Sitting of 31 January 1911

Preamble
The parliament begun and held at the City of Westminster, on Tuesday, the Thirty-first day of January, in the First Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King Defender of he Faith, and in the year of our Lord 1911.
On which day, at Two of the Clock, being the first day of the meeting of this Parliament, pursuant to Proclamation, Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, K.C.B., K.C.S.L, C.I.E., Clerk of the House of Commons, and Arthur William Nicholson, Esq., C.B., and Thomas Lonsdale Webster, Esq., Clerks-Assistant, attending in the House, and the other Clerks attending according to their duty, Sir Kenneth Muir - Mackenzie, K.C.B., Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in Great Britain, delivered to the said Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert a book containing a list of the names of the Members returned to serve in this Parliament.
Hon. Members having repaired to their seats,
A message was delivered by Admiral Sir Henry Frederic Stephenson, G.C.V.O.,
2
G.C.B., Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as followeth:—
"Gentlemen,
"The Lords authorised by virtue of His Majesty's Commission desire the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the House of Peers, to hear the Commission read."
Accordingly the House went up to the House of Peers, where the Lord Chancellor and other Lords named in the Commission, sitting on a form between the Throne and the Woolsacks.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Loreburn, G.C.M.G.), said:
"My Lords and Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"His Majesty, not thinking fit to be here present this day in His Royal Person, has been pleased, in order to the opening and holding of this Parliament, to cause Letters Patent to be passed under His Great Seal, constituting us and several other Lords therein named His Commissioners, to do all things, in His Majesty's name, on His part, necessary to be performed in this Parliament. This will more fully appear by the Letters Patent themselves, which must now be read."
The said Letters Patent were read, and then
The Lord Chancellor said:
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"We have it in command from His Majesty to let you know that as soon as

3
the Members of both Houses shall be sworn, the causes of His Majesty's calling this Parliament will be declared to you. And, it being necessary, a Speaker of the House of Commons should be first chosen, it is His Majesty's pleasure that you, Gentlemen of the House of Commons, repair to the place where you are to sit, and there proceed to the choice of some proper person to be your Speaker; and that you present such person, whom you should so choose, here to-morrow at Twelve of the Clock for His Majesty's Royal approbation."
And the House having returned,
Mr. EUGENE WASON Mr. EUGENE WASON, addressing himself to the Clerk (who, standing up, pointed to him, and then sat down): Sir Courtenay Ilbert, I have the honour to propose that the Right Honourable James William Lowther, Member of Parliament for the Penrith division of Cumberland, do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
This is the fourth occasion upon which the right hon. Gentleman has been elected to that great office—the highest honour which it is in the power of this House to confer upon any of its Members. Mr. Lowther was chosen by his own party in the year 1905, on the retirement of Mr. Speaker Gully. The choice was an obvious one. Mr. Lowther had been long an honourable Member of this House. He had represented the Charity Commissioners in this House; he had been for some little time Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he had occupied the Chair in which you, Sir, now sit, as Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy-Speaker of this House, for no less a period than 10 years.
I said that it was little wonder that the right hon. Gentleman had been chosen as Speaker by his own party. But in 1906 and in 1910, he was proposed by Members slitting on this side of the House, with whom the right hon. Gentleman, I regret to say, is not in political agreement; and to-day, for the third time as a Member opposed to the right hon. Gentleman, I have the honour to propose that he take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
I do not think, Sir, that any higher tribute could be paid to the right hon. Gentleman's fairness and impartiality than that he should have been chosen upon four occasions to occupy this high office. I remember well, in the year 1894, the late Sir William Harcourt, who was then the
4
Leader of this House, stated what he considered were the necessary qualifications that a Speaker should possess. The House will bear with me if I read what Sir William Harcourt then said. His remarks were very brief, but they areas pertinent to-day as they were on the occasion when they were delivered. Sir William said:—
"We expect dignity and authority tempered by urbanity and kindness; firmness to control and persuasiveness to counsel; promptitude of decision and justness of judgment; tact, patience, and firmness; a natural superiority combined with an inbred courtesy, so as to give by his own bearing an example and model to those over whom he presides; an impartial mind; a tolerant temper; and a reconciling disposition accessible to all in public and private as a kind and prudent councillor."
Those of us who have been in the last three Parliaments know how well and faithfully Mr. Lowther has answered every one of those qualifications. But, if I may be allowed to say so, he has what my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), when he moved the re-election of Mr. Lowther last year, said was a qualification which was of equal importance, and would stand him in equally good stead to any of those I have mentioned—I allude to what my right hon. Friend called "the saving grace of humour." Let no one in this House make any mistake. The humour of the Speaker, so far from being incompatible with the dignity of his office, lends effectiveness to his services in the Chair. Mr. Lowther has been the tried and trusted Speaker of this House. We know that we can rely upon him to maintain the ancient traditions, privileges, and liberties of this House and to defend them from all assailments, from whatever quarter they may come. What is it, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, that gives the Speaker his authority in the Chair? It is the confidence which Members of this House have in him: he has established a bond of sympathy between himself as our ruler and ourselves as the ruled. The labours of the Speaker are a constantly and ever-increasing burden upon him in this House. But if they are heavy, there is, at any rate, some compensation. There is one joy which the right hon. Gentleman, as Speaker of this House, possesses. It is, to borrow a phrase from Maeterlinck, "the joy of being just." Mr. Lowther, by his conduct in the Chair, has proved himself just to every party, to every nationality, and to every individual within these walls. What he has done in the past I feel sure he will do in the future. I consider

5
it a high honour to have the privilege of moving, as I now do: "That Mr. James William Lowther do take the Chair of the House as Speaker." I sincerely hope that he may enjoy good health and strength, and that he may be long spared to preside over our deliberations.
Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Sir Courtenay Ilbert, the occasions are rare when it falls to the lot of a Member of this House to have the privilege of moving or of seconding the re-election of a fellow-Member to the occupancy of the Chair. The honour of being selected is so great that, though I hesitated at first to accept the duty—for the adequate performance of which I hardly felt myself capable—on the other hand, I felt it was my duty on this occasion to speak for those with whom for many years I have been associated, in giving their opinion in regard to the right hon. Gentleman upon whom, in unison with the rest of the House, our choice has fallen. I am fully aware that my selection is due to no intrinsic merits of my own, that it is entirely on account of my seniority. I believe I may be classed as a Parliamentary veteran—a matter upon which I do not know whether or not I should be congratulated. It is exactly forty-five years since I first had the honour of addressing this House. Though I may be a wiser man than I was then, I am certainly a sadder man, when I look around and do not distinguish, amongst the occupants of the Benches on either side of the House, the face of a single one of those who were associated with me at that time. In seconding the re-election of Mr. Lowther to the Chair, which he has filled with such conspicuous ability during three Parliaments, my duty is sweetened by memories of many years of private friendship with the right hon. Gentleman himself. My recollection goes even further back—to the numerous kindnesses received from his distinguished parents, long before it was ever contemplated that he himself would enter this House. When the Parliament of 1906 first assembled it was said on all hands that the Speaker would be confronted with difficulties of a most delicate character in endeavouring to control the activities and to restrain the ambitions of that large body of Members who for the first time, and without any previous experience, had entered this House. But Mr. Lowther, with a courage, which in his case is hereditary, was not daunted by the magnitude of the difficulties which confronted
6
him. By a sagacious mixture of dignity, firmness, and genial persuasion, before two years had passed he had, with the general concurrence of the House, succeeded in firmly asserting the authority of the Chair. To him, to my mind, our thanks are due for having, during that Parliament, extracted from every section of the House, whatever might be the party to which they belonged, whatever their political opinions, or whatever the directions in which their aspirations lay, the tacit admission that one and all, collectively and individually, were, as representatives of the nation, equally jealous for the maintenance, intact, of the dignity, honour, and independence of this great historic assembly. When I first entered the House there were but two parties. There are now four—whether for better or worse it is not for me to say. But we must all admit that the difficulties and responsibilities of the occupant of the Chair are greatly enhanced by having to deal with four rather than with two parties. I recollect the remarkable testimony of the goodwill of a section of the House and the tribute borne to Mr. Lowther's impartiality when—as has been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, himself a representative of labour, moved the re-election of Mr. Lowther to the Chair at the commencement of the last Parliament in a speech which charmed the House, and which throughout its eloquent passages bore testimony on behalf of the Labour Members to the impartial conduct of Mr. Lowther in the Chair. I believe in no less degree has Mr. Lowther failed in winning the confidence of hon. Members from Ireland. I think it is no reflection on the representatives of Ireland—a country with which I am associated by so many ties—when I say that whether they come from the north or from the south, they are not quite so easy of control as their less imaginative Saxon brethren. An Irishman may sometimes, in a moment of great provocation, when subject to adverse influences—generally, am glad to say, on the other side of St. George's Channel—temporarily forget the dignity which is due, but all the same no one respects more real dignity than an Irishman himself, especially when it is dissociated from any pomposity; but when you have dignity going hand in hand with firmness, straightforwardness and absolute impartiality, enlivened at unexpected moments by flashes of genuine humour, all the more

7
delightful because they are so original, then I say you have little difficulty in capturing an Irishman. If people in dealing with Irishmen would sometimes look a little more beneath the surface they would generally find there the pulsations of a warm and responsive heart. That I believe to be the key to those mutual feelings of goodwill and sympathy which exist between Mr. Lowther and hon. Members from Ireland. Mr. Disraeli, in the year 1859, when moving the election of a Speaker, made use of these words:—
"What we require from the occupant of the Chair is the purity of an English judge and the spirit of an English gentlemen."
I think we may say that in Mr. Lowther we have found a happy combination of both those qualities, which, I am sure, by the further exercise of which he will enable us, when this Parliament closes again, to congratulate ourselves upon the wisdom of the choice we are about to make. I will only make this further observation, and I am sure I shall carry every Member of the House with me in whatever quarter they may sit, when I say that when the day comes—and may it be far distant—when Mr. Lowther leaves us, it is our earnest wish that he may retire into private life not only with such honours as he deserves, but with the one honour which, to my mind, is the best and the purest of all honours—that is the respect and the affection of his fellow-countrymen.
Mr. LOWTHER Mr. LOWTHER rose——
Mr. GINNELL: I regret to find it my duty to introduce a little reality into proceedings which have been so far delightfully unreal. As a representative of a nation which does not want to be represented here at all, I do not profess much anxiety whether this House continues to be a deliberative assembly or not, or whether it puts in the Presidential Chair a fit or an unfit Member, but I object to being counted as even tacitly agreeing with propositions and compliments known by those who utter them, as well as by the rest of us, to be unfounded and undeserved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I also have a few propositions to submit, and I am strongly of opinion that the next speaker will agree with them all except one. At a time when any hon. Members are looking forward this House undertaking the task of another branch of the legislature, undesirable that it should itself vice practised within these walls,
8
and expose itself to the just taunt of being itself in need of reform. It is notorious—boasted of by some and not denied by any—that a large amount of the business which equally belongs to us all, is surreptitiously, unconstitutionally, and illegitimately transacted by party managers behind the back of this House, without affording Members with equal rights any opportunity of exercising their due influence or making their wishes known. [Interruptions.] I shall occupy the time of the House for a shorter period if I am allowed to proceed. For example, there is a sham Committee of Selection which we all know never selects, but adopts the selections of party managers. How any hon. Member can continue to consider himself honourable while taking part in what he knows to be a sham surpasses my comprehension. A strong and upright Speaker would soon bring that sham to an end, and to find and elect such a man is our duty here to-day. It is a duty which is going to be left undischarged. The House is going to elect a particular Member because it knows that he will not put an end to that sham. The election of a Speaker and Chairman of Committees has itself become one of the greatest of these shams.
No man is fit for either of these positions who does not firmly maintain the absolute right of every private Member, from the greatest to the humblest, to an impartial opportunity of addressing the House within the limits of time and order. That right does not depend upon the grace, the favour, or the caprice of any other Member or group of Members, called a party, or of the Chairman or Speaker himself, but it depends upon the people who elected that Member and upon the Constitution. This House is furnishing to the House of Lords a demonstration of its capacity for reform. The right of a private Member to speak is a right which it is the special functions of the Speaker and the Chairmen of Committees to maintain. To abrogate it or to connive at its abrogation is to strike at the prestige and efficiency of Parliament as well as at the rights of the private Member. That is precisely what Mr. Lowther has been doing. He, in practice and effect, denies the right of a private Member to an impartial opportunity of addressing this House. He subjects the exercise of that right to a condition for which there is no warrant in the Constitution or in the Statutory Orders, a condition which in practice

9
denies the right. Knowing this to be so, having been for five years denied the right, and not having been allowed to open my lips in debate during the whole of last Parliament, I am bound to enter my protest against that public scandal and give an emphatic "no" to the proposal to re-elect Mr. Lowther.
It is very unfortunate that the party system, which is a good system if honourably worked for legitimate public purposes, has been perverted by a number of more or less rival machines, devoid of scruple, devoid of conscience, and devoid of honour, and turned from public and even party purposes to the suppression of free opinion, the gratification of personal spite, and the sordid personal advantage of the machine workers, and the Speaker of the House of Commons allows himself to be controlled by this vile mechanism. No rivalry on other subjects prevents the parties uniting in suppressing, silencing, and effacing every man who dares to show earnestness in matters affecting his country and his people. Earnestness is the one quality which the party whips will not tolerate if they can prevent it. The interest of a country and a people are without a pang sacrificed to the convenience of inter-party diplomacy. A Presiding Officer of this House who had a proper regard for his position and for his duty would resent as a foul thing the touch of a party whip. Mr. Lowther's failure to do anything of the kind, his admitted amenability to the party whips, and his eon-sequent unfairness has reduced him from what he ought to be to the position of a mere tool of those natural enemies of free opinion, the party whips, and forces me to remind Mr. Lowther that it is an abuse of his position, a betrayal of his trust, and a breach of Constitutional order to recognise parties at all for any purpose, but more especially for purposes manifestly and admittedly unfair and illegitimate. It is public knowledge that his conduct as Speaker and Chairman of Committees has already forced out of this House some worthy members and keeps out high-minded men who would scorn to sit in a House dominated by such a vice. It is not wholesome for Parliament or the country to allow this abuse to grow as we all know it is growing. I neither know nor care to what extent party leaders actually work the mechanism that prevents free discussion, but they have afforded in this debate a significant demonstration of the remarkable complacency and unanimity
10
with which they regard their result. Not a word so far of reproof has fallen from either side to the whips for their sinister success in working the gagging machine. Apparently, to stamp out free opinion on either side is the common law of party leaders. A Member of this House having no desire to occupy the time of the House on foreign or Imperial matters, should be allowed—I appeal to hon. Members if he should not—on the rare occasions when the local affairs that concern his people come up for discussion, to take his fair part within the limits of time and order in saying what he had to say upon them. It is not right to persistently refuse to call on him when he rises, while calling Members of all parties above the Gangway—many of them having nothing relevant to say. To continue that treatment Session after Session and year after year on the suggestion of the party whips for corrupt party purposes cannot be otherwise than corrupt in itself in addition to being unconstitutional, unfair, and disorderly. It makes this Parliament positively contemptible. It is done by receiving from the party whips lists of speakers willing to take part in debates and not allowing Members to speak whose names do not appear on those lists unless they are Front Bench Members. That is a wholly unconstitutional and improper practice which should never have been allowed to grow up. It is an insidious and deadly blow at freedom of opinion, and if not stamped out will be fatal to Parliament as a deliberative assembly.
Its intended and its inevitable effect is to deprive Members not named on those lists of their right to speak. This has frequently been its effect on myself both in the House and in Committee, and on reasonable complaint being made both the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees become snappish at things which they have no right whatever to do. A particular instance which gave rise to the present remarks will serve as well as any other to illustrate my views. The House was in Committee debating the administration of Old Age Pensions in Ireland. Having actual typical cases with arguments based on them to submit to the Committee I notified the Chairman of my desire to speak. I sat here right through the Debate, rising when each successive speaker sat down. But I was not called because my name was not on the party whips' lists: it was only on my own card. Finally, as the time allotted for the

11
Debate was about to expire, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, was called in preference to myself. He began with the frank confession that he had neither special knowledge of the subject nor interest in it, yet he was allowed to use the whole of the remaining time of the House, and the man, however humble he may be, who had first-hand knowledge and a living interest in the subject was not allowed to say one word. The party whips went home that night with the satisfaction of knowing that they had got the Chairman to do their dirty work, and that it had been so excellently done. When I complained to Mr. Speaker as the supreme guardian of order and impartiality in this House he exceeded his duty and his right by making an excuse for the Chairman's conduct in that particular case—an excuse which really added insult to injury. He said that if it was true probably the Chairman thought the Committee would rather hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. I am quite aware that the House would rather hear any other Member than myself. But does that deprive me of the right to speak in this House? Does that give Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee the right, at the bidding of the party whips for party purposes, to prevent me speaking?
When did this House empower or authorise Mr. Speaker to consider the nerves of the party leaders or of the Government, and to protect them from every harsh sound? The Speaker is put into the Chair to hold the balance evenly and give equal opportunities to all within the limits of time and order, without regard to the effect of truth on the nerves of the hearers. Truth, if sometimes unpleasant, is always wholesome. To silence a Member because his message is true is to pay a poor compliment, and to render poor service to this House and to the State. The whole practice of furnishing the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees with party lists of the speakers and allowing no one else to take part in the Debate unless they rise from the Front Benches is a gross encroachment on the rights of Members of this House, a conspiracy against freedom of opinion and a breach of constitutional order. The only pretext the Speaker gave me for that unconstitutional conduct was that the party lists showed
12
what Members were prepared to speak on the subject under discussion. He did not explain why he refused to take this information direct from the Members themselves. He did not explain what authority he had for dooming certain Members to silence at the bidding of the party whips. He did not explain how the authority of the Chairman or the reputation and efficiency of the House can be promoted by its presiding officer mixing himself up with the party officials and their petty intrigues. It is a breach of order utterly beneath the Speaker to recognise parties in this House for any purpose, and to enable one set of Members of Parliament by the, transparent disguise of party lists to deprive other Members with equal rights of their rights.
3 P.M.
It would be an insult to the Speaker and to the Chairman of Committees to suggest that they are not fully aware that this is the effect of their present practice, and that it is unfair, unconstitutional, and utterly indefensible. No doubt the mocking laughter that has accompanied my remarks shows the opinion of many Members of this House, that whatever chance I have of fair play by joining in the chorus of flattery of Mr. Lowther, I have destroyed by daring to criticise him. That may be quite correct, but I have this satisfaction at least, that it is impossible even for Mr. Lowther to surpass his own record of unfairness towards me. His success in gagging me during the whole of the last Parliament is a record difficult to beat. Last March I sent him notice of a question which I proposed to ask him publicly in the House. As the question and his answer are not very long, and state the case concisely, I beg leave to read both. The question is as follows:—
"Mr. Ginnell: To ask Mr. Speaker whether the practice of party managers in restricting the discretion of the Speaker and Chairman of Committee, monopolising the time of the House for themselves and their favourites, and reducing to silence and inefficiency other members of equal knowledge, interest and competence, and title to discuss the business, by stealthily furnishing lists of Members to be allowed to take part, in debate, is not unconstitutional, an unwarranted abuse still bearing in its stealthiness the brand of impropriety, an encroachment upon the rights of private Members, and detrimental to the interests of their Constituents and to the efficiency of Parliament: whether this is not too high a price to pay for the personal convenience of Mr. Speaker and a small number of members; whether the practice of the Committee of Selection in adopting selections stealthily made by unauthorised members, instead of discharging their own duty of selecting, is not an abuse of similar character and effects; whether all Members are not equally entitled to the Speaker's protection against such encroachments upon their constitutional rights and to be called in debates and appointed to serve on

13
Committees with striot impartiality; whether any Member desiring to have constitutional impartiality abrogated and the illegitimate practices legitimized should not be referred, as Members are referred for other purposes, to the course of openly submitting a formal proposal to the House; and whether, pending an alteration of the rule of strict impartiality by the House itself, Mr. Speaker will, in the exercise of his authority, prohibit the use of Hats and all other contrivances in derogation of that rule."
To that notice of question I received this tasteful, manly, and purely English reply:
"Sir,
"22nd March, 1910.
"I am directed by the Speaker to return you the enclosed question, and to say that he considers your action in sending him such a question grossly insolent both to Mr. Emmott and himself.
"Yours faithfully,
"EDWARD GULLY.
"L. Ginnell. Esq., M.P."
A paid Member of Parliament taking advantage of the power and privileges conferred upon him by this House for public purposes, first to silence and then to insult a free Member would be hard to match as an example of cowardly insolence.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I am aware that it is unusual at this stage of the election of the Speaker, where there is no contest for the office, for the ordinary private Member to intervene, but I trust the House will forgive me if under the unusual circumstances of this moment I rise to express in two or three words the view of the Irish party I have the honour to speak for, with regard to the selection of Mr. Lowther for the Chair. I desire to say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we associate ourselves completely with the general trend of the observations of both the proposer and the seconder of Mr. Lowther. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion, and who sits near me, alluded to the relations that have existed between Mr. Lowther and the Irish party. Those relations commenced in more stormy times than the present and we were often and indeed, I may say, I myself have more than once been brought into collision with Mr. Lowther when he was in the Chair. But I can say now that none of us even in those days believed for a moment that he was actuated by anything but a strict sense of impartiality, and what he considered was the duty he had to fulfil in the Chair, and having sat under his Speakership now for several years, we are all of opinion that we may absolutely trust to his impartiality and justice. Speaking, therefore, in the name of my Irish colleagues and the party, I cordially support the Motion.
Mr. J. PARKER: I have been requested on behalf of my party to support the
14
re-election of Mr. Lowther to the Chair, and I am sure I am voicing what everyone must feel when I say that we have always received from Mr. Lowther in the Chair not only courtesy, but kindness ever since we came into this assembly. I beg to support the Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT: I should indeed be lacking in the ordinary courtesy shown in this House if I did not begin by tendering to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Eugene Wason) and to the Noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) my very sincere thanks for the far too flattering terms in which they have submitted my name to this House. The right hon. Gentleman has been for many years a Member of this House, and has taken a most important part, not so much in the deliberations here, perhaps, as in the deliberations upstairs in the Committee rooms. He is deservedly one of the most popular Members of the House, as he is also the weightiest. The Noble Lord described himself as a veteran, and told us how many years ago it was since he entered this House. I am sure it was necessary for him to do so, for no one looking at him would have thought that he entered this House when most of us were in our teens, and many of us indeed had not entered this vale of tears at all. He has been too long absent from our debates, and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of the Whole House when I say that we welcome him back to our deliberations, and especially to see him restored to health after the severe illness which he has undergone. I also have to tender my particular thanks to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parker). I have been placed, as the House will have observed, in rather a difficult situation by the attack which has been made upon me by the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell). I am sorry, indeed, that he should feel that he is labouring under any grievance, but I cannot help thinking that he has been really attacking the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, through my body, having an opportunity on this occasion which possibly he might not obtain under other circumstances. I confess that I was not conscious that I have dealt out to him any different justice from what I have dealt out to any other Member. My recollections, indeed, of occurrences at Question time during the last Parliament and the previous Parliament lead me to think that he has had fully as much latitude, if not more, than other

15
Members of the House. So far as his criticisms of my conduct are deserved I will note them. I accept the lecture from him and I will, I hope, bear it in mind. So far as they are irrelevant and undeserved, and I think that many of them were greatly exaggerated, the hon. Gentleman has already had his answer from the House.
It is customary for new Members when addressing this House to throw themselves upon the indulgence of it when addressing it for the first time. I must ask for a special indulgence on this occasion, for I am addressing it for the fourth time within the space of little more than five years, and upon identically the same topic—namely, myself. I feel that upon this occasion I Lave to make a sort of public confession of my shortcomings and of my disabilities for occupying that Chair. It is becoming too painful a subject, as it seems to occur almost annually, but I am borne up in my task by the thought that, notwithstanding these confessions are so frequently made, the House is still prepared to elect me as its Chief Officer, the Moderator of its Debates, the expositor of its written and unwritten laws, and the repository of its ancient customs and traditions. The House expects great things of its Speaker. We have heard some of them this afternoon—impartiality, courage, patience, courtesy, vigilance, physical endurance, and many more. The House expects—as the great letter-writer of the New Testament says that, "His speech should be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that he may know how to give answers unto all men." I know full well in how many of these particulars which I have enumerated I fall short of the ideal which the House desires and which I should like myself to attain. But still, the House is very generous to its Chief Officer and, having once given to him a share of its confidence, it displays great generosity and forbearance towards him in the Chair, knowing well the difficulties which he has to overcome. I am sorry to say that I am becoming rather an old Member of this House. I think it is now my eighth Parliament. I have heard the maiden speech of every Member on the Government Bench—a very pleasurable reminiscence. I am coming within the circle of those who will presently be designated for the post of Father of this House, a very melancholy prerogative to look forward to. But the longer I have been here, the more convinced
16
I am of the generous feeling which all Members of the House extend towards him whom they have placed in the Chair, and I desire especially to tender my sincere thanks to all Members of all parties for the great measure of confidence which they have reposed in me during the last four or five years, and I trust I may continue to deserve that confidence which has been so generously shown. I submit myself with all due humility to the pleasure of this House.
The House having again unanimously called Mr. James William Lowther to the Chair, he was taken out of his place by Mr. Eugene Wason and Lord Claud Hamilton and conducted to the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT: Before taking the Chair, once more as Speaker of this House, I desire to tender to it my most sincere thanks for the very great honour which it has done me in re-electing me again to this high and important post.
Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT sat down in the Chair.
Then the Mace (which before lay under the Table) was placed upon the Table by the Serjeant-at-Arms (Mr. H. D. Erskine, C.V.O.).
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Mr. Speaker-Elect, It is. Sir, my privilege and pleasure to offer to you, in the name of the House of Commons, the heartfelt congratulations of all its Members upon your re-election. As we have been reminded more than once this afternoon, it is not quite six years since you were first called by the voice of your fellow members-to the Chair. Yet this will be the fourth House of Commons in which you will preside over our proceedings—a singular, and, I venture to say, unique experience in Parliamentary history. But, Mr. Speaker-Elect, short, or relatively short, as that space of time is, it has witnessed great changes in the composition of this House. Commanding and familiar figures when you first ascended the steps that lead to that Chair have passed away, and you are confronted in every direction with new faces and new voices. It is barely a, month since this present House of Commons was elected by the constituencies of the country, and yet we already lament notable gaps in our ranks. On one side we shall miss Sir Charles Dilke, who was for the best part of forty years a Member of this House, and one whom it

17
will be difficult, if not impossible, to rival in detachment of judgment, entireness of Parliamentary activity, and in width and range of political knowledge. On the other side we have lost the distinguished Member for the University of Cambridge, Mr. Butcher, a man who brought to this House the resources of a many-sided culture and the charm of an endearing personality.
However men come and go, the House of Commons remains. However widely and however acutely we may differ on various topics in the House of Commons we are all of us agreed in the belief that the maintenance at a high level of its best traditions, and its continuous and unbroken identity is not the least of our national assets. For its preservation our primary safeguard is the Chair, and so long as we feel, as we all of us feel to-day, that the duties of presiding over our daily proceedings, of administering rules of order, of interpreting and applying the laws and customs of Parliament are in the hands of a man who can and who will combine justice and firmness with sympathy and consideration, so long as that is the case the first condition of parliamentary efficiency and dignity is secured. We know we have such a man m yourself, and it is in the assured belief that the House of Commons will profit in the future as it has profited in the past by the union of these great qualities in its presiding officer that I venture on behalf of your fellow Members to offer you our warmest and our most heartfelt congratulations and thanks.
Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS: On behalf of my friends who sit in this quarter of the House, and acting as their spokesman for the moment, I wish to add only a very few words to the congratulations which have fallen from the Prime Minister. I feel quite certain that I am echoing the opinions on all this side of the House when I assure you with what feelings of satisfaction and confidence Ave welcome your re-election to the Speakership. Your long tenure of that Chair has shown that you possess complete knowledge of the rules and customs of this House, and that you know how to administer them with courtesy and firmness and always with impartiality. As the guardian of our traditions and the trustee of our liberties, you have shown that you have at heart the best interests of this House, and that you possess in a high degree those qualities which we have been taught to look for in the Speaker of this House, who fills one of the most eminent places in the public life of this country. I am sure I voice the sentiment of all the gentlemen who sit around me when I wish you health and strength for many years to carry out the duties of that office.
Whereupon the Prime Minister moved: "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. SPEAKER-ELECTput the Question, and, being agreed to,
The House adjourned accordingly at Tewnty-seven Minutes after Three of the Clock, and Mr. Speaker-Elect went away without the Mace before him.

PARLIAMENT.
Opened by Commission; and the Commons (who were seat for) being at the Bar, wore directed to proceed to the choice of a Speaker, and to present such person whom they should so choose here To-morrow, at Twelve o'clock, for His Majesty's Royal Approbation.
The Lord Chaxoellor—Singly, in the first place, took the Oath at the Table.
Certificate of the Election of Sixteen Representative Peers for Scotland—Delivered, and read.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord ARMITSTEAD affirmed.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
H.R.H. The Duke of CONNAUGHT AND STRATHEARN—Singly, took the Oath.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.