever be the adjustment of parties in this House. The second delusion is that they seem to think that to impose the permanent and unqualified obstacle of the House of Lords to measures which might pass again and again through this House is to make some special arrangement for safety and security in the dominions of the King. It is not true. Inaction is not the same thing as safety. If there is any subject of public policy the history of which proves that I am right it is this very subject of reform in Ireland. When we claim that the majority which supports the Government and the majority in the country which returned that majority to this House, is a majority in favour of proposals which we hope to make, we make that claim not because of any of those discreditable manœuvres which hon. Gentlemen opposite find it so easy to imagine, but because we, from our hearts, believe that this is a measure of high policy and justice, too long overdue, desired now by the masses of the people throughout the Empire who take a pride in the spread of British institutions. We would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to exercise in this regard a little of that imagination which is so abundantly at their disposal when it comes to attributing evil motives to hon. Gentlemen on this side, and to realise that it is possible, and it is the fact, that the people of this country see that this is not the way to anarchy and revolution, but the way to a fairer distribution of equality of democracy, calculated to strengthen and not to weaken the Empire.
  Mr. PIRIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the Proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 284.

  Division No. 169.]

  AYES.

  [7.50 p.m.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Barnston, Harry

  Boyton, James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Barrie, Hugh T. (Londonderry)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Astor, Waldorf

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Burn, Colonel C R.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Butcher, John George

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Campion, W. R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Banner, John S Harmood-

  Bird, Alfred

  Cassel, Felix

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cator, John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cave, George

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Reyds, Edmund

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Samuel Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Croft, Henry Page

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law Andrew Bonar (Bootie, Lanes.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Spear, John Ward

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stanier, Beville

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Falle, B. G.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Staveley-Hill. Henry

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Swift, Rigby

  Fleming, Valentine

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sykes, Alan John

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Gordon, John

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Gretton, John

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Younger, George

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Hills, J. W.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Brace, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brady, P. J.

  Delany, William

  Adamson, William

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dillon, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Doris, William

  Alden, Percy

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Edwards, Enoch Hanley

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Barnes, George N.

  Clough, William

  Falconer, James

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Barton, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Beale, W. P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Field, William

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Crooks, William

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cullinan, J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Ginnell, L.

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Glanville, H. J

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bowerman, Charles W.

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  1436

  1437

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Manfield, Harry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Hackett, John

  Marks, George Croydon

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Hancock, John George

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rowlands, James

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molloy, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Harwood, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, John J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Muldoon, John

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Sheehy, David

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Neilson, Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Shortt, Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sutton, John E.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Dowd, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ogden, Fred

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Grady, James

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Johnson, William

  O'Malley, William

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Keating, Matthew

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wardle, George J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Waring, Walter

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Phillipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lansoury, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Pointer Joseph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Logan, John William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Lundon, Thomas

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Winfrey, Richard

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Maclean, Donald

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reddy, Michael

  Macveagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Richards, Thomas

  POWERS OF CROWN.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, after the word "Bill" ["other than a Money Bill"], to insert the words "or a Bill affecting the continued existence or the prerogative rights, and powers of the Crown."
  8.0 P.M.
  The necessity for this Amendment is that unless it is adopted it will be possible, under the provisions of this Bill, to abolish the Monarchy altogether, or, if that is thought a somewhat strong suggestion in
  1438
  the present state of education in the Liberal party, fundamentally to modify the prerogatives of the Crown. What is more, this could be done not only against the wishes and in spite of the opposition of the Second Chamber, but entirely behind the backs and against the wishes of the people. The point of my Amendment is this: that if there is to be a change in the rights or the powers of the Crown, it ought not to be carried into law under a mangled Constitution

  1439
  such as would be set up by this Bill. It ought to be done, if at all, in the ordinary usage and practice of our Constitution, with the consent of both Houses, and passed with the assent of the people themselves. There should be a power, as I conceive it, between the House of Commons itself and the Crown if a Bill is brought in for the purpose of affecting the rights and privileges of the Crown. If you abolish, as you do by this Parliament Bill the Veto of the House of Lords, at any rate the least you can do is to set up a Veto of the people, a Veto which will intervene I between the House of Commons and the Crown. In the case of this Bill, not only do you abolish the Veto of the Second Chamber, but you give no chance whatever to the people themselves to oppose a Bill they object to. Let me say two or three words about the abolition of the Monarchy, which is the first ground for my Amendment. I admit that in the present state of public opinion it is exceedingly improbable that such a proposal should be made to the House of Commons. The Sovereigns of this country are, and have been, for many years, deeply seated in the affections, loyalty, and reverence of their people. There is probably no immediate prospect of any proposal for the abolition of the Monarchy finding favour even with a Ministry depending upon the support of what I may call a log-rolling coalition House of Commons. But the mere fact that it is improbable that such a proposal should be made is to my mind no adequate argument against guarding against such a proposal if it should be made. Would it not have been said not long ago that a Bill such as this Parliament Bill was improbable? Three or four years ago the idea of a responsible Minister of the House of Commons bringing forward a Bill such as this Parliament Bill would have been scouted as impossible. Even a very few years ago the prospect of a Bill of this sort being brought forward would have been regarded as exceedingly remote. Therefore, I say, that the mere fact that this proposal is improbable is no reason why we should not guard against it. At any rate it is consistent with the scheme of the Bill that such a proposal might be made. I think, therefore, it is necessary that we should guard against it going through under the provisions of this Bill. Proposals af this sort, if brough forward at all, should pass through the Second Chomber, and should be subject to the assent of the people.
  1440
  This argument is made all the stronger when we reflect that it was only three or four nights ago that the Government told us that this Bill was not a mere temporary expedient, which we had been led to expect it would be, but that it is, so far as we were able to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to be a Bill of a permanent character. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is cheered by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. I suppose they will do their very utmost to take care that the scheme of the Bill shall be made permanent so long as this Government is in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is not that the very reason why we should take care that such a scheme as I have referred to should not be passed through under the provisions of this Bill? Although I admit that it is improbable that a Bill for the abolition of the Monarchy should pass the House of Commons as the matter stands at present, do not let us forget that there is a considerable section, or at any rate a section, of political force in this country which has put in the forefront of their programme the abolition of the Monarchy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," and "Which one?"] The Social Democratic Federation. Hon. Members are permitted to groan at that; but there is such a body, and I am not at all sure that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) were in his place he would not cheer at the idea of abolishing the Monarchy. So that you have a body in this country who have inscribed on their programme a definite proposal to abolish the Monarchy. We, therefore, at any rate ought to take care that that shall not pass through under the provisions of this Bill. We see how already there are dangers of small sections controlling the Government. Already we see that a body of Irish Members can dictate to the Government, and to this country, exactly as to how this Bill is to be carried, and, whether it is to pass or not. What I suggest is not entirely an imaginary danger. What is at present no doubt a small section may be able to control some future Government, and force them into bringing forward a proposal of this character.
  I pass to the next part of my Amendment, that which deals with the alteration or limitation of the prerogatives of the Crown. The prerogatives of the Crown are very large, and deal with an enormous variety of subjects. They deal, for instance, with such matters as peace

  1441
  and war, treaties, the acquisition of territory, the appointment of many dignitaries and authorities in the State, such as bishops, judges and magistrates, and many others. The prerogatives of the Crown deal also with such matters as the Dissolution of Parliament and the dismissal of Ministers. It is perfectly true that in all or nearly all of these matters the exercise of these prerogatives of the Crown is exercised upon the advice of Ministers, but there are also some powers remaining to the Crown which are within the personal competence of the Crown to exercise. Let me take, in the first instance, those powers of the Crown which are exercised on the advice of Ministers. I can well imagine that a case might arise where a demand might be made for depriving the Crown of these powers so as to invest them in other hands.
  Let me give the Committee an illustration of what I mean. In regard to the prerogative of appointing judges or magistrates, it is quite true that it is exercised by and on the advice of Ministers, but, having regard to events which have recently happened, and which may happen in the immediate future, it is at least possible that an ignorant outcry may arise. Indeed, I am not sure it has not already arisen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and "Ignorant?"] I prefer my own adjective. An ignorant outcry, I say, might arise against the present system of appointing judges or magistrates. The appointment, it is perfectly true, is made on the advice of Ministers, and it is made in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. But I can well understand that the demand might arise that the prerogative or right of the Crown should be abolished, and that the judges and magistrates should be appointed, let us say, by popular election, subject it may be to the approval of the House of Commons. It might very well be that the demand might be strongly urged by some party in this House that the present system of appointment should be done away with, and we in that way should interfere with one of the prerogatives of the Crown. Hon. Members would justify the demand upon very much the same reasons as the Parliament Bill is justified, namely, that it would be in the interests of the Liberal party, or some of their allies either below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, or below the Gangway on this side of the House. That is the reason why, as I understand it, the Parliament Bill is justified—and so far as I know the only
  1442
  reason. It is not justified in the interests of the country, but because the Liberal party want to carry certain measures into law which they cannot carry under the present Constitution.
  Exactly in the same way I can conceive this demand for altering the mode of appointing magistrates and judges may be justified, namely, that the interests of the Liberal party demand it—that there are not enough Liberal magistrates on the Bench. I seem to have heard that complaint recently, and I am not sure that hon. Members below the Gangway do not share that complaint. I seem also to have heard complaints made as to the appointment of judges. It might be necessary in the interests of unsuccessful Liberal candidates at elections, v/ho have lost their seats in consequence of breaking election laws, that the present mode of appointing judges should be altered. I do put it to this Committee that if demands of that sort are made it ought not to be possible for such demands to be carried through in the face of a paralysed Second Chamber and against the wishes of the people. If these demands are to be considered at all, they should be considered according to the old methods of our Constitution, in two Chambers, and with a power of appeal to the people. I give that as one instance, and one only, of how it might be dangerous to interfere with one of the present prerogatives of the Crown in the interests of the Liberal party and under the provisions of this present Parliament Bill. I might give many such instances.
  But let me go from these prerogatives which are exercised solely and wholly on the advice of Ministers to those prerogatives which, at any rate in theory, although rarely in practice, are within the competence of the Sovereign himself. I refer to such prerogatives as the dismissal of Ministers and the Dissolution of Parliament. I can quite see that under the provisions of this Parliament Bill, Bills might be brought into this House of most extreme danger to the public good, and under conditions where no Second Chamber is there to stop them and no popular vote is permitted under the provisions of this Bill to control them. Under these circumstances, I can well imagine that a demand should be made on the Sovereign that he should intervene to prevent the passage of such Bills into law—intervene, I agree, in an unusual way, either by the dismissal of Ministers, or by the dissolution of Parliament. Suppose he

  1443
  refused to accede to that demand, he might feel, and I think feel with some justice that the interests of the public, the interest of the country, were being betrayed, and that he was in a sense responsible for that betrayal. At any rate, it would put the Sovereign in an extremely obnoxious position, and a position in which he ought never to be placed. If on the one hand he should refuse to intervene he would feel as I have suggested. If, on the other hand he should intervene he would be violently denounced beyond any question by large sections of the population. But which ever happens you would have the Sovereign of this country brought into the vortex of party politics, from which he has happily escaped in the past, and in which I hope he never will be involved in the future. To bring the Sovereign into party politics would be disastrous, not only to the Crown itself, but most injurious to the interest of the country. Therefore, from my point of view also, as regards these prerogatives which are in no sense personal to the Crown, these prerogatives exercised only on the advice of Ministers, there is the strongest reason why you should interpose some power between the House of Commons and the Sovereign, and it is for that reason and in these interests that I move my Amendment and ask the Committee to say that as regards Bills of that character, which impair and interfere with the existing prerogative of the Crown, that no such Bill should be capable of being carried into law under the provisions of this Parliament Bill which have not the approval of the Second Chamber, or which deprives them of the power of referring these questions to the will of the people.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): After listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member, which shows that he devoted a considerable amount of thought and study to the question, I cannot but think if there was no other reason why the Government should draw no distinction between this and any other of the twenty-three classes of Amendments proposed his speech would have supplied it. The result of listening to the hon. and learned Member's speech was to convince me if there had been the slightest doubt before that it would be inadvisable to insert any such safeguards as he wants us to insert. I do not make these observations in any spirit other than that of desiring fairly to answer the point raised by
  1444
  the hon. and learned Member. The difference between the hon. and learned Member and us who sit on this side of the House is a fundamental difference. It is because we trust entirely to the loyalty of His Majesty's subjects, because we think that the security of the Crown rests upon the loyalty of His Majesty's subjects that we are convinced it would be an evil day for the Crown when its continued existence had to depend upon the preservation of the Veto of the House of Lords. The loyalty of His Majesty's subjects is expressed by the people who send Members to this House, and in this House I do not think it can be gainsaid that you have the reflection of the will of the people.
  Let me deal a little more in detail with the three divisions made by the hon. and learned Member. First of all he rested his Amendment upon the desirability, indeed, upon the necessity, according to him, of safeguarding the existence of the Crown itself. He said it was necessary to have some protection against the abolition of the Monarchy, as if, forsooth, anyone would imagine that the House of Commons, governed as this country is at the present moment, represening as we do in the House of Commons either in this or future Parliaments, the view of the majority of the people, would venture to propose anything equivalent or approaching in any way to the abolition of the Monarchy. In truth the hon. and learned Member must recognise, as I am sure he will, that there is no such danger even if he is right in the assertion as to what is part of the programme of the Social Federation. If what he said is true I do not think we have anything to fear from any federation which starts with that in the forefront of its programme.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to deal with the exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown, which he desires also to safeguard by preserving the right of Veto to the House of Lords for Acts done upon the advice of the Ministers. That is to say, the hon. and learned Member says there are acts which are done by the Sovereign in the exercise of this prerogative upon the advice of responsible Ministers, and he says "you ought to introduce into this Bill a special safeguard to protect the Sovereigns exercise of that prerogative by giving a special security preserving the Veto of the House of Lords as well as the necessity for a majority of votes in the House of Commons." I would

  1445
  point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is peculiarly to the House of Commons that this matter appertains, because the prerogatives of the Crown are, as he quite rightly stated, in the main almost in all instances exercised according to the constitutional practice of this country, not upon the will of the Sovereign, or according to his own judgment, but upon the advice of responsible Ministers, and when these Ministers have given their advice to the Sovereign, if there is any criticism to be directed to it that criticism is directed here.
  I think the hon. and learned Member forgets for a moment that it is here in this House that any vote of censure or equivalent to a vote of want of confidence on any Minister because of some action taken or because of some advice given to the Sovereign, would bring about the immediate fall of the Government. It is in the House of Commons that the resignation of the Government takes place. You may have a vote of censure or want of confidence passed upon the Government in the House of Lords, but the Government would not resign and would take no notice of it. It is for that very reason that I said the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument would convince me, if I ever had any doubt, that we ought not to accept this Amendment. Ministers who have to give this advice have to justify their action here in this House, and it is this House that decides whether a majority of its Members approve of that action or otherwise. There is one other point which the hon. and learned Member raised which seemed to me to be against his Amendment.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Might I explain that my point was that there might be a strong party opposite who might want a change made in the system of appointing judges.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the hon. and learned Member has not appreciated that I have followed the order he himself selected in moving his Amendment. The Government is responsible for the advice given and one of the Ministers of the Crown has to give advice recommending the appointment of a particular judge. With reference to the action of the Government, I fail to appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member because, after all, the judges are appointed independently of this House. They are
  1446
  selected from barristers practising at the Bar in this country by the head of the judiciary, and they are recommended by him from his knowledge of them, and from the position they hold at the Bar. I think this country has every reason to be satisfied with our method of appointing judges, and I think other countries are more likely to follow our example in this matter. If the hon. and learned Member failed to convince the Committee on his first and second points, at any rate, he must have failed to convince them on the third point. He said if his Amendment is rejected you will have the Sovereign thrown into the vortex of party politics, with the result of dragging the Sovereign into our party conflicts. The protection which this country and the Sovereign has against that is by following the constitutional practice of the Sovereign doing that which responsible Ministers advise him to do. That has been the constitutional practice in this country for a long time and so long as there is a majority here supporting the particular Government, and that Government is able to carry on that administrative and legislative programme in the House of Commons there will be no fear of the Sovereign attempting to dismiss his Ministers, or being called upon to dismiss them.
  The whole argument of the hon. and learned Member rests on the fallacy that the Sovereign can be brought into these matters. There might be a Dissolution of Parliament upon which there might be a question of a different character raised, but in that case if the Sovereign dissolved Parliament, what necessarily happens is an appeal to the constituencies, and the people are well entitled to determine what kind of Government they require, and the Sovereign chooses his Ministers from the supporters of the majority. It is difficult to see why we should introduce this Amendment, and I cannot help saying that in dealing with this matter, and in considering the position of the Crown and the Royal prerogatives compared with other countries, we have in this country the great safeguard that the maintenance of the Monarchy rests upon the patriotic loyalty of His Majesty's subjects. It must rest upon them, because those subjects elect the Members of this House. From that majority the Ministers are chosen, and those Ministers are responsible for the actions of the Sovereign which he takes upon their advice.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I think the Committee and the country are indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for bringing forward this Amendment. The discussion shows that the proposal of the Government is simply that there is no institution, however dear to the people, however fundamental and deep its roots may lie, that it is not proposed by this Bill to put at the mercy of the Vote of a Single Chamber. I think the Attorney-General has very inadequately appreciated the arguments put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. He says that to adopt this Amendment would be disastrous to the Crown, and the reason he gave for that proposition was that it was better that the Crown should rest upon the loyalty of the subjects of this country than upon the Veto of the House of Lords. No observation could show a more profound misconception of what the function of the Veto of the House of Lords has been in our history. The House of Lords has never resisted the will of the people. You may trace the history of the House of Lords as far back as you like, and you will find they have never offered any resistance to the will of the people when that will has been adequately ascertained and made clear. The House of Lords has never opposed the will of the people when it has been shown that it is no passing whim but the settled desire of the people of this country that a certain measure should be passed into law. That principle was laid down by the great Duke of Wellington, and that is a principle which has steadily guided the conduct of the House of Lords. The truth is that the Attorney-General confounds the House of Commons with the people of the country and the whole attitude he assumes is that we are the people of this country. The truth is you may have a House of Commons which does not represent upon some subjects the will of the people. That was loudly said by the Attorney-General and his friends with reference to at least one measure which was passed by the last Unionist Administration. [An HON. MEMBER: "More than one."] The Attorney-General said we had no mandate for passing the Education Act, that it did not represent the wishes of the people of the country, and that the Unionist Government had no business to pass it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And it never would have passed if it had taken two years.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I can readily show how fallacious that interruption is when I point
  1448
  out that as long as the same House of Commons lasts over the two years and the three Sessions you have no security for the people being consulted at all. The point is that the Crown and the great prerogatives of the Crown ought to rest upon the will of the people of this country, and you ought to have an adequate security against rash legislation interfering with these fundamental institutions. That safeguard the Government absolutely refuse to give, even in the case of the Crown. The Crown itself is to be at the mercy of the vote of this Chamber. There was one point brought out with great force by my hon. and learned Friend with which the Attorney-General did not deal at all, and that is that we now know that it is intended that this Bill shall be permanent in its operation. It is all very well to say that you do not want exceptional legislation, and to say that there is no danger of any such encroachment. I am not so sure about that. We might have an encroachment of the nature which my hon. and learned Friend has so fully and ably described within a comparatively short period. Take some of the great prerogatives of the Crown. Take, for example, the power of concluding the treaties with foreign countries. In America no treaty can be concluded without the consent of the Senate. I wonder whether any hon. Member will be able to give us any guarantee that this House, when it is a Single Chamber in full control of legislation, will not find its appetite growing by what it feeds on and claiming that it should have control over the Veto of the Crown in reference to foreign treaties.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he and his party have not claimed that already with regard to the Declaration of London?
  Sir R. FINLAY: No such claim has ever been made by the party on this side of the House. It is perfectly clear that the prerogative of concluding treaties rests with the Crown; and what has been desired by some Members of this House was that, before the Declaration of London was ratified, a Debate should take place in this House, so that the Crown might have before it full material for determining what decision should be arrived at on that important subject. That, however, is a different matter altogether. At no distant date a claim might be put forward that this House should enjoy the same right as the Senate of the United States enjoys

  1449
  —the right to say that no treaty should be concluded without its authority. Take the great question—peace or war. Can any subject be imagined which might be presented in a more fascinating light to a popular audience than that the House of Commons, the one effective Chamber, should be consulted on every occasion before war was declared or peace made? It would be said, "The burden falls upon you, and it is for you to say whether war should be declared. The burden has fallen upon you, and it is for you to say whether peace shall now be concluded in order that the burdens of war may cease." I can imagine arguments being presented in a fascinating light to a popular audience. Can anyone who has studied our Constitution pretend that such an alteration of that kind, however attractive it might appear to some hon. Members, and however attractive they might make it appear to their constituents, would be for the benefit of this country or for the efficiency of the Executive of this country.
  My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) has dealt with the question of the appointment of judges. He would be a bold man indeed who, after what has taken place within the last few weeks, would say this House might not claim to have a voice in that prerogative of the Crown. There is another matter which I think was just touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend, and which involves possibly as great a danger as may exist in any of the events to which he has referred, and that is the question of the Dissolution of Parliament. This Bill proposes that the duration of Parliament should be shortened to five years. Is it at all improbable that a House of Commons in the uncontrolled power which this Bill would confer upon it, anxious that some measure should be passed into law over the heads of the House of Lords, and anxious that the tenure of the seats of Members of this House of Commons should be prolonged until that great measure on which their hearts were set, had gone through the stages required by this Bill in order that it might be sent up for the assent of the Crown without the assent of the House of Lords, might desire to pass an Act providing that the Dissolution of Parliament should not take place without the consent of the House of Commons? There is, to my mind, nothing improbable about it at all.
  It is of no use appealing to the past. The House has acted under the restraints
  1450
  of the Constitution which have so long existed. You now propose to abolish those restraints and to make the House of Commons absolute masters of the situation. No person or body of men is fit to be entrusted with absolute power, and the history of this country is no guide to what you may see in the doings of the House of Commons under the system which you propose to establish. My hon. and learned Friend referred in guarded language to the possibility of an attack on the very existence of the Crown itself. The Attorney-General has said that is a danger which is simply fantastic. I agree at present the state of feeling in this House is such that we need not apprehend that any such law would in the next few years be brought forward, but events have moved very fast within the last ten years, and we do not know what direction events may take in the future until we see the House of Commons invested with the absolute control of our Constitution. We have all heard of the man who said:—
  "Is thy servant a dog that he should do these things?"
  We may see strange developments, and, however remote the danger may be, surely, when you are dealing with an institution so fundamental as that of the Crown in this country, you ought to put into your Bill an exception guarding it against any ill-advised measure. It can do no possible harm, and why is it you refuse to put in such an exception securing the Monarchy itself against an unfortunate assault upon it? You are entrusting the House of Commons with absolute power. Surely there ought to be something sacred from an attack under the casual influences of the hour, which might lead to a coalition banded together in a common attack on that which the country holds dearest. The Crown is safe with the people of this country, but, if you remove the safeguard of the Veto of the House of Lords, which after all only secures that the people should be consulted before any great change is made, you may see strange developments. I shall certainly vote for the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. TOBIN: I shall certainly support this Amendment for the very weighty reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it (Mr. Butcher) and by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in this Debate (Sir R. Finlay). I cannot see for a moment that one of the reasons given by the learned Attorney-

  1451
  General for refusing to accept the Amendment is a valid one, namely, that there is very little likelihood of a Bill affecting the continued existence of the prerogative of the Crown being introduced into this House. I think we have a right to protest, and we shall continue to protest, in spite of all the votes that take place on all these Amendments, against the non possumus attitude the Government have chosen to adopt on this as well as on other Amendments. They seem to take up this attitude, "The Bill we have drafted we have drafted. It is stereotyped in ink, and we will not allow a single comma to be altered. We will not budge from it." They refuse to consider any alteration of any kind. We have a right to protest against that attitude on the part of the Government, and we have a right to protest and shall continue to protest against the silence reigning on the benches on the other side. We do not know what their views are. I look in vain for the 270 Radical Members who have been returned to this Parliament, and some of whom, at any rate, ought to be here backing up their Front Bench. I see but one here, and I hope that his Constituency will have his name in gold letters before it to-morrow morning. Whatever arguments we produce in this House will not have any weight whatever upon it, because the Prime Minister said so in effect on Thursday last, even before he had heard what we had to say on behalf of Amendments such as this. But in spite of that we shall continue our arguments. We believe that the country outside is taking notice of them. We believe it is at last beginning to realise the dangers that are concealed in this Bill and the powers that it proposes to confer upon the Single Chamber which is thus being set up. The country likes us to produce our arguments It likes men to hit out by fair argument. It does not like men who go in for the stonewall process of blocking all the balls that are delivered against them. An important Bill, such as that indicated by the Mover of this Amendment, affecting the existing prerogatives of the Crown, might be carried by this Single Chamber which is being set up by a majority of one vote in spite of the wishes of the majority of the electors of this country, and that is being done without the provision of a single safeguard in the Bill to ensure that the people shall have been consulted first, or with a safeguard, such as is insisted upon by other constitutional countries in provid-
  1452
  ing that a Bill of this kind shall, at all events, only pass into law, not if carried by a bare majority in a Single Chamber, but if carried by a majority far exceeding one-half of both legislative bodies. For these reasons I cordially support this Amendment, seeking to exclude from the operation of this Bill measures which affect the existence of the prerogatives of the Crown.
  Mr. MILLS: I wish to point to the very serious danger which may arise if this Clause is passed into law in its present form. The objects of this Bill are, as far as we can understand, to give the two parties in the House an equal chance of their Bills passing into law, and also of insuring that the will of the elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons shall finally and ultimately prevail. This Bill, however, really goes a great deal further than that. It does not mean that the will of the House of Commons shall finally prevail, but that the will of this House, and therefore of the Cabinet which controls this House, shall be absolutely and entirely supreme in all matters of legislation. The Veto of the Crown having lapsed through desuetude, this Bill is going to take away the Veto of the Second Chamber. When you are giving this power to one House and one body it is only prudent you should impose some safeguard more than the common sense and loyalty of the Members, in order to prevent it carrying out wicked and foolish legislative proposals which not only this House but the whole country might afterwards be sorry for. There are certain legislative actions which this House should not be allowed to undertake without some exterior check. The most important of these functions is the one dealt with in this Amendment. The House should not be allowed to alter the prerogative or position of the Crown unless it is absolutely assured that it is expressing the will of the people who send it here. We all admit that the will of the people, through this House of Commons, must have unlimited power, but there should be power strong enough to refer back a measure so that it may not be passed until it has had the most mature and careful consideration. If you are going in this way to stifle all power of expression by the people, you are taking away from them the power which they eventually use and exercise by their vote, and you are driving them to force of arms and to civil war if they wish to impress their will on the Government of the day.

  1453
  Few hon. Members opposite know the real objects of this Bill as well as we do. When you talk about abolishing the Veto of the House of Lords you are doing nothing of the kind. You are abolishing the power of Veto of this country and setting up in its place an autocratic Cabinet. The Attorney-General said that we on this side of the House propose to protect the prerogative of the Crown by the Veto of the House of Lords. We do not intend to do that, but we do maintain that there should be some body outside the House of Commons which has power to see that the people are consulted before the House of Commons, which may have outrun its mandate, has the power of attacking the prerogative of the Monarchy. It may be urged that such an Amendment as this in the present state of feeling in the House of Commons is unnecessary. It seems to me, with all respect, that that is not a very forcible argument. If you are going to write a new Constitution you must frame it to be not only strong enough to withstand ordinary circumstances, but you must make it so strong that it will be able to withstand even the most unforeseen and extraordinary eventualities.
  I do not think we are justified in saying that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) mentioned some of the remarks uttered by various members of the Social Democratic party. I do not intend to quote them now, although I see present the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who no doubt would like to hear quoted his remarks about Republicanism, in which he said that the existence of a King was a proof of lunacy among the people. That hon. Gentleman is a Member of this House of Commons. He presumably represents some amount of thought. I know it is considered almost bad form to mention these things, but if there were a few more Gentlemen opposite doing their duty in this House, I do not think it would be wrong to mention them. I do not suppose the hon. Member who made them is ashamed of them, and I have never heard them repudiated by any of the hon. Members who sit around him. Therefore I suppose we may take it that they agree in great part with him. It must be remembered that these remarks are made not by mere party hacks speaking at street corners, but that they are made by leaders of the party who claim almost divine wisdom in the interpretation of political
  1454
  knowledge, and are never tired of telling us that we represent none but brewers and peers, while they represent the great intelligence of the working classes of this country. I do not agree with them in any of their professions; still less do I agree with them when they arrogate to themselves these attributes. But it is only right, without desiring to give them an advertisement, that their statements should be taken some notice of. I do not see, when these sort of opinions are held by hon. Gentlemen in this House, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has any right to say it is absolutely unnecessary to move an Amendment of this sort. I am not for one instant accusing right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that Front Bench of sharing these opinions. I believe they are as firm supporters of the Monarchy as anybody in this House or among the people of the country generally, but I do say the Government opposite are supported by a coalition majority. I do not wish to analyse that majority, that has been done before, and I am not saying it in any disrespectful way, but hon. Gentlemen themselves will be the first to confess that if they are dependent for their majority upon the support of a coalition, it is obvious that there must be some give and take in their policy. If these statements which we have all heard of by those hon. Gentlemen on the subject of the Monarchy are no more than mere talk—if they really are not opinions which they have come to—I do not think there is any criticism too strong for their action in this matter. If they are their opinions, and if they are trying to impress them upon the Government, the acceptance of this Amendment would strongly strengthen the hands of the Government in refusing their advances. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that in negotiations which have gone on they have made it apparent that a little strengthening of the Government would not be inconvenient in certain circumstances. The acceptance of this Amendment would reassure the country as a whole, because I think the country are beginning to suspect that this great Veto Bill which is going to liberate the masses is not a great national reform, but a mere piece of party quibble to keep the right hon. Gentlemen in power and enable them to try to evade the performance of their promises.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is, I am

  1455
  afraid, going back to the discussion of last Thursday, instead of confining himself to the Amendment on a specific subject which is before the Committee.
  Mr. MILLS: I entirely abide by your ruling, Sir, and apologise for transgressing. I was only saying that if this Amendment were accepted by the Government, the people of the country would realise their intentions, and that they are not passing this Bill in order to seat themselves comfortably in power for an indefinite term, but that they are seeking as they contend a real reform of the Constitution and not as we suspect a mere disturbance of that Constitution.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Amendment and the reply of the Attorney-General to it give a very good illustration of one of the difficulties in which the Government are landing Parliament under their new proposals. The Attorney-General has spoken of the great respect which the country feels for the Sovereign and of the great feeling of loyalty towards the Sovereign and the position which he occupies, but he forgets that that is due to the peculiar position that the Sovereign has hitherto enjoyed in this country by being detached and aloof from party politics. Under the proposals of the Government, we are convinced that he could not remain in that position. Hitherto when a Bill came before the Crown, it had the sanction of the whole of Parliament and of both Houses behind it. It is true, you may say that the Second Chamber of Parliament is defective and ought to be reformed, but hitherto a Bill when it went before the Sovereign for his assent, did so with the full assent of the whole Parliament of the country. In the future, under this Clause, a Bill will go before the Sovereign, which will only have the consent of one Chamber, and the result of that will be to confront the Crown with an entirely new set of problems which the Crown has not had to face for many a long year past. There has been hitherto a double check against any violent breaking of the Constitution such as is involved in a Home Rule Bill for any part of the United Kingdom. I do not apply that especially to Ireland. That check has operated twice, in 1886 there was the check of the House of Commons, and in 1893 there was the check of the House of Lords. Let me ask what would have happened in 1893 if there had
  1456
  been no House of Lords, or if the Veto of the House of Lords had been paralysed so that they could not have rejected the Home Rule Bill of the Government of the day. In 1893 the Bill was passed by the House of Commons, but it was rejected by the House of Lords. Assume that that Bill had become an Act of Parliament because the Constitution was working under the terms of this Bill.
  There is not the least doubt that in 1894 that Bill would have been passed again, and if there had been a slightly larger majority in the House of Commons it could have been passed in 1895. In fact I think it could have been passed under the conditions which then existed. In 1895 it would have gone to the Sovereign for his assent. In the meanwhile the whole trend of opinion after discussion would have been altered, but the House of Commons would then have affirmed the Bill, and in what position would the Sovereign have been? He would have known from all sources open to an intelligent man that the opinion of the country was against the Bill, but the House of Commons would have three times affirmed it. Then the task would have been put upon him of deciding whether he should give his assent to the Bill or not, and whatever decision he came to he must have offended an enormous body of his subjects. If he had passed the Bill he would, as the result of the election which was then held, have been proved to have offended the majority of his subjects. If he had refused his assent to the Bill he would have gone in the teeth of the House of Commons and have offended very nearly half his subjects. That is what his position would have been in the year 1895 if we had been working under the provisions of this Bill. Can anybody say that that situation may not recur, and that that situation will not recur in the course of the next few years? If it does recur you are putting a burden upon the Throne in hands however capable and strong which the Throne ought not to bear. You may say the Crown must act in a constitutional way, and the Bill being proposed for the assent of the Crown, the Crown must give its assent. Are you so sure of that? In the past the Crown had the sanction of the whole of Parliament behind the Bill when it came up for Royal Assent, but you are assuming a constitutional state of affairs which this Bill will destroy and, after all, although it may be two centuries since the power was exercised, the power does remain. The other day the question was asked as

  1457
  to Parliament prolonging its own duration, and the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden), the most extreme in his views of all Members of the House, said, "But you have always the Veto of the Crown, and that will be a case with which the Crown might exercise it." He acknowledged, and I quote him as a witness, that although you may say constitutionally the power of Veto has passed into desuetude, you may resurrect it, and you will if you pass this Bill. After all, the thing is very simple. A Bill is sent up, and the Sovereign has only to send a Commissioner, and the Commissioner will say a few words in French to the effect that the King will consider further of the matter, and the Bill is dead, and nothing you can do can bring it to life again.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I have been very patient with the hon. Member, but he is using an argument directed against the whole Bill rather than to this particular Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I not put myself in order in this way? Here is the power of the Crown. This Amendment states that it shall not be taken away under the procedure of this Clause. Therefore, I think I am entitled to argue that where the power of the Crown exists and may be brought into force it is desirable that that power shall still remain to bring it into force, and shall not be taken away under the provisions of the Bill. I submit that part is in order, but that particular portion of my argument has now come to an end. I am not only talking of the Veto of the Crown in the ordinary sense. I quote again what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Finlay) said, that that can be exercised in other ways. There is the power of dissolution, and there is the power of dismissal. I ask the Attorney-General first, has the power of dismissal passed into desuetude. It was exercised in 1851 and in 1834 against the whole of the triumphant Whig Ministry. I think he admitted that the Crown of its own right and power can dismiss a Parliament. Therefore, if the Crown were placed in such a position as I indicate, there are these two remedies open to it. I have spoken hitherto of ordinary legislation.
  I come to a legislation itself affecting and limiting the powers of the Crown. If the case is strong as regards ordinary legislation, it is far stronger with regard to these cases. Assume the position I have suggested that the Crown might estrange the feelings of large bodies of its
  1458
  own subjects, is it not possible, is it not probable, is it not under that assumption almost certain, that there would be a movement to restrain the powers of the Crown, and a Bill would be brought forward to provide that the powers of the Crown shall be limited in future just as the powers of the House of Lords are proposed to be limited by this Bill. Now you put the Crown into a position of extraordinary difficulty. Here is the prerogative of the Crown itself, whether as to dismissal, as to Veto, as to Treaties, or as to appointments. You have a Bill brought forward to limit the powers of the Crown in that regard. I do not follow the argument of the Attorney-General as against my learned Friend. He seemed to speak as though my learned Friend wanted to limit the rights of this House to criticise action of the Crown taken on the advice of Ministers. That is not the point. The case my learned Friend has in view was a Bill brought forward in this House to limit the powers of the Crown itself.
  I will give the case of Treaties. Sup pose a Bill brought forward providing that no Treaty should be ratified without the formal assent of the House of Commons. That passes this House and goes straight to the Crown. What is the position of the Crown? Is it to consent to a limitation of its own prerogative? After all, the Sovereign is not merely to consider himself and his own rights. He is a trustee of the Constitution, and all the branches of Parliament ought to be trustees of the Constitution. Ministers ought to be at this moment, but they are not. You must assume that the Sovereign of the day would regard himself as a trustee of the powers of the Crown itself. Is he to abandon his trust? If he is not, is he to defy this House with no check and no intermediary and perhaps with the knowledge in his own mind that the people were with him and against them? That is the position. Hitherto under the Constitution it has worked well enough. I will go back to the case of the Constitutional crisis of 1784. Then you had a House of Commons overwhelmingly set on the passage of the India Bill. The Crown was strongly against them, and the Crown nominated a Ministry which did not have the confidence of the House of Commons of the day and Mr. Pitt, on first taking office, knowing that the Crown was behind him and believing that the people were behind him, submitted to defeat day after day and week

  1459
  after week, carrying on the Executive Government. In the end he succeeded and the election that followed swept the former Ministry away. But if the House of Commons had prevailed and had been omnipotent, it would have triumphed and the people's cause would have been betrayed. I quote that as an instance where the Crown understands the wishes of the people better than this House. But whatever the question of the minute may be you will have this position, of the House of Commons demanding that the Crown shall surrender some one of its rights and the Crown will refuse—must refuse, if it believes the people is on its side, and remembers the position of trust which it must hold towards the Constitution. Then you will have the naked issue joined between the Crown and this House, and of all dangers to this country none could be greater than that. Surely you want some buffer between this House and the Crown. I will not go back to the hackneyed quotation in Cromwell's time. He created a Chamber on his arbitrary power to serve as a buffer. What you had before you will have again. Then whichever power of the Crown is used to the annoyance of the House of Commons will produce a demand that that power shall be reversed.
  I do not know whether the House remembers the Debate on this very subject about a year ago. It was the night on which the Prime Minister made his famous statement practically sealing the bargain with hon. Members below the Gangway and that is what stamps it on my mind. We were considering that night the third resolution, that Parliament shall sit for five years, and an hon. Member (Mr. Clough) argued that Parliament should sit for five years and no less, and that there should be no elections within the five years. That is a direct proposal to entrench upon the rights of the Crown. Do you think that if the prerogative of dissolution is used against the wishes and against the sentiments of the majority of this House there will not be a demand that the power shall be taken away? That was one of the incidents which led to the great Civil War, the demand that the prerogative of dissolution should be taken from the Crown. It might be for one reason, and it might be for another. But the proposal has already actually been made, and will be made again. What is the Crown to do on a question like that?
  1460
  It has sometimes been argued that we need not look to past times, which are over and gone, that we have to look not merely to matters as they present themselves to us in this House and at this moment. But I think a great writer very well and wisely said that they cannot look far forward to their descendants who do not look back to their ancestry. The constitutional questions were thrashed out, even to this very proposal that is now before the House, in the seventeenth century. Human nature remains the same. The attack then was first made on the Crown, and, when the Crown was at that time beaten down, then the other branch of the Constitution very swiftly followed. Now the attack is made first on the Second Chamber, but, if that succeeds, as surely as night follows day, and day follows night, the position of the Crown will be attacked. What happened in 1649? It was only a month after the power was taken from the Crown that the power was taken from the Second Chamber. Things may move more slowly now, but if you take away the power standing between this House and the Crown, you will bring this House and the Crown into direct and, perhaps, immediate antagonism, and destroy the whole balance of the Constitution. What the result of that will be we do not know in detail, but we have the testimony of the history of the seventeenth century, and know that the struggle will be an exceedingly bitter one. The end of it we cannot foresee, but whatever its ultimate end may be it must be bad for this realm which we all desire to maintain in its glory and renown.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: There is one aspect of the question which has not been brought forward prominently to-night, but which does very much confirm the opinion expressed by my learned Friend in desiring to exclude matters dealing with the prerogatives of the Crown from the Bill. In future such measures would not have full authority as it has been understood up to the present time. My hon. Friend has quoted precedents of 250 years ago, but at that time there was not in existence at all the element which appeals most to me. Now the prerogatives of the Crown are not limited to the opinions we hold with reference to them in this House. They are matters of vital importance to millions living outside of this country altogether. The existence of the Crown is the link which binds us to the great Dominions

  1461
  across the seas. It is that link that enables this country to rule the great Indian Empire, and, therefore, we may justly say that measures dealing with the existence of the prerogatives of the Crown are far too important to be dealt with in this way, and that they should be reserved specially when you are rewriting the Constitution. We know that the present arrangement is to take the counsel of the Dominions every four years. It would be possible under this Bill in half that time to do away with the position of the Crown, which is the very bond that binds together all those Dominions, and therefore it seems to me that we have a special case in appealing to the Government on the ground that we have no right to settle this for ourselves, and that we are bound in dealing with a matter of this sort to, at all events, be sure that any measure which affects the Crown at all should have the authority of Parliament as understood in the past and still understood throughout the Empire at large. I think that is a salient question and that the Government should give consideration to it before rejecting the Amendment.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend has pointed out. It seems to me that this is as an important Amendment as could possibly be presented on the Parliament Bill. My hon. Friend behind me has pointed out the present importance of the Crown in our Empire, and how it is the link between the centre of the Empire and the outlying parts. I ask hon. Members to think for a moment how, if this Parliament Bill becomes law, the importance of the Crown will be increased. Important as is the position of the Crown at present, it would be immensely increased in future because the responsibility would be greater. At the present moment there is a buffer in the existence of the Second Chamber, but in future if you have that buffer taken away for all practical purposes, then you will have nothing of any practical use between this Chamber and the Crown. The responsibility which will be laid upon his shoulders under those circumstances will be immeasurably greater than at the present moment. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench intend to take power under this Bill to pass an Act limiting the prerogatives of the Crown without referring to the people. I would ask them this plain question: Do you contemplate such an occasion? Supposing this Parliament Bill
  1462
  becomes law and the powers of the House of Lords are cut down as contemplated by the Bill, and supposing a controversy did arise between this House and the King, and the King were to say to himself, "Although this has passed through the House of Commons, I am of opinion it is not in accordance with the wishes of the people"—take such a position as that when the Home Rule Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. Although it passed through this House, it was well known that it did not represent the will of the people. Supposing the King were to say "This has passed through the House of Commons, but I do not think it represents the will of the people," and there arose a conflict between this House and the Crown, do the Government wish to take power to pass a Bill to limit the prerogatives of the Crown? If they do not intend to pass such a Bill without its being referred to the people, what is the objection to accepting this Amendment?
  Here we have for the first time something like a written Constitution. If we are to have a written Constitution, and it is the opinion of every Member of this House, as I believe it is, that it would be most unwise to take power for us in this House to pass any Bill interfering in any shape whatever with the prerogatives of the Crown without that particular Bill being referred to the people so that they could give an opinion on it, I ask the representatives of the Government to say what is the objection to accepting the Amendment? I should not have interfered in this discussion but for the fact that I feel that this is about the most important Amendment on the whole Bill. I am exceedingly sorry that we have not the Prime Minister here. I should certainly have hoped that he would have listened to the arguments presented in support of the Amendment.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The matter now before the House is one which in the opinion of our fellow-subjects beyond the seas is of the utmost gravity and importance. The Committee may be familiar with the fact that Canadians, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier especially, always speak of the relations between Canada and this country in the sense that Canada is an independent country owing allegiance to the King. All the Crown Colonies look really to the Crown. Almost all the coloured subjects of the King look entirely to the Crown as absolutely the centre and core of the authority of this Kingdom.

  1463
  Many millions of the King's subjects abroad do not know anything about this House and have never heard of it. They regard the King as the centre and symbol of authority in this country. I cannot but think it would be a shock both to the Dominions and the Crown Colonies if they feel that it is within the absolute power of this House hereafter substantially to limit the authority of the Crown without there being, as hon. Friends below the Gangway have put it, a buffer between this House and the Crown. That may be illustrated by the consideration of a matter which was before the House two or three years ago, and has often been made the subject of boasting of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. I mean the prerogative of letters patent. The constitution of the Transvaal and of the Orange Free Colony we settled by letters patent, with which I would not say the House had nothing to do, because it was brought as a matter of courtesy before this House, but as a matter of fact those letters patent could have settled the question of the constitution both of the Transvaal and of the Orange Colony, as well as of United South Africa, without the interference either of this House or of the House of Lords. The rights of making treaties, of dissolving Parliament, and of appointing judges are matters which the events of the last two or three days have proved are in substantial risk at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was only by the exercise of the authority of Mr. Speaker that a Division was prevented the other day as to the legal right of a Member, declared to be a Member of this 'House by the judges, to become a Member of this House. What was the supposed reason against his being allowed to take his seat? It was the reason of every loser—that is was unfair.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. Is this a question that is fairly under discussion?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in order in going into that matter, but I see no reason to interfere as far as he has gone.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member's experience in this House is not very great or he would appreciate the difference between an illustration and a subsequent argument. I was giving an illustration of the liability, a natural liability, because we are all human beings—of an
  1464
  assembly of this kind to be dominated by a majority who feel themselves aggrieved by decisions of judges, and are obviously desirous of interfering with their appointment and status. It is very undesirable that the appointments of the Crown, safeguarded in the way in which they have been all these years, should be put back under the authority of this House without any intermediary between this House and the Crown. In my opinion it would be disastrous for the future if, as my hon. Friend said so well and pointedly, in a matter between the Crown and this-House, this House perhaps possessed some very strong opinion at a moment when there was substantial doubt as to whether the issue between the Crown and this House was one in which the people were not with this House, but with the Crown.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to know what is the real objection of the Government to this Amendment?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I gave my reasons when the hon. Baronet was not in the House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot conceive that any one like the hon. and learned Gentleman could have given any satisfactory reason for rejecting this Amendment, and that is why I venture to appeal to him to reconsider the matter. The Amendment merely comes to this, that it states in emphatic language that both sides of the House of Commons are desirous that the Crown should continue in existence. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman desirous that the Crown should continue in existence, and if he is why do they not accept the Amendment? Or does he contemplate that something might arise which would compel the Radical party—
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: These questions have been answered already.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think that the hon. Baronet was not in the House when I gave my answer.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I point out that three specific questions were put by myself which were not answered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would be glad to sit down if the hon. and learned Gentleman would answer the questions which have been put. I rose because I thought that in a serious question of this sort sufficient time had not been given by the Government, and as we are accustomed—I do not say it is the case with

  1465
  the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he is the exception which proves the rule to be treated a little haut en bas by Members on that side of the House. I rose not with the idea of embarrassing the hon. and learned Gentleman because I have always endeavoured to conduct controversy in this House in as fair a manner as possible, but because I thought my hon. Friend was entitled to some answer to the questions which he had put to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the questions put by my hon. Friend are deserving of some answer from the Government. The question of whether the Royal Assent has fallen into desuetude is a very important one. I do not know whether the prerogative to refuse the Royal Assent is revived by this Bill or whether it is not.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The reply to this particular Amendment has been made, but
  I do not wish to appear discourteous. The answer is that the Royal power with regard to Veto has already been dealt with when the Prime Minister said that it has fallen into desuetude. [Lord HUGH CECIL: "Dead as Queen Anne."] With regard to the other question I do not think this is the moment to discuss the merits of the subject.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The learned Attorney-General said something about the power of Dissolution, but it was very vague. Is it the opinion of the Government that the Royal power of dissolving Parliament against the advice of Ministers of the Grown has fallen into disuse or not, and has the Royal power of dismissing Ministers fallen into disuse or not?
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 273.

  Division No. 170.]

  AYES.

  [9.40 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Astor, Waldorf

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baird, J. L.

  Fell, Arthur

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

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

  Finlay, Sir R.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mackinder, H J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fleming, Valentine

  Macmaster, Donald

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mills, Hon Charles Thomas

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, J.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Benn, Ion H (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nield, Herbert

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Bird, A.

  Hamerslsy, Alfred St. George

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

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Boyton, J.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Campion, W. R.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cassel, Felix

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Royds, Edmund

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanier, Beville

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Croft, H. P.

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinal

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

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Swift, Rigby

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Sykes, Alan John

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Younger, George

  Talbot, Lord E.

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N W.)

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Winterton, Earl

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wolmer, Viscount

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ffrench, Peter

  Marks, George Croydon

  Adamson, William

  Field, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Martin, Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Alden, Percy

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Allen, Artnur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Meagher, Michael

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Millar, James Duncan

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molloy, M.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barnes, George N.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

  Hackett, J.

  Mooney, John L.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Barton, William

  Hancock, John George

  Muldoon, John

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Neilson, Francis

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Boland, John Pius

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brady, P. J.

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Brigg, Sir John

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Dowd, John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ogden, Fred

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hinds, John

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hodge, John

  O'Malley, William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Holt, Richard Burning

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

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

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Clough, William

  Johnson, William

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Phillips, John (Longlord, S.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Joyce, Michael

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Keating, Matthew

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crean, Eugene

  Kelly, Edward

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crooks, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Cullinan, John

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lansbury, George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Reddy, Michael

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Delany, William

  Logan, John William

  Richards, Thomas

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Doris, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Essex, Richard Walter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Rowlands, James

  Falconer, James

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  1468

  1469

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

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Waring, Walter

  Winfrey, Richard

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Taylor, John w. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to propose in Sub-section (1), after the second word "Bill" ["other than a Money Bill"] to insert the words, "or Bill for modifying this Act."
  I am sorry to say I was not able to be present on last Thursday to hear the speech of the Prime Minister, but I understand that in that speech he distinctly stated that the Government would not be prepared to accept any of the exempting Amendments which appeared on the Paper. The attitude of the Government on the Amendments that have been moved shows that the Members are prepared to carry out the instructions of the Prime Minister. Personally I very much regret that those exempting Amendments have not received that amount of careful attention which it seems to me their very grave importance in dealing with a Bill of this kind deserves. I cannot, however, help feeling that the Prime Minister had not considered this particular Amendment when he came to the general conclusion which he asserted on Thursday last. This Amendment differs essentially from every one of the other important Amendments which provide for certain exemptions from the machinery created by this Bill. It belongs to another category altogether and none of the other Amendments are in any way similar. The bulk of the other Amendments propose to exempt some particular measure, having regard to its importance, from the operations of the Bill, and to leave to the Second Chamber, with respect to those particular measures, the powers which it possesses at present, and would possess but for the machinery set up by this Bill. My Amendment excludes the Amendment of the Bill itself from the machinery provided by this Bill.
  I take it that it will be generally admitted that this Parliament Bill alters essentially, and in a way in which it has never been altered for the last two or
  1470
  three hundred years, the Constitution of the country. I think it will be admitted, after the speeches which have been made to-day, notwithstnding what some of the Ministers have said, that this Bill practically creates one-Chamber Government. I am quite aware that the Prime Minister has on more than one occasion stated that he is in favour, and remains in favour, of two-Chamber Government. I cannot help thinking when he makes that assertion that he uses the word "Chamber" in two different senses. He uses it ire speaking to the public in the sense ire which two-Chamber Government is understood in every civilised country in the world, and he uses it in speaking in this Parliament in the meaning provided by this Bill. Those two senses are quite different from one another. I take it that the only safeguard to one - Chamber Government which this Bill sets up is that a certain amount of time may elapse between the passing of a Bill in this House and that Bill becoming law without the consent of the Second Chamber. I think it will be generally admitted that is the effect of the Bill as it stands the important point of my Amendment follows from the fact that the Government realise that this Bill cannot be carried into law without the consent of the House of Lords. Whether they would desire that it should be carried into effect without their consent is another matter. They definitely realise that this fundamental alteration in the Constitution of this country cannot become law unless it has the assent of both Houses of Parliament. How that assent is to be obtained is of course not for me now even to consider. The House of Lords may agree to the Bill, in which case it may obtain the assent of both Houses, or they may not agree to the Bill, and the Prime Minister may put into force a threat which has been used

  1471
  to create a sufficient number of Peers in order that the Bill may become law with the assent of both Houses.
  The point that I desire to emphasise is that the Bill cannot become law unless it has the assent of both House of Parliament. What I claim for my Amendment is that any change in this Bill shall also not become law without the consent of both Houses, and that having once passed this Bill it shall not be again altered unless the House of Lords give its consent. That is the essential feature of this Amendment—that the same condition shall hold good as regards the alteration or amendment or modification of this Bill as the Government recognise must hold good in order that the Bill may pass into law. In other words, the proposal is that the Constitution of this country cannot be again changed any more than it is being changed now without either the assent of both Houses of Parliament, or without an appeal to the country, so that the will of the people with regard to any alteration in this Bill may be made known. The Prime Minister and the Government claim that they have a mandate for the passing of this Bill. I ask them by this Amendment to be sure that they have a mandate from the people for any modification of this Bill, or for any future alteration in the Constitution of the country. This seems to me an eminently reasonable proposition, which ought to commend itself to the consideration of the Government. It is equally fair to both sides. When the Unionist party come into power they might be glad to be able to alter the Parliament Bill without reference to the Upper House, but they would find it necessary to submit themselves to exactly the same procedure as I am now suggesting to the Government. Consider for a moment what may happen if the Amendment be not accepted. Suppose that after the passing of this Bill a Government even more Radical than the present Government were in power and that they desired without the sanction of the House of Lords so to modify this Bill that the duration of Parliament might be continued for seven, nine, or any other number of years, or that a shorter period might elapse between the passing of a Bill for the first time in the House of Commons and its receiving the Royal Assent. What is there to prevent them so doing? They would be able to do it by modifying this Bill, and they would be able so to alter the Constitution as practically to
  1472
  secure that Bills might pass with the assent of this House alone in the course of one Session only. It cannot be denied that this Bill has been brought forward very much in order to satisfy the wishes of the Irish party, so that Home Rule may follow without the assent of the Second Chamber.
  Mr. DILLON: And many other things.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Suppose this Bill has been passed and Home Rule granted, the Government will then have to consider the wishes of hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side. What is it that, they demand as strongly as Nationalists demand Home Rule? They demand the abolition of the Upper Chamber altogether. May it not be that under circumstances which may arise the Government will be compelled to defer to the Labour Members in the same way as they have to do to the Nationalist Members, and that they will be prepared to alter this Bill so as to give effect as speedily as possible to the wishes of the Labour Members? I cannot help thinking that that is not the original intention of the Government, and for that reason I think they ought to be desirous of accepting this Amendment. The acceptance of this Amendment must be regarded as a test of the Prime Minister's sincerity when he says that he desires to preserve some shadow of authority to the Upper Chamber. The arguments adduced in favour of adopting some of the exempting Amendments would have a great deal more force if the Bill were altered in the way I suggest. Further, the Bill contains a Preamble which has not yet been discussed. We have not heard when the reconstitution of the House of Lords is to take, place. Unless this Amendment be accepted I fear that in some future Parliament, under a Radical Government, subservient to a large extent to the Labour party, the whole of the portion of the Bill dealing with the reconstitution of the House of Lords might be entirely repealed. These seem to me valid and strong reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. Unless the Amendment be accepted we shall be entering upon a downward course which will ultimately lead to the total abolition of the powers of the Second Chamber and land us with a Government consisting of one Chamber only and all the arbitrary despotism with which a Government so constituted will be endowed. I beg to move.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I listened with great respect to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, either in the form in which he has proposed it or in any other forms in which the same proposition appears on the paper. The reason is very simple. We have already determined on more than one Amendment to accept the principle that, apart from Money Bills, there is to be one uniform rule applied to all kinds of legislation, namely, the rule laid down in this Clause. Only to-night we have refused to except from the operation of that rule Bills for the creation of Home Rule in any of its various forms, and, by the Amendment rejected a few moments ago, Bills affecting the prerogatives of the Crown. We have further, in debating a previous Amendment, refused to limit the power of the House of Commons to deal with the duration of Parliaments in the future. That being so, I cannot think that it would be either logical or convenient that we should make a special exception in favour of the provisions of this particular Bill. The Government may have a parental pride in the Bill. As a Bill, I believe it is a very good Bill—but I should be very sorry to see the liberty of a future House of Commons in any way impaired or restricted by the means of an exception proscribing any Amendments which experience may show to be necessary. I think that would really be sufficient to dispose of the Amendment; but let me add one further point—a very Serious point. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried it would establish, or rather it would stereotype, with regard to this particular matter, an equality, and a very serious inequality, as between the two parties in the State. Suppose this Amendment to be carried. Suppose you do elect to-morrow, or next year, a House of Commons in which the party opposite were in power. They could alter any one of the provisions of this Bill with the assent of the other Chamber. I am assuming for the sake of argument that that Second Chamber was still a Chamber in which there was the normal Conservative majority—
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Why assume it if that House is to be reconstituted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We are obliged to take contingencies into account. I should have very great confidence in the kind of Second Chamber which is contemplated by the Preamble of this Bill. But
  1474
  I am sorry to say I do not see the possibility of an immediate creation of such a Chamber. In the meantime we have to consider what will be the state of things without such a Chamber; what would it be if this Amendment were carried. It would be establishing, as I have said, for the time being an absolute inequality between the two parties in the State. We could not amend the procedure in Clause 2 of the Bill, however much experience might show it to be necessary, without resorting to the old forms of the Constitution, enabling the House of Lords to block our proposals. On the other hand, a casual, temporary, and precarious—and in point of numbers an insignificant—majority of the party opposite could with the greatest possible ease extend our three Sessions to five, and our two years to three, and render practically the operative part of this Bill futile and nugatory. I am bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he will agree with me after what I have said—that the carrying of this Amendment will establish an inequality as between the two parties in the State. For the reason I have given—namely, that we want to have one uniform rule for legislation—to apply to all things, great or small, important or unimportant, organic, or inorganic, the Government cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman contemplates with dismay the possibility of a Unionist majority, "temporary, precarious, and insignificant" ever altering this Bill by the help of a friendly House of Lords. Are there no "temporary, precarious, and insignificant" majorities on the other side? Is it only one party in the State whose predominance in this Chamber is "temporary, precarious, and insignificant," and if these are disqualifications attaching in turn to a majority from either party in the State, or from any party in the State, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that to such a "temporary, precarious, and insignificant" majority you ought not to entrust dealing with the fundamental Constitution of the country, I wish to know how he justifies this Bill at all? He has got on this Amendment as he has on many others this bugbear of what he calls the inequality between the two sides of the House. This makes him tremble to think that there may be a majority in this House coincident in opinion with the opinion of the other House, and the idea of any such unfair advantage in what he evidently regards

  1475
  as the game of politics, fills him with the same kind of dismay as unfair rules in the carrying on of any particular contest on the football field. [An HON. MEMBER "Or golf."]—yes, or golf—fills a competitor with dismay. The remedy for that is to reform the House of Lords. Let him get his own countrymen in favour of a reconstitution of a Second Chamber. Do not let him adopt what he is inconsistently adopting now.
  What does he say? "Since the House of Lords as at present constituted does not agree with me in my opinion we will so frame the Constitution that a 'temporary, precarious, and insignificant' majority in this House shall always be able to modify that part of the Constitution from top to bottom." I think that is a grotesque policy with regard to any of the fundamental laws of the kingdom. It is a doubly grotesque policy when you come to the machinery by which the Constitution itself is altered. Every State in the world has got greater safeguards in its Constitution than we have under the old traditional policy of this country of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. First and Second Chambers are required to agree before any law becomes law. Even under that system we are less protected against fundamental changes by "temporary, precarious, and insignificant" majority than in any other country which has a deliberately framed Constitution. You are not content with that relatively unstable position. You are going to make the position still more unstable by saying that all changes, however tremendous—not merely in the Constitution of the country, but in the machinery by which that Constitution is hereafter to be moulded—are to be henceforth at the mercy of a "temporary, precarious, and insignificant" majority. I think that is lunacy. I cannot understand any serious body of politicians trying to carry it into effect. You ask us not merely to assent to revolution, but to assent to revolution which in turn makes future revolution a matter of a "temporary, precarious, and insignificant" majority. I never heard of such a policy. Is there any political theorist in any part of the world, speaking any language, dealing with any Constitution, however old or however new, who has decided, not merely that the Constitution itself in ordinary legislation shall be a one-Chamber system, but that the whole of the
  1476
  future moulding of that policy shall be in the hands of one Chamber, and one Chamber alone?
  I do not see how on what principle His Majesty's Government on their own argument and on their own showing can justify this. The right hon. Gentleman has told us all through these Debates that after all the power left to the House of Lords is a considerable power, because that they have the power to hang up a Bill for two years. I regard that as a most inadequate safeguard, but at all events let us grant the importance and the value which the right hon. Gentleman gives it. By what tenure is that safeguard preserved? Is that a fundamental part of the Constitution? When you are handing over all the powers to this Chamber over ordinary legislation we see the greatest objection to it, but we at all events know that no further invasion upon our Constitution can be made except under the provisions you are putting before us. Now it seems that that may be the fruitful parent of any number of further revolutions, each one of which fritters away what you call the safeguards In these circumstances you are asking us to substitute the ancient foundations of the Constitution, foundations of moving sand which any breath may sweep away. The right hon. Gentleman himself has dilated for momentary rhetorical purposes upon the transitory character of the representation which a majority of this House may have. He himself in a moment of forgetfulness has explained in a happy phrase how little the majority of this House may represent the permanent opinions of the country. Are we now, from henceforth going to hand over to a majority of the House, constituted as he tells us as a majority of this House so often is, not merely the ordinary legislation of the country, but the very shaping of the machinery by which legislation is to be carried into effect. It is not merely the craze for revolution which has animated the Government from the beginning of this whole policy; they are going a step further now and they are making it perfectly clear to every Member of this House and to every member of the general public who still takes the trouble to consider the tenor of legislation that henceforth everything we hold sacred and dear is to be for ever in the keeping and the keeping only of a majority which, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, is "temporary, precarious, and insignificant."
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: The Prime Minister has given some reasons for refusing this Amendment. The first is that he already refused an Amendment to exempt the granting of Home Rule to Ireland, and an Amendment to exempt prerogatives of the Crown, and another reason I think was that this Amendment is outside the scope of this Bill. He said in these circumstances it would be illogical to exempt from the provisions of this Bill any subsequent Bill that might seek to amend its terms. Besides these, another argument was that it would act very unfairly between the two parties, and that when the present Opposition came into power he contended it could do exactly what it liked with the House of Lords. May I respectfully point out that this Amendment is moved quite as much in the interests of the party oppositt as it is in our own party. It is quite true this Amendment is moved directly with the purpose of preventing the Liberal party from further extending what we believe to be the iniquitous provisions of this Parliament Bill. For example, we do not desire to see any Radical Government prolonging the duration of Parliament from five years to seven, nine, or eleven years. We do not desire to see a Radical Government coming in and saying, under the first Clause of this Bill, that the person who is to decide what is or is not a Money Bill is in future not to be the Speaker of the House of Commons, but the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We do not desire to see a Radical Government come in, and under Clause 2 alter the three successive Sessions into one Session. We do not desire them to enact that any Bill shall become law which has been passed three times, not only within two years, but within a period of even six months, because that could easily be done by the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament, meeting the next day, and then passing the Bill again. That could easily be done by any Government that has its tail wagged by the party below the Gangway. That is why we press this Amendment. Supposing this Bill is passed into law? I am presuming that the Liberal party will have created their 500 puppet peers establishing their majority in the other House. In the ordinary course of things, I presume, the Unionist party will come into power again, and I imagine that one of their first acts would be to repeal the provisions of the Parliament Bill. You would then find the House of Lords with a Radical majority, and we should have
  1478
  no say at all in the passage of a Bill brought forward by the Unionist party to repeal this Bill. Do the Liberal party desire that? What about the Preamble of the Bill? We have been told by the Prime Minister that the prospect of carrying out the Preamble of the Bill is getting more and more remote.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I never said that.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I think that only in his last speech the Prime Minister told us that the carrying out of the Preamble of the Bill is very remote. We are led to that conclusion every day by speeches from hon. Members below the Gangway. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is not desirable, after the Preamble has been carried into fruition, after the Second Chamber has been constituted upon a popular basis, that that Chamber should have some say in matters with which this Parliament Bill deals? Surely they should be allowed to have some say in any alteration which may be suggested in this measure. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members opposite are arguing against themselves when they decline to allow any Amendment of this Bill to have the sanction of the Second Chamber before it passes into law. I am strongly of opinion that in the interests, not only of the good and continuous Government of this country, but also in the interests of the Liberal party itself, it is most desirable that any Amendment of this Parliament Bill should receive the final approval not only of this House but of the Second Chamber as well.
  Mr. CAVE: I find it very difficult to reconcile the speech of the Prime Minister with the speeches he has made on previous occasions. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech on the First Reading, and again in his remarkable speech last Thursday, that he saw dangers in the provisions of this Bill unless safeguards were inserted in it. He said in terms—I noted his words—that any House might outstay its mandate and pass imperfect measures. He said: "These are dangers to guard against, and we have guarded against them," and he pointed very clearly to two provisions in this Bill, one the five years' limit of the duration of a House of Commons, and secondly, the provision which prevents this House from passing a Bill over the head of the other House except after two years' delay. That seemed to me

  1479
  to indicate something like a Parliamentary bargain between the two Houses. In other words the Prime Minister said this: "We propose to you this measure, but we insert these safeguards, and we shall not be able to pass a Bill over your heads and the heads of the other House except after," to take only one instance, "two years' delay." Surely a Parliamentary bargain is worth nothing unless it can be enforced, and the effect of this bargain now proposed is that each of these safeguards may be swept away two years from now. You cannot enforce the safeguards. What then are your safeguards worth? I want to quote to the Prime Minister a sentence from a speech of Cromwell, whom he seems to have taken as his prototype in certain respects. Cromwell in 1654 made a speech to the House of Commons. He was impressing upon the House that there were certain matters which were fundamental, and he informed them that when they went outside they would find there those who would prevent them from coming in again unless they had taken an oath to observe these fundamental matters, and among the fundamental matters he included the duration of Parliament. May I quote one sentence from his speech, because I think it bears upon the matter we are discussing now. He said this:—
  "That Parliaments should not make themselves perpetual is fundamental. Of what assurance is a law to prevent so great an evil if it lie in the same legislature to un-law it again? Is such a law like to be lasting? It will be a rope of sand; it will give no security, for the same men may unbuild what they hare built."
  Every word of that applies to this occasion, and every word, I think, supports this Amendment. Your safeguards are worthless if this House could undo them to-morrow; and it is contradictory on one day to tell us "there are evils against which we have guarded," and in another to provide that these safeguards may be abolished to-morrow. I think that sentence alone of Cromwell, who, after all, had gone through the experience which the Prime Minister is only beginning today, is enough to recommend this Amendment to the House.
  Captain SPENDER CLAY: In supporting this Amendment, I should first of all like to say how very much I appreciate the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), and I think it is very unfortunate the Prime Minister has not an opportunity of answering that speech. I am quite certain the arguments
  1480
  the hon. Member for Kingston put forward were absolutely unanswerable, and that no argument which the Prime Minister adduced adequately met them. This Amendment would bring about exactly what the Government profess to desire. We understand that their anxiety is solely to ensure that Liberal legislation shall have the same opportunity of passing into law as Conservative legislation. It is also admitted by them that no Government, however big its majority, is necessarily representative of the people after it has been in power for a period of three years. I suppose for that reason the period of two years has been selected by the Government. If they are really in earnest there can be no possible objection on their part to this Amendment. The Prime Minister in his speech last Thursday said that Amendments of this kind were unnecessary; but surely a moment's reflection will show the right hon. Gentleman that such is not the case.
  Does this period of two years commend itself to every part of the House? Do the Members of the Labour party agree that it is a suitable time for delay? Suppose the Radical Government brought in one of their cherished schemes for the benefit of mankind—and mankind does not always deem those schemes to be so very beneficent—judging by the protests that arise from every part of the country—but suppose that Government, having been in power for a period of three years, would not that strong sense of philanthropy which distinguishes hon. Members opposite and of which they think they have a monopoly compel them to say, "Why throw this measure into the melting pot of a General Election and give the wicked Tories a chance to throw it out? We will cut the period short and send the Bill up to the House of Lords at once "—I cannot help thinking, though it may be dangerous to prophecy, that a little Bill would emanate from the Treasury Bench substituting a period of one calendar month for the two years. I gather from the cheers of hon. Members opposite that such a curtailment of time would appeal to them. Evidently they are Single Chamber men, naked and unashamed. They are not ashamed of the fact and they regard this period of two years as a farce. They have some considerable weight with the Government at the present time.
  Then there are the Members for Ireland—the Nationalist party. When they have

  1481
  been paid their blood money for their support of the Budget of 1909 they will probably, if they still honour this Assembly with their presence, also desire some curtailment of this period, and they, too, are not without weight with the Government. In fact, I think it comes to this, that the moderate constitutional-minded and I am afraid old-fashioned Liberal would find himself in a hopeless minority. It is to prevent this very distressing state of affairs that I support the Amendment.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I happen to have an Amendment on the Paper with the same object, and I think we require some safeguard of this sort. The considerations on that point have been so fully urged that I will not repeat them but will deal with the arguments which the Prime Minister used to-night. They were simply two. One is that he says, in effect, We have adopted a monotonous course of refusing to accept Amendments and we intend to pursue it to the end. The other answer is, That they cannot admit a proposal of this kind because there might be a difference between the majority in this House and the majority in another House. But if there is to be no difference between this House and the Second Chamber under any conceivable circumstances, for what purpose do we have a Second Chamber at all? Is it possible that you can always secure a Second Chamber which will be always in agreement with this House? If the right hon. Gentleman himself had to frame a Second Chamber at this moment, would it agree with hon. Members below the Gangway who now support him but who in future may be opposed to him? A Second Chamber must constitutionally be in a position distinctive from that of another Chamber. If it is not its existence is useless and need not be continued, but it does not follow that the Second Chamber, because it has certain differences, is not at any time to be tolerated. The right hon. Gentleman has himself frequently opened out arguments which have proved that the delay caused by the Second Chamber is a useful and necessary element of the Constitution, but I am not going to dwell upon the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman's own statements. I wish to appeal to the arguments which arise from historical experience, one of which has been used by my hon. and learned Friend below me. I wish to adduce a more recent instance. In 1791, during the French Revolution, the Constituent Assembly drew up a Constitution—a Single-Chamber Constitution—and
  1482
  I want to call the attention of the Committee for one moment to the words used with regard to that by one who was at one time an honoured Member of this House. Mr. Lecky, remarking upon the action of the Constituent Assembly which presented that Single-Chamber system of Government in 1791, says:—
  "One part, of the Constitution is curious, because it shows that the National Assembly was not absolutely blind to the lesson which experience of its own proceedings had abundantly supplied in the facility with which a Single Chamber can change all the institutions of the country and the extraordinary danger of such a process of organic change."
  Here is a curious point to which Mr. Lecky calls attention:—
  "It was provided that no change could be made in the Constitution until three successive Legislatures, lasting two years, had asked for it, and until it had been especially chosen and enlarged in number for the very purpose. It was a strange thing that an Assembly which had shown itself so contemptuous of all the limitations of its own power, and which had so effectually destroyed every possible counterpoise to its power, should" have imagined it could in this way effectually bind its successors. You can only bind your successors if you bring in another power, and that other power is supplied by the Second Chamber, and by the Second Chamber alone."
  These restrictions and safeguards to which the right hon. Gentleman appeals, are mere bands of sand if they depend only on the will of the one Chamber which has created them and which to-morrow may sweep them away. You can only make these real safeguards, as Mr. Lecky has shown, by having a Second Chamber and by reconstituting that Second Chamber, not in the remote futurity, but in the immediate present.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I gather it is rather the opinion of the Committee that someone should speak for this side of the House, and, rising in that capacity, I am bound to say I am amazed that His Majesty's Government should not have accepted this Amendment. Any business Government would not have hesitated to do so. If I may emulate the excellent example of the Solicitor-General, I would ask the Committee to ask itself the important question: Where are we? I understand this Amendment, stripped of all technicalities, means this, that assuming this Bill becomes law no other Bill amending the Act shall pass without the consent of the House of Lords. This Bill cannot become law without the consent of the House of Lords, and the consent of the House of Lords to this Bill cannot be obtained until its composition has been very materially altered. In other words, a very largo addition to its membership has to be made and when it has been made, and until that

  1483
  result has been counteracted, it will be a Liberal House of Lords. Therefore, as I understand the Amendment, the position will be that with a House of Lords with a Liberal majority this Bill, when once it becomes law, cannot be altered without the consent of that Liberal Second Chamber. That is the proposal which the Prime Minister brushed aside. As a loyal Member of the Liberal party desirous of seeing this Government kept in office until some Government on more sane principles than the party system provides is called into being, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister does not accept the Amendment. Surely the Prime Minister will not say, whatever else was before the electorate at the last election, that we have a mandate, not only to pass the Parliament Bill, but to pass any conceivable Amendment to that Bill without reference to a Second Chamber. I shall vote for every Amendment to Clause 2 because I am satisfied, as every impartial Member of the House must be satisfied, that in this Parliament, at least, we are going to hear no more of the reform of the Second Chamber. If this Clause 2 were a temporary expedient pending the reform of the other House I would loyally support the Government in any machinery it cares to set up, but in the absence of a declaration by the Prime Minister, which we shall never get, that, within the life of this Parliament, the Preamble of this Bill is to become a reality, then I look upon Clause 2 as the most idiotic, stupid reductio ad absurdum of the party system of government, and recognising that this Amendment is one which cannot be answered by any argument in language, I shall vote for it very heartily, only suggesting that the hon. Member should substitute for the word "modification" the word "amendment."
  Mr. INGLEBY: I think it must be admitted by every fair-minded man that some safeguard is necessary for the Constitution of any country which is constituted in such a way as ours. I was referring to the constitution of Poland of 1791, which was framed in the flush of the French Revolution, and which was a democratic constitution I might say in the best sense of the word. It started with the decree that the will of the people must prevail. I cannot help thinking that, consciously or unconsciously, Clause 2 of this Bill is founded on this very constitution I am quoting, for it is almost exactly similar. It goes on to
  1484
  say that any general law must be introduced in what corresponds to the House of Commons, and if not then carried by the House of Lords—the Senate—it shall remain in a state of suspended animation until the next Houses are elected—they are elected every two years—and then if introduced into the House of Deputies and is not accepted by the Senate or House of Lords, it shall ipso facto become the law of the land. I wish to call attention to that particular matter, because that Clause in the Constitution of Poland is reproduced in this Parliament Bill. But though that is a most democratic Constitution yet it provides its safeguard, because it decrees that the Constitution of Poland itself cannot be amended unless an extraordinary constitutional diet is summoned for that very purpose. I think if a second-rate Principality, such as Poland, required a safeguard before the Constitution could be amended this country, the head of the British Empire, certainly should demand no less. I think most earnestly that some safeguard is needed. I cannot help thinking that the Government will agree to this most reasonable Proposition.
  Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: I have been induced to rise by the speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). He supported the Amendment on the ground that no change in this Bill should be carried without the consent of the House of Lords except by means which he indicated. My main reason in supporting this Bill is that, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), who sits beside me, may think, the time must come, and come soon, when the Second Chamber must be reconstituted, and it can only be reconstituted on lines which will make Liberal legislation possible by means of this Bill. That is why I oppose this Amendment. With regard to the quotation from Cromwell which the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) made, I would like to point out that that quotation makes particularly foolish every Amendment which is moved by that side of the House, because that quotation says you cannot put restrictions on a House which that House itself cannot negative. That is exactly what hon. Members on the other side of the House are trying to do, for every day that we have sat in Committee on this Bill they have been trying to insert Amendments which were confining the functions of this House, as this Amendment proposes to do, which would

  1485
  exclude certain legislative enactments from the functions of this House. According to the quotation which he himself has used from the words of Cromwell, that is a useless proceeding, because you cannot curb the legislative proceeding of this House when this House itself can abolish that control. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of adducing the example of the United States. I maintain that there is no£ the faintest analogy between the constitutional position of the United States and the proposals of this Bill. The reason is obvious. Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, were created by the Constitution which the Convention in Philadelphia set up. This House, by this Bill, in modifying the present Constitution, is in the position of the Convention which set up the United States Constitution. There is no possible analogy between the two positions. I think that all these Amendments which are trying to curb the power of the House of Commons in dealing with legislation, so far from being of use are interfering with the liberty of discussion which we on this side of the House believe to be necessary in a representative Chamber.
  Mr. WYNDHAMThe hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose) bases his support of the Government on the broad ground that Clause 2 is a convenient means for an end, but I think it will not be uncharitable to say that there is a wide divergence between the end he contemplates and the ends which the Government and their supporters have in contemplation. He laid particular stress upon the Preamble of the Bill. So much stress has not been laid by the Prime Minister. There is one aspect of the Bill on which we can all agree. If Clause 2 does go through unamended, it will be a very convenient means for any end which any person may cherish. The hon. Member has lifted the Debate out of the groove into which I think it had fallen. It has become very difficult for any Member of this House to address the Committee, because of two disabilities under which we are all labouring. It was understood that, whatever we might say, and whatever votes we might give, we were this evening to submit Amendments which were designed to enable certain topics to be excluded from the scope of Clause 2, but it was also understood from the Prime Minister's speech, and from the speech of the Solicitor-General, that the Government were adamantine against any
  1486
  Amendment, because in their view there was a general reason for rejecting all Amendments. That reason, adumbrated by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and by the Solicitor-General this evening, was this, that whatever else was discussed at the General Election, nobody discussed the possibility of exceptions from the provisions of Clause 2, and therefore no exceptions from the provisions of Clause 2 are to be made. In spite of these two disabilities under which we are all labouring, and in spite of the fact that the Government are not going into the merits of any one of these Amendments, yet I do think that something may be said on the merits of this Amendment. The hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose) at any rate addressed himself to this Amendment, which is more closely allied, and more nearly in touch with the character of the Bill than any of the other Amendments of similar character. I do not think it is more important; it is not so important as the Amendment for excluding the preservation of the Union, which we have discussed. It may be that it is not so important as other Amendments of the same character which we are to discuss later, but I do say that it is more closely allied to the character and essence of the Bill which the Government is bringing forward. Why? What is the character and essence of the Bill for which the Government are responsible? It is no less than this—I do not think right hon. Gentlemen opposite will quarrel with my description—to substitute a written Constitution for the traditional Constitution of this country.
  11.0 P.M.
  This Amendment is ad rem to that characteristic of the Government proposal. The others are more important, it may be, but this one is very nearly in touch with the very core of what you are asking this Committee and this country to do. I think we might even now invite them to look for a moment impartially to the merits of this Amendment, by asking them to compare its merits with the merits of their proposal. What is the prime merit of a written Constitution? It is that it cannot easily be changed. What we have claimed for our traditional Constitution is that it can be changed, and we have sometimes—perhaps from insular arrogance—deplored the fact that the United States of America has a written Constitution which has not the same elasticity as our unwritten Constitution. With a written Constitution you get something unchangeable, and we ask that this

  1487
  should be shown by this Amendment, which the Government refuse, and in refusing it they discard and throw overboard the only merit which they can claim for their Constitution. In spite of the disabilities which I have touched upon, I ventured to invite the Government now to consider whether this Amendment is not in harmony with their proposal. Of course, if the Government merely get up and re-peat that at the last General Election, whatever else be said, nobody ever suggested that there should be exceptions from Clause 2, I have nothing more to say, and they really reduce our proceedings to an absurdity. If that be true, if that be the presentation of the truth upon which the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General are prepared to found this, why did they come before the country as one who asks for a concession of some African potentate covering everything. Then when he is asked to enumerate what is covered by it he refuses to discuss the merits of the particular proposition. There have been such cases, and even in benighted Africa the dusky potentate has said, "It is true I have signed away a great deal, but I did not know I had signed away that." It is the right of this Committee to say "You may ask us to sign away all our liberties, but are we when' we take a written Constitution to sign away the only virtue which anybody has claimed for a written Constitution?"
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The right hon. Gentleman has joined others on the opposite side in paying a tribute to the virtues of the Parliament Bill. They wish to make it permanent; they ask to make these safeguards unchangeable; they regard them now as so valuable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Unchangeable."] That is the request of the Amendment.
  Sir P. MAGNUSmade a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: To make the provisions of this Bill unalterable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Surely they cannot at this time of day ask us to make that unchangeable only in one direction. Is it to be suggested that we for our part should agree that these safeguards, which the party opposite now regard as so valuable and which the right hon. Gentleman the
  1488
  Leader of the Opposition thinks are everything we hold sacred and dear—
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not aware that I used such flamboyant language. I would not use it of things of which I approve, and certainly not of the things of which I do not approve.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Then where is the logic and sincerity of asking us to make them permanent for all time?
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Read the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad to be able to put these points because they show that what the right hon. Gentleman is asking is not an even-handed arrangement. By what he is asking his party would be free to alter this instrument or to abolish it altogether. Is it not their own declaration that they intend to alter it when they have a majority? The right hon. Gentleman's contention is that his party should be free to alter the system to a very different one any time they liked. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Whereas in our position we should never be in a position to alter it no matter how vexatious or irrelevant. I am utterly at a loss to understand what the position of the right hon. Gentleman is.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the other Chamber is always going to be opposed to him in politics. I assume that it need not necessarily be so if right hon. Gentlemen opposite make it representative. I assume that it need not necessarily be so if they create 500 peers. On what possible grounds therefore does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a permanent arrangement which he complains of, rightly or wrongly, as being characteristic of the present situation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That would be a good argument if we had at the present time a reconstituted and impartial Second Chamber. Members opposite have always failed to appreciate, although we have tried to explain to them, the position which we occupy and which this Bill seeks to assert. This Bill is very effective as an instrument for securing the predominance of the House of Commons, but nobody has ever pretended that it secures complete political equality between parties. It does not. It exposes us to the possibility of vexatious and malevolent interference in our future legislation, and at the same time it gives us no security that the party

  1489
  opposite, if they obtain a majority, will not reverse or tear up this constitutional settlement. In that pregnant fact, quite apart from the declarations of the Government, resides the assurance that it will be necessary to follow up this first step with a second step, securing some body which will fairly work the Constitution provided by this instrument. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in supporting this Amendment, is only asking us to agree that in no circumstances will be depart from the safeguard which this instrument sets up, while at the same time he would remain perfectly free, if he had a majority next year, to tear the whole thing up and make any new settlement he chose. Where is the purity of that? If the right hon. Gentleman came forward and said that he would agree to make this a permanent instrument which could not be altered by either party in the State, that would indicate at any rate a desire on the part of the Opposition to appreciate to some extent the position which those who are opposed to them take up. But no such proposal is put forward. The unanswerable arguments to which the hon. Members below the Gangway referred are arguments designed only to perpetuate in another form the gross inequality which in an infinite variety of forms we are engaged in discussing on this Bill from day to day
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The defence put forward by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for resisting this Amendment amounts to this. In the first place they do not contemplate passing the reform of the Second Chamber during the present Parliament. The argument implies that. If they passed that reform during the present Parliament, my right hon. Friend would never have the opportunity of meddling with the matter at all. Therefore the argument as to unfairness between parties breaks down altogether. If during the present Parliament the Second Chamber were made, as Members opposite would say, an impartial Second Chamber, evidently the whole argument that my right hon. Friend might alter the Parliament Bill to his taste and that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be placed in an unequal position, breaks down. My first observation, then, is that the reform of the Second Chamber is now recognised as not coming during the present Parliament. My second observation is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite anticipate defeat at the next election. That is some-
  1490
  what strange, because they have repeatedly assured us that they are only carrying out the mandate of the people. The Solicitor-General said earlier in the evening that we thought the electors stupid; right hon. Gentlemen opposite must think them tyrannical and ungrateful, because the Government claim to be doing only what they have been told to do, and yet they are certain of instant dismissal. The proposition that this Amendment puts forward is simply that the ancient Constitution should be treated as the "constituent assembly"—that the "constituent assembly" should be consulted again before the arrangement set up has been modified. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wisbech shows that this House cannot be limited he forgets that the other House must assent to this Bill. All we say is that the powers that the other House will exercise, and must exercise in pursuance of the law, ought to be exercised in resisting any Bill amending this Bill. That seems to be a very reasonable proposition.
  Mr. POLLOCK: In supporting this Amendment let me say I have listened to the most remarkable speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in opposing it. He seems to forget that we are dealing in this Bill with a fragment only of the alteration by which it is endeavoured to alter the Constitution. This particular fragment is a fragment on which the veto of the House of Lords is to be curtailed. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House as well as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway support this Bill as being a fragment, an instalment of the intention that the Preamble shall at some time be carried into effect. I was interested in listening to the speech of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Wisbech. He obviously supported this Bill in the belief that at some time the partial, fragmentary nature of this legislation will be completed by Amendment and alteration of the constitution of the House of Lords. The Home Secretary does not seem to see that we are asking that the opportunity should be given that this Bill should at least stand so long as may be necessary for the rest of the intentions of the Government to be carried out.
  What guarantee have we if we pass this Bill, only that there will ever be an opportunity for the intentions of the Preamble and of the rest of the legislation intended by Members on the other side to be carried into effect? The Prime Minister might remember the words of Cromwell

  1491
  quoted a few moments ago by my hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out what may be the uncertainties of political fortune. It may well be that he himself will never have the opportunity of carrying into effect the whole of the legislation that he no doubt sincerely desires to carry out. In making his speech on the First Reading, he told us that no country can safely rest its fortunes on the hazard of the perpetual recurrence of special providences. Yet at the same time he is trusting to some special providence to give him a considerable period of time during which he may have the opportunity of fulfilling his pledge, given in the Preamble, that we should have a reconstitution of the Second Chamber on a proper democratic basis. We ask him, by virtue of this Amendment, to give some security that this Bill will stand for such time, remote or early, which would give him the opportunity of fulfilling the pledges which are contained in the terms of the very Bill itself.
  The Prime Minister answers that he has already declared that he will make no difference in Bills whether they are organic or inorganic, or whether they are concerned with one view or another. Who, he says, shall decide that point? What we are asking is that he should treat this Bill, which is neither organic nor inorganic, but which is absolutely primary, and the first Bill that lays down a written Constitution at all, as at least entitled to stability which shall last until the Preamble is carried into effect, and we get the further instalment that he has promised us. This is not a question whether a Bill is organic or otherwise. It is an answer to the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Bill is primary, and deserves proper treatment at his hands, inasmuch as it is inadequate for rebuilding the Constitution. [An HON. MEMBER: "Destroying the Constitution."] My hon. Friend says "destroying the Constitution," but let me accept for the purposes of my argument that it is for rebuilding the Constitution. If the right hon. Gentleman intends this Bill as rebuilding the Constitution and laying anew the foundations, I presume he means to go through to the end and to rebuild the Constitution and not merely to lay the foundations. The hon. Member for Wisbech Division of Cambridge seemed to entirely misunderstand the quotation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston. He did not appreciate what Oliver Cromwell said,
  1492
  that this House no doubt could alter any of the legislation passed through it. It is for that very reason we seek now, as they sought 250 years ago, for some outside assembly to give some sort of stability to our system and to prevent this House acting in an entirely intemperate and uncontrolled manner.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I support this Amendment because it rests upon the claim and principle where you have the power conferred by a written Constitution, revision of that Constitution should not proceed for a less important or higher source than that which created the Constitutional arrangement. The position of Ministers to this Amendment—and there could be no more important Amendment than that we are now discussing—is only one more piece of cumulative evidence that Single Chamber Government is the intention as well as the effect of this Bill, and that Single Chamber Government is in future to be the sole supreme and final judge of the limits of its own powers. And, further, their attitude is evidence of the absolute want of value of all the pledges and promises made in the face of this House as to what they intended to do with regard to what the Preamble says about the powers of the other House.
  The Prime Minister says that the House already resolved that there should be only one principle applicable to all Bills under this Bill if it becomes an Act. The House decided nothing of the kind, either in substance of in form. If the House had so decided we not only would not, but could not, be discussing the Amendment now before us. If the House had arrived at any such decision in substance the decision would have been a very unwise one, because it would be totally without precedent to be found in civilised Constitution in the habitable world. We need not go beyond the British Empire to challenge Ministers to show any evidence whereby it is possible for one and the members of a legislative partnership to alter the conditions of that partnership without the concurrence of the other party to the arrangement. That is the fault in this Bill which this Amendment seeks to correct. The right hon. Gentleman opposite fell back in the end of his speech to the argument which always seems to serve right hon. Gentlemen opposite in all their intentions. He says this Amendment, should it be carried, would be to the advantage for one party only in the State. That argument shows a suspicious amount of foreknowledge on the part of right hon.

  1493
  Gentlemen opposite of the Constitution of the Second Chamber we are to have. It does more: it shows the point of view from which this whole scheme has been made out. It has been merely a regulation of the game between parties, and parties have been from the first the sole inspiration for bringing in this Bill, while the one chief and overriding consideration left out has been the interests of the people at large from whom any real strength is alone to be obtained. It is from that degrading point of view that hon. Members opposite have never been able to rise and that is the inherent weakness of their proposal. That is why we can promise, so far as we can help it, that this measure shall never have permanence.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the Committee may now feel disposed to come to a decision upon this Amendment, the importance of which I have never disputed. The Debate has on the whole been conducted on perfectly fair lines, although a certain amount of exuberance characterised the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) said in resisting this Amendment we are making two assumptions. The first is that you are not going to bring into existence during the life of the present Parliament that reconstituted and representative Second Chamber to which reference is made in the Preamble. In the second place, the Noble Lord said that the Government see no chance of obtaining, if the electors were again consulted by a general election, a renewal of the mandate given to them at the last, two elections. I do not wish to dogmatise in the matter, but I must point out to the Noble Lord that I do not admit either of those assumptions. On the contrary, I hope and believe that before the lifetime of this Parliament is ended, we shall be able to put into a concrete and workable form our proposals in the Preamble.
  I also hope that when this Parliament comes to render its account to the country the electors will renew a little more emphatically than they did at the last two elections—even more emphatically—their expression of confidence in the present advisers of the Crown. While those are my hopes and intentions, and indeed my expectations, yet we have to guard against contingencies, and, human nature being what it is and human affairs being what they are, and as the unfore-
  1494
  seen and incalculable always ought to enter into the schemes and designs of Statesmen, we think it right that we should not submit ourselves to what we should have to submit ourselves to if the Amendment were accepted, namely, the the possibility of our not being able, whatever experience we may show, to amend in any particular this measure. I do not think that is an unreasonable position to take up. On those grounds, and no other, except the general considerations adverted to in the course of this Debate, we must resist this Amendment. I hope hon. Members will now consider themselves in a position to come to a decision upon this Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not yet spoken on this Bill, and I have made several efforts to catch the Chairman's eye, so much so that I at last came to the conclusion it was a somewhat hopeless task.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not believe the hon. Gentleman meant that as any reflection, but I do not think he should make use of a phrase like that, because it does cast a reflection.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I had not the slightest intention of casting any reflection upon you, Sir. All I meant to say was that I had been unable, doubtless through my own fault, to bring myself within the range of your eye. There is one point I have wanted to put before the Committee, and I hope they will allow me to do so. This Parliament Bill represents the accumulated wisdom of the Liberal party with regard to the difficulties in which they are placed from the time of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman to the present. It represents the views and propositions which they have placed before the electorate certainly on two occasions and very definitely at the last general election. The Prime Minister has told us that if ever there was an election fought upon a particular question it was the last election, which was fought upon the Veto Bill, containing, I presume, the provisions in this Bill, I venture to suggest that, if other proposals had been contained in this Bill, such as have been foreshadowed tonight by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Churchill), they might not have got that large majority. They got their majority upon the definite understanding that they were proposing certain proposals and none others with regard to the House of Lords. The

  1495
  Prime Minister has told us over and over again and nearly every Liberal Member in their speeches in the constituencies said there were certain safeguards in this Bill, and that those safeguards provided a scheme fair towards the House of Lords and the Conservative party.
  This Amendment says, in effect, "Crystallise the Bill with those safeguards and provisions which have been before the country," and the Prime Minister says, "No. We desire to put in the Bill the right to make any constitutional Amendment. We desire to retain to ourselves, without the consent of the Second Chamber, the right to remodel the conditions upon which we have gone to the country and got a mandate for this Bill." If they have got any such proposals, we are entitled to ask them to produce them before they pass this Bill. Are they going to amend the Bill by reducing the two Sessions to one Session? We have been told it is fair the House of Lords should have power to defer, and we have had to-night the first anticipation of the kind of speech we shall have when the House of Lords use their powers under this Bill. They will still, after the passing of this Bill, be subject to vexatious and malevolent interference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members below the Gangway seem to think that that is my expression. It was the expression of the Home Secretary to-night, and if he uses it now I wonder what kind of speech he will make in a year or two when the House of Lords exercise the power you are going to give them. If the Government really mean to be content with the powers they put in their Bill there can be no harm in accepting this Amendment. If, on the other hand, they have proposals up their sleeve for dealing with any action the House of Lords may feel justified in adopting then let them bring them forward. Let them be put into the Bill. Let them have the sanction of the people of this country. But do not try to alter the Constitution with the aid of one Chamber and one Chamber alone.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I think the Committee and the country at large ought to recognise the spirit in which the Government is dealing with important Amendments, which are designed not from a party point of view, but for the purpose of making the Constitution which the Government are proposing for the country, a suitable Con-
  1496
  stitution, and one which will work on business lines. The attitude which they adopt is very like the attitude of the Mahomedan Conqueror of Egypt who, when he came to Alexandria and found the finest-library the world then contained, asked, "What are these books? What do they contain? Is it in the Koran? If it is we don't want them. If it is not send them to the baths and let them be burned in order to make the water hot." So it is with the Government and the way in which they deal with our Amendments. If an Amendment is included in the Bill it is sacrosanct; it has been before the constituencies, and we, who have come back flushed and intoxicated with our victories—with that sparkling wine, are quite content to take that as a sufficient endorsement of the policy which we are suggesting to the country. But not one word has-been said on the other side. I have listened in vain for a word as to where the country comes in. The questions have been, "Where do our party come in?" "How are our interests to be safeguarded?" They are making the promise to the ear, but they are taking care it shall be broken to the heart. That has been the attitude adopted on this occasion on every Amendment that has been brought forward.
  If I may, I would ask, what is-the object of the safeguards? The object of the safeguards is to prevent certain contingencies maturing into eventualities. I suppose there is nobody who is a trustee who would not, if he were a fraudulent man, be glad that there should be no such doctrine as fraud upon power; but that is exactly what the safeguards we suggest to-night are introduced for the purpose of preventing. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite come back here they say with a mandate from the constituencies, but they are forbidden to use it for any purpose which the Liberal Party thinks fit, and the only way in which that can be stopped is by seeing that the people of this country have an opportunity of saying a word upon the question by putting adequate safeguards in the Bill. It is for that reason that these Amendments have been put forward by the Party to which I have the honour to belong. The Prime Minister said that he was proud of this Bill—he said he took a parental pride in it. Ali I can say is that there are a great many unfertile parents in this country who would rejoice at the birth of a monstrosity, and, so far as I can

  1497
  see, this Bill, in which the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government take so much pride, will be treated hereafter in the history of this country as nothing short of a monstrosity.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to think we are, discussing the Bill, but we are engaged in debating a particular Amendment.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I am exceedingly sorry that I transgressed in the slightest degree the proper order of this House, but I was only quoting what the Prime Minister said, that he took extraordinary pride in it. I am sorry that I should have followed him upon that subject, but I should like to emphasise one point further, and that is this, that if the Committee and the Government are sincere in their
  desire to produce a workable measure and one which will be for the benefit of this country, not merely for the benefit of their party, but for the good of every party which may come into office, they should as far as ever they can prevent the House of Commons from having the power of altering the Constitution at the will of any body of people. Their duty is to follow the advice which has been given by the hon. Member for Hackney, and see that the Constitution of the House of Lords has been remodelled before they further mutilate and destroy the Constitution which exists at the present time.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 288.

  Division No. 171.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p.m.

  Aitken, William M.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootie)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Astor, Waldorf

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bagot, Lt.-Col. Josceline

  Du Cros, Arthur P.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

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

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

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Barlow Montague (Salford, S.)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Barnston, Harry

  Fletcher, John S. (Hampstead)

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Gordon, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gretton, John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Boyton, James

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nield, Herbert

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Butcher, J. G.

  Harris, H. P.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Campion, W. R.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Pole-Carew, Sir Reginald

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cator, John

  Hillier, Dr Alfred Peter

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Cave, George

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds, Edmund

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, William (West Derby)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sandys, G. J (Somerset, Wells)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Stanier, Beville

  Thomson, Wm. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Winterton, Earl

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Tobin, Allied Aspinall

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Touche, George A.

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. O.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stewart, Gershom

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Younger, George

  Swift, Rigby

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

  Sykes, Alan John

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

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

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Thompson, Robert (Ballast, N.)

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Edwards, J. H (Glam., Mid.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockerm'th)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Esmonds, Dr J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Adamson, William

  Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

  Logan, John William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, C. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Falconer, James

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Alden, Percy

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Field, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Fiennes, Hon. E. E.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barnes, George N.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  M'Laren, H. (Leicester, Bosworth)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Barton, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, W. S. B. (Crewe)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Marks, George Croydon

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bethell, Sir John H.

  Hackett, John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hancock, John George

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Millar, Duncan

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Molloy, Michael

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brace, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mooney, John J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harwood, George

  Morrell, Philip

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Muldoon, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Carr-Gomm, H W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

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

  Norton Capt. C. W. (Newington, W.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotland)

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Clynes, John R.

  Hodge, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ogden, Fred

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hope, J. D. (Haddington)

  O'Grady, James

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Crawshay-Williams, E.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shee, James John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cullinan, John

  Johnson, William

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Joyce, Michael

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Delany, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kelly, Edward

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pointer, Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Doris, William

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Lansbury, George

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh Alexander (Donegal, W.)

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

  1500

  1501

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton)

  Waring, Walter

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonl

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan).

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Shortt, Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Reddy, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Richards, Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whyte Alexander F. (Perth)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Sutton, John E.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowlands, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Winfrey, Richard

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Verney, Sir H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Wardle, George J.

  Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I beg to move, after the second word "Bill" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill"] to insert the words, "or a Bill which contains any provision affecting the qualification for the exercise of the parliamentary franchise or affecting the right to vote at any parliamentary election."
  As Clause 2 stands at present, a Bill containing provisions dealing with either or both of these subjects, would become law if passed in three successive Sessions in two years. This Amendment would prevent any hasty or ill-considered alteration of the qualification to vote, which may be passed by any Government, backed by a transient majority and seeking to prolong its own existence. A stable electorate is the whole basis of our representative system. In giving the power to a transient majority to alter the electorate as best suits its own interests, you are effecting an electoral revolution each time there is a new Parliament. It might be convenient to this Government to grant female suffrage or to another Government to grant adult suffrage, but in any case there is a disturbance of that stability of suffrage which is essential to representative government. The same argument applies to the other side of the question. It would be possible for a Government, avoiding the mature consideration and the judgment of the people, to deprive of the right to vote at Parliamentary elections certain classes who now enjoy that right. These rights should not be jeopardised or placed in the power of any temporary majority.
  If democratic government is to be successful, nothing is more essential than that
  1502
  the suffrage should be put beyond the power of a temporary, precarious or insignificant majority. It was exactly this power which led to the pro-consular powers of ancient Rome, and eventually to the subversion of the republic. That the present Amendment is necessary may be inferred from the only other precedent which we have in English history of a House of Commons which became omnipotent. The Long Parliament established itself in 1649 as omnipotent, and, having passed on the 6th of February a resolution abolishing the House of Lords, and on the following day a resolution abolishing the Monarchy, it then proceeded to consider an Elections Bill, the aims of which are described by Mr. Gardiner in his "History of the Commonwealth," who explains that "there are some reasons for believing it was intended that this system of recruiting was to be applied to each successive Parliament so that there would never be another General Election." On the Third Beading of the Elections Bill on the 19th of April Cromwell attended the Debate and protested against the proposal, finally calling in the soldiers and ordered the Mace to be removed, and dispersed the Parliament with the characteristic remark, "You are no Parliament." Of course it will be said that no Government of this country will ever repeat or attempt to repeat what the Long Parliament attempted to do. But, as the Prime Minister said just now, "You have to provide against contingencies." Ten years ago no one in this country would have believed that any Government would have brought in the present Parliament Bill. If you refuse the Amendment you are

  1503
  putting unfettered into the hands of the Government of the day the power to prolong its own existence indefinitely, and to exclude from the franchise any sections of the electors who happen to be opposed to them. If I may say so, you are striking at the roots of democratic Government in this country.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We ask the Committee to resist the Amendment which seeks to exclude matters relating to the Parliamentary franchise;. We are certainly not able to accept an Amendment which would prevent the Government for example from dealing with plural voting. The other night I ventured to point out to another hon. Member the Noble Lord
  below the Gangway opposite that he ran a risk by his Amendment, not nearly so direct a risk as the hon. Member on the present occasion, of taking away the power to deal with votes for women, and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to have that clearly in mind. The Government are unable to agree that matters affecting the franchise, which ought to be exclusively matters for this House, should be excluded from this provision which we regard as proper and convenient for regulating the passage of legislative proposals.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 253.

  Division No. 172.]

  AYES.

  [11.58 p.m.

  Aitken, William M.

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bagot, Lt.-Col. Josceline

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Pease, Herbrt P. (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Gordon, John

  Pole-Carew, Sir Reginald

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford S.)

  Gretton, John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Barnston, Harry

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Rutherford, William (W. Derby)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brassey, H. L. C

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Smith, F. E. (Walton)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Horner, A. L.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Campion, W. R.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cator, John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, Wm. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootie, Lanes.)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Touche, G. A.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Colonel W. H.

  Courthope, George Lloyd

  Lyttleton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Croft, Henry Page

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Winterton, Earl

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)

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

  Du Cros, Arthur P.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Malcolm and Mr. Hamilton Benn.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Rhondda)

  Hardie, Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Adamson, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

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

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

  Harwood, George

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Haslam, James (Debyshire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Alden, Percy

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Allen, Chales Peter (Stroud)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hayward, Evan

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barnes, George N.

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hinds, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Barton, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beck, Arahur Cecil

  Hodge, John

  Reddy, Michael

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

  Hope, J. D. (Haddington)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Richards, Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Isaacs, Sir Ruins Daniel

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Johnson, William

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Brace, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rowlands, James

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clough, William

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton)

  Clynes, John R.

  Lansbury, George

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Col.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockerm'th)

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, Edward

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Cotton, William Francis

  Logan, John William

  Smith, Albert, (Clitheroe)

  Crawshay-Williams, E.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Lyell, C. H.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs N. W.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cullman John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kircaldy)

  Maclean, Donald

  Summers, James Woolley

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  M'Callum, John M.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Delany, William

  M'Laren, H. (Leicester, Bosworth)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dillon, John

  M'Laren, W. S. B. (Crewe)

  Toulmin, George

  Doris, William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duffy, William J.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Verney, Sir H.

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary)

  Millar, Duncan

  Wardle, George J.

  Esmonde, Sir T. (Wextord, N.)

  Molley, Michael

  Waring, Walter

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Falconer, James

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ferens, Thomas R.

  Muldoon, John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Ffrench, Peter

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

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

  Field, William

  Needham, Christopher T.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Flavin, Michael J.

  Norton, Captain C. W. (Newington, W.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  France, Gerald A.

  Nugent, Sir W. R.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, John (Glarmorgan)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotl'd)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Doherty, Phillip

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (P'terb'h)

  Ogden, Fred

  Wilson J. W. (Worcestershire N.)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Malley, William

  Winfrey, R.

  Hackett, John

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hancock, John George

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  The CHAIRMAN: The only way in which the Amendment standing in the hon. Member for Hitchin (Dr. Hillier) can be moved is in a curtailed form—to insert the words, "or a Bill which contains any provision which affects the Constitution of the House of Lords." The other subjects have been covered by our previous discussion.
  Dr. HILLIER: I beg to move after the second word "Bill" ["other than a Money Bill"] to insert the words "or a Bill which contains any provision which affects the Constitution of the House of Lords."
  I recognise that the previous debate has covered many of the points which we might have hoped to deal with, and, under the circumstances, I will merely ask the Committee to consider the following fact. I will not refer at length to the constitutions of other civilised countries; they have been dealt with by previous speakers. But it is deemed necessary both in the American Constitution and in the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, the greatest and most modern of Anglo-Saxon democracies, to insert in their Constitutions certain safeguards with regard to any alteration of the Constitution of the country, or of either Chamber of Parliament. I will briefly refer to the Preamble of the American Constitution. It has this merit: it is brief, clear, and concise, and the spirit of it is given full effect to in the Constitution which follows. It reads:—
  "In order to provide for the defence …," etc.:
  "And to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity we do ordain…," etc.:
  Article 5 is very brief, and perhaps I may venture to read it to the Committee:—
  "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."
  No Amendment can be made in the Constitution of the United States of America
  1508
  unless such Amendment is passed by two-thirds of both Houses, and has subsequently been ratified by a majority of the electors of that country. I am aware that it has been argued that the American Constitution is somewhat too rigid, and presents certain objections on that ground. But the right hon. James Bryce, in his classic work on the American Commonwealth, says:—
  "Ought the process of change to be made easier? … American statesmen think not. The habit of amending would turn into the habit of tinkering: there would be too little distinction between changes in the ordinary statute law, which require the agreement of majorities in the two Houses and the President, and changes in the more solemnly enacted fundamental law."
  The CHAIRMAN: The only point that the hon. Gentleman can deal with is the composition of the House of Lords, and he is now reading the Constitution of the States. The point that he is now making is one that might have been brought in on the previous Amendment, but which we have already discussed and settled, and it is not in order now.
  Dr. HILLIER: With great respect I venture to ask for your consideration whether the alteration of the Constitution, or constitution of either Houses of Parliament, whether it be the lower or the upper House, is not a fundamental Constitutional change, and therefore anything bearing on fundamental Constitutional changes in other States is relevant to the argument?
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member means that on an Amendment dealing with the composition of the House of Lords any other great Constitutional change can be raised, I should say certainly not.
  Dr. HILLIER: I venture to suggest that the alteration and the composition of the House of Lords or the Senate of the United States of America would be one of those great Constitutional changes referred to in the Articles quoted.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand that what the hon. Member was reading was relevant to this Amendment.
  Dr. HILLIER: The Amendment you read from the Chair was "after the second word 'Bill' to insert the words 'a Bill which contains any provision which affects the Constitution of either Houses of Parliament.' "
  The CHAIRMAN: We dealt with an Amendment which affects the constitution of the House of Commons. This

  1509
  Amendment affects the constitution of the House of Lords, and I do not see how on that Amendment any other question arises.
  Dr. H ILLIER: I shall endeavour entirely to confine my observations to that Amendment, and in doing so I shall endeavour to show that the alteration of the constitution of the House of Lords would be one of those fundamental Constitutional changes which is provided against in the article of the American States Constitution, and also in a similar article inserted in the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, which says, Section 128, that:—
  "The Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: 'The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.'"
  There you have two instances of Anglo-Saxon democracies laying down what they regard as the quintessence of democratic legislation and Constitution making. You have in both those Constitutions provisions carefully laid down against the alteration of the Constitution of either of these countries without, not only the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, but also the sanction of the electors and the country.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is really out of order. The hon. Member is now arguing what came under the Amendment already disposed of. The only question that can be raised now is the composition or form of the House of Lords. That point would be in order because it is not already settled. The other point on which he is now speaking is not in order.
  Dr. HILLIER: May I ask the Committee to consider whether the alteration of the composition of the House of Lords may not be fairly regarded as one of the fundamental changes in the Constitution against which it is desirable to provide. I would further submit this, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be good enough to offer some reply. What reason have we, as a nation, to suppose we can dispense with safeguards which all other civilised nations
  1510
  have insisted upon, and with regard to which both the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Australia have made provision. Why are we so specially circumstanced that we can afford to dispense with safeguards which all the countries of the whole civilised world have thought it necessary to insert in their constitutions? Is it that our experience of Single Chamber Government in the time of Cromwell was such a success that no such safeguards are now required? Our experience in Cromwell's time of Single Chamber Government was the most arbitrary that ever existed. Is there anything in the composition of this House or of the present Government which leads the right hon. Gentleman opposite to suppose that safeguards of this kind can be dispensed with? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear.] An hon. Member below the gangway says "hear, hear," but I would point out that, narrow as the gangway opposite is, it represents a deep and yawning gulf between—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment.
  Dr. HILLIER: I think our experience shows that there is more necessity for such safeguards in the case of this House, than in the instances I have quoted. The hon. Members opposite are divided on the question as to whether there ought to be a Second Chamber of any sort or kind. I hope we shall be told by the Home Secretary on what grounds we can afford to dispense with those safeguards which have been considered absolutely necessary in every other civilised country.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That part of the hon. Members Amendment which was in order, and those parts of his speech which were relevant to the Amendment, are confined solely to the question of whether Bills affecting the composition of the House of Lords should be exempted from the provisions of the Parliament Bill. The Committee is asked to say that the present hereditary and unreformed House of Lords shall exercise a final and absolute veto upon all proposals for the reconstitution of the Second Chamber which may emanate from either party in this House. I cannot think that that is in accordance with the general view taken by many of those who support this proposal. Certainly the Government could not accept it. It is perfectly clear that there is no likelihood of any change of that kind. I

  1511
  should entertain a similar objection to the interposition of such a novel and insuperable barrier as that which is contained in this Amendment.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The Debate on this Amendment has caused great doubt in my mind whether these Amendments are brought forward in earnest or in an honest way. I think Ministers have had a good share of the discussion in Committee on this Bill; in fact, I think some of them have talked a great deal more than is necessary on some of these Amendments. If I think it right to take part in a discussion, I shall certainly do so. It is very difficult to understand the position of the Opposition. We have had complaints throughout the whole of these Debates that the Government are not serious in their intentions with regard to the alteration in the compositon of the House of Lords. That has been almost the note of every speaker on the otherside of the House—that we were going to have a Single Chamber, and that we had no serious intention of altering the composition of the House of Lords. What is the meaning of the Amendment they are now seriously bringing forward; an Amendment selected by them as one we should discuss before the termination of this Debate on this series of Amendment? It would exclude the possibility of the composition of the House of Lords being considered. The Leader of the Opposition is demanding that the Government should bring in their Bill, and his supporters say, "We deny you have the power under this Bill to do it." The hon. Member's Amendment is one which I feel very much disposed to support. Some of us here are not anxious, after we have taken away the power of the Second Chamber, that greater powers should be given it because it may have some claim to a representative capacity. I think this is the most Radical Amendment moved in the course of the Committee.
  Dr. HILLIER: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented my Amendment. It would prevent this House making any change in the composition of the Second Chamber to which the Second Chamber did not itself assent. Are they to have no voice in their own composition? The hon. Member entirely misrepresents the Amendment when he says it would preclude this House from proposing an Amendment. All that would be necessary
  1512
  would be that the Amendment proposed in this House should be also acceptable to the House it proposed to reform.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The intervention of the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel) is at least more welcome, even although it is irrelevant than the studied and silent insolence of hon. Members opposite, who made no attempt whatever to listen to any arguments that are made.
  The CHAIRMAN: Did the Noble Lord use the word "insolence?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, studied and silent insolence."] The word "insolence" is entirely unparliamentary, and the Noble Lord must certainly withdraw it.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I will most certainly bow to your ruling, and, if the word is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it and substitute for "insolence" "discourteous contempt for the arguments of their opponents." Hon. Members opposite assume the attitude that, because they are there in sufficient forces to resist these Amendments, therefore all arguments advanced on this side of the House are not worth attention. That is an argument which may have force in this House, but it has very little force elsewhere. The Amendment which my hon. Friend suggests is quite consistent with every other Amendment moved on this side of the House. It says that this House should not set itself up to be a constituent assembly, and that all matters dealing with an alteration of the fundamentals of the Constitution among ourselves should be excluded from the operation of this Bill. That is not so unreasonable a proposition as some hon. Members seem to think. It is going a good deal further than even what the Government profess that they are doing under the Parliament Bill. What they profess they are doing is to equalise the position of both parties. It can be shown on a more favourable opportunity that the Bill does not do that.
  But to say that this House is to be a constituent assembly, and to alone have the sole power of deciding under what Constitution we shall be governed, is to go a great deal further than that and to set up an autocracy which has only once been tried in our history, and then proved a great failure. Surely it is not unreasonable to say when a proposal for reconstituting or reforming the Constitution comes before this House that this House alone

  1513
  should not carry it, but that it should under the Constitution of this country have to be passed by both Houses which make the constituent power of Parliament. That argument deserves some consideration. It does not deserve the ignominious treatment which the hon. Members seem to give it—treatment which arises as much from the assurance of their majority as from ignorance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order," and "Withdraw."]
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Noble Lord to address me.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: And I ask you to get for the Members of this House a hearing.
  The CHAIRMAN: I will endeavour to get a quiet hearing for Members of this House. That is what I am trying to do. I must ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to make these constant interruptions in the debate.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it in order for one hon. Member to accuse other hon. Members of ignorance. If so, I only want to say I accuse the Noble Lord of bumptiousness—ignorant bumptiousness.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires me to distinguish between words, I say I do not think an accusation of ignorance is unparliamentary, hut an accusation of "bumptiousness" is not a proper accusation.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley did not allow me to conclude my sentence, I was not making an accusation of general ignorance against the Labour party, but of ignorance of the letter and the spirit of the history of their country. I think the present attitude they are adopting only confirms what I venture to say now. Is there any argument or reason why any alteration of the constitution of the House of Lords which I think everybody will agree is a fundamental alteration of our Constitution should not be submitted to the ancient rule of this country that both Houses should have their say upon it. Moreover, is there any reason for supposing in the face of the attitude of the House of Lords at the present time that a reform of that House would not pass that assembly? We know very well that the House of Lords would agree to reform.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not seem to be relevant to the Amendment. The question is whether a Bill for the reform
  1514
  of the House of Lords should be passed over the heads of the House of Lords under certain contingencies. I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. It is not fair when the House is kept up by the votes of the majority beyond the ordinary hours—it is not right that hon. Members who are opposing this Bill should be subject to a constant fire of interruptions. I must appeal to hon. Members to support me, to remain silent, and not to make these constant provocative interruptions.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am sorry if I have transgressed the rules of order in saying that the House of Lords were willing, as they have shown, to make reforms at this time. I can only say that I was answering arguments which had been advanced and which appeared to me to be relevant to the Amendment. I will not, however, pursue that matter further, but will say, that this being one branch of an important subject which involves a most fundamental change, and it certainly should be submitted to both Houses and not to one.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I always desire serious Debate on serious subjects, although it is somewhat difficult after twelve o'clock at night to secure it. I certainly shall not complain that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) has broken what I may call the brazen silence which prevails on the Benches opposite. The truth is that this is a very important point which has been raised, and the declaration of the Government through the Home Secretary does make it very difficult to expect that any reasonable Amendment will be accepted after Debate. If you lay down a general formula beforehand and say there is to be no exception, you can argue that it is useless to bring forward arguments in favour of making these exceptions. Here the Committee is asked to interfere with the time-honoured custom of Parliament that every Bill affecting the composition or privileges of either House has been brought forward in that House which the Bill affected. A Bill affecting the House of Lords therefore ought to be brought forward in the House of Lords. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can say that is not true here we are doing away with a Second Chamber when the Bill should be brought forward in that House. That is, I believe, the ruling of the Chair, and it is the accepted doctrine of Parliament, and it introduces a new complication because a Bill

  1515
  for the reform of the House of Lords will have to be introduced into the House of Lords if usage and tradition are to be followed.
  I cannot understand how in these circumstances this Clause, unless it is amended, can apply. That has been the case in the past, and you, Sir, are aware that Bills, as well as Resolutions, which have been brought forward with a desire of reforming and altering the composition of the House of Lords, have been there introduced, and Lord Rosebery's proposal is a notable case. That introduces a new complication which the House is asked to deal with, and we are asked now to disturb an ancient custom of Parliament by refusing an Amendment brought forward at this time of night. It illustrates the difficulty which has been pointed out by Professor Dicey in legislating on this kind of subject. The Prime Minister quoted Professor Dicey, but what the latter said was that the great danger which the Constitution ran was making a Resolution of the House of Commons equal to an Act of Parliament. We are now making a Resolution of the House of Commons in this and other fundamental matters equal to an Act of Parliament. I know that it is not in order to raise the whole question of what is fundamental in the British Constitution and what is not. There is a very old point, and Cromwell has been quoted upon it. He distinguished between circumstantials and fundamentals and said that they must deal with circumstantials here, but they must deal with fundamentals by virtue of a two-Chamber Government. Here we are going to upset the whole traditions and practice of this House without the House being aware of what is the real practice of Parliament.
  I think a good many Members who have listened to the Debate have treated this
  as a trivial Amendment and have not seen the seriousness of the question involved. Surely in regard to their own position the House of Lords ought to be consulted. They have shown no indisposition to bring forward schemes of reform, and they must have their scheme of reform brought forward in the House now. Hon. Members apposite profess to wish to have a fair revising Chamber which shall be equal as between the two great parties, and shall also maintain the traditions of the State. If that is so, I do not see how they can refuse to let the House of Lords have a full say in regard to its own reform. If it were obscurantist and obdurate there might be some argument for not making this exception on the merits. The House of Lords has gone very far in admitting the necessity of reform. In fact, it wants to make itself what Lord Russell said it was, a Council for weighing with greater caution and deliberation the resolutions of the House of Commons. I admit the difficulty of arguing to these exceptional cases. It all comes of the astuteness of the Prime Minister in laying down beforehand that he would consider no exception to the general rule. He certainly has not swallowed formulas, but in the long run it will be found that you cannot frame a Constitution in this way. You must have some regard to the wisdom and example of the Constitution-mongers who have gone before you in other lands. The whole history of the drawing up of the Constitution is to make proper exceptions to general rules. You are making no exceptions. You are dealing with everything in the same way, and the attempt is doomed to failure and will bring discredit on this House and on British institutions all over the world.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 232.

  Division No. 173.]

  AYES.

  [12.45 a.m.

  Aitken, William Max

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cave, George

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid,)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Boyton, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craig, Capain James (Down, E.)

  Barnston, H.

  Butcher, John George

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Barrie, H. I (Londonderry, N.)

  Campion, W. R.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Croft, Henry Page

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cassel, Felix

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cator, John

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootie, Lanes.)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Locker-Lampson, G, (Salisbury)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Fleming, Valentine

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Macmaster, Donald

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Malcolm, Ian

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Gordon, John

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sykes, Alan John

  Gretton, John

  Mills, Hon. Chas. Thomas

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Hardy, Laurence

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Walker Col. William Hall

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

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

  Hills, John Waller

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

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Winterton, Earl

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Younger, George

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Dr. Hillier and Major Morrison-Bell.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

  Adamson, William

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Essex Richard Walter

  Keating, Matthew

  Alden Percy

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kelly, Edward

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Falconer, James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Baker Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Field, William

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lansbury, George

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Barton, William

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Logan, John William

  Bentham, G. J.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lyell Charles Henry

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Maclean, Donald

  Brace, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hackett, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hancock, I G.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Marks, George Croydon

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Clough, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Clynes, John R.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hawoth, Arthur A.

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Millar, James Duncan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Molloy, Michael

  Cotton, William Francis

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, John J.

  Cullinan, John

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

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

  Hinds, John

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hodge, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Delany, William

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Denman Hon R. D.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Dillon, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Doris, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Issacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  1518

  1519

  O'Dowd, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ogden, Fred

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Malley, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wardle, George, J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Rowlands, James

  Waring, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Parker, James Halifax

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Whyte, A. F.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sheehy, David

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pointer, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, J. (Glamoragan)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Summers, James Wooley

  Winfrey, Richard

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sutton, John E.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Reddy, Michael

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the second word "Bill" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill"] to insert the words "or a Bill affecting the establishment of the Church of England or the temporalities thereof, or the Church of Scotland and the temporalities thereof."
  Earlier in the evening we discussed whether Home Rule was to be excluded from the purview of this Clause. The pressing necessity of that Amendment was due to the fact that the Government announced their intention to rush a Home Rule Bill through directly the Parliament Bill was carried, but there is also a proposal in the interregnum between the carrying of the Parliament Bill and the reconstitution of the Second Chamber for the dismemberment and disendowment of four Welsh dioceses. The other day in reply to a deputation the Prime Minister said it was the intention of the Government to give the Welsh Disestablishment Bill such a position as would enable it to override the veto of the House of Lords during the present Parliament.
  Mr ELLIS GRIFFITH: Hear, hear.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member and his friends are determined if they can to get such a measure through in the interregnum. We have seen an amusing scramble between hon. Members for Ireland and hon. Members for Wales as to who are to have preference. It was amicably settled at Holyhead the
  1520
  other day. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) met and talked about the brotherhood which existed between the two kindred Celtic people. Even that little friendly gathering was rather marred by the fact that the hon. Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. John) found himself unable to be present, because he did not agree with the policy of the hon. Member for Waterford. At all events he was not allowed to take the chair, for that would not have conduced to the brotherhood of two kindred peoples. I am at all events right in saying that it is perfectly clear that it is the intention of the Government and of the various parties who support it by a process of marvellous log-rolling to rush both Welsh Disestablishment and Home Rule through the present Parliament without either matter ever having been properly discussed by the country at all.
  We heard a good deal this evening from the Prime Minister as to what mandate the Government had for Home Rule. The Prime Minister told us how he spent his Easter holidays driving through a beautiful part of the country in Surrey, and saw everywhere on the hoardings posters telling the people that if they voted for the Government it would mean Home Rule for Ireland; and he built from that theory that the country had been consulted on Home Rule and had agreed to it. Can the Prime Minister really suggest that in the case of Welsh Disestablishment the country was consulted at all? In what way? Take the election addresses. First of all I take the election

  1521
  addresses of the members for Wales who support the Government. Twenty-one of the Government candidates for Welsh constituencies issued election addresses. Of those only eight mentioned the subject at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the hon. Gentleman give the names?"] I am sure the Committee would not wish me to read all the names if I had them. Of two other hon. Members out of the total number, one referred in vague terms to the great advantages of what he called religious equality. What religious equality may be I do not know, except if you are going to equally confiscate endowments of other religious bodies besides those of the Church.
  1.0 A.M.
  On this great and burning question at all events the Welsh people are supposed to have made up their minds, yet only eight out of twenty-one candidates thought fit to mention the subject at all, and two others spoke about religious equality. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the hon. Gentleman give the names of the twenty-one candidates? "] The hon. Member knows the names perfectly well. This election, which is supposed to have settled the question in Wales, resulted in our winning two boroughs in Wales, including the most important of all, namely, Cardiff. If you go back to the election of a previous Parliament, the only election at which there was anything like a referendum on the question of Welsh Disestablishment, which took place in 1895, and was directly upon the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, we then won seven seats. I am perfectly certain that if the question were put to the Welsh people again as clearly as it was in 1895 we should win at least all these seven seats.
  Let me refer to another point. This, after all, is not only a Welsh question. You are seeking to dismember the Church of England as a whole. You are seeking, if the Government proposals be carried out, to cut away four dioceses, and these the oldest dioceses of the Church of England, to divide the Church of England into two parts. You are seeking to do what you would never propose to do for a moment in the case of Nonconformists. I should like to see what kind of reception you would get if you brought in a Bill to seperate the Wesleyans in Wales from the Wesleyans in England, or if you sought to separate the Calvinists in Wales from the Calvinists in England.
  An HON MEMBER: They are separate.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is not the fact. There is, I know, in the North of Wales a separate Calvinist Methodist body, but what is it? It is the "Liverpool and North Wales." I know the Welsh people are very ambitious, and I am one of them myself, but I never before heard it suggested that Wales included Liverpool. Apart from that, take the case of the Free Church Council. Is there a separate Free Church Council in Wales apart from England? There is nothing of the kind and hon. Members know that perfectly well. They know that if a proposal were made to separate, to tear away from any religious body in England those adherents who happen to be living in Wales any such proposal would be resented by every single Nonconformist authority in the whole country.
  An HON MEMBER: It is not a State church.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I appeal to hon. Members to give me a hearing, and at all events it is a matter that affects England. We have a right to say in England whether we want the Church dismembered or not. I take the question of a mandate in England. Is it seriously contended—I appeal to the Home Secretary or to any English Member—that the question was before the English electors at the last election?
  An HON. MEMBER: Certainly.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: An hon. Member opposite says "Yes." Well, there are 210 supporters of the Government returned for English constituencies. How many of these mentioned Welsh Disestablishment on their election addresses? Only four. There are also six who spoke about religious equality. Granting that the whole of these six intended to convey disestablishment in England or Wales, or both, only ten out of 210 thought fit to mention this matter at the last general election. Yet you now come before this House and propose a Bill of this sort for which there can be no pretence of any mandate whatever, which has never been before the country at all, and has never been considered by the country, which was rejected by the country on the only occasion on which it was brought before them at all. Is it seriously contended that this Bill has got a mandate and that it is to go through the House of Commons and not to be revised in another place and become law at once. Whatever may be the

  1523
  case of Home Rule—I admit it is a very strong case—I mean a very strong case on my side—for exemption from the Clause I say the case of Welsh Disestablishment is even stronger, and I do appeal to the Government in this matter to give us some justice. They must see how manifestly unfair it is to force a measure of this sort through when it has never been before the country in any shape whatever.
  Let one take another point. When the Government some years ago first came in I know they had to deal with the aspirations of hon. Members from Wales. They appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the real facts about the Church in Wales, and the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, said:—
  "That owing to the absence of official information on the questions which were now being submitted to the Royal Commission, the Government of the day were exposed to a good deal of embarrassment in the framing and conduct of the measure."
  Well, the Royal Commission sat and reported, but, mark the fact, that it never reported until the very moment when the general election took place. It was quite impossible for this Report to be before the country at all. My belief is that the Report was deliberately held back in order that the people should not know what the nature of the Report was. The facts are that the Report absolutely smashed all the old arguments in favour of Welsh Disestablishment, it proved that far from being the miserable minority which it was alleged to be, it was the largest and strongest religious body in the Principality, and proved also that it was the only religious body showing any real life or progress. That Report destroyed absolutely the old theory that it was an alien Church. It destroyed all the old arguments that were used in this House fifteen years ago, and further showed that these proposals for disendowment would take away from the Church all it had got in the way of endowment except 1s. 5½d. in the £.
  An HON. MEMBER: That is untrue.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is a fact, and these are the figures. If the hon. Member chooses to contest the conclusions of the Royal Commission let him do so, but he will find that these are the figures. Yet that Report was never put before the public, because it was brought out too late for the people at the last election to have an opportunity to judge it, and we are told that a mandate has been given in
  1524
  favour of Welsh Disestablishment, and that this matter must be rushed through over the provisions of this Clause.
  I want now to look at the question from a broader aspect. I have been dealing so far with the specific proposal which the Government have made to the House, and I say further that a great question affecting the establishment and endowment of the Church ought, whether it be the Church in England or the Church in Wales or the Church in Scotland, to be exempt from the provisions of a clause like this. Of course, I am aware, so far as the church in Scotland goes, there is no direct attack upon it at the present moment, not at any rate in the form it took a few years ago. But I remember that in the first Parliament in which I sat a Suspensory Bill was brought in with regard to the Church in Scotland, and at any moment a similar action might be taken by the Government of the day, and either a Suspensory Disestablishment Bill or a Suspensory Disendowment Bill forced through this House with regard to the Church in Scotland without any control on the part of the Second Chamber.
  A question of this sort ought to be exempt from the provisions of this Clause, and I will remind the House of this, that when the Act of Union was passed between England and Ireland the churches of England and of Ireland were united, and it was enacted "that the continuance and preservation of the said united church shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the union." Of course, I am aware it suits them because the Church of Ireland has been disestablished. Yes, but that was by the concurrence of both Houses. [Some laughter.] Surely the House of Lords assented to the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, otherwise it could not have become an Act of Parliament. Therefore I submit that in the same way any measure of this sort affecting the Church of England or the Church of Scotland should not be carried by the fiat of one assembly, but should be submitted to the Second Chamber. For these reasons I move my Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government and, I think, the Committee will recognise very readily that the hon. Gentleman and his friends have full justification for bringing forward an Amendment of this character. They, as a party, feel very strongly—it is an old and long tradition of their party—the importance of the

  1525
  maintenance of the endowed and Established Church. We can quite understand that they would wish that an Amendment excluding that church from the provisions of the Parliament Bill should be discussed and voted upon during the course of our debates to-day. Therefore I do not in the least quarrel with the hon. Gentleman, nor should I attempt to reply in any controversial spirit to his painstaking speech though I think there were one or two points—for instance, that where he tried to prove, by analysing election addresses, that the Welsh representatives were not in favour of Welsh Disestablishment. There were one or two such passages which might under more favourable circumstances have aroused considerable feelings of controversy. But this is not the time to discuss the merits of Welsh Disestablishment or the scope and character of such a measure as that.
  I do not think the hon. Gentleman would feel that we could with much advantage discuss the subject of mandate on this subject. After all, he knows perfectly well that the Liberal Party and other Liberal Governments have brought forward Bills dealing with the disestablishment of the Church of Wales. He knows perfectly well, experienced politician as he is, that the principle of disestablishment and the actual measure of Disestablishment of the Welsh Church has been an essential part of the political programme of every Member, I think, who has been elected to support a Liberal administration or a Liberal Party in opposition. Therefore, I do not think the question of the merits or of mandate require discussion at the present time. We are again at the same question we have been discussing during these past two days of our debates—of whether organic or Constitutional questions of a peculiar character should be exempted from the scope of the Parliament Bill. To that we have only one answer. We consider that the machinery of the Bill and the safeguards this Bill provides are adequate and sufficient for the discussion and passage into law of all measures and all legislative proposals and changes which may be made to Parliament and which may receive the assent of the House of Commons. That being so, I trust I have carefully endeavoured to avoid anything like a controversial tone, because we have got a good deal of work to do. An agreement having been reached, I do not think we should sit unduly late. With every desire to avoid anything which may
  1526
  cause hon. Gentlemen irritation, I am bound to meet this Amendment as we have met so many others which produce the same argument in the same tone.
  Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that in face of the agreement we have arrived at we should avoid controversy. He certainly has done so. But it is not a question of agreement at all. This is a very simple matter. It is within the power of the Government to lay down what shall be the limits of debate and discussion. It is within the power of the Government to say whether we shall do our business within certain time. The Government may do so, but it is not a question of agreement. It is a question of our having to bow to those who are in authority. We have studied to make the best use of the time at our disposal and my hon. Friend has moved an Amendment which is of first-rate importance. The Home Secretary meets it by telling us that the Government have got a mandate and that it has been part of the policy of the Liberal party from time immemorial and so on. I suppose I am an old Member of the House of Commons. I remember when this question was not only controversial between the two Parties but was extremely controversial in the Party opposite. Within quite recent times a great many Members opposite thought it necessary to state that although they were ardently in favour of Radical measures one thing they were not in favour of was the disestablishment of the Church. In the late Parliament there were distinguished Members of the Party opposite who more than once on the floor of the House said that while they were Radical in everything else they resisted the disestablishment of the Church.
  An HON. MEMBER: In the last Parliament?
  Mr. LONG: No. Parliaments under the present regime follow so rapidly that I should have said the last Parliament but one. I am not talking of Welsh Members. My hon. Friend in moving his Amendment referred to the question of addresses, and his reference was met with laughter on the part of Gentlemen opposite. It seems to me we come in Debate every day to some fresh Parliamentary doctrine. It used to be understood quite recently that Members seeking to enter the House of Commons put into their addresses references to the subjects they thought to be of importance, and which they thought ought

  1527
  to be dealt with by Parliament; but now, apparently, the reverse is the doctrine. Now it is not the thing which is in the address, but which is left out of the address that matters in the eyes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They argue: we do not put this into our addresses not because it is not important, but because we think something else is important. That makes it difficult to understand what legislation hon. Gentlemen who have adopted that doctrine wish to carry out. So far as the Amendment is concerned, I think it is a very proper one, and one which I think in different circumstances we might well have discussed for a very considerable time. But we are up against a brick wall. The Government are determined to carry their legislation in their own way. I do not think it would be much good to pursue at any great length the Debate, because I think what we are called upon to do is to realise and to ask the Government to realise what is their new policy. They ask us to agree to their view, that they have a mandate for every kind of legislation, and that they are therefor entitled to use the Parliament Bill to give effect to these measures. It is not worth while arguing that. What we are entitled to say is that is not a question of mandate, it is not a question of the will of the people, it is not a question of democratic legislation.
  Let us put all that nonsense on one side. It is a question of what the Government or what the Members on the Front Bench for the time being desire to carry into law. Having laid down their conditions their party are bound to support them or turn them out. They do not want to turn them out because they would possibly find someone else in their places. Therefore the legislation of the Government becomes the legislation of the day. Let us have no nonsense about the mandate of the people or the will of the people. What you are really doing is to give to the Government of the day power to carry any legislation they choose. They choose to include Welsh Disestablishment. We cannot resist it, but we can protest against it and my hon. Friend is justified in moving the Amendment, and we are justified in making our protest. But beyond that we cannot carry the contest. But we are entitled to ask in the first place that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are unwilling to take part in the Debate should at all events be courteous and be governed by the ordinary rules
  1528
  which have governed Debates ever since I have been a Member of this House and not to interrupt with interruptions not known under the old Parliamentary law. We are also entitled to say that in accepting the conditions in which we find ourselves we do not do so because we agree with the position the Government take up, but because we realise that to prolong the controversy is futile and that the Government are really seeking for themselves the right to carry legislation to which we object, for which they have not the mandate of the people, and which is not the legislation the people desire, the Government being the authority on what shall be done or what not.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If I follow aright the speech of the right hon. Gentleman his argument is that there is no mandate to justify the Government. The hon. Member for Dudley was once a candidate for a Welsh seat. I am sure no Welsh constituency could have withstood the political charm of his arguments had it not been that he was wrong on this particular question. If I ask him whether the real cause of his defeat was his attitude upon this question, I am sure he will not get up in his place and contradict me.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do entirely contradict that. The cause of my defeat was the miners, and not the Church question at all—particularly on Chinese labour.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I was wrong then in attributing the failure of the hon. Member to only one reason. He had many, no doubt, but the chief and main reason of his defeat is the question to which I have referred. I am not going to follow the hon. Member into the merits of this controversy, and I do not think it would be in order to do so. He is not quite well informed on the subject of the Welsh Commission. As he is now a Member for Dudley it does not matter very much, but the hon. Member who sits next to him is an authority on the matter. I am sure if he cares to get up and contradict his hon. Friend on his left he will do so. The Welsh Commission proves this: the Welsh Church is in a minority as compared with the Free Churches of Wales as one to three or one to four. I take silence to mean consent on that point. So it really comes to this, that at any rate the Church of England in Wales is in a substantial or unsubstantial minority; and the real point we are discussing now is granted.

  1529
  Most hon. Members will agree that for forty years in Wales this has been the main paramount issue to the people of Wales in deciding general elections. At eleven general elections the Welsh people have returned a majority of five to one in favour of this question. Since 1886 the National Liberal Federation has put it in a foremost place in its programme, and with regard to the general election of 1906, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said it remained an integral part of the Liberal programme. In 1909 it "was promised in the session of 1910. What was said by the leaders of the Liberal party at the last General Election? The Liberals ran the risk of being in favour of Disestablishment and if the Conservatives lost in many cases it was because they resisted the proposal. The Prime Minister said on 25th November, "In a speech I made at the Albert Hall nearly a year ago I dwelt on some of the causes that we believe are in our keeping. I adhere to everything I said then. I spoke of Welsh Disestablishment "—the very first question he mentioned—"of the abolition of the Parliamentary veto, of a better licensing system, and of a national system of education." Curiously enough the hon. Member for East Worcester was speaking on the same day at Glasgow and he said, "Any of the changes once discussed might be passed into law over their heads. It would have a right to disestablish as many churches as it liked. [A VOICE: 'Not of Scotland.'] Yes, of Scotland, and without consulting the Scottish people." That was what your leaders told the people. In spite of that threat the Scottish people again supported the Liberal party.
  But I have a still higher authority than the Prime Minister and an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have a Bishop, and I will quote his words. Writing to "The Times" newspaper of 3rd December, 1910, the Bishop of St. David's said:—
  "As a Bishop whose diocese Mr. Asquith is pledged to deprive of 87,500 out of 94,000 a year of endowments, I appeal to churchmen to vote for the Unionist proposal of a Referendum on all matters of great gravity."
  The Bishop wanted the Referendum. Well we have had the Referendum, so far as this matter is concerned, in Wales for forty years. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] At every general election. I venture to tell anyone who does not know anything about Wales that not a single Liberal Member for Wales has not been in favour of Welsh Disestablishment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's,
  1530
  Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton) in his election address said:—
  "The Parliament Bill once passed, a Radical Government, if faithful to its pledges, would carry Home Rule, Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Welsh Church, and destroy religious education in Church schools."
  In these circumstances can anyone come to any other conclusion than that the Prime Minister, as leader of the Liberal party, made this question part of the programme on which he appealed to the country? Leaders of the Conservative party, with their Bishops and other supporters, made it perfectly clear to the country that if they voted for a Liberal they were running the risk of having the Welsh Church disestablished and disendowed. The people have taken the risk. It is clear that this question is within the ambition of the Government's mandate. We have already waited too long. We in Wales who voted for the Parliament Bill did not vote for it as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. That is its real justification. It would be in accordance with the decision of the voters at the general election that the Parliament Bill shall apply to the disestablishment in Wales, and that the veto hitherto possessed by the peers shall be overridden.
  I think that in this Parliament we shall have religious equality. It is a strange thing to me that the hon. Member (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) in his brief candidature was not told by one of the miners what religious equality meant in Wales. Religious equality and disestablishment are really the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "And disendowment?"] It is a little late to begin a lesson on these elementary points, but really it is so. The hon. Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen) compared the establishment in Wales to the position of the Wesleyan body in the Free Church Council. However that may be we have been sent here by the electors of Wales to support this Bill not because we believe in it by itself, but because we have always found the House of Lords has been directly antagonistic to all Welsh reforms, not only in connection with our schools, but in every direction, and because we believe in the pledge of the Government that in this Parliament we shall at least have religious equality.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will restrain myself from endeavouring to enter with any heat into the controversy started by my hon. Friend (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen), into which the hon. Member

  1531
  for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) rather naturally leads me. I should like to controvert one or two of his points, but I will refer to them later. I wish in the first place to say I would rather follow the path of the Home Secretary and desire that at this hour of the morning that we should, in discussing this particular Amendment assume as uncontroversial an attitude as possible. In fact in discussing the question of Welsh Disestablishment I would far rather cross swords with the hon. Gentleman opposite with the Bill in front of us, and on the specific proposals for what he once termed the bread and butter policy for the people of Wales. The point I wish to raise on this Amendment is the constitutional aspect of the question. We have been discussing this afternoon Amendments dealing with a Home Rule Bill, and with specific Acts of Parliament. This Amendment raises an altogether different category of constitutional questions. After all can the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith)—I know he is a learned lawyer—point one to any Act which establishes the Church of England? It cannot be done. The establishment of the Church either in England or Wales is not like the establishment of the Church in Ireland under the Act of Union, but is one of more ancient constitutional usages which had grown up before Parliament itself came into existence.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is allowed to discuss the question of the different types of establishment we shall be here for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I have risen to a point of Order. I should like to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order to discuss upon this Amendment the different types of establishment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): It is only in order so far as it affects the special case of exemption from this particular sub-section. I cannot allow hon. Members on either side to enter upon a general discussion of the question. I do not think so far as he has gone that the hon. Member is out of order.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I wish to be brief and have no desire to go outside the rules of order and follow the path into which I might have been easily led by the hon. Member for Anglesey and discuss the actual merits of the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales.
  1532
  I wish to point out here that there is a special case for allowing the question of disestablishment, especially Welsh disestablishment, to remain outside the provisions of the Bill owing to the peculiar constitutional position of that establishment. I was endeavouring to prove that, according to my own notion, following upon the words of the Prime Minister spoken the other day, it is not strictly constitutional for Parliament to dismember the Church of England. I was endeavouring to point out that the question of disestablishment is an exceedingly difficult one to discuss, because there is no Act of Parliament establishing the established Church. It is a product of certain constitutional usages which date back to the time before Parliament existed and which resulted in this, that the Church of England is represented specifically in a body known as Convocation. Since before Parliament all the Welsh dioceses have been represented in the Convocation of Canterbury. Since before Edward I summoned Parliament the representatives of the Welsh Church were summoned to the Convocation at Canterbury. I suggest—adopting the Prime Minister's statement the other day—that whatever the difference between the legal powers of the two Houses of Parliament, we can make out a particularly strong case on the question of disestablishment for maintaining that if ever the Government does take it in hand it should take it as a whole, and that it should not go in for disestablishing a part of the Church or taking away part of its temporalities.
  That is one point which I would urge most respectfully upon the Government. The relation between Convocation and Parliament is a particularly interesting one historically, and it is one which shows that the Church has historically, and by the constitutional usage of this House, a free and exclusive right to its own position, and to draw up its own composition in Convocation and things of that kind. That has been the constitutional usage. I know an Act of Parliament can do anything, legally. An Act of Parliament can turn a man into a woman. It can do anything; but the question is whether it is constitutionally feasible or constitutionally right. Under this Bill you could destroy and dissolve a Constitution as old as that of Parliament itself, one absolutely separate from that of Parliament, and which exists, not subordinate to Parliament, but parallel with it. I submit that is not a highly controversial point, and does not raise any

  1533
  purely controversial question such as those raised on the opposite side of the House.
  I wish to say a few words next on the subject of the mandate. I absolutely agree with other Members on this side of the House that the Amendment should be accepted because the question has not been submitted adequately or fully to the electors either of Wales or of England or Scotland. It is a question which in many places is far more keenly felt than the question of Home Rule, and of Ulster and other parts of Ireland. People feel very keenly in this House on the matter as they do in Wales. Churchmen everywhere feel very keenly upon this point, and I do submit that if you examine the records of the last two elections it is perfectly plain that the great religious questions were absolutely avoided. In January, 1910, the question of the Budget and the question of the Constitution, and questions like Tariff Reform, were prominent, and the same at the last election. I remember two nights after my own election coming into the street in one of the Montgomery boroughs: I remember distinctly having the Liberal candidate's last word given into my hands as I went to address a meeting, and I remember distinctly there was never a mention of disestablishment or disendowment, but there was a flaring placard, "Vote for Humphreys-Owen and no Bread Taxes." That was the sum total. Was this question properly put before the electors of Wales? Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who has been mentioned by one speaker, mentioned this question in a speech in England, but when he came to Wales he never mentioned it. He came down to Wales and spoke at Wrexham, and he was specially warned not to mention it by the hon. Member who now sits for East Glamorgan.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: That statement is entirely untrue.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member will not dispute—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will withdraw the statement, but the hon. Member stated—and he was reported in the Press on January, 1910, in that constituency—that disestablishment and disendowment were not the issue. I have kept the paper in which he is quoted as saying that. He refused to answer a question on the platform, and he did all he could to avoid and shirk and burke that issue. No doubt some
  1534
  hon. Members from Wales will say that is why he was beaten. That is a matter entirely neither here nor there. I have not long been electioneering, but all my electioneering experience has taken place in the principality of Wales, but I know that the Liberal party leaders in England and the Liberal Members talk about anything rather than disestablishment and disendowment. It is never put—
  An HON. MEMBER: You are wrong.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Well, not in North Wales. They never put it fairly and squarely before the electors, and if we try to put it before the people we are always told "that is not the case." The gentleman who stood against me at the last election said would I give the concrete figures and I gave them showing how much was to be taken away under the Bill last introduced by the Liberal Government. What did he say? He said, "Oh, but I am certain the Liberal party will not take away any of the endowments of the Church to which the Church could show a title."
  An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member says, "hear, hear," but I tell him we can produce titles in Wales to the property and revenues now enjoyed by the Church.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting away from the subject of the Amendment.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret that I was led into a thorny and highly controversial topic. I hope it is not entirely my fault. I have spoken of the two main reasons why this Amendment should be accepted by the Government. They are, in the first place, that the question has not been properly put before the electors, so that the electors might give their voice and vote on this issue, and that they had before them far more prominent issues for the time being, and that this is one of the great fundamental questions which arouses the feelings and opinions of the people most keenly; and, secondly, that when we examine these historical foundations the Government proposal to dismember and disestablish the Church, apart from disendowment, is, according to the Prime Minister's use of the term, unconstitutional, and should not be carried out under this Bill.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I wish to be very brief and to carry with me, as far as I

  1535
  can, the opinions and sentiments of hon. Members on that side of the House as well as on this side. I think I can put a proposition which will not meet with much opposition on that side of the House. Here is a proposal which weighs very hard and heavily upon our feelings. We feel very deeply and warmly upon it. We say, "You may ask us to make this sacrifice, but in any country ruled over by methods of self-government we cannot be asked to do it except in obedience to the will of the people." I can see the answer, and I am purposely putting my finger upon it. I can see the answer which the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) will give. He will say, "The Welsh people are against you on that point." Well, I do very earnestly protest against the doctrine that this matter can be determined solely by the population of Wales.
  Observe what happened in the case of the Irish Church. In the case of the Irish Church the matter was certainly submitted to the whole of the United Kingdom, and the whole of the United Kingdom was deeply interested because beyond all doubt the question dominated the issue alone at a General Election. We have now no mandate on this question, but certainly in that case there was as near a decision on that great question as you could hope to get, though not to my mind a very satisfactory one. In this case no one will pretend that outside Wales, or even inside Wales, according to my hon. Friend who has just spoken on that point, the question of Welsh Disestablishment was given that sort of decision or anything distantly approaching to it. It was altogether a subordinate matter and was not an issue at all in Scotland and Ireland, and was altogether a subordinate matter in England.
  I will not put it so far as that the whole of the constituencies of the United Kingdom should give their views. It is perfectly plain that England and Wales are entitled to be heard, and I will not repeat the arguments of my hon. Friend. Look how deeply it strikes into the organisation of the English Church. The Province of Canterbury would be dismembered. The Convocation of Canterbury would be broken up, and, indeed, there are other points—like the districts which lie over the Welsh border in England, and which it would be necessary to legislate for. Supposing you
  1536
  had Welsh Home Rule and English Home Rule you would have to pass a Bill for Welsh Disestablishment either through the Imperial Parliament or through both the English House and the Welsh House. Therefore it is an English issue. It is a matter in which we have a right to say the English people have a right to pronounce upon. I may not carry hon. Members with me, but it is my strong opinion that a very decided majority of England and Wales taken together are against disestablishment. I think they have always been against it, and I think the feeling is moving in a direction away from Welsh Disestablishment. Take the broader ground than the mere technical and legal ground. Cannot hon. Gentlemen sympathise with what we feel when we are told that the opinion of the English people should not weigh in this matter? Why, it is our church; it is the church of which we are members.
  Hon. Members go so far sometimes as to say it is an alien church. I think they are wrong. You cannot, however, say it is an English church, and at the same time say the English people are not concerned in the faith of it. I do appeal to hon. Members, and especially to Nonconformists. I have never doubted that great respect ought to be had for Nonconformist wishes. I put it to them, accepting as they do democratic self-government as the common basis, is it honest or fair to assume consent from the English and Welsh people taken together, which, in the circumstances, you cannot be sure of, and which, I am confident, does not exist; is it fair, when the whole country has been thinking of the fiscal, the constitutional and other issues, to slip through this Bill without any further appeal—a matter which touches so deeply the conscience and spiritual feelings of your countrymen? Would Nonconformists like themselves to be so treated? If our mother church is to be turned into the street at least give us, her children, a voice in the matter. It is, indeed, bound to us by the tenderest ties of affection. It is not the case that the English people do not feel for the common church. We say that this church is neither of the Church of England or of Wales, it is the common heritage of both people. What I would plead for is that the will of the people should be consulted and that a matter of this kind, which cuts so deeply into our hearts, should be carried only by the will of the people. The course

  1537
  hon. Members opposite are upon is a course repellant to them as good Christian men and honest men. It is a course which I am sure is neither Christian nor honest.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I intervene because statements have been made by the hon. Member for Denbigh Burghs which are not accurate. The fact is that during the Election of 1910 I made eight or nine speeches on this question in my Constituency, and, as some hon. Members know, I took a very strong stand in this House against the then Government on this question, and took an active part in a big campaign throughout the whole of Wales. Indeed, I made it a definite and paramount issue in the fight of 1910, and shall continue to do so.
  Viscount WOLMER: In face of the stolid refusal of any compromise or Amendment of the Government proposals, perhaps further discussion at this late hour may seem somewhat of a farce; but at any rate an Amendment of this sort is not to be rejected without emphatic protest from these benches. I more deeply regret the decision of the Government not to exempt this subject from the clutches of their transient majority, because on this question they are dealing with the deepest feelings and the deepest conscience of hundreds of thousands of people in this country. It is a matter which stands apart from mere constitutional arrangements or mere fiscal devices; it is an Act which cuts at the bedrock of the religious belief of the inhabitants of this country. When hon. Members opposite are embarking upon that course they are treading upon very dangerous ground. There is nothing in the course of history which has moved the passions of men more than the great question of religion, and, to whatever party you may belong, a question of this importance is not to be dismissed by a House of Commons that, after a hard day's Debate, is now in the small hours of the morning, and upon which the great mass of the electors and the country have not been consulted.
  I have listened in vain for a common-sense, reasonable plea that this question was put forward in a straight
  forward and honest manner by the Liberal party at the last two elections. I am glad I see several hon. Members from Lancashire on the benches opposite. How many of them mentioned disestablishment in their election addresses? How many of them mentioned it in their speeches when they were addressing the small towns? How many mentioned it in the small card which was sent to every elector when he had an opportunity of weighing carefully each separate item and proposal. [A MINISTERIAL MEMBER: "I did."] I challenge hon. Members to go down to Lancashire and press that our Church should be disestablished without even a reference to the people of this country. The hon. Member for Anglesey has said, calmly and coolly, that the Church in is in a minority of one to four. Does he substantiate that statement?
  Mr. GRIFFITH: On the standard of communicants it is one to four. If I am wrong I should be sorry to mislead the House in any way.
  Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Member attaches so great importance to the relative numbers as to religious opinion in Wales will he consent to a religious census in order that—
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is getting wide of the Debate.
  Viscount WOLMER: I was misled by the hon. Member. After all it is only part of the general question of referring these measures to the people of this country—by census, a referendum, it does not matter which, but the essential point is that this proposal above all which goes to the bedrock of human conviction and all we hold dear as members of the Church of England—the important point is that that should be submitted to the people of England and to the people of Wales before it is passed into law by the House of Commons which, after all, has only a transient majority, elected on wholly separate and different issues.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 206.

  Division No. 174.]

  AYES.

  [2.5 a.m.

  Aitken, William Max

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset N.)

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

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Baird, J. L.

  Barnston, Harry

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boyton, J.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hills, John Wilier (Durham)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, G. F.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cator, John

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Chaloner, Col. R. G W.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lanes.)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mills, Hon Charles Thomas

  Winterton, Earl

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Younger, George

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gordon, John

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Johnson, William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Adamson, William

  Essex, Richard Walter

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Falconer, James

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Joyce, Michael

  Alden, Percy

  Ffrench, Peter

  Keating, Matthew

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Field, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Barry, Redmond John

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Barton, William

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'N'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bentham, G. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lundon, Thomas

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Brace, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hackett, J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hancock, John George

  McNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merhyr Tydvil)

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Clough, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Clynes, John R

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Millar, James Duncan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Morgan, George Hay

  Crumley, Patrick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cullinan, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Muldoon, John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Hodge, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Doris, William

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Duffy, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York Otley)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Doherty, Philip

  1540

  1541

  O'Dowd, John

  Richards, Thomas

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Ogden, Fred

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ure, Rt. Hoi. Alexander

  O'Malley, William

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Shee, James John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Rowlands, James

  Wardle, George J.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Whitehouse, John H ward

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Whyte, A. F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehy, David

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Sutton, John E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Bill" ["If any Bill other than a Money Bill"], to insert the words "or a Bill affecting the independence of the judiciary or restricting the rights of the subject to trial by jury or appeal to a higher court."
  The point I would make is, that the independence of the judiciary and the safeguarding of the subject for the independent determination of his case are the very last matters that ought to be the subject of any hasty change by any drastic constitutional procedure. The position at which we have arrived is the result of very slow evolution. Formerly the independence of the judiciary was, as is well known, affected by the prerogative of the Crown, and certain Acts to restrict that independence may be found during the Tudor period and part of the Stuart period. In the time of the Civil Wars this House took it upon itself to review judicial decisions and even to pass criminal sentences. These abuses were the subject of controversy, and gradually the independence of the judiciary was I established by placing them as far as possible away from the direct review of Parliament. That was the reason for the salaries of the judges being placed on the; Consolidated Fund, so that their decisions might not be reviewed in the ordinary course of Debate.
  I submit to the Committee that there is a real need that something of this kind should be maintained, and that this House should not directly or indirectly take upon itself, except for the most formal procedure and after due deliberation, to take: any steps that would lessen the complete I
  1542
  independence of the judges. It must be their duty occasionally to give unpopular decisions, and being men, they may occasionally give unfortunate decisions, and decisions that arouse a considerable degree of popular passion. These things are not of the same gravity and do not have the same consequences they would have if the judges were directly subordinate to and amenable to this House, and therefore any measure which places them in that position is one that ought to be assented to only after the strictest constitutional procedure, and is not fitting to be brought about by the summary changes proposed in this Clause. We have seen symptoms of great restive-ness against judicial decisions, so much so that a Minister of the Crown—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question ought not to be discussed on this Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think I am out of order in saying that I was not present during the whole of that discussion, but, so far as I was present, I did not hear the remarks of the Minister of the Crown—the President of the Board of Education—referred to in the course of that discussion. The President of the Board of Education, as I understand the tenor of his remarks, did say that the conduct of the judiciary was a proper subject for the ordinary animadversion of this House and that they might be made accountable to this House. That is what I want to guard against by this Amendment. Although resentments might be felt in the ordinary course, it would be most unfortunate if, in the heat of the moment, if the judges were abused by a

  1543
  discussion in this House, and if their status and independence were threatened by debates in this House. I want to preserve the independence that has been won by many a hard struggle in the past. There are symptoms in the criticisms of to-day which seem to threaten them. That is the first point.
  As regards the right of the subject to trial by jury and appeal to the High Court it is a kindred subject, though I do not think there is any pressing, any immediate, attack upon the right of the subject to trial by jury. With regard to the right of appeal, we have seen some matters in the first draft of the Finance Act of 1909, in which it was proposed that there should be taxation practically imposed without appeal, except to a court which was immediately amenable to the Government. It was evidence of a very dangerous tendency of the times, and one against which it is necessary to guard. Once the appeal from the ordinary Court of First Instance is done away with the jurisdiction of that Court of First Instance becomes itself impaired. It is essential to its judicial authority that its decisions should be open to be revised by a higher court, and any measure to take away that appeal should not be passed by any hasty or drastic procedure, and ought only to be accepted on the whole authority of Parliament as understood in the past. It is on these grounds that I move the Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: During the discussions earlier in the evening I dealt with the first question raised by the hon. Member, and although the terms of that Amendment did not actually raise the questions in this Amendment, they were nevertheless covered by the arguments which took place on both sides of the House during that Debate. I do not think I can usefully add anything to them except to say that one could hardly expect that this Amendment would be accepted in view of what had taken place with regard to the other. It is no doubt a very important point, but it has been discussed very fully in the House. The hon. Member has raised two other questions, the right of trial by jury and the right of appeal from a Court of First Instance to a High Court. He said quite rightly as regards the first of these that there has been no suggestion from either side of the House that there should be
  1544
  any interference with the right of trial by jury, and therefore I do not think it requires special attention from me. With regard to the last point, the right of appeal, the hon. Member gave one instance, which was what took place during the discussion of the Finance Act of 1909–10. We all remember what took place. The House compelled the Government to alter the Bill as introduced, so as to give the fullest right of appeal in that Act which now stands. I do not think really there is any reason to fear that the right of appeal will be taken away or any ground of misapprehension should this Amendment not be accepted.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I desire to support the Amendment. I do not quite understand some of the arguments of the learned Attorney-General, because this is a different point from the point covered in the discussion which took place this evening. I would like to make one or two remarks on one point. I think everybody will agree that the judges in this country have won for themselves a position that has not been attained by the judges of any other country. That has been attained by their absolute independence and integrity, and it would be a most unfortunate thing if that were to be interfered with in any shape or form. The result is that so long as the integrity and independence are maintained everybody throughout the length and breadth of the country will continue to feel that the liberty of the subject in these islands is perfectly safe. A year ago I should not have thought it necessary in the slightest degree to raise this question in the House of Commons because up to that time everybody would agree that the position and independence of the judges must be safeguarded by every possible means, but I submit to the House that there has been lately shown to be a tendency not to accept that position. It seems to be the fashion nowadays where an election petition has gone against a candidate that he should immediately make a speech addressing the constituents, and telling them they will get rid of "unjust judges."
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: A very proper thing.
  Mr. SANDERSON: Everybody knows who has had any experience of judges who try election petitions that their integrity

  1545
  is undisputed and their independence absolute. I see the Home Secretary shaking his head as if to contradict my remarks.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not venture to contradict the hon. Member's remarks. I was only shaking my head with regard to the fact that such a controversial topic should be introduced.
  Mr. SANDERSON: My interpretation of the Home Secretary's action was wrong. I am afraid he was going to join some other Members of the House who apparently do not think that the integrity of the learned judges is undisputed.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I do not think we can discuss this question on the Amendment. It can only be discussed on a specific Motion dealing with the matter.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I was merely saying that a short time ago, a year ago, it would never have been necessary to raise this question in the House of Commons, but having regard to certain recent incidents, I submit that it is necessary. One thing we are anxious about, at all events on this side of the House, is to maintain, without the slightest chance of being attacked in any shape or form, the independence of learned judges, as to whether those who have any familiarity of practising before them or any real knowledge of the way they go about their business never had the slightest doubt.
  Mr. NEWTON: I desire to support this Amendment. We are considering whether a safeguard should be provided for the most ancient of the rights and privileges of the people of this country, the right of trial by jury. I consider that it is very necessary that this right should be safeguarded. I consider it to be necessary for this reason, that towards the end of the discussion the hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. W. Long) was referring to the fact that the Government were now proposing measures upon which they had not consulted the electors at the last election, and he made that point strongly, and he drew from a Member of the Irish Nationalist party sitting behind me an interjection to which a little more prominence should be given—" Hang the people!"
  HON. MEMBERS: Name! Name!
  Mr. NEWTONI do not know the hon. Member's name. I can only say that
  1546
  statement was made. If the people are to be hanged, let us have a trial by jury before that is done.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think the learned Attorney-General really glossed over the point rather lightly, because a former Amendment dealt with the position of the judges once appointed and the right of the Grown to appoint them. This is a new point about decisions in this House. There is the point about trial by jury. Though it has not been directly refused, new powers have been given to Government Departments to this effect, "On any question arising under this Act the decision of the Board shall be taken, and shall be final," or the decision of the Commissioners, or of somebody else. Is there not a danger of putting such words into an Act that they may take away the rights at common law previously enjoyed? I cannot help thinking there is. Of course, in the Education Act of 1902 the wording was so limited that the interpretation put by the Government Department in that case was upset by the judges on various grounds. But I do say there is very serious danger from the constant attempt to confer some judicial powers on Government Departments, and it is one that ought and must be resisted. It is in view of this that I think the Amendment should be pressed to a division.
  Mr. SANDYS: I cannot quite understand the position which the Government have taken up on this Question. It appears to me, in view of the fact that they evidently intend to carry changes of an exceedingly revolutionary character, that once this Bill is passed into law there is no reason why we should suppose that some of these Constitutional rights of the British people could not possibly under this new scheme be attacked in the future. Therefore I think my hon. Friend was quite justified in bringing forward this Amendment in order to make perfectly certain that some of our most important privileges, namely, trial by jury and the preservation of the inviolability of the Court of Appeal, should be definitely provided for and maintained. Therefore I support the Amendment, and I hope the Government may see their way to reconsider it and allow it to be passed.
  The arguments the Attorney-General brought forward in his somewhat brief speech did not impress me very much. He asked us not to accept this Amendment because of the action o£ the Government at the time when the original Finance Act

  1547
  was under consideration. He pointed out that under the Finance Act the fullest possible appeal was given to His Majesty's judges, but at the same time he incidentally mentioned that that right of appeal was only granted if a Debate had taken place in the House of Commons. Therefore he must acknowledge that it was the original intention of the Government, if they had been allowed to do so to abolish that right of appeal. I think that admission is sufficient to justify this Amendment and to justify my hon. Friend in pressing it to a division.?
  certainly hope before that takes place the Government may reconsider their decision on this point and make it clear that, whatever may happen in the future in regard to other questions of very great importance, at any rate so far as trial by jury is concerned, that Constitutional liberty will be assured British subjects in the future as in the past. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 189.

  Division No. 175.

  AYES.

  [2.40 a.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Baird, J. L.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, Geoge Abraham

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gordon, J.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bigland, Alfred

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyton, J.

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hohler, G. F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Bull, Sir William James

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Horner, A. L.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Campion, W. R.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Touche, Gerge Alexander

  Carlile, Edhard Hildred

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cassel, Felix

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Law Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lanes.)

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

  Cator, John

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset. W.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Clive Captain Percy Archer

  Macmaster, Donald

  Winterton, Earl

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mount, William Arthur

  Croft, H. P.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Sandys and Mr. Sanderson.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Field, William

  Adamson, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Clough, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Allen, Percy

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Cornwall, Sr Edwin A.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gill, A. H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Barton, William

  Delany, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Dillon, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Doris, W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duffy, William J.

  Hackett, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Brace, William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Harvey T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, Richard Walter

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Falconer, J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hayward, Evan

  Muldoon, John

  Rowlands, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Needham, Christopher T.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hinds, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hodge, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shorn, Edward

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

  Johnson, W.

  Ogden, Fred

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jones, Edgar, R. (Methyr Tydvil)

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

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Summers, James Woolley

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

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

  Sutton, John E.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Keating, M.

  O'Shee, James John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Toulmin, George

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pease, Rt. Hon Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pirie, Duncan V

  Wardle, George J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lundon, T.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Lynch, A. A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Maclean, Donald

  Primose, Hon. Neil James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Reddy, M.

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Richards, Thomas

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Sir WILLIAM BULLmoved in Sub-section (1) after the word "passed" ["is not passed"] to insert the words "with a majority of at least one hundred."
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
  And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve minutes before Three a.m. Tuesday, 25th April.

  Customs and Excise Department.
  Customs and Excise Department.
  Government Printing.
  Government Printing.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Motor Car Licences (Ireland).
  Motor Car Licences (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Ancient Monuments (Ireland).
  Ancient Monuments (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants Act.
  Evicted Tenants Act.
  Royal Irish Constabulary (West Riding, County Galway).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (West Riding, County Galway).
  Naval Construction and Armaments (Private Contracts).
  Naval Construction and Armaments (Private Contracts).
  Austria-Hungary Navy.
  Austria-Hungary Navy.
  Secondary and Elementary Schools (London).
  Secondary and Elementary Schools (London).
  Church of England in Wales.
  Church of England in Wales.
  Vaccination in India.
  Vaccination in India.
  Judge Roucali (Malta).
  Judge Roucali (Malta).
  Unemployment Insurance.
  Unemployment Insurance.
  Education Rates.
  Education Rates.
  Stammering Children.
  Stammering Children.
  Juvenile Advisory Committees.
  Juvenile Advisory Committees.
  Chinese Sailors.
  Chinese Sailors.
  New Postage Stamps.
  New Postage Stamps.
  Poyntzpass Post Office, County Armagh.
  Poyntzpass Post Office, County Armagh.
  Public Schools, Lewis.
  Public Schools, Lewis.