Sitting of 28 June 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Harrogate Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Fifty-fifth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ISLE OF MAN.
Account presented of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1911, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission for the month of November, 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 16th June, 1911, giving effect to Rules of the Supreme Court of Ireland (Juries), 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 16th June, 1911, giving effect to a Rule of Court [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the firm of Easton, Gibb and Sons, contractors for the work at Rosyth Dock, are paying the joiners employed by them 7d. per hour, which is 1d. per hour less than the rate current in the district; that some of the men struck work, and when they waited upon the representatives of the firm they were informed that the firm did not intend to pay more than 7d. per hour; and whether he will take stops to compel this firm to observe the Government's Fair-Wages Clause?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I am not aware that 7d. per hour is being paid, but I shall be glad to investigate any particular cases which are brought to my notice. The information I have received is that 8d. an hour is being paid. I have received no information that any joiners struck work, nor that the firm are failing to comply with the Fair-Wages Clause.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the firm of Henderson and Wilson and the Stewart Granolithic Company, who are sub-contractors under Messrs. Bruce and Company, of Edinburgh, for certain Government work at Crombie, are working their joiners one hour per day longer than the

  407
  time recognised in the district, and that they refuse to pay the men overtime rate for the extra time worked; and whether he will take steps to enforce the conditions of the Fair-Wages Clause?
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will inform me whether the overtime he refers to is being worked at Crombie or at Edinburgh, I will have inquiries made.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. PEELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that by the Order of 20th October, 1904, the duty is placed on the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty to advise on all large questions of naval policy and maritime warfare, and that by the same Order the First Sea Lord is always to be consulted in any matter of importance by the other Sea Lords, the Civil Lord, and the Parliamentary or Permanent Secretary, did the First Sea Lord in fact advise and was he consulted upon the conventions signed at The Hague in October, 1907, and ratified in November, 1909, either before their signature or before their ratification; and was he also consulted and did he advise on the Declaration of London before its signature in February, 1909?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Conventions signed at The Hague in 1907 were submitted to the First Sea Lord in the ordinary official course, and a similar procedure was followed in the case of the Declaration of London.
  Mr. LEE: May I ask whether the First Sea Lord advised that the Declaration of London should be ratified?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, my recollection is that we discussed it very frequently, and he did advise so, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree it is most undesirable to raise questions as to the opinions of particular members of the Board.
  Mr. LEE: But the First Sea Lord has given his particular opinions on another great question.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Board of Admiralty was consulted as to the Declaration of London before it was signed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; the Board of Admiralty decided in support of the Declaration of London, and it has been stated so repeatedly.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Was the First Sea Lord asked to give his opinion?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked whether, in the event of the Declaration of London being ratified, a new edition of the Naval Prize Manual is being prepared; and, if so, who is preparing it?
  Mr. McKENNA: The revision of the Prize Manual was provisionally considered by a Departmental Committee in 1909, but in the event of the Declaration of London being ratified, the question will be again taken into consideration.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked why the Admiralty propose to employ steam trawlers for mine-sweeping purposes in time of war when, under Article 3 of the Convention on the Restriction of the Right of Capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, contracting Powers are not allowed to take advantage of the harmless character of such vessels nor use them for military purposes while preserving their peaceful appearance?
  Mr. McKENNA: The arrangement under which these vessels will be employed in the event of war will not be a contravention of the Convention referred to. While employed as mine-sweepers these trawlers will cease entirely to be fishing craft. Trawlers, being deep sea fishing vessels, are not exempt from capture under the Article quoted.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not almost impossible to make a trawler look like a torpedo-boat, which is the only war vessel of anything like the same size?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked (1) whether, in conformity with Article I of the Convention on the Right of Capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, captains of His Majesty's ships at present serving on foreign stations have been instructed that in the event of war being declared by or against the United Kingdom they are not to open official correspondence found on captured enemy ships, but to forward it with the least possible delay to the enemy Government; and (2) whether captains of His Majesty's ships at present

  409
  serving on foreign stations have been instructed that in the event of war being declared neutral mail ships are not to be searched except when absolutely necessary, and then only with as much consideration as possible?
  Mr. McKENNA: These questions raise points which will be dealt with in the revised Naval Prize Manual, which will have to be issued when the Convention for the establishment of the International Prize Court has been ratified. It is not considered desirable to make any statement as to the actual instructions which will be given to captains of His Majesty's ships, the manual being regarded as for His Majesty's officers only.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not the fact that the Battle of Trafalgar would never have been fought but for intercepted despatches, and consequently this Convention will not be worth the paper it is written on?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether, under Article 3 of the Convention for Restriction of the Right of Capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, which exempts small boats employed in local trade from capture, the expression small boat covers coasting steamers and barges; and up to what limit of tonnage vessels may toe regarded as small boats under this article?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot do more than refer the hon. Member to the protocols of the plenary meetings of the second Peace Conference, as contained in Command Paper 4081 Miscellaneous, No. 4 of 1908, Article 1 on pages 220 and 221.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Article 6 of the Convention on the Restrictions of the Right of Capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, which enacts that the captain and crew of an enemy merchant ship were not to be made prisoners of war if they undertake in writing not to engage, while hostilities last, in any service connected with the operations of war, means that they were at liberty to ship on board another enemy merchant ship?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon-Wood): The answer is in the affirmative, provided that the enemy merchant ship is not herself employed in service connected with the operations of war.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether Article 7 of the Convention on Restrictions of the Right of Capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, which states that the belligerent is forbidden knowingly to employ these persons after they have given their parole, means that they must not be employed by the naval or military authorities only, or whether it means that they must not be employed by the subjects of the enemy State?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It means that they must not be employed by the belligerent State in any capacity.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Does that include subjects of the enemy's State?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It means they must not be employed by a belligerent State in any capacity. It is a question of State employment.

  Royal Navy (Stoppage of Pay or Allowances).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether any, and, if so, what, stoppage of pay or allowances is made from a petty officer or seaman in consequence of illness necessitating treatment in a hospital; and, if such a man is married, whether any, and, if any, what, provision is made for his wife and children during such partial or complete stoppage of pay?
  Mr. McKENNA: Stoppages are chargeable against the pay of petty officers, seamen, and boys when under treatment in hospital in certain cases. As a general rule a stoppage of from 4d. to l0d. a day, varying according to the rate of pay, is made after thirty days' treatment in a naval hospital at home, and all pay is stopped after ninety-one days. When sick in hospital abroad, and in the case of men injured on duty, stoppages are not charged, and pay is continued. With regard to the second part of the question, there are no funds at the disposal of the Admiralty for the maintenance of the wives and families of men in hospital.

  Naval Review (Railway Accommodation).
  Mr. HOLTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether hon. Members of this House were required to pay 20s. for the return ticket of each friend taken to the review; whether the ordinary first-class return ticket from Waterloo to Southampton costs 23s. and the week-end first-class return ticket costs 16s. 6d.; whether many hon. Members only received second and

  411
  third-class accommodation from the railway company; and what steps he proposes to take towards the London and South-Western Railway Company as a consequence of their failure to supply the accommodation for which they were paid?
  Mr. McKENNA: The return fares from Waterloo to Southampton are as stated in the question. Seventeen special trains were required to convey the 6,500 guests of the Board of Admiralty attending the review; and, in view of this exceptionally heavy demand upon the available rolling stock, the London and South-Western Railway Company could not guarantee the class of carriage, and made a statement to that effect before the contract was concluded. The fact that no such guarantee could be given was stated at the back of all the tickets issued by the railway company.
  Mr. HOLT: Arising out of that answer, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks it right, if the railway company could not guarantee first-class accommodation, they should be paid for it?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure my hon. Friend he has my complete sympathy in the matter, but he must understand the Admiralty had no means of conveying their guests to Portsmouth from London except by means of the railway, and we are bound to accept such terms as the railway company exact.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the 6,500 guests of the Admiralty were made up, and why the Members of the House of Commons were taken down with 6,500 other people?
  Mr. McKENNA: They were made up of representatives from foreign countries and from the Colonial Dominions, and of representatives of the other House of Parliament.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: Not many.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the number of foreign guests was extraordinarily large.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask whether this is not typical of the treatment of the British public by the British railway companies?
  Mr. HOLTasked how much per head was paid to the London and South Western Railway Company for the return
  412
  fare of hon. Members of this House taken from Waterloo to Southampton and back to see the Coronation naval review; and whether that fare was paid in consideration of first-class accommodation on the-trains being given?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is £l; and to the second part, that first class accommodation was expected, but could not be guaranteed.
  Mr. HOLT: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will assist us in taking: some legislative steps to compel the railway company, which is making an enormous sum, to treat the public, as represented by the Admiralty and the House of Commons, properly and fairly in a commercial manner?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure my hon. Friend nobody would be more glad than I should be, as representing the Admiralty, it we had some means of seeing if what I should regard as more proper terms could be arranged between the Admiralty and the railway company.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Did the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to insist, before-making the bargain, that if first class fare was paid first-class accommodation should be provided?
  Mr. McKENNA: I endeavoured to insist, before making the bargain, that the fare should be materially reduced, but I was unable to succeed.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could see his way to give free passes to Members of the House of Commons in addition to-the £400 a year?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

  H.M.S. "Europa" (Overhaul).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the estimated cost of the overhaul that is now being given to His Majesty's ship "Europa"?
  Mr. McKENNA: The estimated cost of the refit of the "Europa," exclusive of establishment charges, is £62,000; and, including establishment charges, £72,600.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a very large-sum to pay on an elderly ship whose chief armament is five three-pounders?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. It is a matter which, of course, is very carefully considered by the Board in the case of vessels of this kind, but I think the conclusion was justified, and that the subsequent services of the ship will warrant the expenditure.
  Mr. MIDDLE MORE.Will the armament be increased?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Battleships (Turbine Engines).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the propellers of the turbine-engined battleships are constructed with inward or outward turning?
  Mr. McKENNA: All the turbine-engined battleships in the British Navy are fitted with outward turning propellers.

  Portsmouth Dockyard (New Lock).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been drawn to an accident at the new lock, Portsmouth, by which a man named Arthur Rowe was killed and another injured; will he state what was the cause of the accident; and what is the condition of the injured man?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the accident in question, which, it is understood", was caused by the clutch of the lowering gear of a derrick crane slipping out and causing the jib to drop. Pending the inquest no further definite information is available. The injured man is almost well and is expected to return to duty this week.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon Gentleman's Department be represented at the inquest?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any report as to the failure of the coffer dam at the new lock, Portsmouth; whether the new works were flooded as a result; and whether the breach has yet been rectified; and will he say what delay in completion the accident is likely to cause?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received a full report of the occurrence. The coffer dam did not fail in any way, but there was a "blow" under it, which resulted in a partial flooding of the works. The leak was entirely staunched by the following
  414
  morning. I see no reason to expect that the contract date for the completion of the works will be exceeded.

  British and German Protected Cruisers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many completed protected cruisers not launched' more than twelve years there were in the British and German fleets, respectively, on 31st March, 1904, and 31st March, 1911?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures asked for are as follows:—

  On 31st March, 1904:

  British

  …

  …

  48

  German

  …

  …

  18

  On 31st March, 1911:

  British

  …

  …

  24

  German

  …

  …

  24

  The number of British cruisers quoted for the latter date includes three of the "Boadicea" class and eight scouts.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does not the Navy List give the number as twenty-seven, instead of twenty-four, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Member will give me the page of the Navy List ho refers to I shall be happy to look the matter up, but there is no such distinction drawn in the Navy List as to the number of cruisers under twelve years on 31st May, 1911.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand the scouts are included in these figures?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have included eight, scouts among the protected cruisers.
  Mr. ASHLEY: How many protected cruisers were there on 31st March, 1911?
  Mr. McKENNA: Twenty-four. There were three of the "Boadicea" class and. eight scouts.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Then Germany had twice as many protected cruisers as this country.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has selected arbitrary dates and an arbitrary term of years. But if he will take the total of our protected cruisers and compare them with the number of German cruisers he will find we have a great preponderance both in numbers and strength.

  British and German Destroyers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many completed destroyers not launched more than

  415
  ten years there were in the British and German Fleets respectively, on 31st March, 1904, and on 31st March, 1911?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers asked for are as follows:—

  On 31st March, 1904:

  British

  …

  …

  116

  German

  …

  …

  37

  On 31st March, 1911:

  British

  …

  …

  78

  (and 2 Colonial)

  German

  …

  …

  79

  It should be observed that between the dates named thirty-six boats in addition were built, of which the first batch were originally termed "Coastal Destroyers." This designation, however, was altered to that of Torpedo Boat—new type—by which they are now known.

  Insurrection in Northern Albania.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the terms of a recent proclamation by the Turkish authorities to the insurgents in Northern Albania, which contains a statement that those who did not yield by a certain date would be exterminated and annihilated; whether the official translated version communicated to the European Powers -omitted the reference to extermination and annihilation; and whether he will cause the attention of the Turkish Government to be directed to the incompleteness of the translation?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: His Majesty's Government have received a communication from the Turkish Ambassador containing a summary of the decisions adopted by the Imperial Ottoman Government in regard to the Malissor tribes of Albania. That communication contained no reference to the extermination and annihilation of those insurgents who did not yield by a certain date. But I am informed that the text of the proclamation posted at Podgoritza did conclude with the statement that those who did not submit would be pursued to the frontier, exterminated, and annihilated. An official communiqué issued by the Sublime Porte to the Press uses the words "pursued and repressed." I propose to call the attention of the Turkish Government to this discrepancy.

  Turkish Naval Construction.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Foreign Office had directly or indirectly
  416
  supported the tender of Messrs. Armstrong and Company for the construction of warships for the Turkish Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Messrs. Armstrong, Vickers, and Brown were invited by the Turkish Government to send representatives to Constantinople to tender for the construction of warships, including guns and armour, for the Turkish Navy; and they received support from His Majesty's Government.

  Lagos Mahommedan Praying Ground.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information to give concerning the Mahommedan praying-ground at Lagos, especially whether any further Report has been received from the Governor; whether the old Mahommedan praying-ground has been handed over to the racecourse board of management; and whether those who used this site for prayer have made any protest against this action?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question to the effect that he has received no further information on this subject.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    TREATMENT OF PHTHISIS.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention had been drawn to the most recent discoveries with regard to the treatment of phthisis by radio-active menthol iodine; and whether, before embarking on the expense of sanatoria throughout the country, he would carefully consider alternative methods of combating the scourge?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My attention has been drawn to the treatment referred to, which I understand still to be in an experimental stage. I may point out that the Bill empowers the Insurance Commissioners to expend upon research a part of the whole of the additional State Grant for sanatorium benefit.

    BENEFITS.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked whether some of the strongest friendly societies for 7½d. per week grant benefits to the extent of 12s. per week for 12 months, 6s. per week for a further 12 months, and 3s. per week continuously till recovery or death, with death benefits in addition; and, if so, why

    417
    is it that the Government for much less benefits demand 9d. per week in all?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member will refer to the actuaries' report he will see that the cost of medical benefit, sanatorium benefit, and maternity benefit amounts to nearly 2½d., and that the 9d. per week includes a disposable margin of ¾d. Moreover, it also includes the amount to be accumulated to make up the deficiency due to the admission of persons of all ages up to sixty-five to the National Health Insurance. If he will refer to the Bill he will find that any surplus which may be realised, whether in consequence of an over-estimate of the contributions or for any other reason, is applicable for the benefit of the contributors.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a clear reply to the question I have put? Why do the Government charge so much, seeing that greater benefits are obtainable for the same sum from the friendly societies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid the hon. Member did not pay me the compliment to listen to my answer. If he will take time to consider it I think he will find it is a full reply to his question.
    The right hon. Gentleman then repeated the answer.
    Mr. FRED HALL: You are not giving credit for the death benefits which the Government are not giving.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are giving benefits which are very considerably larger than those which the societies give.
    Mr. FRED HALL: I say the benefits are not as large.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the totals given in Table X., on page 27 of Cd. 5681 include the annual charge in respect of the State proportion of benefits payable to deposit contributors; and, if so, whether, for the purpose of such calculation, it has been assumed that a deposit contributor will receive the same average annual amount of benefit as a member of an approved society; if such totals do not include the State proportion of benefit payable to deposit contributors, what is it estimated that the latter will amount to in each of the years 1912–13 to 1927–8?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I may be allowed to refer the hon. Member to
    418
    the following explanation appended by the actuaries to the Table to which he refers:—
    "Neither has any allowance been made of the State grant in respect of 'deposit' contributors, as it is not possible to estimate what amounts will be drawn out from deposit in the form of benefits; in any case it could only be a small fraction of the total expenditure shown in Table X."
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Docs it cover the amount of the subsidy to the deposit contributors or does it not?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already said it does, subject to what the actuaries say. I cannot answer the question except by incorporating explanation given by the actuaries.

    STATE CONTRIBUTION' (PROPORTION).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what proportion the estimated expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of the two-ninths of the benefits payable to men and one-fourth of the benefits payable to women and the administration of such benefits will bear to the total contributions payable by men and women earning over 2s. 6d. a day and their employers in each of the years 1912–13 to 1927–8?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No separate calculation has been made of the cost of benefits to be received by persons earning over 2s. 6d. a day, and I fear it would hardly be possible to make such a calculation.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the proportion would be of all the men if there is difficulty in limiting it to those earning over half-a-crown a day?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has asked me an actuarial question as a supplementary one. If he will put it down I will certainly give an answer if one is available.

    PROVIDENT DISPENSARIES.
    Sir CLEMENT HILLasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the existence of provident dispensaries which are charitably aided and secure to their members and their families, as well as to their widows and children, complete medical attention and medicine for sums varying from Id. to 3d. a week; and whether he has considered the injurious effect which the compulsory payments under the National Insurance Bill are likely to have upon such institutions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Taunton on 24th May. It is the intention of the Bill that existing organisations which wholly or partly cover the ground to be included in the National Health Insurance should be preserved and utilised rather than displaced.

    NEW GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the expenditure incurred and the amount of supervision necessary in connection with old age pensions and national insurance, he will consider the appointment of a Minister and the establishment of a separate Government Department responsible for the administration of the Old Age Pension Act and National Insurance when it is operative?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As at present advised, I see no sufficient reason for the establishment of a new Department.

    Ardglass Railway Line.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the Downpatrick District Council recently passed a resolution calling attention to the fact that the railway line in the centre of the main street of Ardglass is a source of public danger, the rails being lower than the rest of the street; whether he is aware that by an Order in Council under the Ardglass Railway Act the line should connect with Ardglass Quay, but that during the herring season only one train a day goes to the quay; whether steps will be taken to compel the full observance of the Order in Council or to have the rails removed; and whether he can state what authority is responsible for accidents arising from the condition of the railway lines?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The railway was constructed under the Downpatrick, Killough and Ardglass Railway Order in Council, 1890, and is worked and maintained by the Belfast and County Down Railway Company. The Order in Council makes provision for action by the County Surveyor in case the line is not properly maintained, and for an appeal to the Board of Trade, if necessary, either on the question of maintenance or the question of working (Article 40).
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of
    420
    the question as to what authority is responsible for accidents arising from the condition of the railway lines?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The duty rests with the county surveyor, and I should think he would therefore be liable.

    New Postage Stamps.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked approximately the figure of the yearly saving effected upon the manufacture of adhesive postage stamps as between the tender of Messrs. De la Rue and that of Messrs. Harrison; and whether the stamps issued to the public on Coronation Day meet all the requirements of the new contract?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not feel at liberty to divulge the figures of the individual tenders received. As regards the second part of the question, the reply is-in the affirmative, regard being had to the initial difficulties.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the dissatisfaction at the new postage stamps, both owing to the complete want of resemblance of the portrait of His Majesty and the clumsiness of the printing, especially on the penny stamp, he will consider whether a fresh issue should be designed with a new portrait of His Majesty; and whether the proposed issue of higher denominations with the existing portrait should be cancelled?
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYalso asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the poverty of design and the mediocrity of the engraving of the new postage stamps, he will take early steps, either by competition or otherwise, to obtain another design; if so, whether he will make it a condition of acceptance of any design that the portrait of the King shall be an actual miniature likeness of His Majesty; whether he will cause the new designs so obtained to be submitted to a small committee of competent persons before the actual expense of engraving is incurred; and whether, at the same time, he will arrange for the stamps to be printed on less tearable paper?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The portrait of His Majesty was engraved from a special photograph, and the process was entrusted to the Royal Mint. I am disappointed that the result should not have been more successful, and I agree that there is room for improvement in printing

    421
    the penny stamp—an improvement which I hope will be secured with more experience on the part of the contractors who have undertaken this work for the first time, and who have been working under great pressure. I am in. communication with them on the subject. The paper used is the same in the new as in the old stamps. The denominations which have not yet been placed on sale are in an advanced stage of preparation, and I am not prepared to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Canterbury.
    Mr. LEE: May I ask, did the right hon. Gentleman not pass proofs of these stamps before they were finally approved, and if, as a matter of fact, the terms of the contract have been carried out as shown, by the inefficient result?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes; proofs were submitted, and were regarded as satisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has just said, in answer to a question, that it is considered that the terms of the contract have been fulfilled in view of the initial difficulties.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEY: May I ask, as the design of the postage stamp is virtually as important as that of the coinage, if the right hon. Gentleman has seen any design submitted to the Imperial Conference in connection with the proposal for a uniform or co-operative design for one at least of the stamps for the whole of the British Empire?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hardly think that that question arises out of the one on the Paper, but as a matter of fact the suggestion has been made that there should be uniform stamps throughout the Empire; but it has not been received with favour in several quarters most concerned.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman received many communications similar to the one which has just reached me from an unknown correspondent, who says, "Stick to your guns—the stamps are an atrocity"?

    Scottish Education.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate if he can state on what date or dates the decisions were arrived at to withdraw the drafting of the scheme for the superannuation of teachers in Scotland, as also to suspend the operations of the proposed regulations for the staffing of schools in Scotland; and if he can inform the House
    422
    what and when opportunity will be given to the Scottish representatives of debating such a change of policy, and also if he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which has taken place between the Scottish Office and the Treasury on the matter?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The resolution not to proceed, meantime, with the superannuation of teachers' scheme and with the proposed regulations for the staffing of schools was come to last week for the reasons given in my answer to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and Kinross. The determination not to proceed, meantime, with these proposals was debated in this House on Tuesday of last week. I am not at present in a position to say whether any further opportunity for debate can be given. I cannot undertake to lay the correspondence referred to by my hon. Friend. As regards the regulations for the staffing of schools, a Minute amending the Minute of 27th March has been laid before the House, and if it is the wish of the House to abide by the original Minute consent may be refused to the amending Minute in the ordinary course.
    Mr. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why he did not lay the correspondence?
    Mr. URE: Yes; it is quite unusual, except in very exceptional cases, to lay correspondence.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is not the present an absolutely unprecedented case?
    Mr. URE: No, it is not.
    Mr. PIRIE: Yes, it is.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate, with reference to the recently announced change of educational policy in Scotland if he can explain why the Scottish Office did not secure a definite assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or did not know from where the money was to come before passing the superannuation scheme for teachers into the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908?
    Mr. URE: The clauses of the Education (Scotland) Act authorising the preparation of a superannuation scheme for teachers n Scotland were introduced into the Bill at the instance of a deputation of School Boards to the Secretary for Scotland, and on the clear understanding that no charge was to be imposed on the Exchequer in

    423
    connection therewith beyond their existing liability in terms of the Superannuation Act of 1898, which is common to England and Scotland. The scheme can be proceeded with on this understanding, but at the expense of the Education (Scotland) Fund, which has this year suffered a diminution from other causes beyond (he control of the Department. In the circumstances the Department have thought it right to delay proceeding with the scheme pending the result of their application to the Treasury for further assistance to the Education (Scotland) Fund. There has been no change of educational policy in Scotland as implied in the question.
    Mr. JARDINE: Is the Lord Advocate aware that there is a great feeling of disappointment among schoolmasters at the recent announcement that the superannuation matter is not to be proceeded with.
    Mr. URE: Yes.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us when he expects to get an answer from the Treasury, and whether he will press for an early reply?
    Mr. URE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative.

    Natural History Museum.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Prime Minister, whether it is still intended to take part of the ground belonging to the Natural History Museum at South Kensington and to use it for purposes not connected with natural history?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Education, yesterday.

    Parliament Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister, whether he will give an early day for the discussion of the Resolutions relating to the Parliament Bill of which notice was given on Monday last?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether Lord Morley will receive instructions to accept defeat after defeat on Amendments in the other place and carry on the farce
    424
    to the bitter end or whether the Government will take steps to overwhelm the Peers directly they defeat the House of Commons?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. GRANTasked if, in the event of the creation of Peers to facilitate the passage of the Parliament Bill through the House of Lords, the House of Lords possesses the legal power to refuse to allow such Peers to sit and vote?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter on which the hon. Member is as competent to form an opinion as I am.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure, for the laudable ambition of some of his followers may not be disappointed at the last moment on this ground?

    Naval Prize Bill (Eleven o'clock Rule).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule on Thursday, 29th June, so that Members may have a chance of expressing their views on the Declaration of London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I see no sufficient reason for suspending the rule.
    Mr. HUNT: May we not fairly conclude that the Government refuses to allow a full discussion on a matter concerning the food of the people and also the question of starvation in war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member may draw any conclusions ha likes, but it will not be a rational conclusion.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us another day for discussion?
    Mr. HUNT: Is not the conclusion that I come to the conclusion of the whole of the naval and almost all mercantile people?

    Mallock Lane (Ealing) School.
    Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Education what is the reason for delaying to place the elementary school attached to the Mallock Lane, Ealing, Roman Catholic church on the list of schools earning the grant; whether he is aware that all notices and other formalities required by the Department have been given and complied with as long ago as March, 1908, and

    425
    that no objection or appeal was lodged to the proposal to establish the school, which has been built to plans approved by the Department and the local authority in 1909 and opened in August, 1910; and, under these circumstances, what is the reason for directing a public inquiry to be held?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The school has not been placed upon the Grant List because I am not yet satisfied that it is really necessary. Statutory notices appear to have been issued in 1908, but they were first communicated to the Board in May, 1909. No objection or appeal appears to have been lodged during the statutory period. The promoters of the school have been kept informed from the beginning that the Board would require information satisfying them as to the necessity of the school before it could be placed upon the Grant List. The information which has been supplied to the Board is not sufficiently precise. The purpose of the public inquiry is to enable the Board to acquire further information.
    Mr. NIELD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the fact that there are ninety pupils sufficiently warrants the school to be recognised?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, that is not the only point that has to be taken into consideration. We shall have to review the whole question after the inquiry.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no great additional burden will be placed upon the ratepayers by giving a grant to this school?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That point will be taken into consideration.

    Strike in Shipping Trade.
    Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any Chinese sailors have taken the place of British sailors on strike?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The information at my disposal docs not enable me to answer this question.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the Government is willing to allow Chinese sailors to take the place of British sailors?
    Mr. BUXTON: That conclusion cannot be drawn from the answer. I said I have no information sufficiently conclusive to enable me to answer the question.
    Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the information?
    Mr. BUXTON: There are no means at my disposal of obtaining the information.
    Mr. O'GRADY: In view of the enormous amount of Chinese sailors who are now blacklegging, will he appoint one of his officials to make inquiries into the matter?
    Mr. BUXTON: I can assure the hon. Member that in no sense are we giving any facility in reference to this matter. We are carrying out our statutory regulations and obligations.
    Mr. J. H. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company sent two men from Liverpool to Fleetwood on Tuesday last to take the place of strikers on the Lancashire and Yorkshire steamer, s.s. "Lune," and that these men are being detained on board this ship against their wish, and threatened that if they refuse to act as blacklegs they will be dismissed and lose their pension. Having regard to the seriousness of this action, and the danger of a development of the strike, if railway companies are to intimidate men in this manner, what action he proposes to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): When I received notice of my hon. Friend's intention to ask this question, I telegraphed to the general manager of the railway company asking information, and I have not yet received a reply. When I do receive one I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. THOMAS: In view of the fact that the answer is not satisfactory, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of a certain railway company in sending men against their will to take the place of seamen on strike and the imminent danger of a national strike in consequence.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There are two objections to the hon. Member's Motion. First of all the Government are not responsible for what the railway company do, and, secondly, there is no information as to what occurred. The hon. Member should surely wait until he has got information and heard both sides.
    Mr. THOMAS: I have very definite information bearing out the facts I have put in the question, and I have also additional information since then. Only yesterday railwaymen were sent in charge of two inspectors to take the places of seamen on strike.
    Mr. SPEAKER: What have the Government to do with that? The Government have nothing to do with that. It is not a matter under the control of the Government.

    Board of Trade (Constitution).
    Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether ho would cause an inquiry to be made and report to this House as to the constitution of Government Departments established wholly or partly on a representative basis in foreign countries and in the British Dominions beyond the seas corresponding to the Board of Trade in this country; and whether, with the view to meeting the objection that the Board of Trade is unduly bureaucratic, he will submit proposals to Parliament for substituting for nominal Members, who in practice have long ceased to be included in the councils of the Department, representative men possessed of the qualifications as to initiative, organisation, and knowledge demanded by the commercial interests in this country and to servo in an executive capacity; and whether, in view of the growth in the duties of the President of the Board of Trade in recent years, he will submit proposals to Parliament for placing each of the greater divisions of the Department under a separate Parliamentary assistant-secretary?
    Mr. BUXTON: Information as to the constitution of Government Departments in foreign countries corresponding more or less closely to the Board of Trade is contained in Return C. 5674 of 1889. I am not aware that the objection to which he refers is widely entertained, and I do not think that the constitution indicated in the last part of his question could be advantageously substituted for the present system, the practical effect of which is that the President of the Board of Trade is fully responsible to Parliament for all the acts of his Department, while he has the advantage of the advice not of one, but of several consultative committees, containing members in close practical touch with commerce, shipping, and labour.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'MALLEYasked if the proposal of the Congested Districts Board that where there are no lands for the enlargement of holdings the tenants may purchase direct from the landlords implies that the purchase price is to be settled between the landlords and tenants; and, if so, will the price is to be settled between the landlords and tenants; and, if so, will the Board reserve to itself the right of declining to sanction such sales where the price agreed upon is in excess of the real value of the properties?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): The consent of the Congested Districts Board is only necessary in the case of a direct sale from landlord to tenant of an estate situate in a congested districts county when such estate is congested within the meaning of Section 20 of the Irish Land Act, 1909. The Board are alive to the importance of the matter raised in this question, and have decided not to sanction any direct sale of any case in which their sanction is required unless they are generally satisfied as to the terms of purchase.

    Ulster Assizes.
    Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the facilities heretofore afforded for the trial at the Ulster winter assize of cases in. the superior courts, for the counties of Antrim and Derry and the city of Belfast, have been withdrawn by the omission of civil business from the Order in Council constituting the Ulster winter assize 1910, to the inconvenience of litigants; whether the Government will take steps to have this remedied in accordance with the representations made to the Lord Lieutenant by the Belfast Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the mercantile community; and whether the Government will procure such amendment of the Law as will enable civil bill appeals now held in abeyance, to the detriment of the public and especially of traders, for a period of eight months, to be determined at such assize as well as the spring and summer assize?
    Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am aware that the Ulster Winter Assize Order, 1910, did not contain provision for the transaction of civil business. The previous arrangement was in operation for about seven years, and on experience it-was found that the civil records, the only cases triable at winter assizes, were few

    429
    and usually of an inconsiderable character. On the other hand the absence of the judges engaged, particularly since the reduction of the general number of judges, caused great inconvenience and delay in the legal business in Dublin, coming as it did from all quarters of the country, and in the circumstances it was determined that the balance of public convenience and economy called for the change made last year. The delay in hearing civil bill appeals is not confined to Belfast, but applies throughout the whole country. The Hon. Gentleman's suggestion will receive attention, but the present demands on the time of the judiciary appear to raise a difficulty.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. MacCAWasked the Chief Secretary if he will provide facilities for the old age pensioners in the Banbridge district, county Down, to receive their new cheque books at their respective post offices on handing in their old ones, instead of having them delivered at the houses of the pensioners by the Excise officer, as is the custom at present, seeing that this latter system is frequently the cause of much delay?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Various methods of transmitting new pension order books to pensioners have been carefully considered at different times, and among them that suggested in the hon. Member's question. Owing, however, to administrative difficulties other alternatives were adopted. I am not aware of the frequent occurrence of delay to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will bring any specific cases of undue delay to my notice I will cause careful inquiry to be made.

    Workmen's Compensation Act (War Office).
    Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it is the general practice of the War Office to refuse all claims for compensation for diseases not scheduled under the Act even in cases where it is certified by doctors appointed by the War Office that the disease in question is directly attributable to the nature of the claimant's employment?
    Colonel SEELY: It is, of course, not the general practice of the War Office to refuse to consider all claims for compensation for diseases not scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But if a particular disease is not mentioned in the Act
    430
    claims for compensation must be considered quite apart from the provisions for compensation under the Act.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it equitable that disablement certified by the Army doctors to be directly attributable to the nature of the employment should be debarred from compensation owing to the disease being omitted from the schedule, and will steps be taken to amend the Act?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer is as I have stated it, and we cannot vary it, unless the House alters the Act itself.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Stoker Trist, who is permanently incapacitated by paralysis, the result of an attack of acute transver myelitis, which has been certified by two Army doctors to be directly attributable to the nature of his employment as a stoker; whether he is aware that ex-Stoker Trist has nevertheless been refused adequate compensation on the technical ground that myelitis is not a scheduled disease under the Act; and will he state what steps he intends to take in the matter?
    Colonel SEELY: The Army medical authorities do not concur in the view that myelitis is a disease to which stokers are peculiarly liable, and the Treasury after consulting their medical referee are not satisfied that the disease from which Trist suffers is attributable to his employment. Trist has already received injury pay under departmental regulations for six months at the rate of half his average weekly earnings, and has been awarded a compassionate grant of £10. I regret that the regulations do not allow the Army Council to grant a pension in this case.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is reasonable to make that statement, when it has been certified by two Army doctors as directly arising out of the nature of the employment, and would he consider it reasonable compensation if it was the case of a private firm?
    Colonel SEELY: As I have explained on previous occasions, some doctors said it was due to his employment, but other doctors and finally the Treasury referee gave it as their opinion that it was not. If the hon. Gentleman asks me whether it is a hard case I say at once it is, and it is

    431
    for that reason that a compassionate grant of £10 has been given. It is the case that he cannot be given a pension without altering the law.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Home Secretary to this case with a view to this disease, which is now known to be a disease of this particular trade, being properly scheduled under the Act and compensation given?
    Colonel SEELY: Certainly, I will draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the case.

    Coronation Medal.
    Colonel BATHURSTasked whether it can be arranged that the 250 Imperial Cadets from Australasia, Canada, and United South Africa, who were the guests of the Government at the Territorial cadet battalion camp at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, from the 22nd to the 23rd June for the Coronation parade, may receive the Coronation medal in common with the other representatives of the defence forces of the oversea Dominions and India?
    Colonel SEELY: The cadets in question were very welcome over here, but they cannot be placed on the same footing as the members of contingents chosen and sent over by the Governments of various self-governing Dominions and Colonies.
    Colonel BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Imperial Cadets referred to in the question were sent over in the same way as the other representatives of the oversea Dominions?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think it would be correct to say that they were sent over in the same way. At all events, that is my opinion.

    Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the status of membership of the Committee of Imperial Defence carries the right to be notified of and to attend every meeting of the Committee; and will he say who are at present the oversea members of that Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As explained in an answer to a question on 5th April, the Committee of Imperial Defence consists of the Prime Minister, with such other Members as—having regard to the
    432
    nature of the subject to be discussed—he may from time to time summon to assist him. It follows from this that attendance on a particular occasion carries no right to be notified of subsequent meetings or to attend them, and that there are no permanent oversea Members of the Committee. The recent meetings of the Committee were not the first which have been attended by representatives of the oversea Dominions, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be the last.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the oversea Ministers who lately attended meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the invitation of the Prime Minister were invited to attend as members of the committee or as visitors for that occasion only?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As ordinary members in the sense of the answer to the previous question.

    British Indians in Transvaal.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the notices of removal issued in terms of the Townships Act and Gold Law of the province against certain Indian merchants and others who have been resident and have carried on business for lengthy periods in towns situated on proclaimed gold-mining areas in the Transvaal imply virtual confiscation of business premises of which they are equitable owners, and the compulsory segregation in locations for purposes of trade and residence of such British-Indians, or their withdrawal from the country without compensation; and, if so, will representations be made to the Transvaal Government with a view to mitigate the hardships imposed by the confiscatory and penal clauses of such laws upon British subjects?
    Colonel SEELY: This question is at present being investigated by the Government of the Union of South Africa and the Secretary of State for the Colonies is awaiting further information as to it.

    Shops Bill.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether application was made to him on behalf of the Pharmacists Society to receive a deputation in regard to the Shops Bill; and, if so, whether such application was granted or refused.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Application was made to me in November last to receive a deputation from the Pharmaceutical Society, but before arrangements could be made to see them, the dissolution took place and the Bill dropped. The views of the society are now represented in the House and on the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney, with whom I have had some consultation as regards the Bill, and who has moved amendments on the Chemists' Clause which the Government have accepted.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that an opportunity was offered for an interview with the National Union of Assistant Pharmacists which represents only a few hundreds, while no opportunity for an interview has been given to the Pharmacists Society, which represents about 10,000 persons?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a good many deputations—more than sixty, I think—on the subject of this Bill. If there is any difficulty in reaching a satisfactory solution with regard to the Pharmacists Society I shall certainly ask them to send a deputation. I think I shall be able to reach a satisfactory solution in consultation with the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones), who is cognisant of their views.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all Pensions granted under any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the law relating to the payment of Pensions to Governors of any part of His Majesty's Dominions, or any British Protectorate, or persons holding a similar office (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES, ETC.].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, and out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries, compensation, and other expenses that may be incurred in pursuance of any Act of the present Ses-
434
sion to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, and of authorising the payment of an annual grant for the purposes of such Act (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (CORK, EAST CORK, ELECTION PETITION).
Ordered, That the Copy of the Shorthand Writers' Notes of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Gibson and Mr. Justice Dodd on the Trial of the Election Petition for the East Cork Division of the County of Cork, also the Minutes of Evidence taken at the Trial or the said Election Petition, laid upon the Table upon the 29th May last, be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
Ordered, "That Mr. Price be a Member of the Select Committee appointed by the House to join with a Committee of the Lords on the Local Government Acts, 1884 and 1894, and Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894."—[Master of Elibank.]
NAVAL PRIZE BILL.

  DECLARATION OF LONDON.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I may point out to the House that part of the Bill is a consolidation of prize practice and is similar to the draft which was prepared about seven years ago. That part of the Bill is non-controversial, and I do not suppose that any point will arise upon. it except possibly in the Committee stage. The important part of the Bill is that which deals with the necessary alteration of prize practice in view of the establishment of an international Prize Court of Appeal. The House is. aware that the Government consider that the questions of the establishment of an. international Prize Court and the provision of rules under the Declaration of London are closely connected questions, and therefore some months ago the Govern-

  435
  ment promised that on the Second Reading of the Bill full opportunity should be given to the House for the discussion of these two important international agreements. I do not think that the severest critic of the Government will raise the question that sufficient time has not been given for the discussion of this matter. There has been the fullest and most vigorous discussion. I suppose no international instrument has ever been discussed in the same way. We have had discussion which has been both legitimate and illegitimate. I am not an admirer of the exhibition of picture posters as a method of controversy in many cases, but I think the House will agree that it never was resorted to with more ludicrous inappropriateness than in dealing with a question of international law. The delay that has taken place has been, of course, increased by the desire which was expressed that this matter should be considered by the Imperial Conference before a decision was taken by the House. When the Commonwealth of Australia expressed a desire that this matter should be discussed at the Imperial Conference, together with the larger question of the desirability of consulting the Dominions in matters of international agreement which affect any of them, the Government immediately acceded to the request. On the broad general question, as the House is aware the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs entirely satisfied the representatives of the Dominions. On the special question of these agreements the discussion was extremely interesting and valuable, not merely because it resulted in a resolution in favour of ratification but because it showed that the question had been critically weighed by the Dominion statesmen, and that they had come to this country prepared to deliver well considered opinions upon it. The representatives of Now Zealand regarded these agreements as a great advance in international law. Sir Joseph Ward said:—
  "There has been on the part of those opposed to the Declaration a strong and persistent effort made to influence the opinions and judgment of the representatives of the overseas Dominions attending this Conference, and after weighing the opinions of those whose opinion is considered worthy of respect, and examining the matter carefully for myself, I have arrived at the conclusion that the Declaration of London now before us is better in the general interests of the British Empire, either as a neutral or as a belligerent, than the conditions existing at present."
  And the other representative of New Zealand, a man extremely well qualified to
  436
  speak on this subject, a trained international lawyer, Sir John Findlay, who had considered the matter in New Zealand, and delivered a very weighty and important speech in favour of the Declaration in New Zealand before he came to this country, after dealing with the details of the Declaration, came to the conclusion that in every respect the Declaration of London was one of the best things that had been done for British commerce for very many years. The Prime Ministers of Canada approved of these agreements themselves, and welcomed them as a step forward in international agreement, in which Canada has a great and special interest. The Prime Minister of Newfoundland was also strongly in favour of the agreements. The Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa looked at the matter especially from the point of view of that Dominion, and pointed out how these agreements would improve the position of that Dominion in the event of war by allowing the free importation of food and, indeed, everything but conditional contraband, in neutral vessels through neutral ports, and he pointed out that this great benefit to South Africa was due to the abandonment of the doctrine of continuous voyage as applied to conditional contraband. The Prime Minister of Australia, while abstaining from voting, expressed a clear and decided opinion on general grounds that the Convention establishing the International Convention and the Declaration of London ought to be ratified. So there was no dissentient at the Imperial Conference from the opinion that these agreements ought to be ratified.
  I think the House is well aware that the opponents of the Declaration have no ground for reproaching themselves for having omitted any opportunity, public or private, of pressing their views before the Dominion representatives. Therefore, we find that after the fullest consideration not only the British Government, but the Governments of the self-governing Dominions, are of opinion that it is desirable that this agreement should be ratified. It is not very long since we were urged to take the opinion of the Dominions. That was the great cry of the opponents of the Declaration. Now, after reading recent manifestoes and speeches on the question and after reading the speech delivered yesterday, what do we find? We find a censensus of silence on the subject of the Dominions. Were we only urged to listen to them when it was

  437
  hoped that their views would be adverse? Are their opinions to be ignored when they are found to be favourable? That is not very respectful to our great Dominions. The worst thing I think that could happen to this country and this empire would be if we got into the habit of treating our Dominions as pawns in a party game. I gather from the Amendments of which notice has been given and the speeches which were delivered yesterday that the idea is that this matter should be referred to a Royal Commission. One hon. Member has suggested that there should be a Committee of admirals and business men, with a few international lawyers as assessors. An admirable idea!
  I should be the last man in the Government to throw a slight upon business men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not on admirals, I hope."] Well, I never knew a subject upon which admirals were agreed. I should be the last man to throw a slight upon business men, but I think that they must feel that it is the grossest flattery to regard them as experts in international law. I think they will hardly regard that as a compliment even when it comes from the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher). No. I think that the proposal of a Royal Commission or a Committee is the very worst possible way that could be conceived of dealing with international questions like this. How would such action appear in the eyes of other nations? It is legitimate in domestic affairs in the case of a measure you want to get rid of to refer it to the lethal chamber of a Royal Commission. It might not do any particular harm in that case. But in international agreements I want to know if it is a policy that will commend itself to the serious judgment of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? It is an entirely novel precedent. Is it one which they will take the responsibility of approving? It is a very serious thing to bring discredit on the British Government in regard to international agreements. The effects remain after the particular administration has passed away. The injury is not to a Liberal administration: it is to the British Government. What is the Commission to consider? (1) the decisions of an international conference summoned by the British Government to meet in London, and (2) the desirability of establishing an international Prize Court proposed by the British Government and never dissented from until lately by the Opposition?
  438
  At the Naval Conference we chose our experts, who very ably represented us. Lord Desart, a very eminent British jurist, was the chairman. Questions were asked in this House as if the Admiralty had never been consulted. Whom did we appoint as representatives of the Admiralty? The Secretary of the Defence Committee who had been director of Naval Intelligence, Admiral Sir C. Ottley, and the director of Naval Intelligence, Admiral Sir E. Slade, represented the Admiralty. If the Secretary of the Defence Committee and the director of Naval Intelligence are not acquainted with the views of the Admiralty, I wonder who is acquainted with them. The representatives of the Foreign Office were Mr. Hurst and Sir Eyre Crowe. At our invitation the foreign Powers sent their representatives. After prolonged discussion, in which were displayed reasonableness and goodwill, agreement was arrived on many points on which there had been great divergence of view. Now we are invited to throw the whole thing over and appoint a Royal Commission. What sort of a reply is a future British Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, to expect to receive when next it wishes to call a conference or when next it wishes to submit any important proposal to the conference at The Hague? Do not you think that the other nations would say, "We prefer not to waste our time. You did not know your own minds when you called the last conference. Have you had your Royal Commission? Do you not think you had better have it first?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought I should get these cheers, but I will ask right hon. Gentlemen who have been responsible for the Government whether before an international conference is summoned they will find it a convenient thing to have a Royal Commission sitting in public, tieing our hands in every detail? Is that the way right hon. Gentlemen, who have had anything to do with the conduct of foreign affairs, will proceed when it is desired to have an international agreement? I do not think so. I think other nations would say something still harsher if such a proposal were carried. They would say that Britain's idea of an international agreement was a code which she herself drew up without consulting anybody else.
  In these agreements we took the initiative. We are doubly interested as the greatest naval Power, and as the greatest maritime Power carrying half the oversea commerce of the world. I wish

  439
  to remind the House of the immediate historical causes which led to these proposals, because they are very relevant, they are extremely important and they are often overlooked. The experience of recent wars has impressed upon the British Government the fact that in naval matters international law is in a state of complete uncertainty and chaos. There was no international law, there was no agreement, and there was endless divergence of opinion, and from that state of affairs we were the principal sufferers. The events of the Russo-Japanese War revealed the fact that there was great danger and inconvenience to British commerce arising from the uncertainty of international law, and it also revealed the inadequacy of the means of obtaining redress, short of force. The Unionist Government was in power at that time; I do not mention the fact with a view to any criticism. They did not resort to force, or threaten force, and they probably were perfectly right and were considering the larger interests of the country. I think there were five British ships, two German ships and one Danish ship destroyed by the Russian fleet. I believe there are Members in the House now who were interested in those ships. They were the "Knight Commander" "Ikhona," "Oldhamia," "St. Kilda," and "Hipsang." With regard to Japan we had not such serious ground of complaint, but in regard to food the decisions of the Japanese courts were not in accordance with our view. In the case of the "Pehping," carrying rice to Newchang, the Prize Courts condemned her cargo on the ground that there were Russian troops there who could oat rice, although there was no presumption that the rice was going to any but the peaceful natives of the place. The case of the "Hsiping" was very similar. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition remembers, as do others, that there was an enormous outcry at the sinking of British ships by the Russians. Both he and Lord Lansdowne, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, were beset by people seeking interviews, and deputations of the most important chambers of commerce and shipping and underwriting associations were received. The underwriters had an enormous interest in this question, seeing that they insured foreign as well as British goods and ships. They pointed out that while they were not concerned in the war they were having to run undefined war risks. What was to happen to them
  440
  was a thing they could not find out. They had to depend on the views of a foreign belligerent State. They pointed out that trade with Japan was paralysed, and that it was necessary to get a further definition of what was contraband. Lord Lansdowne listened to them with sympathy, and he said that it was essential that we should have a clearer definition of what is contraband. He used the word "essential." But he added that he could not go into this question while the war was actually in progress. That was cold comfort for them. The British Government protested, but what remedy was that for the British shipowner, the underwriter, or the exporter? He could plead his case in a Russian Prize Court. The Prize Courts of Russia gave decisions, not according to British doctrines, but according to the regulations of the Russian Admiralty. If dissatisfied with the decision, the parties could appeal to another Prize Court in Russia, also administered according to the regulations of the Russian Admiralty. It seems to be forgotten that whenever we are neutral and other nations are at war, our cases are judged by the Prize Courts of the belligerents. Some of these cases are not settled yet.
  There came an opportunity of dealing with this matter in a time of peace, which Lord Lansdowne suggested was the proper time, when the second Peace Conference met in 1907. The Government then proposed to give neutrals the power of appealing from the Prize Courts of the belligerents to an International Prize Court, and the nations represented agreed to that proposal. It arose, not out of theory, but out of a grave practical difficulty, as a remedy for serious evils which now seem to be forgotten, or at least ignored by most of our critics. But when we came to discuss the matter at The Hague, the discussion showed more clearly than ever the extraordinary vagueness and uncertainty of international law. There was grave divergence of views between the great Powers—it was evident that doctrines were held which would probably in the future, as in the past, be extremely damaging to us. That showed that it was mere foolishness to argue as critics do-now—it is the basis of argument of most of the chambers of commerce—that our commerce is now protected by some excellent doctrines of British jurists which are repudiated by other Powers.
  The Government were not prepared to submit the interests of Great Britain or

  441
  its commerce to the uncertain interpretation of international law. They felt that the establishment of a court of appeal would not meet with general acceptance so long as vagueness and uncertainty existed as to the principle which the court would apply. Therefore, the Naval Conference of London was called. What was the avowed object of the Naval Conference? It was to arrive at an agreement as to what are the general and recognised principles of international law; to get an agreed statement of existing international law. That was the object of the conference, and was well worth doing. I think we did more, and that we got an improvement of the existing practice. The leading naval Powers, before the meeting of this conference, sent in memoranda explaining their views. Some stated what they considered to be the existing international law, and some what they proposed should be the international law decided by the conference. You cannot read these memoranda without again recognising the immense divergency of opinion which existed. There was hardly a point on which every nation was agreed; and on some points there were nearly as many opinions as there were nations.
  4.0 P.M.
  I should like to say a few words as to the difficulties which have arisen in discussing this question. The first difficulty that has arisen is the persistent ignoring of the essential factors of the problem. There is the practice of foreign countries in the first place. This is a matter of the greatest importance, because until we have an International Court of Appeal and agreed rules, we have to fight our cases in the Prize Courts of the belligerent who has done the injury; and, again, when belligerents, we may be hampered by the view of some other Power. The second difficulty arises from the very nature of the subject. It would arise if we had a Royal Commission, whose report on the Declaration would have to be weighed and considered from different points of view. It is very easy now to say that this provision could be very much improved to safeguard British trade. You have got to ask yourselves another question, how would that improvement affect our position as belligerents? We have interests of a neutral character, enormous interests, because we carry goods all over the world, foreign as well as British goods, and because we insure foreign as well as British property.
  442
  We are interested as belligerents in the right of captors to stop the carriage of contraband to the enemy. On the other hand, we have a great interest in the free access of neutrals to our shores. Our interests are so many sided that we cannot afford to take a one-sided view.
  I would venture to impress this consideration upon the House. If you had your Royal Commission or your Committee of admirals and business men, or any other tribunal, and if you were considering this question from the point of view of Great Britain alone, and if you were paying no attention to the doctrines and wishes of other countries, but, of course, bearing in mind that every licence you assumed you must give to other nations and every restriction you put on other nations you must observe yourself, if you were trying to draw a code without regard to anybody else you would have so to weigh and balance each article that I think you would find that your code would be open to most of the criticisms that are directed against the Declaration of London, and to all the criticisms that come from critics who look at this matter from a single point of view. Of course, the House will recognise that the tasks of our delegates and the British Government who instructed them and are responsible was a much more difficult one. They had to obtain agreement amid divergent views. You cannot judge this matter fairly without taking a broad and balanced view of the Declaration of London as a whole. The real question is—are these agreements an improvement upon the present position? Do we gain or lose by them. Yet I constantly find critics who attack us in the same document (1) because we have not secured absolute immunity for our own commerce, and (2), because we have not secured an absolutely free hand to deal with other people's commerce. Really, I think that describes some of the speeches we have heard. Many critics have just wakened up to the fact that a war would entail consequences highly inconvenient to other people besides sailors and soldiers, and that the ordinary routine of oversea commerce would not proceed without some special risks. They say "such and such a highly inconvenient thing would happen under the Declaration of London—do not ratify it." But they ignore the fact that the same highly inconvenient thing, or perhaps a much more inconvenient thing, might happen without the Declaration.

  443
  I will give the House an example. Business men have come to us and said, "In our business, as you know, the goods are conditional contraband, and you are aware that the practice is to bring cargoes of grain and a great many other things to ports of call, and the ship carries no papers that would show her ultimate destination." They say: "Is that safe under the Declaration of London?" The answer is "No," and it would not be safe without the Declaration of London. You cannot carry on commerce in time of war with the same comfort and safety as in time of peace. I do not claim that the Declaration of London will make a time of war like a time of peace, but I think that it will remove many uncertainties and great difficulties which now hamper commerce.
  One of the most familiar arguments, and one which every Member of the House must have heard, is that under the Declaration of London Continental Powers can bring in food by land, at greater cost but safely, and that we can only do so by sea. Monstrous that we should be at such a disadvantage! As if the Declaration of London had created the geographical facts. You cannot by any Naval agreement, or by any Naval force if you refuse all agreements, prevent a Continental Power from bringing in food and everything else over her land frontier. I venture respectfully to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in what he said about the advantages of being an island and the disadvantages of being an island and especially with his observation that you cannot alter that fact for good or evil by any agreement.
  One of the favourite arguments used by more ingenious people in this controversy is one which I confess I have the very greatest difficulty in following. It is that by establishing an International Court and agreeing to fixed rules we have given up any advantage which might have arisen in some not very clearly explained way from the protests of neutrals against the action of belligerents. As the Marquess of Salisbury said in another place:—
  "As a matter of fact a belligerent would be effecttively controlled by the public opinion of the neutral Powers."
  I do not admit that. I do not think that experience shows anything of the kind. I cannot understand why, if this were so, we should be pleased, we of all nations in the world. I must insist we have to consider our position as belligerents. We all expect, with the utmost confidence, if we
  444
  are engaged in war, that we shall be the Power which will carry on the most extensive naval operations, and effect probably by far the largest number of captures. Why in the world we should desire effective control by neutral Powers, as the Marquess of Salisbury appeared to desire, I altogether fail to see. It is one of the advantages which I claim for the Declaration of London that when we are at war we shall not after the Declaration of London be constantly hampered by protests of neutral Powers which take a different view from ourselves as to the rights of a belligerent—it may be in regard to blockade, that is a very likely case to arise under present circumstances; it may be in regard to the doctrine of continuous voyage, which is a subject on which trouble has already arisen. I think that it should be rather a matter of congratulation that in future our naval commanders will be able to do their duty, knowing clearly what their rights are, and what they can do without interfering with the recognised rights of neutrals. I say that is to the good in saving us from friction with neutrals which might hamper us in time of war.
  The importance of this point of view has-been put with much cogency in an article in "Brassey's Annual," by Sir Cyprian Bridge, who is a man who has held important commands as an admiral, and who was Director of Naval Intelligence. He points out clearly that there is great advantage in this to naval officers.
  But I notice this argument is relied on by the Noble Marquess, by Lord Selborne and others as a security to us in regard to our food supply. They think that the protests of neutrals would prevent the enemy from acting harshly, but the fact is that in the pre-Declaration view of some of the most powerful nations it is not improper to treat foodstuffs as contraband. Those nations are not likely to protest. What are those nations? They are Germany, France, Russia, and Austria. There are other nations who are considerable carriers which have not sufficient naval strength to protest efficiently, and experience shows that even a strong naval Power is not at all likely to go to war on account of the damage done to two or three of her ships because the risk and cost of war would be altogether out of proportion to any damage that would have-been caused. To trust to the intervention of neutrals for the safety of our food supply is to trust to the feeblest of all con-

  445
  ceivable securities. On the other hand it seems to me that the intervention by neutrals to prevent harsh and arbitrary action by belligerents would be more effective and much more likely to be exercised under the Declaration of London. Without it the Neutral Powers can only base their protests on the vagueness of international law, but it will in future be a much more serious thing for belligerents to break the solemn engagements of an agreement into which they have entered with neutrals. In the event of any flagrant breach I think we may reasonably expect a protest from a combination of neutrals which would be most effective. Altogether I think that that argument is one of the weakest which has been brought against the Declaration of London.
  This agreement is attacked from two very opposite points of view, and there are two strongly opposed schools. There are those who think that the rules will not sufficiently protect neutrals. There are influential Members on both sides who wish to see all private property at sea immune from capture. To them I say that was impossible of attainment. There is no international agreement on the subject. We are not even agreed ourselves, but the establishment of an international court and these rules are a step forward. They give greater certainty and security to neutrals, whereas before there was the greatest uncertainty. If we accept these agreements there is nothing to prevent our trying to obtain improvements in future conferences. If we reject them we shall not only give up what we have secured but have struck a deadly blow at the whole principle of agreement. Undoubtedly our sternest opponents are those who object not to these agreements but to all agreements, the people who regard the Declaration of Paris as one of the gravest blunders this country ever made. I was talking to a naval officer the other day and he said, "It is not your Declaration of London I so much object to, I do not object to that, I do not think it will do any harm, but it is the Declaration of Paris which I dislike." Their ideal is that we should be free to act as we did a century ago in the French war. They forget what our interference with neutral trade then cost us—world-wide hostility and an extension of the field of war. Even then we could not maintain the licence we assumed. They do not recognise how impossible it would be to assume that licence now with the general development of naval power and the vast
  446
  extension of sea-borne commerce. I need not argue that point, but I pass on rapidly with I think sufficient reason, as the matter has been discussed in this House and in another place for three days and in the Imperal Conference, and not a single responsible statesman has given any countenance to the idea that we ought to free ourselves from the Declaration of Paris. I am, however, entitled to point out how much of the opposition is based upon the dislike of any international agreement in this matter.
  A much more moderate and reasonable-view is that in gaining an advantage for neutrals and for our own commerce when we are neutrals, however great that may be in itself, it ought not to be purchased by giving up rights which are necessary to us as belligerents. That is the view put forcibly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) in the previous Debate. I think that is a fair criterion. I submit that the Declaration of London is not open to that objection. It in no way weakens us in the exercise of our naval power as belligerents, but on the contrary it removes some difficulties which might have hampered the exercise of that power. I notice our critics are not agreed on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that blockade has not lost its power, though it was less powerful than in days gone by, and that we had given up something, though he did not explain what, in regard to it. I see that the. hon. and gallant Member for Evesham (Mr. Eyres-Monsell) has written a pamphlet, in which he says that our views on the subject of blockade were accepted practically en bloc by the Conference, but on the other hand he says that blockade is no use now. I think both those two critics of ours are partly right and partly wrong. Our views on blockade were practically accepted en bloc as the hon. Member for Evesham says, but blockade is still of value, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and that view is supported by the Admiralty. Let us see what the position is in regard' to blockade. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a new note into the controversy by suggesting that we have weakened our power of blockade. We had supposed before that we had increased our efficiency in blockade, as the hon. Member for Evesham apparently thought. What happened? There were two Continental doctrines that might have been very hampering in time of war. One of the

  447
  doctrines, of which France was the principal exponent, was that you must give individual notification to each ship. In other words, although you had given a general notification of the blockade, each ship had a chance to try and run the blockade, just like the case of giving a dog a first bite. If you caught the ship then you notified that there was a blockade, and the captain said, "Oh, thank you" and went away. Obviously that is a very serious diminution of the efficiency of blockade. Now we have our view established on that. Then there was the other Continental doctrine that a ship must actually have passed some imaginary line between two blockading ships. We pointed out that that was impossible and impracticable, and we have got rid of that. What in our practice has been altered? Have we made any concessions? Yes. Theoretically a blockade runner could be stopped before she had actually tried to slip the blockading squadron. Lord Desart and Mr. Arthur Cohen have examined all the prize cases, and they say that there is no instance that they can find of a vessel being seized before she had reached the area of blockade. Therefore we have not given up anything of practical value. A ship must have entered the area of blockade, and we must catch the blockade runner by the continuous pursuit of a vessel of the blockading force. As Mr. Arthur Cohen has pointed out very fairly, if we cannot catch the vessel the blockade is not efficient, as it is required to be by the Declaration of Paris. Therefore on the question of blockade there is not the slightest doubt that we have established the British rule for all practical and important objects. I am fairly familiar with this controversy, but I must say that, apart from a good deal of declamation from those who object equally to the Declaration of Paris and the Declaration of London, there has been no serious argued attempt to show that we have given up anything which would weaken our naval efficiency.
  We are told that we have introduced a new danger by having made our food supply less secure. We have all seen the sensational headings "Starvation in War," the foolish posters about a ship being sunk, as if that could not be done now, and the lurid word pictures which are drawn to waken public alarm. Some speeches are made up of nothing but statements about the danger
  448
  to our food supply that would arise in time of war. Yes; but why do not the speakers tell their ignorant audiences that this danger exists at the present moment? The whole argument rests on the simple device of absolutely ignoring present conditions, and concealing from the public the fact that every one of the dangers they mention is a danger that we are facing now. Let us look at the question as practical people. Let us start with the bulk of the food supply. I cannot tell from official figures exactly what proportions of our food supply is brought in neutral and in British bottoms, but the representatives of the corn trade of the country informed us that they believed that in the case of grain the proportion brought in in neutral vessels was something like 10 per cent. I think the phrase they used was that they thought that not less than 10 per cent. was brought in neutral vessels. There are many other kinds of food which come to this country. I suppose that practically all the chilled meat would come in in British ships. At any rate, I do not suppose that one is under-estimating it if one takes the figure of 10 per cent. But I will not base any argument on the figure. My point is that it is the smaller part, and much the smaller part, of the supply. The representatives of the grain trade told us that they thought that proportion would be largely increased in time of war, but that still it would remain much the smaller proportion of our supply. On the other hand, Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge gives reasons for thinking that we should have to depend more on British ships and less on neutrals in time of war. But I will not go into that argument; my whole point is that we should have to depend for the bulk of our supply in time of war on British ships. We cannot depend upon neutrals. I am not here on behalf of the Government to ask you to depend upon agreements, however much they might safeguard neutrals. We must depend upon the protection of our strong Navy. We are not, as some people would have you believe, offering the Declaration of London as a substitute for the Navy. I think this consideration, that the bulk of our food supply comes in British ships, and that the position of British ships will be exactly the same after the Declaration of London as it was before, neither better nor worse, places the matter in a fairer perspective. It disposes of much wild talk. What becomes of all the perorations

  449
  and declamation when it turns out that you are forgetting 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the supply?
  Now, let me deal with the smaller portion of our supply, which comes in neutral ships. My contention is that the Declaration of London does not injure us, but improves our position. I am talking of the time when we are a belligerent. I have dealt with the bulk of our supply, which must come in in British ships, and is not affected by the Declaration of London. Now I will deal with the smaller portion of our supply, which will come in neutral ships. I say that the Declaration of London does not injure us, but improves our position. We constantly find people arguing under the strange delusion that under existing conditions food would come unhindered to our shores, and that in a fit of lunacy the British Government under the Declaration of London have allowed it for the first time to be made contraband. We have had many protests from chambers of commerce based on this statement, that under the law of nations food can only be declared contraband if destined for the armed forces of the enemy, and that all nations have hitherto been agreed upon this point. Take the Chamber of Commerce of London. They base their argument upon this extraordinary statement
  "that the effect of the Declaration is to alter the law of nations as hitherto maintained in a manner entirely unprecedented, and to expose to capture or deliberate destruction food supplies borne to any port of Great Britain in neutral vessels."
  In other words, that the Declaration of London has created the risk of having food seized. Can there be a more outrageous proposition? Can you conceive a statement more absolutely misleading? The Declaration of London creates no new risk; it lessens existing risks.
  My general proposition, which I intend to prove, is that if we refuse to ratify the Declaration of London, we run the risk of having food supplies declared absolute contraband. If we went to war with either of several great Powers, the probability is that they would declare food contraband of war. There is nothing in their expressed views on international law that would stand in their way. If the Declaration of London falls through, Russia, France, and Germany are all left free by their declared view of international law to notify food as contraband. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), in one of the many pamphlets that we have received, has described my
  450
  statement that we are better off as "a piece of official recklessness." I do not object at all to the phrase. The House will judge when I have concluded my argument. But I would like to point out a case of historical recklessness on the part of the hon. and learned Member himself. In his pamphlet he says, that
  "food supplies when carried on neutral vessels have not in modern times been treated as liable to capture unless proved to be destined for the armed forces of the enemy."
  Could there be a more reckless statement? The curious thing is that the hon. and learned Member makes that statement on the very page on which he quotes a case which shows how erroneous it is. In 1885 France declared rice contraband to all ports north of Canton. A White Paper recently republished gives the correspondence, and hon. Members have had an opportunity of informing themselves on the point. How does the hon. and learned Member deal with the case? With much ingenuity. He says:—
  "Great Britain strongly protested. The war was shortly afterwards terminated, and in no single case did France exercise her alleged rights."
  No; the notification was quite effective. Shipments of rice were stopped, and no doubt the notification contributed to bring the war to a sudden conclusion. We have records in the Foreign Office of a case where a British ship actually loaded up several thousand bags of rice, but took them out in consequence of this notification of France. France maintained her policy to the end of the war, in spite of most energetic protests from Lord Granville. More than that, she maintained her view as to her right to declare food contraband up to the meeting of the Conference in 1908. What position did France take up? That she was entitled to declare rice contraband, whether it was going to the peaceful population or to the army of China, on the broad ground that it was the best way to put pressure upon China and finish the war. M. Wadding-ton wrote to Lord Granville these words:
  "The importance of rice in the feeding of the Chinese population and army does not allow my Government to authorise its transport in the north of China without the risk of depriving themselves of one of the most powerful means of coercion they have at their disposal."
  It was on that very ground that the opinion of Prince Bismarck was based. I have here an extract from the "Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung," of 8th April, 1885, which I will read to the House:—
  "The Kiel Chamber of Commerce have received the following answer from the Imperial Chancellor with

  451
  reference to their communication regarding the treatment of rice as contraband of war on the Chinese coast:—
  "In answer to their representations of the 1st inst., I reply to the Chamber of Commerce that any disadvantage our commercial and carrying interests may suffer by the treatment of rice as contraband of war, does not justify our opposing a measure which it has been thought fit to take in carrying on a foreign war. Every war is a calamity, which entails evil consequences not only on the combatants hut also on neutrals. These evils may easily be increased by the interference of a neutral Power with the way in which a third carries on the war, to the disadvantage of the subjects of the interfering Power, and by this means German commerce might be weighted with far heavier losses than a transitory prohibition of the rice trade in Chinese waters. The measure in question has for its object the shortening of the war by increasing the difficulties of the enemy, and is a justifiable step in war if impartially enforced against all neutral ships.
  "'The Imperial Chancellor,
  "'V. BISMARCK.'"
  These two historical facts, which do not stand alone, have rather disconcerted the critics of the Declaration. They feel that these facts really dispose of their case on this point, which is their main attack on the Declaration. They have, therefore, tried to minimise them in two ways. They have shown a considerable amount of ingenuity in trying to explain away the inconvenient facts. They ask—I have been asked in this House—whether M. Waddington did not argue with Lord Granville that the justification for stopping this rice was that tribute was paid in rice, and that rice was the pay of the soldiery? Yes, M. Waddington, in the course of the controversy, used many arguments, one of which was that they were only doing what we had done ourselves when we were at war with France. Another argument was that about tribute and the pay of the soldiery—a very inconclusive argument. M. Waddington could not pretend that all the rice they stopped could be characterised in that way. But after all let us look at something much more important than the mere arguments between two Foreign Secretaries engaged in controversy.
  Let us look at the instructions given by M. Waddington to the Ambassadors and Ministers of France at all the Courts. His justification of the notification that rice was contraband was on the broad ground that is was the best way of putting pressure upon China to bring the war to a close. What is more important is that France maintained that view up to 1908. At the proceedings of the Naval Conference France handed in a statement which is there on record which shows actually that she did maintain that view. What
  452
  was her proposal about food? We run no risk of having food declared contraband! What did Franco say? "Foodstuffs and raw materials intended for non-combatants are not in principle considered as contraband of war." That was the pious opinion. What was the practical conclusion: "But may be declared such according to circumstances of which the Government is to judge, and in virtue of an order issued by it." Am I not, therefore, fully justified in saying that the view of France up to the time of the Naval Conference was that she was entitled to declare food contraband and to have it seized if it was to her interest to do so, and that she was to be the judge of the propriety of doing so? And—replying to my hon. Friend below the Gangway who interrupted me—am I not justified in saying that Germany admitted the propriety of the action of France? I have read the words of Bismarck. Lord Desborough, chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce, who takes a keen and critical interest in this matter, wrote a letter to "The Times" in which he stated that Prince Bulow afterwards repudiated Prince Bismarck's view. The Noble Lord very fairly gave the reference to the report on which he relied. I read it with much care. There is not a word in it which confirms what he says. Prince Bulow did not repudiate Prince Bismarck. No, Sir. Germany never gave up that view until the meeting of the Naval Conference. Let me put a point that confirms that. Germany put forward a statement as to what she thought international law might become under the Convention. Did she, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would have had the City believe yesterday, treat food as something that could never be declared contraband? No, she put certain classes of food in the list of absolute contraband. Preserved provisions which could be used for the troops; they were to be absolute contraband.
  I have shown that neither France nor Germany were estopped from declaring food contraband until the Declaration of London was ratified. What about Russia? Russia claimed the same right in the war with Japan, and though in reply to our protests she agreed not to act upon it, she has not given up, and never did give up that principle until she signed the Declaration of London. In fact, like Germany, she put certain classes of food supply useful for the Army into the list of absolute contraband. I say that the

  453
  Declaration of London does this good thing for our food supply; it frees us from the danger, no imaginative danger, of having our food supplies declared absolute contraband. We tried at the Peace Conference to have food placed on the free list. We could not secure an approach to international agreement. The Declaration of London places it on the list of conditional contraband in accordance with the old-established British doctrine—at any rate our doctrine for a long time now. The Articles dealing with that subject have been much discussed, and perhaps I am bound to say a little more about them in detail—I hope the House will bear with me. Article 33 is the definition of conditional contraband. Nothing can be condemned as conditional contraband that does not come under that definition. That definition expresses the British view. We have never maintained that food was in no circumstances contraband. We have always admitted that food destined for the enemy's army could be so treated. Had we been able to place food on a free list we should have gained an advance not only on the doctrine of foreign nations, but upon our own doctrine. It is absurd to condemn the Declaration of London because we have not been able to secure so much as that.
  I should like to point out to those who take the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that if you do place food on a free list you would only be dealing with a small proportion of the supply. You would not be dealing with such a proportion as to secure ourselves in time of war. Starvation or non-starvation would not depend upon that proportion. That must depend upon our power to bring food hero in British ships.
  What is the definition of conditional contraband? It is:—
  "Conditional contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for the use of the armed forces or of a Government Department of the enemy's state unless in this latter case the circumstances show that the goods cannot in fact be used for the purposes of the war in progress.
  Article 34 deals with the circumstances of suspicion when the presumption is that the destination is that described in Article 33, namely, that of the armed forces of the enemy, a presumption which may be rebutted. The point I want to make is this: I do not want to argue with hon. Members as to how a naval captain would interpret
  454
  Article 34. What I say is, however he interpreted it—if you take the gross exaggerations of meanings and possibilities of that article which have been put forward—and they are gross enough—it would not expose us to a single new risk to which we are not now exposed. There is the interesting manifesto of the Imperial Maritime League, signed by a number of Admirals, drawn up to influence the Imperial Conference. The statement that I find there is that, as all our ports are in railway communication with armed forces, all our ports are bases for armed forces, and all ships carrying supplies to these ports would become capturable. I suppose, if the Navy was at Rosyth and the men were fed with fish from Fraserburgh or Grimsby, then Fraserburgh and Grimsby would become bases? According to this wild statement every port in the world is therefore a base. There is no port that escapes. We are seriously asked to believe that that is what is meant in the Declaration of London, and that that is how an. international Prize Court would interpret it. The Clause in the Declaration of London dealing with conditional contraband is solemn humbug! I must say that I think it is much fairer to rely upon the opinion of the Lord Chancellor. I think it is much nearer the probability of what the decision of a Prize Court would be. He says you could not count any ports except ports which are actually magazines for war, or actually places of equipment for war, as being within the term "base for the armed forces of the enemy." In the commentary it says they may be "bases of supply." That does not say that every place connected with a railway would be a base of supply. That is a very different point.
  I come now to the doctrine of continuous voyage upon which we have been attacked. What we maintain in relation to the doctrine of continuous voyage is that we have made a very satisfactory gain indeed. There is no general agreement upon this. The doctrine of continuous voyage is in some quarters hardly understood; at any rate there is no agreement upon it. It is a doctrine therefore that has given us, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, trouble, and very likely will give us trouble in the future with neutrals. The result of the agreement is very satisfactory. The doctrine is established where it is important, and given up where it is of no practical value. It is agreed in the case of absolute contraband; that is very important to us. In the case

  455
  of absolute contraband, in the case of war materials, arms and so on, the probability is you can trace the ultimate destination, but in the case of articles like food and clothing, to trace the ultimate destination is perfectly impossible. It is said that we give an advantage to foreign nations who can bring things in by land. Never was there a more ridiculous argument. It is an advantage you cannot deprive them of.
  The Lord Chancellor has pointed out that we gain a great deal more by giving up this doctrine than any other nation. I will not dwell upon that point—that we shall be able to bring food without risk of the capture of the ships to neutral ports within a few miles of our shores. What does the Imperial Maritime League say about that? That it would be a "transparent evasion." What tender consciences these admirals have! Their consciences would not be quite so tender in time of war. It is what the Declaration of London contemplates. It is no more evasion for us to bring food from a neighbouring harbour into a British port than it is for Germany to bring food by rail from a Dutch port. I think our critics are hard up for arguments. Criticism has been raised upon the word "enemy" in this Article. I will not dwell upon that because my right hon. Friend has promised to get that matter settled by agreement. Another question has been raised by a number of distinguished lawyers touching the question of the Report of the Conference. In deference to their views I should like to put to the House exactly how the matter presents itself to the Government. The Report of the International Naval Conference was drawn up by M. Renault. It was then revised by a committee of all the Powers represented at the Conference, and it then became, not M. Renault's report, but the report of a Committee of the Conference. Then the Conference gave a whole sitting to consider the Report and they amended it. It was then accepted by the Conference. The President's declaration was, "This Report is accepted by this Conference." What does the Report itself say?—
  "We now reach the explanation of the Declaration itself, on which we shall try, by summarising the reports already approved by the Conference, to give an exact and uncontroversial commentary; this, when it has become an official commentary by receiving the approval of the Conference—"
  which it did—
  "may serve as a guide to the different authorities—administrative, military, and judicial—who may be called upon to apply it."
  The view of the Government, therefore, is that this is the official, authentic commentary, and if there is any ambiguity in the Articles naval authorities and Prize Courts will look to that commentary and see what the intention is. But as we do not think that this is a matter on which there will be any difference of opinion among the nations, I do not apprehend any difficulty in dealing with that point.
  I now come to a most important point, never mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday in his speech to the commercial classes, that of the free list. Not only is it a very substantial gain to us when neutrals, but it is even a more important gain when we are belligerents. Hitherto there has been no certainty whatever as to what articles a belligerent would declare contraband. It has been dependent upon caprice. Now, for the first time, the nations have agreed to place upon a free list articles which cannot be declared contraband. These include many of the most important materials of our industries. There is cotton —declared contraband in the past—which as a raw material furnishes employment for an enormous proportion of our industrial population. There is wool, so necessary to Yorkshire, and other raw materials of the textile industries, "and the yarns of the same"—metallic ores— a very important item—rubber, hides, and articles of that sort—articles required for agriculture, machinery for textile and agricultural operations, and all kinds of machinery not used in war, and many manufactured articles not used in war. The list is much too long to be read, but I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen that it is well worth considering. It is a list so important that it amounts to nearly a third of our whole foreign trade. In 1909 it was three hundred millions. It is something between three hundred and four hundred millions now. Nothing shows the irreconcilable manner in which certain critics approach this subject than the scoffing language employed in minimising the value of this list. The hon. and gallant Member for Evesham (Mr. Eyres-Monsell), in a pamphlet called "A Simple Explanation," says:—
  "We thus safeguarded the importation of goods we could do without."
  What do Lancashire and Yorkshire Members think of that? We could do very ill without the staple materials upon which millions of our workpeople have to depend. Take, for instance, cotton. The hon. and

  457
  learned Member says we have on an average six months' supplies of cotton. I do not know what hon. Members representing cotton manufacturers' constituencies have to say to that. It is a very astounding statement. The hon. and learned Member has mixed up the exceptional maximum with the normal state of affairs. I attach the very greatest importance to being able to maintain our commerce and to keep our workmen in employment. Those who remember the cotton famine in Lancashire in the time of peace can imagine what a cotton famine would be in a time of war. Here we have secured, as far as it can be secured in neutral vessels, the staple articles of our manufacture.
  HON. MEMBERS: How much comes in neutrals?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot tell. I have no official figures. I do not want to overstate my case. To maintain our commerce in time of war and to keep our industrial classes in work is a very high belligerent interest.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he distinguishes in his argument between neutrals and belligerent bottoms?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is why I put in the remark. I think nothing could be more unfortunate than that the case I am arguing should be put too high. I admit that the free list only deals with goods coming in neutral vessels. I put that in on purpose. I claim, before I leave this cart of the subject, that for shippers and underwriters and shipowners and commerce generally this agreement brings unmixed advantage, and that not one shipowner, underwriter, manufacturer, or merchant is injured; they gain by this free list and by the definition of contraband, and by the power of appeal from the belligerent Prize Court to the International Prize Court.
  I now come to other subjects, and first let me deal with the sinking of neutral prizes. The Declaration of London is condemned because we could not induce other people to prevent the sinking of neutral prizes. We have had a great deal of talk as if the Declaration of London created this situation, but that is only another example of the loose argument by which it is assailed. Have those critics forgotten what happened only seven years ago? Have foreigners never sunk neutrals? Russia sank eight or more. What was the position at the Conference? I ask the particular attention of the House to this.
  458
  The position at the Conference was that our view was upheld by two Powers, Japan and the Netherlands. The right to sink neutral prizes was upheld by Germany, the United States of America, Austria, Spain, France, Italy, Russia—seven Powers. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition stated in the City yesterday that:—
  "The general view of the civilised world, the view of the prize courts of the great maritime nations, the view of America, the view of England has always been violently opposed to this sinking of neutrals and this treatment of corn and foodstuffs destined for a civil population as contraband of war."
  We have dealt with food and we have dealt with the sinking of neutrals and with the existing state of international opinion. What possible justification is there for the statement that the Declaration of London has made matters worse? Hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that we have made it worse. They in their time had a chance of dealing with this matter. They had provocation, but they did not go to war. They were quite right. But they cannot argue now that they would have gone to war. They cannot argue that the thing would have been stopped by a protest of the great Powers. Here we find seven of the great Powers approving of the doctrine. We have succeeded in obtaining so many deterrent conditions in connection with the sinking of the neutral prizes that the representatives of the other Powers in their reports think there will be very few cases in the future. I should like to quote what our representatives say in their report to the Secretary of State. In their report of what happened at the Conference they say:—
  Mr. BALFOUR: Is that published?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes.
  "The delegates representing the Powers most determined in vindicating the right to destroy neutral prizes, declared that the combination of the rules now adopted respecting destruction and liability of ships, practically amounted in itself to a renunciation of the right in all but a few cases. We did not conceal the fact that this was the object at which we aimed."
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any record of the view of these delegates in the proceedings which are reported?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, I have taken that statement from the Blue Book.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I want to make it clear. This is a statement of the report by our delegates. I want to know is there anything in the record of the proceedings which records the view of these delegates themselves?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is, of course, the statement of the views they put forward about the sinking of prizes.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: Is there anything to that effect in the statements of the foreign delegates themselves?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot say that. But I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we are misinformed. I am prepared to take the report of our own delegates. I must say something now about the limitation of the right and the deterrents. First of all I ask the House to remember it is only a ship which in a Prize Court would be condemned as liable to capture, a ship of which more than half her cargo was contraband, which could be sunk under the special conditions of necessity. Carrying contraband which amounted to less than half the cargo would not render the ship liable to condemnation. Therefore, it is only a vessel that is the legal prize of the captor which can be destroyed and it must be remembered that the captor would be sinking his own property. He would only have to take her into port and reap his reward. And, as this is so, from the neutral owners' point of view the ship is lost whether she is taken into port or destroyed. Next, the captor must establish the fact that he is only acting in the face of exceptional necessity, or he must pay full compensation, and no examination will be made of the question whether the capture was valid. In the third place, the captor will always have to pay compensation for neutral goods which are not contraband. In the fourth place, the captor must place the crew and passengers in a place of safety, which will generally not be an easy condition. Therefore the Declaration, while not preventing altogether the destruction of ships carrying more than half a cargo of contraband, sets up very strong deterrents and makes destruction a very costly business indeed.
  I should like to say a word about the British practice. It was certainly the view of our Prize Courts that a plea of necessity, however strong, was not an answer to the neutral claim for compensation. But our judges admitted there were cases where sinking was a military necessity. Suppose a neutral carrying a cargo of arms or ammunition or a cargo of coal for the use of the enemy's fleet, which was close at hand. I think there is no captain. British or foreign, who would not think it his duty to sink that neutral. It is no use putting war rules higher than can be car-
  460
  ried out. That was very well stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester. In such a case in the past we should have paid compensation. Others Powers would not. In his judgment, in the case of the "Actæon," Lord Stowell said:—
  "Lastly, it has been said that Captain Capel could not spare men from his own ship to carry the captured vessel to a British port, and that he could not suffer her to go into Boston, where she would have furnished important information to the Americans. These are circumstances which may have afforded very good reasons for destroying the vessel, and may have made it a very meritorious act in Captain Capel so far as his own Government is concerned, but they furnish no reason why the American owner should be a sufferer. … I think, therefore, he is entitled to receive the fullest compensation."
  And he therefore gave compensation. Dr. Lushington also recognised that there was some cases where it might be of very grave importance to the public service of the captor's own State. The position of our judges was that even when destruction was justified by necessity, compensation should be paid to the neutral. Other nations do not admit that obligation. We gave, but did not receive. We were losers by our superior practice. Now we have equality. We are not in a worse, but we are in a stronger position to urge our views in future. As belligerents under these new rules as compared with our own doctrine we gain, but I do not wish to attach too much importance to that. As neutrals under the rules when compared with the doctrine and practice of most other nations, we gain. It is curious to have this provision attacked by people who attach importance only or chiefly to belligerent rights. I venture to say upon the question of the sinking of neutral prizes that, in view of the strong line taken by so many great Powers, and taking into account our interests as belligerents as well as neutrals, this is not an unreasonable compromise, and it makes greatly for the limitation of the practice.
  5.0 P.M.
  Now, as regards the subject of the conversion of merchant men on the high seas. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke as if this was an enormous new peril. It is neither enormous nor new. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York asked me a question on this subject the other day, and I said it was a matter involving such complex argument that it would be impossible to deal with it by a mere question and answer, but I promised to deal with it in this Debate. The right of conversion is not one that has ever been questioned. I met an admiral this week who was in command of a British merchantman con-

  461
  verted into a warship. As the House knows, the British Government has made provision for exercising that right in the case of certain ships. The only difference between us is that we say it ought to be done in port or in territorial waters and other nations say it may be clone upon the high seas. Other nations claim the right because we have many ports and they have few. There is no international law upon the subject, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot point to any decision of a British Prize Court on the matter. They cannot say it is a new thing. What we were asking for was a new rule. We thought it was in our interest and we pressed for it at the second Peace Conference and the Naval Conference. We could not persuade some of the great countries to agree to it; neither Germany, Austria, France, nor Russia would agree to it. We had to report that the attempt at agreement had failed and the matter remained open, and all the Powers maintained their old opinions.
  There was some agreement at the second Peace Conference on the subject. These converted vessels must be warships and bear the outward sign of warships. They must be immediately placed on the Navy List, and they must be commanded by commissioned officers, and must be under naval discipline. The question of conversion on the high seas remains open. It is quite incorrect to say that the Declaration of London legalises conversion on the high seas. It does not deal with it at all. With or without the declaration the Powers claiming the right may exercise it. What justification is there to rave about this as a new risk? We have not succeeded in establishing what we admit is a new rule for which we can point to no international sanction, no decision of our own Prize Courts. The Declaration of London has nothing to do with this question. But a different point has been raised. Does the creation of an International Prize Court alter the position? That was the real point of the hon. and learned Member for York's question. Might it not decide against our view? It might and it might not, but surely the most important question after all is our position as belligerents. We shall seize these converted merchantmen whether they are converted in port or upon the high seas just the same, and the Prize Court will have nothing to say to it. I may be told there will be a larger number
  462
  of them converted on the high seas. It is quite true there might be, but not a larger number than can be converted at present by the Powers that claim the right-to convert them. Converting merchantmen is a game we can all play at, and we far better than any other nation. What might happen? A neutral might be seized and the question might be taken to the International Prize Court. That is the hon. and learned Member's point. But a neutral might be seized now and what could we do? Protest—go to war. Go to war for what we cannot pretend is an international law at all. This applies to other nations. Other Powers who claim the right could not even protest.
  Supposing the matter is taken to the International Prize Court. It has been suggested that the declared understanding that it was an open question might induce the court to decline to adjudicate, and they would not deal with it. I do not rely upon that. I assume that they would adjudicate. Well, they might take our view. That is not at all improbable. At the Naval Conference the United States, Spain, Italy, Japan, and the Netherlands were on our side, and it might be that some of the other neutrals would take that view. We might establish our doctrine, but at the worst the court might take the opposite view. Is that sufficient ground for giving up the other advantages of the Declaration? Let me deal with this question a little in proportion. People have an idea that all the merchant ships of an enemy will be suddenly mounting guns and seizing our commerce on. the high seas. I cannot help thinking that it is only a very limited number of ships in any mercantile marine that will be fast enough to make it possible to convert them into warships. If they were slow ships they could not escape the first cruiser. They would have no defensive power, a broadside would sink any one of them, and they must trust to their heels. Therefore, it is only fast ships that will be converted, and the number of ships fast enough which it would pay to convert in. the mercantile marine of any of our opponents could be counted on the fingers of our hands. Surely we can watch them, or what is the use of the British Fleet? It would be our business to do that. I do not think it will be quite so easy as it looks in theory to convert merchantmen into warships on the high seas or to conceal the fact that when a ship is still in a neutral port she is not preparing for a commercial voyage but for something

  463
  very different. Our consuls would watch her, and if that became apparent we should take action and the neutral could not allow her to proceed. We have had trouble enough on that point ourselves. Unless she was fairly near a national port her career could soon be brought to a close by a British cruiser. This is not a new risk, and it is one that is enormously, grossly and senselessly exaggerated. Above all, if it is a risk to us it is ten times as much risk to anybody else.
  No one can study this controversy with an open mind without seeing that behind a vast mass of the opposition to these two agreements there is really a feeling of distrust and dislike of all international agreements on this subject. It is evident in the attacks upon the International Prize Court, in the appeal not to allow British Prize Court decisions to be reviewed by a court of foreigners, in the renewed attack on the Declaration of Paris, in the unreasoning tone of many of the arguments, often mutually destructive, which have been directed against these agreements. I think I have shown in instance after instance that the criticism of the Declaration has been based upon a complete ignoring of existing facts. It is condemned by comparison with a standard which never had any real existence. When we remember that this was the first attempt at an agreement upon many points upon which there were widely divergent views amongst the nations, that the delegates of the Powers had to reduce chaos into order; when we consider that each provision had to be weighed carefully from the conflicting points of view of belligerent rights, the rights of neutrals and the interests of each nation, then I think we may claim that the two Conventions represent a remarkable measure of agreement, a genuine and honest endeavour to create a code of naval law, and a real step in advance. In international agreements we must proceed step by step. To refuse an agreement which is a real advance because we do not regard it as perfect is to put an end to international conference. I believe these agreements, which chiefly deal with the rights of neutrals, will be of general benefit to the peaceful commerce of the world, and that as the greatest maritime nation we shall be the largest gainers.
  The British Government has, and accepts, the responsibility of having proposed the International Prize Court, and of
  464
  having called the Naval Conference of London. We did so in pursuit of a policy which we think right and wise, the policy of promoting international agreement, which we hope to carry to a higher and wider development. In these agreements our views on many important matters have been accepted. We, with the other great naval Powers, without one exception, have signed these agreements. The world is naturally looking to us to be the first to ratify them, because we are the Power which took the original initiative. If we, for no adequate reason, and there is no adequate reason, were to draw back now from those agreements so much of our own making, agreements so valuable to our peaceful commerce, how would the world interpret our action? Would they not say, "If Great Britain will have no agreement and will submit to no restriction in the interests of neutrals, then force is the only possible protection for our commerce. We must at all costs build more 'Dreadnoughts.'" The Navy Leagues of all nations would have an argument made to their hands. We need no longer talk about limiting armaments. The race for armaments which is already exhausting the nations must proceed. The burden which is weighing heavily upon industry must grow. If we were to draw back now we should arrest—no man can tell for how long—the progress of international agreement, from which in a wider sphere, not we only, but our kinsfolk in our own Dominions and in the great Republic across the Atlantic are now hoping great things for the progress and welfare of mankind.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: Any one who was in the House at the commencement of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which we have just listened who did not happen to be aware of what was the subject of the debate would have supposed that this was a mere party question which was under discussion. I really do not know why the right hon. Gentleman through many parts of his speech, and particularly in the opening part, thought it necessary to assume so aggressive a tone. I think I might venture to tell him that if the people of this country are to be satisfied that this Declaration ought to be ratified, they will not be satisfied by strong language, and what they want is something in the nature of reason. The right hon. Gentleman has devoted himself, as I shall show very largely, to answering arguments that never have been used by any

  465
  responsible opponents of this Convention. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Yes, by the Leader of the Opposition."] The right hon. Gentleman has used one most extraordinary argument which I hope on reflection he will think fit to withdraw. He said that the hostility to this Bill and to the Convention to which it is intended to give effect is based upon a dislike of all international agreements. I venture to say that a more unfounded charge was never made, and the right hon. Gentleman must be very poorly off for arguments when he has to back up his case by a statement of that kind. Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single speech by a single responsible Member of the Opposition taking up that line or justifying in the remotest degree the observation which he thought fit to make.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware that no responsible Member of the Opposition has made a speech upon this question until yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman has not correctly represented what I said. I said that behind the great mass of opposition to these agreements there is a feeling of distrust of all international agreements, and that is a statement well within the facts.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I entirely dispute that statement. The right hon. Gentleman confesses his inability to point to a single speech bearing out the statement he has made.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; I do not. The real leader of the opposition to the Declaration, who has written whole volumes on this subject, is the late Member for King's Lynn. What I said was that behind the vast mass of the opposition—I did not say the official Opposition here—to the Declaration there was this feeling of distrust of international agreements.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The only support for that charge is that the right hon. Gentleman says there is evidence of it in a book published by a supporter of the present Government.
  Mr. McKENNA: He never said that.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Towards the conclusion of his speech the right hon. Gentleman made an even more remarkable statement. He appealed to the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill on the ground that if they did not do so the race of armaments would go on. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe the passage of this Convention will stop that race in
  466
  armaments which we all deplore? It will not stop the race in armaments. It will deprive us of some of our most effective weapons, and it will deprive us of advantages which as things at present stand we enjoyed. I think the right hon. Gentleman made hardly a fair attack upon the Opposition in his reference to the Dominions and to the opinions which the representatives of the Dominions have expressed on this matter. He said: "We were called upon to consult the representatives of the Dominions." So you were, because it would have been a most extraordinary thing if a matter of this kind affecting all the parts of the British Empire had been carried through without taking the opinion of the representatives of the Dominions beyond the seas. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to attempt to use the fact that the representatives of the Dominions have acquiesced in the passage of this Convention as an argument why the House of Commons should consent. It would have been monstrous not to consult the Dominions, but it is monstrous to suggest that in a matter which affects us vitally and which affects us far more than it can affect any one of our Dominions, we should have our judgment biassed by the fact that the consent of the representatives of the Dominions has been given. The right hon. Gentleman was, to use his own phrase, trying to use the Dominions as pawns in the party game.
  I agree with one observation made by the right hon. Gentleman. This Declaration must be taken as a whole. Do we gain or do we lose under it, taken as a whole? I say we lose. Our gains are on comparatively small points, and are in, themselves slight. Our losses are on vital points, and may be of capital importance to this country. This ought not to be a party question at all. Surely, if ever there was a case when the House of Commons ought to have been invited to express its opinion free from the pressure of the party Whips, it is such a case as this. The Government have announced they do not intend to relax the pressure of the party Whips, but I think I may say the country will not be much influenced in its opinion by a vote in favour of the Convention obtained in such a way and from the composite alliance which supports the present Government. I hope it is not too late to ask the Government to depart from this attitude which they have so far assumed and to allow Members

  467
  on their own side of the House to give effect to the opinions which many of them entertain upon this point.
  The first matter to which I wish to direct attention is the question of the establishment of an international Prize Court. I cordially welcome the attempt to establish an international Prize Court. I have seen a good deal of the work of the Hague Tribunal. It has done most valuable work, but why is it the Hague Tribunal has done such service to the cause of peace? It is because the court has been well constituted. It has been composed of a comparatively few members—commonly five—and the members of that court have been jurists of the first repute, whose opinions commanded the confidence of Europe and of the world. Why is it the precedent afforded by the composition of the Hague Tribunal has been so widely departed from in the present case? We are creating a tribunal which is to determine the most important questions conceivable for this country, questions which arise as affecting neutrals, and questions which affect even an enemy's subjects if they are said to be acting in contravention of a treaty or of an Act of Parliament of their own country. We have in our country Prize Courts of unrivalled prestige and authority with a history behind them of which no other country can boast for its courts. We are proposing to subject those tribunals to an appeal to a court sitting abroad, and surely the very least thing that could be desired of a court that was to lay down the law which was to be binding upon the Privy Council and our other Prize Courts would be that it should be one of such composition as to command the confidence of this country and of all the countries who might have anything to do with it.
  I say the constitution of the International Prize Courts is thoroughly defective. Do hon. Members who have been asked to vote for this Declaration and for this Bill realise what that court is to be. It is to consist of fifteen members. Great Britain will have one member upon that court. There will be fourteen others. Seven of those others will be named by the United States, by Japan, and by four of the great Powers of Europe. That makes eight in all. Where are the other seven to come from, the other seven upon whose votes a question of vital importance to this country may turn? You have got some three dozen States. I will not read the names of all of them. There are the
  468
  smaller European Powers, of whom all that is to be said is that their interests are not comparable for one moment with those of Great Britain. Then you have a series of States—South American Republics. You have Bolivia, Chili, Columbia, Ecuador, Guatemala, and so on. I need not read the names. Hon. Members will find them in the schedule which contains the agreement for setting up this international Prize Court. The names are more eloquent than any observations can be. We are to have Haiti, Paraguay, Peru, Persia, Turkey, Roumania, Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela. I venture to say that to set up a court of this size, in which Great Britain is to have only one voice out of fifteen, and a court constituted in that way is a proposal so outrageous that it is almost incredible a responsible Government could make it. The interests of Great Britain far outweigh the interests of any other country. They are nearly as great in these matters as the interests of all the rest of the world put together, and we are to have one voice in fifteen—the fifteen made up in the way I have indicated.
  The truth is the promoters of this Convention seem to have fluctuated between the idea of a court and a sort of little Parliament to consist of delegates from all the States, big or little, that were parties to the Convention who were to represent the interests, real or supposed, of their country. Of course, these small States are to sit according to rota and in turn, but the vote of the State which is sitting for the time will have as much weight as the vote of Great Britain will have on questions which may vitally affect Great Britain, and one can see whether it is likely a tribunal so composed would command the confidence either of this country or of the world generally. A court of fifteen is far too large. It would not be effective as a court of justice. The experiment has been tried in the northern part of Great Britain itself, and no reform was ever more welcome than that which broke up so unwieldy a court. A court of that kind is pre-eminently unfitted to deal with what will be very largely questions of policy. Let us by all means have an international Prize Tribunal, but not this tribunal. Take the Hague Tribunal as your model, and, if you get an effective tribunal of that kind, I quite agree it is a great step in advance. When the court was first suggested it was proposed it should be left to make the law as it went

  469
  on, "very much in the rough," in the language of M. Renault, reporting on the subject; but, of course, it was very soon realised, and the voice of the country made itself heard upon it, that it would be a monstrous thing to leave any tribunal without guidance from a clear code as to the interests of this country. Our position is peculiar. The fleet is our only means of offence or defence. Our food comes by sea. We have only six weeks' supply in this country at any one time, and we have an enormous carrying trade. It was recognised that if the proposal for the International Prize Tribunal was to go on a code must be provided, and the Declaration of London was in consequence entered into. The first question is, how far does this so-called code cover the ground. So far as it does not deal with any matter, the Court is left to decide without any guidance whatever, according to its own ideas of equity and good conduct. It is left without any guidance whatever, and on any points on which the Declaration of London is silent we are committing our vital interests to the decision of a tribunal unfettered by any direction and at liberty to make the law as it pleases.
  There are three points, all of them important, on which it was found impossible to come to any agreement. The first related to the Rule of 1756 as affecting certain branches of trade carried on in time of war. The second related to the question of whether property in goods should be determined by nationality or by the domicile of the owner for the purposes of capture. I pass by these points, not because they are unimportant, but because their importance is dwarfed by the overwhelming importance of the third point on which no agreement was arrived at, and that is the right, to convert merchant vessels into men-of-war on the open sea. On this point there was an irreconcilable difference of opinion. A convention was drawn up dealing with the conversion of merchantmen into men-of-war. That convention consists almost entirely of mere platitudes. It was hardly worth while putting into a convention. The only important part of it is the preamble, and that recites that no agreement could be arrived at on what is the one and all important question. The preamble states that on the question of the conversion in time of war of merchant vessels into fighting ships the Powers have been unable to agree whether such conversion may take place on the high seas. That question is vital to us as belligerents. To what pur-
  470
  pose is it that we seal up the enemy's fleet in port? We know where the enemy's war vessels are, but if a merchantman may go to sea, and, on reaching a convenient point for preying upon our commerce, be declared by the captain to be a war vessel duly commissioned by the other belligerent and authorised to capture our merchant vessel, just imagine what havoc might be inflicted upon our trade under such circimstances. This vessel goes out under the disguise of a peaceful trading vessel, and then, at sea, proclaims herself to be a man-of-war. I suppose the same process may be gone through again, and, having done her business of destruction, she will be able to reconvert herself into a peaceful merchantman and seek her home again. I say that the first principle in these matters is that a vessel must abide by the character in which she leaves her own territory. That is obviously fair. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear."
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): That has always been the British view.
  Sir R. FINLAY: And the right hon. Gentleman admits its importance.
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.
  Sir R. FINLAY: It is overwhelmingly important. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke before me said, "Why, if it is a serious matter, two can play at that game, and we can convert our merchantment in the same way." But whose lines of trade is it that would stand to lose by such a practice?
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me a minute? I thought he was going to show how the Declaration of London affects this point.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Yes, I am going to show how the Declaration and this Bill and convention would affect it. I say that, as a matter of ordinary fairness, no vessel ought to be allowed, having quitted her own territory as a merchantman, to be converted on the high seas into a man-of-war, and no such vessel ought to be recognised as entitled to the privileges of a belligerent vessel. The Declaration affects this point by its absolute silence upon it—its absolute silence. The Foreign Office has told chambers of commerce and any members of the public who have chosen to inquire, that our position is not affected by what has been done. I say that that is a complete mistake; our

  471
  position is affected, and vitally affected, the instant such a conversion may take place on the high seas, because, if this Bill passes, and the convention scheduled to it becomes binding upon us, the question whether such a conversion may take place on the high seas will come to be determined by an international Prize Tribunal.
  Mr. McKENNA: Not as against us, if we are fighting. If we are belligerent, that question would not come to be decided by the tribunal as against us.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Not as belligerents, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, and this is an excellent specimen of the way in which the Foreign Office have dealt with this case in putting it before chambers of commerce and the public generally. Not as belligerents. In that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. But when the question comes before the international Prize Tribunal at the instance of a neutral, it may be that in that case in which a neutral is concerned and to which perhaps Great Britain is not a party at all, the decision of the international Prize Tribunal, according to their ideas of equity and good conscience, may be that such conversion may take place, and does the right hon. Gentleman in that case say that that decision would not prejudice our position?
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? He stated the case of a foreign merchant ship being converted at sea and, on the conversion, attacking our commerce. I ask him, how that is affected under the Declaration of London, and I would remind him that it would not be affected under any decision of an international Prize Court.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity of arguing this point when he speaks, but I may suggest this to him, that he entirely misses the point. If you have a series of decisions, or even only one decision, in which the international Prize Court, according to their ideas of equity and good conscience, hold that such conversion is lawful, shall we be in the same position for saying that it is intolerable and that the vessel is not entitled to the privilege? I hope I have made my point intelligible to the right hon. Gentleman, and I invite him to deal with it when he comes to speak. It may not affect us as
  472
  belligerents, but what will be our position should the question be decided adversely to us when the matter arises at the instance of neutrals. I venture to say the Foreign Office assumed a very serious responsibility indeed when it assured chambers of commerce, and notably the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, that on this point no change is made in the existing position. A change is made, and a change of the most vital character. This Declaration is silent on a point of capital importance, and we are left to the unguided views of this body of fifteen members, representing all the States, great and small, who were parties to the convention. I assert that the attitude which the Foreign Office took up and the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman assumed just now is a very good specimen of the facile optimism with which vital interests have been played with. The Foreign Office told the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, in another letter, that they were keenly alive to the importance of this question of the conversion of merchant vessels into ships of war on the high sea. They are keenly alive to it, but they show their keenness by leaving it to the unguided decision of this court of fifteen.
  I turn now from the consideration of what the Declaration of London itself does not contain and its consequences and disastrous effects, owing to the creation of the international Prize Court without any guide for dealing with so important a matter, and I turn to the question of what the Declaration does contain. I think I shall be able to satisfy the House, at any rate I hope to be able to do so, that the sins of commission by the Declaration are quite as serious as its sins of omission. There are two preliminary observations I shall ask leave to make. The first is that the preliminary provision of this Declaration of London is extraordinary in its terms. It runs:—
  "The signatory Powers are agreed that the rules contained in the following chapters correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles of international law."
  That statement is a very audacious one. To suggest that it has the consent of all is totally untrue. The changes on which the right hon. Gentleman has dilated may be good or they may be bad, but they are undoubtedly changes and changes of a very important character. The Convention begins by stating that the Powers are

  473
  agreed that what is contained in it represents the generally recognised rules of international law. I do not refer to this merely for the purpose of criticising the words, but I would point out it is a most unfounded statement, and I refer to it because of the vital bearing it has on the statement made the other day by the Prime Minister when he told the representatives of the Dominions that there was nothing in this Declaration which would prevent Great Britain from subsequently advocating modifications or changes. I say that this Declaration does throw a complete obstacle in the way of that. Suppose Great Britain comes forward, as the Prime Minister suggested, with a proposal for a change in the Declaration; or suppose that the twelve years of the Declaration have run out, and we desire to have another Declaration embodying vital changes. Might we not be told, and told with very great effect, "You have solemnly admitted by the Declaration of London that the rules which are embodied in it are in accordance with generally recognised principles." How could we then be prepared to argue that the rules were not in accordance with the principles of international law. I say that that initial statement is a most unfortunate and disastrous one, and it cuts the ground from under the Prime Minister when he states that we could at any time propose a modification or alteration of this Declaration.
  Another very important thing in this matter is in connection with Renault's report. We are told that that report is to be regarded as part of the agreement in accordance with the practice of foreign courts. I venture to say that there is a great deal of confusion, and that what has been said upon this subject is very ambiguous. The courts in some countries, unlike our own court, look at statements of this kind, made by the parties by whom the agreement has been entered into. But our own courts would only look at the agreement itself in order to see what the parties have agreed upon, and so far as I am aware, the court of no country would look at a report of this kind for the purpose of varying or contradicting the agreement into which the parties had entered. But that is what this report to some extent does. The report is, in at least one instance, in favour of a contradiction of the text. One article says a ship's papers are "to be conclusive evidence of the destination of the ship, unless the ship is out of her course." But the report, on this article, says that the
  474
  ship's papers are not conclusive if it is shown in other ways that the statements contained in them are untrue. There can be no contradiction more complete. The text says that the papers are conclusive, except in one case, and the commentary says that the papers are not conclusive at all, but can be shown to be untrue in other ways, and goes on to say actually that this is so obvious that it was unnecessary to mention it. All I can say is that if an article agreeing that the ship's papers are conclusive except in one case lets in proof that they are untrue in other cases, then words neither in the English nor the French language have any meaning whatever. I protest against such a slovenly proposal as that of incorporating this report with the agreement. If the parties are agreed to it let them put it into the agreement itself, but do not let them add to the agreement a general reference to a report and say that that is to be taken as containing other matters to which they are agreed. What is it that we have agreed to, and this leads me to turn to the substance of the Declaration.
  I desire to point out to this House that there are two points of capital importance on which we have made a complete and even abject surrender to the views of foreign Powers of those principles which have always been entertained in this country. The first relates to the question of contraband. The second to the destruction of neutral vessels. With regard to contraband a great deal was made by the right hon. Gentleman of the free list. I venture to say that the importance of that free list is vastly exaggerated. Are there any articles in that free list which it can be very reasonably anticipated could be declared by any Power to be contraband of war and apart from that there is the question of the proportion of the vessels neutral or British in which such articles that are mentioned in the free list are brought to this country. I say it is a very good thing to have a free list. I do not undervalue it but I say that for controversial purposes the Government have most undoubtedly magnified the importance of the introduction of that free list. The real importance of the question of contraband to us is in its bearing upon food supply. I need not enlarge upon the importance of that to this country. Our food supply in regard to the enormously greater part of it is sea-borne, and we have a very slender stock in store in this country. The Foreign Office says the question of contraband only affects

  475
  provisions if they come in neutral vessels, and 90 per cent. of the corn comes in British vessels, and only 10 per cent. in neutral vessels. I take that for the purposes of my observations from the Foreign Office. The proportion of provisions of other kinds coming in neutral vessels is very much greater, I believe some 30 per cent. But what I desire to point out is this, that the proportion of British and neutral vessels bringing food into this country in time of peace is no criterion whatever of the proportion in time of war, and I must say that I think that the Foreign Office has assumed a very serious responsibility when they take upon themselves to assure chambers of commerce, and through them the people of this country, that the matter was of little importance in view of the fact that 90 per cent. of our corn comes in British ships.
  What percentage would come in neutral vessels if we were at war, particularly if we were hard pressed. Everyone knows it would be enormously increased, and I most respectfully submit to this House that it is not right that the people of this country should be told that after all the matter was a very small one, because 90 per cent. of our corn comes in British vessels. The law of conditional contraband is perfectly clear. It has always been held in this country, it has always been held in the United States, and it has been laid down authoritatively that food is contraband only if it is for the army or the fleet, and is in consequence of that part of naval or military equipment. A very able writer on international law, Mr. Hall, says the opposite view is not arguable, and a right hon. Gentleman of considerable authority in these matters to whom hon. Gentlemen on the other side might be disposed to listen, Mr. Bryce, our ambassador at Washington, expressed himself on this subject on the 11th of August, 1904, in a Debate in the House in these terms:—
  "Food, by the genera] consent of nations, was not contraband of war unless it is clearly proved to be for military or naval purposes. In 1885 an attempt was made by France to treat rice as contraband of war. Lord Granville protested in the most energetic manner, and in point of fact rice never was treated as contraband of war."
  That authority is one which I think is amply borne out by a more extended view of the law on this point, into which on this occasion I do not intend of course to enter. But this I may say without fear of contradiction, that for more than 100 years there has never been an attempt to treat food as absolute contraband of war except on
  476
  two occasions. The first was that of France in 1885, and in that no seizures took place, and the question therefore never came up for adjudication. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a letter from Prince Bismarck to the Chamber of Commerce at Kiel on this point, but after all that letter does not profess to be a statement of law, and it is a statement in such terms as would justify any act in time of war. All that it comes to is this, that Prince Bismarck did not intend to interfere. He said that interference might do more mischief than it would do good, and I venture to say that it is perfectly impossible to treat that as a statement by Prince Bismarck that in the opinion of German lawyers food was properly treated as absolute contraband of war. The other case is the case of Russia in 1904 in the war with Japan, but that incident really tells against the Government advocates, because protests were made, and Russia withdrew from the position which she had assumed. She assented that provisions should be contraband only according to the use to which they were to be applied, and that was the doctrine for which Lord Lansdowne contended. The incident of Russia therefore is merely a case in which when an attempt was made by a great power to treat food as absolute contraband it found itself constrained to withdraw from that position, and it tells very much the other way.
  I said I would not go into the authorities at length, but may I be allowed to enter one word of protest against the manner in which the Foreign Office has dealt with this great question. They have laid down that we are exposed to the imminent danger of having food treated as absolute contraband. They have expressed themselves in terms which would lead the public to suppose that in the view of a great many Powers food was absolute contraband of war. I venture to say that in putting that forward the Foreign Office was very oblivious of its responsibilities. Have they ever recollected what use may subsequently be made of such a statement? They make that statement for the purpose as they think of securing a controversial triumph at the moment. But a statement of that kind ought not to be made except under a sense of the greatest responsibility and realising the prejudicial effect that it may afterwards have upon the position of this country. That ought not to be put forward as a move in the game of party which is being played on this particular part of the

  477
  subject. With regard to the statement of Prince Bismarck, which is relied upon by the right hon. Gentleman, it is perhaps a sufficient answer to say that Germany, in the views it submitted as a basis for arriving at an agreement, did not contend that food was absolute contraband. They said distinctly that food was conditional contraband.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman must not make that statement. Germany in her statement did put some kind of foods as absolute contraband.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir R. FINLAY: We are now upon corn. What is the use of leading us off the scent by saying that Germany said that tinned provisions were obviously of such a nature that they were intended for the use of troops. What we are dealing with is the supply of corn to this country in time of war and the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that no single Power with the qualified exception of France, treated food as otherwise than conditional contraband, and the question of whether it was contraband depended upon whether it was intended for the military or naval forces of the Empire. It is quite true that France, and France alone, did put in a clause which the right hon. Gentleman has read which did put forward the claim which was put forward in 1885, but the document, I think, was an old one, prepared not for the purpose of the Convention, and it contained the statement that food might, under certain circumstances, be declared to be absolute contraband of war. But France stood alone in the matter, and I put it to the House that entirely gets rid of the effect of the letter of Prince Bismarck, of which so much has been made here and in the country, and that we are face to face with this that with the general consent of the great majority of countries food is only conditional contraband. Then it is said that may be the law, but what security have you that it will not be contraband? In the case of corn I think we have a sanction, and a sanction of the most effective kind. Suppose that we were pressed in war and that we had partially or temporarily lost command of the seas, would there not be a great transfer of the carriage of corn to this country from British ships to American ships? It would be most profitable to the United States ships to bring corn over which would be selling at a very good price in this country and there would be a great transfer of that kind.
  478
  Will any hon. Gentleman say that any Power at war with us would be likely to provoke the displeasure of the United States by declaring that corn carried in a United States vessel to this country should be absolute contraband of war? Not only is the law on the matter clear, but it has behind it, so far as we are concerned, a sanction of the most effective kind, for happily I think we may dismiss the very idea of the possibility of war between this country and the United States as not within the range of practical politics, and as long as we are not at war with the United States we may depend upon it that no country however powerful would incur the displeasure and the possible hostility of such a Power as the United States by putting forward an unfounded claim to treat food brought to this country as contraband of war. If this Declaration were adopted the hands of the United States in this matter would be tied. If we ratify and the United States ratify, the United States would be bound, like ourselves, to the conditions which are contained in this Declaration, and when those conditions are looked at it will be found that we should not be very much better off, if at all, than if corn were declared to be absolute contraband of war. The Declaration on this point is a very good specimen of how it affects us on other points as well. It opens in a very promising way by conceding a general principle. Then comes an exception and we find that while we have been presented with a general principle the principle is eaten up by the exception which those taking a different view want. The 24th Article said food was conditional contraband. The 33rd Article said it might be seized if it was destined for the use of the armed forces or Government Departments of the enemy State. But Article 34, an innocent looking Clause, which seems to have passed with very little notice, under the guise of defining what are the circumstances which will raise the presumption of this fact, really gives away the whole position of this country. May I refer the House to its terms?
  "The destination referred to in Article 33 is presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities or to a contractor."
  That is, of course, a mistranslation. It ought to have been a dealer or trader.
  "Established in the enemy country who, as a matter of common knowledge,

  479
  supplies articles of this kind to the enemy. A similar presumption arises if the goods are consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy."
  If it is consigned to the enemy authorities, a cargo of wheat on its way to the Board of Trade, which in time of famine in this country owing to the war, was importing wheat for the relief of the civil population, might be seized. If it is consigned to a dealer who notoriously supplies the Government, there is not a corn dealer in a large way in this country who would not notoriously in time of war sometimes have contracts for the supply of the Government. If it is consigned to a fortified place, how many of our ports should we be content in time of war to leave unfortified? We should find it necessary to set them up, and if we set them up we should incur the penalty that the corn coming to that port was consigned to a fortified place or a place serving as a base for the armed forces, that is a base either of actual operations or a base of supply as is stated in the Report and as the words of the text clearly mean. The right hon. Gentleman offers us his own assurance that that was not so, and he referred us to the Lord Chancellor; but one part of the Lord Chancellor's observations he did not quote. The Lord Chancellor said he gave this as his opinion on which he did not entertain any real doubt. What the precise state of mind indicated by the phrase, "no real doubt," may be I do not quite know, but I should rather gather that some doubt had at times entered into the mind of anyone who used a phrase of that sort. When a man says, "I have no real doubt" it is really a sort of admission that he sometimes had twinges but has got rid of his doubt at the time that he speaks. The true rule is the English rule that the presumption only arose if the goods were consigned to a port of military or naval equipment, and under that it was decided in our courts, and it shows what the principle was, that Bordeaux was not such a port, although military or naval equipment went on there, but on the other hand Brest was, because the predominating character of the port is the test. But with the rules which are introduced by Article 34 a complete revolution is effected, a revolution almost as serious, I am not sure it is not quite as serious, as if food were declared to be absolute contraband.
  The Foreign Office argued in their correspondence with the chambers of commerce that the presumption after all was rebuttable, and gave the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce a sort of legal lecture upon presumptions of law and presumptions of fact. I am sure the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce were grateful to the Foreign Office for their law, but it did not touch the point on which the chambers of commerce were insisting. For all practical purposes, and there was not in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the faintest recognition of this fact, the real question is how will Article 34 be construed by the captains of the enemy's cruisers whose duty it is to intercept food supplies to this country, and how they would act under it. They would say "this is going to a port which beyond all question is fortified." It is true the right hon. Gentleman said the Convention did not mean that, but if it did not mean that why on earth did it say it? The captain of the cruiser would seize the cargo and would leave the lawyers to wrangle over it some years afterwards, by the time that this country had perhaps been starved into surrender. That is really the practical question with which we have to deal, and it is no use telling us that in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the words do not mean what they say. The terms of this Article 34 are so very wide that we have no security whatever.
  Then you must add to Article 34 two other considerations which make it really of overwhelming importance. The first is that we should have foreign Powers converting merchantmen into men-of-war on the high seas. We could not check that. We might endeavour to pursue them, but we could not seal them up as we could seal up the enemy's fleets consisting of men-of-war. We should be exposed at any moment to the danger of a converted cruiser of this kind, which had sailed as a merchantman appearing as a man-of-war, and putting in force the rigorous rules laid down by Article 34, which really would enable seizure in every case. More than that, by the rule with regard to the destruction of neutral vessels, that converted man-of-war would be able to sink the neutral vessel at its own discretion according to the Articles. Our position in this country if we were hard pressed, if we temporarily lost the command of the seas, would be most serious under the combined effect of these three provisions, and more than that, we should not be safe at all even if we retained the general command

  481
  of the sea, because we never could, however complete our command was, be secure against a merchantman appearing at a critical point, converting herself into a man-of-war and proceeding to seize and sink neutral vessels bringing corn into this country.
  On looking at the papers I found with very great surprise that Article 34 is not mentioned at all in the report to the Foreign Office of the British delegates. It seems to have escaped attention altogether. It is an innocent-looking Article about Rules of Evidence and Presumption, and it is not referred to, and, as far as I can find out, never formed the subject of discussion except upon two perfectly inferior points. One was the proposal to add the words "or of supply," which was admitted to be unnecessary, and the other was a subsidiary point with regard to the trader or dealer being resident in the enemy country. I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I have overlooked anything, but I cannot find that at the Conference there was any discussion. That is a very serious matter. Article 34 is the most important Article in the Convention from the point of view of this country, and it seems to have slipped through. The truth is that Article 34 is simply an adoption of the draft put forward by Germany. It will be found that the differences between the German draft and Article 34 are absolutely immaterial, and what we have done on this vital point of the most capital importance is simply to accept what was prescribed by Germany, and, as far as appears on the printed document, without having adequate discussion.
  The advocates of the Declaration had laid great stress on the fact that the doctrine of continuous voyage in the case of conditional contraband is put an end to. I think we gain very little by that abolition, and that some Continental countries gain a vast deal more. One advocate of the Declaration is reported to have said in another place that all that has to be done is to turn the vessel bringing corn to Havre round and take her over to England, where she might deliver the corn with perfect safety. That is a complete delusion. The real destination of the corn in that case would be England, and under Article 35 the vessel might be seized at any time. The statement is made very rashly, and I do not think any responsible Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite will defend it. All the corn taken
  482
  to that port, or to any other French port, would have to be transhipped. There are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who know the capacity of merchant vessels trading on the Atlantic better than I do, but I am told that these ports are unsuitable for the transhipping of the very large vessels in which corn is habitually brought to this country. It would be a very troublesome and a very expensive operation, and it would give us very slight advantage indeed. But what an enormous advantage does the abolition of conditional contraband give to Germany! The right hon. Gentleman has said that Germany may get her supplies by land. Of course she may, but sea carriage is a great deal cheaper, and under this abolition of conditional contraband on a continuous voyage, on which the right hon. Gentleman plumes himself as really having obtained a concession, Germany gains a great deal, because she can in a far cheaper way get corn brought in any amount to the Dutch and Belgian ports for the purpose of supplying her army than she can possibly do by rail.
  I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will controvert that proposition, and I say that this concession which he claims to have gained for this country is in point of gain to us absolutely nothing as compared with the gain to Germany. I need not dilate on the importance of this Article in the case of our being neutral. I am sorry to detain the House, but this is a matter which cannot be dealt with briefly. I pass on to the question of the destruction of neutral bottoms. I venture to say that on that question the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right in the way he stated the law in the instructions given to our delegates. The Foreign Secretary stated the law in a way which would have led one to hope that on this point we should stand firm. Russia had asked in 1907 for the right of destruction of neutral vessels and enemy vessels on the ground that she had very few ports except those at a great distance from the probable scene of operations, and that therefore it would put her, or any country similarly situated, at a disadvantage as compared with a country with any number of ports. Is that any reason for altering the law in a manner which is in itself unfair and improper according to the statement of the Foreign Secretary himself? I say it is no reason whatever. It is a sort of idea that there is to be an equal chance for both belligerents, and that the belligerent with a great many ports is to be brought into the
  same position as the belligerent which has very few ports, and that it may destroy a neutral prize. Surely the idea is somewhat preposterous. On this point on which we started with such fair prospects, judging by the declaration of the Foreign Secretary we have made, as I shall point out to the House, a complete surrender. The Foreign Office has adopted in terms the Russian proposal on this point—a proposal which we well knew was put forward on the ground that owing to the inconvenience of their ports being distant they wished to make it the practice to destroy a neutral prize.
  The completeness of the surrender we have made is apparent from the story. It begins with the statement of the law by the Foreign Secretary. Then you have the Russian proposal. What they wanted was that a neutral vessel should not be destroyed "except in a case where its preservation might compromise the safety of the vessel capturing, or the success of its operations." Then came the British instructions of 1st December, 1908, in which the Foreign Office begins to give way. These instructions say:—
  "an effort should be made to secure the adoption by the Conference of the view that inability to spare a prize crew, or the mere remoteness of a convenient national port, does not constitute a military necessity which would justify the sinking of a neutral prize."
  It shows a certain amount of simplicity to put forward that proposal. The whole reason of the Russian proposal was that she had few ports and that therefore she must have this extreme right to destroy neutral prizes because her ports are not within convenient reach. We put our proposal forward, and it was rejected. We submitted, and adopted in terms the Russian proposal without qualification. Words are added at the end about "the success of the operation in which it is engaged at the time," but these words make not the slightest difference, and the result is that we have abandoned the sound position which this country has always taken up, and we have adopted the ground which was put forward by Russia, who had explained what the reason was why she took the particular view which she advocated. It is said, "In vain is the net spread in sight of any bird." The Russian net was spread in sight of the Foreign Office, and all the same it came in.
  The Government say that they could not get any other agreement. I say better a thousand times no agreement at all than
  this. It gives up everything. Our proposal was rejected by the Conference, and the net result is that destruction may be effected where the safety of the captor of the vessel would be jeopardised by not destroying, or the success of the operations in which it is engaged at the time would be imperilled. I say that would entitle Russia in every case to destroy. The safety of a cruiser would be compromised if she had to take a prize to a distant port, or the success of the operations in which it is engaged would of course be imperilled. These operations are cutting up the commerce by which food is being brought to this country, and in every case, according to the rule proposed by Russia, and which we accepted, Russia and other Powers in a similar position would be entitled to say that the destruction of a neutral vessel is justified. My complaint is that this most unhappy Article legalises and makes usual and habitual that which has never been done except under circumstances of stringent necessity, as an act of military necessity, and subject to making compensation in every ease where done to the person injured. I do not deny that it might be done as an act of military necessity. I will not say that it would be always-wrong, for there are circumstances in which the belligerent feels it a moral duty to permit a wrong, subject to compensation being made afterwards. But these are strictly exceptional cases. What this Article does is to make the practice that which has never been recognised by us, but which has been advocated by Russia for the reasons I have given.
  I venture to say that there is no more vicious mode of reasoning than that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. He put the extreme case of a neutral vessel coming with a supply of arms or ammunition, when a battle was actually impending at sea between the forces of two belligerents. He said there would be no opportunity for carrying the vessel to port, and he asked: Would you not destroy that vessel as the neutral vessel would be then taking part in belligerent operations? But I protest against taking extreme cases of that or any other kind, and from them arguing, because destruction took place under circumstances therefore you are to make a rule of what has always been highly exceptional. The Government say that the Articles treat it as exceptional. Article 49 says it is exceptional. But the exception to the rule that neutral vessels

  485
  may not be destroyed is that it may be done in every case where the safety of the captor or the success of his operations would be imperilled if he abstained. The exception is absolutely eaten up by the rule, so far as desired by those who put this forward. Article 51, which refers to the exceptional necessity referred to in Article 49, does not carry it one bit further. We had an extraordinary argument from the right hon. Gentleman when he read an extract from the report of our delegate saying that the representatives of some foreign Power had assured him that cases of destruction under the Article as it stood would be extremely rare. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) asked whether there was any record in the Blue Book of that statement having been made by the representatives of foreign Powers.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the reference?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is on page 98. The words are:—
  "The delegates representing those Powers which have been most determined in vindicating the right to destroy neutral prizes, declared that the combination of the rules now adopted respecting' destruction and liability of the ship, practically amounted in itself to a renunciation of the right in all but a few cases."
  Sir R. FINLAY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of following what I am going to say.
  Mr. McKENNA: I assume the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to say that the report of our delegates misrepresents what was said by any foreign delegates.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I did not mean to say anything of the kind. But what I did say was that apparently there was no statement in that Blue Book of what was said by the representatives of these foreign Powers. We are offered this flimsy security in reference to the terms of the article which was drawn by Russia for the purpose which Russia admits in her claims to destroy under it. Then we are told that the representatives of foreign Powers say that it would be very rare indeed. There are no restrictions there to make it rare. It legalises in every case. If any attempt were made to put forward such an argument as that the representatives of foreign Powers would say: "We do not impugn your good faith for one moment in making that statement through your own Foreign Office, but you must have misunderstood us. Look at the article. It is as simple as
  486
  can be. We explained why we wanted it, and it is absurd on the strength or a misunderstanding by you of what was proposed in conversation to seek to qualify the terms of an article which is as plain as any article can be." There is one passage from an eminent Russian jurist on this very subject to which I would like to call the attention of the House. Monsieur de Martens, writing in 1887, after laying down rules as to the circumstances under which neutral vessels may be destroyed, in terms wider than we shall consent to as representing true international law goes on, that the distance of Russia's ports from scenes of naval operation often obliges Russia to sink her prizes, and he says:—
  "This measure of a general character will excite without doubt against our country a universal dissatisfaction,"
  (mécontente générale); and ho goes on:—
  "What the maritime law of all states considers as a means to which recourse must not be had except in the last extremity will necessarily transform itself for us into the normal rule."
  That is precisely what this article does. I had occasion when I was Law Officer to go very carefully into the views of jurists in different countries upon this point, and the result was that the English and the American authorities are unanimously against the right to sink a neutral vessel, and that there is no agreement amongst jurists of the Continent to the effect that they are generally in favour of it. Exceptions are found here and there, the views do not always accord, but it cannot be said that the jurists of the Continent are generally in favour of the destruction of neutral vessels. In fact, a very well known and very authoritative German, treating of this matter in his handbook of international law, uses an expression to which I call the attention of the House, because it has a great connection with some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in opening this Debate. What Dr. Goeffkin said in his book, which was published in 1889, was:—
  "the destruction of neutral ships can be allowed only in cases of extreme necessity, since this case is plainly distinguishable from the case of an enemy's ship where condemnation is certain, which necessity is to be admitted if the ship is no longer seaworthy or the captor is being pursued by a superior enemy"
  In face of that how can we be asked to assume that our position is so unfavourable as the Foreign Office for controversial purposes tried to make out? A French writer, M. Dispagnet, in his "International Law," published in 1889, speaking of the destruction of vessels, said:—
  "This distraction is allowed only for enemies' ships and not for neutral vessels in case they are sinking."

  487
  And surely it is perfectly reasonable in the case of neutral vessels that all they should be liable to is to be taken into port and condemned if the circumstances warrant. Destruction, as applied to neutral vessels, is for reasons which these authorities give an unjustifiable course. It is true that Russia destroyed our vessels at the time of the war with Japan, and we Hid not get compensation. Well, we did not think it worth our while in the case of these vessels to bring that extreme pressure on Russia which we might have brought to bear on her, but it would be a grave mistake to suppose that the pressure that we might bring to bear on any Power pursuing this practice habitually, if our hands were not tied down by the Declaration, would not have a most important effect. The truth is if we had got anything even in the nature of a compromise there would be something to be said for the Government, but we have got no compromise. We have got an unconditional surrender to the Russian view legalising this practice of the destruction of neutral vessels.
  The Foreign Office stated—and it is one of the complaints which I have to make against the correspondence conducted by them with chambers of commerce—in a letter of 13th October, 1910, with reference to the destruction of neutral vessels:—
  "the modifications introduced by the Declaration place this country in future in a more favourable position than it has hitherto been."
  There is not the slightest foundation, there is not even a colourable foundation for that statement. This country has given up everything, and has gained nothing whatever by way of compensation. I have concluded what I desire to say on these two points. There are many other points that I might deal with if I had not trespassed at inordinate length upon the time of the House. With regard to blockade I only say one word. The rule as to blockade is one which leaves an enormous deal to the discretion of the international Prize Court. It is provided that capture may take place only within the zone of operations of the blockading vessels. Then there is a subsequent Article with reference to continual pursuit. What is the zone of operations? On that point there is a long note which I have read with attention more than once, and which throws no light whatever on the question. It is a great deal longer than the Article, but it is not a bit more clear. It leaves the question as to what is the
  488
  zone of operation of a blockading vessel absolutely in the dark, and that point goes without any assistance whatever to the international Prize Court which is to decide a matter which may most vitally hamper the efficiency of our ships.
  Mr. McKENNA: How?
  Sir R. FINLAY: Because if the international Prize Court take a narrow view of the meaning of the term zone of operations our captures beyond that zone would be illegal. The right hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake that characterised his interruption about an hour ago. The decision with regard to the zone of operation may be given in any case which has arisen between neutrals. Once two countries are at war as belligerents they do not litigate before the international Prize Court. They litigate in another manner on their own account. But if the international Prize Court put a very limited meaning in cases coming before them at the instance of neutrals or of enemies, subjects in the cases provided for, then the hands of our cruisers would be tied, and we should be bound by the law as laid down by the international Prize Court. I hope that I have succeeded in making my point clear. It seems to me very clear. I hope that I am not unduly sanguine when I think that I may possibly have converted the right hon. Gentleman. Then what is to be done? It is said that we have gone so far that we ought to complete this matter. I think we have made a very grave blunder in going so far with this Declaration as we have, but I say that we have not gone so far that the matter cannot be set right, and I say that before this Convention is ratified it certainly ought to be inquired into much more than it has ever been yet.
  My own view is that the Convention is one that should not be ratified. But, of course, the test of examination is one which, if the Convention is a good one, it would survive in spite of my belief; but I say that to ratify this Convention without further examination would be an act involving the gravest responsibility on the part of the Foreign Office., a responsibility the full extent of which may not become manifest for many years, but which this House as trustee for the country, not only for the present generation, but for future generations, is bound to take into account before it gives its assent. Much better have no agreement at all. Our position is a pretty strong one at present. We have got the United States in agreement with us on, I think, almost every point, and

  489
  Japan, to a very large extent, is substantially in agreement. The idea seems to be that we should insist on having an agreement, a good agreement if possible, but better a bad agreement than none at all. Unless we can improve our position, let us remain as we are, relying upon our own strength and on the consent of those countries which take the same view as we do. We will never purchase safety by surrender. I am sorry to say that in my view the ratification of this Convention would be a national calamity of a grave character.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: In the first place I wish to express my very deep regret that His Majesty's Government have not afforded a free hand to the House of Commons. No question of Liberal principle is involved in this discussion. Liberal interests are no more affected than the interests of the Conservatives in this particular question. The National Council of the nation have finally to decide whether or not this agreement should be ratified. The right hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary of State in his speech, the ability of which I am glad to recognise, ridiculed the idea of referring this matter to a Royal Commission. The particular machinery which should be used for the investigation of the intricate matters involved might possibly not be most happily found in a Royal Commission. In the settlement of this treaty great points have been ignored. Certainly every other country was represented by some of the most distinguished men in science and in international law. We were represented—I do not speak, how could I? in terms of the slightest disparagement—by the very able Foreign Office officials, who represented and zealously represented, the interests of Great Britain in this matter. Four or five gentlemen in the Foreign Office, under the guidance and direction of the Foreign Secretary, settled a treaty which may have the most profound results, not only upon the commercial prosperity of this country, but even upon its national safety. Therefore I very respectfully venture to take exception to the vein of light irony with which the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs dismissed the question. I claim to speak on this question, though, with all due humility, because for very many years past I have made a study of international law, especially in relation to commerce, the matter being of the greatest interest to me. It is in that capacity, and in that
  490
  capacity alone, that I shall venture to lay before the House my objections to this proposal. Before dealing with the main grounds for my objections, I want, with due respect, to correct some very glaring inaccuracies into which the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs fell. He represented to this House that food supplies, and indeed all things ancipitis usus, has been in the facile discretion of foreign Powers. He said it was in the power, I hope I am not misquoting him, of foreign countries, a power which they had apparently freely exercised, to declare foodstuffs contraband of war. He vouched for that on authority which I believe never existed. He vouched for that on the authority of a no less distinguished publicist, as well as statesman, than the late Prince Bismarck.
  Throughout the whole history of international law, for at least more than two centuries, I think I may say since the time of Grotius, the right to seize articles of food, except under limited conditions, has been denied by every civilised country. Except with two or three glaringly historical exceptions it has never been exercised. In the Napoleonic wars, in the early part of last century, it was with the wildest extravagance asserted by France, and that assertion was met by an equally extravagant assertion by Great Britain. But neither country attempted to act upon it, and both shortly afterwards withdrew it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what was done by France in 1884 during their war with China. It is true that France asserted the right to stop vessels proceeding to Hong Kong, and they seized them with the rice which was on board. But that was not on the ground that rice was a food supply, but on the ground that rice was currency. Lord Granville, who was at that time the Foreign Minister, violently repudiated the right which was asserted. The matter never came before a Prize Court for consideration and judgment. The war came to an abrupt end during the course of negotiations, and with the exception of that isolated case of 1884, we have no juridical authority on the subject, and it may be stated it is the only modern instance, apart from the instance of the Russo-Japanese War, in which any country has ever asserted the right to seize neutral ships carrying foodstuffs, unless they were going to a place of military or naval equipment. That is incontestible. My right hon. Friend said Prince Bismarck justified that. It is true that Prince Bismarck was very glad to

  491
  see this war proceeding at that time on the part of France against China, because it distracted that Power as well as the attention of France from other affairs.
  It is perfectly true that Prince Bismarck, in an answer imputed to him, said it was not a matter in which he would interfere, and that each nation must be the judge of its own requirements, needs and aims. But within a few months of making that statement, in a letter—and this is what the right hon. Gentleman never told us—Prince Bismarck unconditionally withdrew every word he had written, and stated that the seizure of Saltpetre in ships was a breach of international law. Saltpetre, I suppose, is still a main component in the manufacture of military ammunition, and Prince Bismarck was of opinion that saltpetre should not be subject to seizure. I have corrected the right hon. Gentleman in a very grave error into which he apparently unwittingly fell, when laying this matter before the House. Von Bulow, the successor to Prince Bismarck, held precisely the same view as Prince Bismarck in his Hamburg letter, and affirmed that articles ancipitis usus should not be regarded as contraband unless the vessel were on its way to a place of naval or military equipment. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs referred to the sinking of ships, and he stated with great emphasis that the sinking of ships was asserted as a right by the great Continental Powers of Europe, and he gave us instances to show that the sinking of neutral ships had been a not uncommon practice in past days. I challenge my right hon. Friend, before the Russo-Japanese War, to produce a single case of a neutral ship having been sunk by a belligerent. He adverted to the American cases, and again my right hon. Friend was not accurate in what ho said. He quoted Lord Stowell in regard to the ships which were sunk, but those vessels were not neutral ships, they were hostile ships, and Lord Stowell went as far as any jurist in emphatically laying down, in awarding compensation for damages in those cases against the captors, that nothing justified the sinking of neutral, ships by belligerents. I will now deal very briefly with this proposal, absolutely, of course, from a non-party point of view, as the result of my reading and study of the historical part of this question.
  492
  7.0 P.M.
  I do not deny what the right hon. Gentleman emphasised in his peroration, that it is a great and noble idea to have an international Prize Court. It has been the dream of Continental jurists, and if you read, as I have, the pages of French, German writers, and Russian writers, you will find that all of them vividly express their great aspiration for an international Court of Appeal, by which they believe all international differences might be ultimately solved. Great Britain has all throughout the history of this question resolutely opposed the establishment of an international court; but now, for the first time in her history, as the result of the noble aspirations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, sanction is given to the establishment of an international court. As a humble lawyer who has given his attention to this subject, I take no exception to the establishment of an international court, if we had a good code of international law which represented the general usages and the general interests of maritime nations. The science of international law is still in a inchoate state. In the first place, it is the practice of particular nations; in the second place it becomes the usage of two or three nations, only after vicissitudes and the lapse of a considerable period of time does it ripen into the custom of the states concerned. You are endeavouring, by this Convention, to precipitate the end to which international lawyers look, and it is precipitated when you instruct your agents, recognising that a code is necessary, to enter upon the matter in a spirit of compromise. An international court of appeal is impossible, unless you have a code established which you can administer. Therefore you instructed Lord Desart and his very able colleagues to approach the solution of the sinking of neutral ships in a large spirit of compromise in acting on our behalf with respect to these matters. My objection to a court of international appeal is twofold. In the first place it arrests the hand of diplomacy. It may be that a belligerent country may be guilty of an act against neutrals which is not in consonance with the traditions and principles of maritime law, and at once, under present conditions, you have resort to diplomatic intervention. Diplomatic intervention may be useless, but I could quote various instances where representations made by the Government of the right

  493
  hon. Gentleman opposite were most effective. Now the aggrieved party will appeal in vain, because the Government will tell him this is a matter which has to be settled by the international court, and we should be violating our treaty and our convention if we diplomatically interfered. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that that must follow. There is another objection which I entertain to this international Court of Appeal. I will not refer to the fact that a gentleman from Guatemala is to be one of the judges who will compose this body, but what I do refer to is this, that the aggrieved ship owner or merchant in this country has, in the first place, to submit the matter to the decision of a municipal court of the belligerent country. If it decides against him he then has to carry his appeal to a foreign country before a tribunal which cannot speak his language and acting on rules of evidence totally dissimilar to those which we have. He has to employ foreign lawyers, he has to carry his witnesses over to that foreign port, he has to fight against a powerful Government, the Government against which he is appealing, and he has also this still greater and permanent disadvantage, that he is fighting for something which the genius of the law in his own country told him he was always right in asserting, but which the municipal law of foreign States of Europe would tell him he was wrong in asserting. Therefore, for those reasons I think that this is precipitate action, and although we lawyers do look forward some day to the establishment of an international court, you must have your international law in a more settled and fixed condition than it is at present, and it shall not be law manufactured by a spirit of compromise.
  The next exception that I have to take, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has answered this, is that in time of war, and I am now speaking of when we are belligerents, our position with regard to food supplies coming to this country is very much worse than it is under present custom law. I shall establish that point, I hope, to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends. What is the law, and let the right hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary correct me if I am not stating the law aright. When I speak of law it has no sanction except that of usage. It is a mere custom of law, but it has very powerful sanction. It has this powerful sanction that the common sense of Europe has justified the law, and justified it so far that it has never, except in one
  494
  or two extravagant cases, been violated. The law is that food stuffs, unless carried to a port of naval or military equipment, cannot be seized, I mean food stuffs in neutral vessels. That is absolutely unequivocal, and I think unanimously recognised to be the law of Europe.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think so.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has the misfortune to disagree not only with me but every jurist. I may refer him to Hall, and to any of the well-known American works, and ho will find in the pages of each of those works, categorically stated, that it has been the generally recognised law of, Europe and of America that food stuffs in neutral vessels are protected unless on their way to a port of naval or military equipment, or to the armed forces of the enemy. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his colleagues who may reply, to quote any passage which conflicts with the proposition which I lay down. What is the difference that the Convention makes? The difference the Convention makes, and I think anybody who is not a lawyer will appreciate the distinction in a moment, is this among others, but this great difference, it says, that if the food stuffs are going to a base, that is the word, in a neutral ship, they may be seized. We turn to find out what "base" means. There is a glossary or commentary attached to the Declaration by M. Renault, that is to be effective as the terms of the Declaration, according to the statements of the delegates and, I think, according to the statement of the Foreign Office. The commentary says "base" does not only mean base of nations, but means base of supplies. I really ask any hon. Gentleman, or right hon. Gentleman in this House, does he suppose that a naval commander representing a country at war with ourselves seeing a ship laden with provisions making its way to Hull or Bristol or Liverpool would not, in the interests of his country, at once feel it his duty to his country, in the interest of bringing the war to a successful conclusion, to lay hands upon that vessel, upon perhaps the unfounded ground that Hull or Bristol or Liverpool were bases of supplies for the armed forces of the enemy. I say that any naval commander who would fail to do that would be unworthy of being in the service of his country. Neutral States who may regard that as unjust would be silenced by being told that that is a

  495
  difficult question of international law which has to be decided, it may be some months hence, by the international tribunal. That, to my mind, appeals most strongly.
  I ask hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me to consider whether that Article does not involve a serious menace to, I will not say the absolute safety of our country, but at any rate to the security of our country to some extent, and to the security of our people in time of war. No doubt any interference with our food supplies would be even if they did not go so far as to involve famine, a very serious matter for this country. How was the matter met in the House of Lords? It was met in the House of Lords by this answer. Assume that you are right and that a naval commander would regard Hull or Liverpool or Bristol as a base of supply, What would be easier than to convey your goods to Havre and tranship them from there under the doctrine of continuous voyage to your own country? I have endeavoured to ascertain the opinion not only of people who are competent to speak of this question in my own country, but of those competent to speak in other countries. They referred me to M. Renault's explanatory clause which says the destination is not to be decided by the ship's papers, which is the good old customary rule, but that if there is fraud, and if the ship's papers are illusory, and if Havre is not the true destination, then the ship is liable to be seized. I can conceive that that is the view or many Continental jurists with whom I have communicated, and that any transferring of the goods first of all to a neutral ship at Havre and thence under convoy to Great Britain would be a wholly impossible proceeding. The last subject that I desire to refer to is the question of the destruction of neutral ships. I have already stated neutral ships have never hitherto been sunk until the Russo-Japanese War. The American cases were those of hostile ships, not neutral ships. In the Russo-Japanese War undoubtedly merchant ships were sunk. Lord Lansdowne made very energetic representations to the Russian Government on that. What did the Russian Government do? Did they assert the right? On the contrary, Count Larnsdorff wrote an apologetic letter saying it shall not occur again. For two years there was no recrudescence of that outrage, and then, I think it was towards the end of the war, in the year 1903, there was a further case, and again
  496
  representations were made by the Foreign Office, and again Count Lamsdorff wrote to say that again a mistake had been committed, and offered an apology.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Did they pay compensation?
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: It is not a question of compensation. The question is that we, the greatest civilised country in the world, are admitting and sanctioning the right to destroy neutral ships.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I thought the hon. Member said that Russia acknowledged that they had made a mistake.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: Certainly.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: And yet the hon. Member says they did not pay any compensation.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I know many people who have acknowledged mistakes and not paid compensation. What does this sinking of neutral ships mean? There are certain illusory words in the Convention to the effect that persons on board are to be conveyed to a place of safety. These are the conditions under which a naval commander may destroy a neutral ship. He may do so if he thinks his own ship would be in danger, or that the success of his operations would be imperilled if he did not do so. Assume that a commander met a passenger vessel on the high seas, and that that vessel afforded him some justification for overhauling and perhaps seizing it. Would not that naval commander say, "This vessel may convey communications to the enemy, or may even be seized by the enemy; to prevent that contingency I will at once put it out of existence." Would any international court hold that to be an invalid excuse if the commander, on his honour as a naval officer, stated that he believed that the interests of this country in the prosecution of their naval campaign would have been prejudiced if he had not caused the ship to be destroyed? My knowledge of the legal judgments of the Admiralty Courts of most countries, including our own, leads me to the conclusion that the judgment would be in favour of the naval commander. What about the people on board? They are to be conveyed to a place of safety. What is a place of safety? The people are to be placed in the narrow confines of a man-of-war! Their effects may be destroyed, and they are to be conveyed in that ship to a place of safety. But while being conveyed to a place of safety the vessel conveying:

  497
  them may be sunk. Yet we have committed ourselves to a principle which throughout our whole naval history we have persistently, continuously, and emphatically repudiated. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Does he assert that we have ever given countenance to the destruction of neutral ships? One of our greatest living international lawyers asserted that it was a practice unknown to civilised nations until Russia adopted it, and he declared that it was contrary to the elementary principles of civilised States.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Does the hon. Member suggest that it has ever been done by the British Navy?
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I suggest that the only cases were those during the French war which have been cited, and they were cases of American ships which were not neutral but hostile ships, trading under a licence. And be it observed, Lord Stowell, before whom those cases came for adjudication, absolutely condemned in costs and damages the man-of-war for not having taken those ships to a port.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: How does the hon. Member account for the fact that seven out of the ten powers at the Naval Conference claimed the right to sink such ships?
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I account for it very easily. This country has ports all over the world. We have facilities for conveying our prizes to ports in almost every sea. It would be a gratuitous act on our part to sink a ship. But military powers like Germany or Russia have very few ports in the seas in which no doubt they would endeavour to assert the principle. I thoroughly agree with the proposal made by Germany some years ago that private property at sea should be exempt. That apparently cannot be obtained, and it is not obtainable only through the action, right or wrong, of the British Foreign Office. The Under Secretary of State suggested that the other side of the House were opposed to all conventions, and he supported that assertion by citing the case of Mr. Thomas Bowles, who was a Member of this side. Do not let the hon. Member run away with the idea that we are opposed to conventions or treaties. I at least should be one with him in every effort to secure our ends by conventions upon proper lines. I have endeavoured with absolute fairness and with the
  498
  greatest respect to submit my objections to this Declaration. It is a very difficult position for a Liberal Member to be in, because we feel that pressure is being brought to bear, and properly so, as to which Lobby we should go into. But I would earnestly entreat the Foreign Secretary, I will not say to make this an open question, but that these articles, which have received criticism from far abler men than I, should be reviewed and another opportunity given to the House to express its opinion upon them.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words,
  "in view of the strong expression of independent expert opinion on the part of many important business and commercial bodies and of high naval authorities against the ratification of the Declaration of London, and in view of the fact that the Declaration, if ratified, will be binding on this country for at least twelve years, this House declines to proceed further with the Naval Prize Bill until the whole question has been submitted to and reported on by a commission of experts to be appointed for that purpose."
  It is seldom that there comes before this House a question of graver national importance, of greater complexity, and of a more entirely non-party character than that which we are considering to-night. The Government themselves have recognised the exceptional gravity of this measure. It is customary to ratify a convention such as the Declaration of London without consulting Parliament, but in this case the Government have recognised that so far-reaching an innovation as is contained in this code should not be foisted upon the country without the sanction of Parliament, and they have given a pledge to the House that they will not ratify the convention until Parliament has given its approval. Having given that pledge, the Government have adopted a most unfortunate course in refusing to allow an unbiassed expression of opinion on the part of the Members of this House. If ever there was a question before the House that required the free, instructed, and unbiassed opinion of Members it is the question we are asked to vote upon here. What are we asked to do? We are asked to pledge ourselves to two momentous decisions. We are asked, in the first place, to sanction a code of international maritime law, which code will be irrevocably

  499
  binding upon us for at least twelve years, which in many important respects is admittedly imperfect and incomplete, which is expressed in language almost studiously vague and ambiguous, and which in some vital points widely departs from those rules and regulations for which we have uniformly contended, both in our Prize Courts and in our diplomacy. We are asked, in the second place, to set up an international Prize Court to administer the code embodied in the Declaration, a court on which this country will have one member out of fifteen, on which our Dominions will not be represented at all, and of which the rest of the judges will be foreign jurists largely out of touch with the juridical conceptions both of this country and of the United States.
  When a proposal of that sort is made one would naturally expect that the Government making it would be supported by a vast and preponderating consensus of expert opinion. But how do they stand? On the one side you have the Government and their advisers of the Foreign Office. No one disputes their absolute sincerity, hut there is such a thing as pride of parentage, and I venture to think in this case that we have seen to-night the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs exhibiting a somewhat unduly favourable view of his progeny. What about other departments of the Government? Let me ask, and I should like to know before this Debate closes, were the Naval Lords of the Admiralty consulted in any way before this solemn Declaration was signed by our representatives in London? I suppose we shall hear later on whether they were. We have certainly not heard what their opinion is.
  It is said—I believe it was said in another place—that the Board of Admiralty was consulted at some stage or other—I do not know what. But in a matter of this sort, essentially a naval question, essentially a question for experts both naval and others, would it not be right and proper that we should have the advantage of knowing what the views of the naval experts of the Government were, views which up till now have been sedulously withheld? There is no difficulty about any of the opinions of the experts of the Foreign Office—not at all! Though I wish to treat this as a non-controversial and non-party matter, I do say that as we have heard the opinions of the Foreign Office, would it not be right, when this House is asked to take a step of such a momentous
  500
  importance, that we should also know the views of the expert advisers of the Admiralty. I wish to admit to the fullest extent what support the Government have in this matter. They have some—not very much—external support; some jurists of acknowledged eminence; and, of course, they have had the advantage of getting the acquiescence of the majority of the Colonial Premiers. I do not wish to say one word as to the position of the Colonial Premiers. We have not got a full report before us of the proceedings of that Conference. We do not know by what arguments they were guided, or what arguments the Foreign Office used, and it would be premature, and I also think discourteous, on our part to venture to criticise those arguments until we are in full possession of them. We do know this, that two representatives of Australia were instructed to come to that Conference for the express purpose of showing the grave danger to this country of some of the provisions of this Declaration. The Premier and another delegate from Australia did attend the Imperial Conference and give solid grounds for their objections, which I venture to think were never adequately answered, and which they never withdrew.
  Those are the opposing forces on the one side. What are on the other? I do not think I use the language of exaggeration when I say that on the other side there is an almost unexampled consensus of independent expert opinion deeply, strongly opposed to this Declaration—the opinion not of this or that class, but of almost of every class concerned. We have naval, business, commercial, shipping opinion manifested in an almost and unusual manner against it. We have the opinion of jurists of the highest eminence, including such a man as I know my right hon. Friend would be glad to recognise as one of the most prominent in his class, Professor Holland. I am not going to enumerate the forces which are drawn up against the Government, but it is well to remind this House and the public that you have against this Declaration the chambers of commerce of almost every maritime and business centre in this country; the Chambers of Commerce of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, Ply-mouth, Portsmouth, Sunderland, Swansea, and Belfast. Can any other occasion be brought up by the right hon. Gentleman or any one who follows—where there was such an absolute consensus, not of party men—for this is a matter of the business life of the country. Those concerned have

  501
  given their opinion, not as party men, but as men of practical business experience and common sense. Can any other occasion be brought up in the history of modern times, when Government proposals were opposed by this enormously strong opposition on the part of the business community, and where the Government yet persisted in going on in the face of that Opposition? But I have not enumerated all or anything like all against it.
  I spoke of chambers of commerce. This Declaration is also opposed by the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, the shipowners of the great ports of Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leith, Liverpool, and also the shipowners of Manchester and the North of England. There is one class I have not yet mentioned; that is the class to whose opinion above all we ought to pay respect to. I refer to naval opinion. No less than 157 admirals have put their signature to a strong protest and condemnation. Let us remember that these men represent that Service that when others are sitting in their armchairs will have to fight for the protection of the ships on which our fate will depend. In that state of things I venture to put down my Motion, and to ask the House not to give a definite opinion on the present occasion either in condemnation of the Government or in affirmation of the views of those who oppose the Government. I ask the House to suspend its judgment until we have clearer and fuller information. This I venture to think, can only be obtained by a commission of experts drawn from all classes whose opinion is valuable, including the opinion of our own self-governing Colonies. I do not suggest that this Commission is to deprive this House of the exercise of the opinion of its Members. I think that would a shameless abnegation of our responsibility. That Commission will be asked to advise. It rests with us to decide.
  We have not, at any rate at the present moment, the means of forming an opinion upon this matter of great difficulty and complexity. Will any hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House tell me that ho is so entirely and absolutely acquainted with every detail of this controversy that no facts, no argument, can be brought forward that would affect his judgment? After all, in a question of this sort, the assertion of infallibility is nothing but a confession of incompetence. Therefore I think we are entitled as Members possess-
  502
  ing responsibility in this matter to this House and to the country, to ask that the final decision shall be deferred until we have that fresh light and that fresh knowledge which we can get from such a Commission. What can be said against it? One argument has been suggested. I think it is a bad one. It is that there has been a considerable delay already, and that a further delay would be useless. In answer to that is it not fair to say that delay could not be possibly harmful? If you delay this decision for six months you do not destroy the Declaration of London. You do not abandon your right to ratify it if you like. On the other hand delay might be exceedingly valuable in saving us from disaster. In a case of this sort better, I think, six months of delay, with the certainty of a reasoned verdict, than an immediate judgment with the possibility of national disaster. It would hardly be right for me to urge this view upon the House, and to point out the undeniable existence of this vast body of opinion opposed to the Government without pointing out also that that opinion, that these objections, are founded upon solid grounds.
  In view of the speeches which have been already delivered I think I shall be able to shorten my observations, but I shall endeavour to point out some unanswerable objections, as I think, to the ratification of this Declaration. I will not touch upon the question of the composition of the Prize Court. It has been touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, but it is obvious that grave objections can be taken to it. I propose to confine my observations to the code contained in the Declaration of London. The first observation I make about that code is that it is almost studiously vague in its terms; so vague is it that the Government themselves tell us that it cannot be understood without calling in the aid of the general report of the Drafting Committee, M. Renault's report. I am bound to say that the attitude of the Government towards M. Renault's report has been one of a somewhat singular character. We were told in the first place earlier in the Session that this report without any further international Convention must necessarily be read into, and be regarded as an authoritive exposition of, the Declaration of London. That is what I was told by the Under-Secretary. Eminent jurists controverted that view. At the Imperial

  503
  Conference the other day the Foreign Secretary said he would not ratify the Declaration except with the stipulation that this Report of M. Renault must be treated as an authoritative exposition of the Declaration. I want the House to consider whether it is right that that Report should be regarded as an authoritative exposition of the Declaration. Upon that authorities of the highest character fundamently differ. Let me tell the House what Mr. Arthur Cohen says in a lecture delivered at University College:—
  "The Declaration, unless supplemented by M. Renault's report, is vague, defective and incomplete."
  Then he goes on:—
  "It would be unsafe to ratify the Declaration until the report is in some way embodied in the Declaration and made binding on the international Prize Court."
  What is the view of another great legal authority, Professor Holland? In an address to the British Academy he says:—
  "It would be calamitous should a practice be introduced of attempting to cure the imperfect expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally authoritative reasoned commentary…. It would be obscurum per obscurius, a remedy worse than the disease."
  Is not this a matter upon which we should have further light? Which of these two eminent Gentlemen is right and which is wrong? It is in that state of things that this House is asked to say that the ratification will be entirely satisfactory, and that we must express immediate approval.
  The vital question for us is this: How are our foodstuffs, in time of war, brought in neutral ships likely to be affected by this Declaration? The right hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, spoke of the effect of the Declaration when we were neutral. I think a good many defects of this Declaration are to be found in the fact that the Government approached this question far too much from the point of view of our position when we were neutrals and far too little from the point of view of the position we should be in when we were belligerents. Many of the defects of this Declaration are due to that fact. The right hon. Gentleman claimed many advantages from it when we were neutrals. I do not admit them. I think it would probably be found, as many persons of capacity believe, that even when we are neutral we should be worse off. But supposing the right hon. Gentleman was able to prove conclusively, as he attempted to do, that there were other advantages in this Declaration, I say if it had but this one fatal defect of seriously
  504
  injuring our food supplies in time of war, then this House should refuse its ratification.
  There are three points of view of great importance as to the effect upon our foodstuffs. First, there are the express provisions of the Declaration as to contraband, second, the express provisions as to the sinking of neutral ships; and, third, the silence of the Declaration as to the converting of merchantmen into war ships on the high seas. As to the matter of contraband, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, it is most important for us to ascertain clearly what our position at present is, as to the supply of foodstuffs carried in neutral vessels. I think my hon. Friend who has spoken has laid down the law with absolute clearness, when he said that the general modern practice of nations for a hundred years has been to treat food, not as contraband, liable to seizure in any circumstance, but as conditional contraband liable to seizure only when it is proved to be intended for the armed force of the enemy. We have the opinion of one Under-Secretary to-night; let me read the opinion of another Liberal Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a man whose authority as a jurist and a statesman none of us would dispute. I refer to the right hon. James Bryce. He said from his place in this House on 11th August, 1904:
  "Food by the general consent of the nations was not contraband unless it was clearly proved to be intended for military or naval purposes."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the accuracy of the statement of Mr. Bryce. It has gone unchallenged in the House of Commons until to-day, and not a single jurist or any one else has challenged it until it was challenged by the Undersecretary this afternoon.
  The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs called me to task for some passages in a pamphlet which I wrote upon this subject. Since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech I had the opportunity of refreshing my memory. I looked at what I had written, and I adhere to every syllable I uttered. I called attention in the clearest terms I could command to the fact that two attempts only were made in modern times in which other nations had claimed the right to treat food as absolute contraband. I pointed out that the claims had broken down, and that food had not been treated in modern times as absolute contraband. What is the fact? The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question in this House some time ago, said that there had not been one single case in

  505
  the last thirty or forty years in which food was condemned as absolute contraband. As regards the case of France in 1885, that was dealt with by my hon. Friend who preceded me; and as regards the case of Russia in 1904, that precedent shows that although Russia did claim the right to treat food as an absolute contraband, the United States and ourselves protested, and that claim was not proceeded with. That being the state of the case without the Declaration, how do we stand with the Declaration? As already pointed out, you find in the Declaration, not merely an invitation to a hostile commander, but a justification for a commander to capture every cargo of foodstuffs coming in neutral ships to this country. All he has to say is, "This ship is destined for Bristol, Liverpool, Newcastle, or elsewhere, which must be a base of supply for the Army, and I would fail in my duty to my country if I failed to capture it."
  The Lord Chancellor said the word base of supply meant a port which was actually a magazine for war or actually a place of equipment for war. What an unfortunate thing that the Lord Chancellor was not consulted before this Declaration was signed, so that we might have some clear and distinct words which might have prevented this deplorable result. The words of the Declaration are as wide as they could be. Perhaps it might be interesting to know what view a German distinguished officer takes as to the meaning of "base of supply." Let me quote the opinion of General Baron von Gotz in a book ho wrote on the conduct of war. He says:—
  "In Western Europe, the dense network of railways allows of reinforcements and supplies being brought up in a few days from the most remote parts of the country. It even obviates the necessity of restricting the base to one district, the whole area of the country becoming the base."
  That is the German view, and it is also the view taken by General von Kammerer. He says that owing to railways the meaning of the word "base" has been altered. To Germany and the Continental Powers the provisions of the Declaration in this respect matter not. These countries are largely self-supporting. To us this matter of sea-borne food is a matter of life and death. We produce only about one-fifth of the food supply we want ourselves; the rest is brought to us by the sea. Food supplies are borne into this country at the appalling rate of £484 per minute. Anything which would materially stop this food supply in time of war would be ruin. Let us not be
  506
  told that neutral ships will not be valuable in bringing in food supply. Let us grant that the proportion of food brought in neutral ships is only 10 to 15 per cent. of the total amount now. Is it not certain that when war broke out and our own ships carrying our own goods were liable to capture, Declaration or no Declaration, we should necessarily have to rely to a far larger degree upon neutral ships, perhaps to the extent of 30 or 40 per cent., and it is this source of supply which under the terms of the Declaration you are going to destroy.
  8.0 P.M.
  One word about the sinking of neutral ships. Capture is not the only risk which neutral vessels carrying foodstuffs would be subject to under this Declaration. It is equally and absolutely certain that almost every foreign commander would be invited and justified under this Declaration, not only in capturing, but in sinking every neutral ship carrying a cargo of food to this country. What has been our practice in the past? We have the words of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the instructions he wrote to Sir Edward Fry at The Hague, and he lays down very clearly what our practice is. He said:—
  "Concerning the right to destroy captured neutral vessels, the view hitherto taken by the greater naval Powers has been that in the event of its being impossible to bring in any vessel for adjudication, she must be released…The British Prize Courts have held that to be the law for at least one hundred years."
  That is the view which we say is the view of the greater nations. How do we propose to deal with that by the Declaration of London? Whenever a foreign hostile commander comes across a neutral vessel carrying food to this country, he may be afraid that putting on a prize crew would interfere with the success of his operations and under Article 49, and he would say, "I can sink you if the success of my operation is likely to be interfered with by putting on a prize crew." And sink that ship undoubtedly he would. I would like to know whether Admiral Slade, our distinguished representative at the Naval Conference, has altered his view. He spoke in strong terms against sanctioning any words in this Declaration which would allow a hostile commander to urge such excuses for sinking a neutral prize, as that he could not spare a prize crew. He said it would be disastrous. Does ho hold that opinion still? Is it not obvious that under the terms of this Declaration the mere inability to spare a prize crew would be held to be ample justification for sinking neutral ships? Let the House remember that, though in the interest of

  507
  our possible foreign enemy Article 49 of this Declaration would be of no use to ourselves, because whereas our foreign enemies could say "we have not a port handy to take ships to for adjudication, and in consequence it would interfere with the success of our operations to take the ship there and therefore we would sink that ship," in our case, with our many ports all over the sea, we would not have that excuse, and we would be bound to take the ship for adjudication to a port. There is only one other question in connection with this Declaration that I wish to refer to and that is the conversion of merchantmen to warships on the high seas. It is true that there is no recognised international law on the subject, and the Government have told us over and over again that although the Declaration is silent upon this point we are no worse off than we were before. I have heard that argument several times. I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether that is the view of the Government.
  Mr. McKENNA: As belligerents.
  Mr. BUTCHER: That is an entire misapprehension, because if the Prize Court is set up this is one of the very questions it will have to deal with, namely, the question of the legality of the conversion of merchantmen to warships on the high seas. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said that under the terms of the Bill we should be no worse off in this respect than we were before. This is a question which the international Prize Court will have to deal with, and how? It will have to deal with it according to the principles of justice. In this matter, instead of having our hands free and being able to protest and bring every pressure in our power against any Power that asserts this right to convert merchantmen on the high seas into warships, we shall have our hands tied, and we shall be able to utter no protest or take any retaliatory steps when at war because this question has to be left to the decision of the new court. No wonder that the German newspapers have been expressing their unconcealed delight at the prospects of the speedy ratification of this Declaration.
  The "Cologne Gazette" said the other day that there appeared to be no doubt that this Declaration would shortly be ratified, owing to the great party majority commanded by the Government. I think I have now given some reasons for thinking
  508
  that there are grave objections to the immediate ratification of this Declaration, which will involve us when we are belligerents in serious peril in regard to our food supply, both in regard to what the Declaration contains as well as what it does not contain. I think I have made out a case for asking for further information before the House comes to a final and irrevocable decision. The Prime Minister said the other day that he would feel it his duty to carry the Second Reading of this Bill by the aid of a purely party vote. It is unfortunate, strange, and I would almost say unworthy that the Prime Minister does not find it possible to trust his followers on a matter of such great and vital national importance. I hope that even before this Debate comes to a close there will be an alteration in that decision. Be that as it may, I hope and desire that the House, in coming to a decision upon a question of such great and vital moment to us, may act not as an assembly composed of sects or of parties, but as the representatives of a united people, animated by one common desire to act in the best interests of their country as a whole.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I rise to second the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for York. I do so thoroughly alive to the danger involved in regard to the establishment of an international Prize Court if this Motion should be passed. I am a believer in the international Prize Court, but not in the Declaration. No one who has had to deal with shipping during the wars of the past twenty-five years can deny that in certain cases there are benefits obtained for our shipping by this Declaration, but the evils which it recognises and legalises are far greater than the benefits. If our representatives at the Conference had been able to carry out the instructions of the Foreign Secretary there would have been comparatively few objections to the Declaration, but the concessions which they found themselves obliged to agree to in order to get unanimity have made the Declaration of London extremely dangerous to those of us who look at this question from a mercantile point of view. After the speech of the learned Gentleman in the House to-day I feel it may perhaps seem rather strange that I, who am not a lawyer, should address the House on this question, but I do so as a merchant who has dealt with shipping, who has to deal with it, and who knows the dangers we have to contend against.

  509
  My first objection to the Declaration of London is in regard to vessels carrying foodstuffs, which I regard as a vital matter. If I were shipping grain from America and I found that the English market was requiring grain, and that the price was good, I should naturally endeavour to ship it over to England. The first thing I should do if England was at war would be to take legal advice as to whether there were blockades in force, and ascertain whether the grain I was going to ship was contraband or not. I expect I should be told that under the Declaration of London foodstuffs going to any fortified port or to any place that might be the base for the supply of the armed forces of England would be contraband, and that would make grain contraband. If I asked what was a base, very likely I should be told that we had no real authority as to what a base is, but if we take a foreign authority who has carried weight in Europe, if we consider what Jomini said in his "Précis 1'Art dc la Guerre," in 1838, we shall find that he describes the base of operations as
  "a place from which a force, naval or military, draws its resources and reinforcements, that from which it sots forth an offensive expedition and in which it finds refuge at need."
  We know that here in England, with the vast railway system we have got, there is no port in England that would not be used to supply our armed forces. Therefore grain would be contraband, and I think I may say that this is the first time that grain has been recognised as contraband unless going to a port either beseiged or blockaded, or intended for the service of the enemy. One case in which a country tried to starve another country into submission was our own case in 1795, when that celebrated Order in Council was issued instructing British cruisers to capture all vessels going into any French port that had food supplies on board. Our captains captured some, but what was the result? The United States complained that it was not legal, and the matter was left to a mixed commission, and that commission decided that it was not legal, and England had to pay not only for the value of the goods, but also for the loss of market and detention. The second case was the one referred to in the House this afternoon, when France, in her war with China, declared that any rice going to any port north of Canton should be considered as contraband. What was the result? Lord Granville, the Liberal Foreign Minister, promptly issued a proclamation to the effect that no decision of a Prize Court
  510
  carrying out such a doctrine would be recognised by England, and the result was that it was not carried out.
  We are told that we need not worry as to whether grain is going to be contraband or not, because we shall always have the command of the sea, and we shall be able to bring it in. But there is a great difference between bringing in contraband stuff and bringing in stuff that is not contraband. If I were shipping grain from America I should have great difficulty in the first place in getting a ship that would take contraband, and in the second place I should want to get a fast ship, which, of course, means an expensive ship. I should have to pay a war premium, and if one judges from what was paid during the Russo-Japanese war the amount would be from 25 to 30 guineas per cent., or about one-fourth the value of the steamer. In addition, you would have to pay war risk on your cargo. If, on the other hand, grain was not made contraband of war coming into England, the war issues would be very trifling, and something like 2s. 6d. per cent, would cover the risk of vessels carrying stuff not contraband. This was the case after the British protest had been made against the Russian Government seizing and sinking neutral vessels.
  The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs this afternoon suggested that if we were perhaps losing something in connection with our foodstuffs we were gaining a great deal by having a free list and by knowing that we could bring in raw material for our factories, and so find work for our people. I cannot sec that there is anything very great in having this free list if we are belligerents, because if our Navy is strong enough to bring in our foodstuffs it will be strong enough to bring in our raw materials. Cotton has been referred to in this respect, but. I think the only case of cotton being considered contraband was in 1861, during the Civil War in America, when the Confederate Government applied this rule to all the cotton grown in the Southern States, and assumed the cotton in the South as Government property, and used it as the means of obtaining money by which to carry on the war. As Government property it was, of course, liable to capture. I feel this is the most dangerous point of the whole of this Declaration, because, whether we retain the command of the seas or not, the Declaration must hit us. If we retain it, we bring in contraband at an enormously high price which would make the

  511
  cost of food to the working men of England so high that few would be able to buy it. If, on the other hand, we do not retain the command of the seas—and, unfortunately, as we all know, in many great wars in the past we have failed at the commencement to hold our own, and it might be we might lose control of the seas for the moment—no contraband could come into England, and, if it did not, we should be face to face with a famine and starvation, and England might be brought to her knees and have to agree to terms that an enemy might impose upon her.
  The second point on which I wish to say a few words is the question of the sinking of ships. It is difficult to understand how we can ever agree to that article. It has always been recognised that property in the ship never passes to the captor until he has brought it into port and it has been adjudicated upon and a decree of condemnation passed by a competent court. We were told America was in favour of the sinking of ships. She may be in favour of it, but it is not what she did during the Spanish war. The ships captured were brought into port, but they were not allowed to stay in the hands of the men who brought them in. They had to be handed over pending the decision of the court, as to whose property they were. Under the present arrangements a ship can be sunk at sea before it is known whose property it is. I suppose, because we have allowed things to happen in the past, it is thought we will agree to anything. If we go back to 1872, we find a German general undertook to sink six British merchant ships in the Seine. He told the captains of them, after they had discharged their cargoes, that he would pay the value of the ships. The captains said: "No." The general then said it is a breach of neutrality, and undertook to fire upon those ships, some people say, while there were British sailors on board, and to sink them in order to prevent French gun-running up the river. The matter was tested, and Prince Bismarck, in defending the proceedings at Duclair, said:—
  "I maintain the measure in question, however exceptional in its nature, did not overstep the bounds of international war-like usage, because the report shows that a pressing danger was at hand, and every other means of meeting it was wanting. The case was, therefore, one of necessity, which, even in time of peace, may render the employment or destruction of foreign property admissible under the reservation of indemnification."
  512
  It seems, therefore, they could take what they like and pay for it. If I was sending a British ship out to the East laden with cotton goods and agricultural machinery and we were a neutral Power, a belligerent would seize that ship, and, if he thought it was likely it would give information to his enemy, he could sink it. All we could do would be to go into the Prize Court, and, if we were not satisfied with its decision go on to the international court. Then all the captain has to do is to prove he illegally sank the ship, and no question can be raised as to whether it was legal or not to seize it. No punishment is to be meted out to a captain of a foreign man-of-war who seizes and sinks an innocent neutral except that he is to pay the cost of the neutral.
  Mr. McKENNA: How does that differ from the present practice?
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: It is not usual for civilised countries to sink innocent neutral ships which are not carrying contraband.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has just given a case in which innocent ships were sunk.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I gave the case of 1872, when England failed to take the opportunity which she ought to have taken. That is the only case on record. Generally speaking, no country will sink an innocent vessel she captures at sea unless there is contraband on board, and not even then, without compensation. The third and last point on which I wish to say something is the conversion of these steamers when at sea into men-of-war. In olden days, it was supposed you could always tell the difference between a merchant ship and a man-of-war. You could tell them what could be used for warlike purposes, but to-day many liners are so adaptable that they can be turned at very short notice into men-of-war. The American Government during the war with Spain acquired the "St. Louis," "St. Paul," "New York," and other vessels and turned them into cruisers. Therefore, when you get these big liners out thousands of miles from their native country, it will be very hard for people when they call at outlying ports for coal and supplies to say whether they are merely supplying an ordinary mail steamer or a wolf in sheep's clothing. It seems a great pity we could not hold out persistently that no vessel should be converted into a man-of-war unless it is converted at a home port and sails from that home port as a man-of-war with the

  513
  necessary flag. I am not looking at this matter at all from a. political or party point of view. I merely look upon it as one who has had to deal with shipping and who believes this Declaration of London will be extremely bad not only for the trade of England, but also for the food of our people. I have been told that we, having 50 per cent, of the carrying trade of the world, America could not supply us in their own ships in case of war. But anyone who says that can hardly realise what America can do, because if America wants to send grain over here she will get the ships, and if England should be at war and should be getting worsted I rather think one of the very first things America would do would be to purchase the necessary vessels so as to secure the trade of England. She will do it very quickly indeed. I saw how it was done during the Spanish War. An Act of Congress was passed enabling foreign ships to be bought, and an Act of Congress might be passed to-morrow to enable America to buy more foreign ships in order to carry goods. If I am right in my contention that this is bad for our country, I cannot believe that this House will be willing to agree to any arrangement which might not only diminish our power but might paralyse our energies at the very moment when it might be most necessary for the independence of our country and the security of our Empire that those powers should be exercised to their utmost extent.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: This House, I am sure, has been very interested in the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, not from the point of view of a lawyer. Practically, except for the opening speech, lawyers have monopolised this debate, and we wanted very much to hear the opinion of the ship owners and the shippers. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for having cited the instance of the sinking of English ships by the Germans in 1871 without the payment of any compensation.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Compensation was paid.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: At any rate the example quoted is an extremely interesting one and has an important bearing on this discussion. This Amendment is intended to postpone not only this discussion but the ratification of the Declaration of London. I hope the House will not, for an instant, entertain such a suggestion. As the hon. Member who last
  514
  spoke truly observed, the question has already been thoroughly thrashed out this afternoon, and I predict that during the rest of to-day's sitting as well as to-morrow the speakers will simply be obliged to repeat in other words what the ingenuity of lawyers and others may suggest the facts and counteracts which have been brought forward this afternoon. It has come to this pass. There is the lunge, the guard, and the ripost. The fact is neither side is going to acknowledge a hit, and they are simply going to repeat during the next few days what has already been said this afternoon. I should like first to congratulate, very sincerely, the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, who opened this Debate, and who put the case so fully, so clearly, and so convincingly that, from our point of view, he has left very little for us to say.
  I will only answer something which fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, who deprecated very strongly the introduction of party politics into this question. Is he not a little late in the day with that protest? Do not we all know what happened last December. Do we not know the little articles asserting that the Declaration of London was a sword for Unionists to wield? Do we not remember how our constituencies were flooded with pamphlets suggesting that if the Declaration were ratified it would condemn the people of this country to be fed like monkeys on nuts? It surely is a little late to declare that this is not a party question after such a weapon has been used. The fact is that weapon has been proved to be blunt and useless. It is to be thrown away and another plan to be adopted. I do not think we are very likely to be readily convinced of the sincerity of such a manœuvre. I should like to say one or two words in reply to what fell from the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) in the very dignified, but, if I may say so, very didactic manner wherein he laid down certain dicta, and proved the point no doubt to his own satisfaction by serious misquotation. First of all he told us that food had never been admitted to be contraband by any jurists at all. I think he said that that line had been fixed for 200 years. He was interrupted by the Under-Secretary, and he replied that the point had not been disputed by jurists. I should like to say that Sir Edward Fry, who, I suppose, will be admitted to have some claim to be a jurist, declared at the Hague Con-

  515
  ference, "that the international law of today is hardly anything but a chaos of opinion often contradictory of the decisions of National Courts based on national law." That I think, is the true state of the case. It is absolutely certain that there is no finality, no general agreement as to what is international law. One can easily see that, if one wanted to, simply by analysing the controversies which have been going on in the newspapers and by the extraordinary pamphleteering energy which has been displayed. Even at the present moment in this House of Commons there is not anything like a common agreement as to whether food is contraband absolute or conditional or not, and another point upon which there is no real decision is whether ships can be sunk at sea or not legally. Of course on this last point there is no decision in any British Court which has ever gone to confirm the idea that ships cannot be sunk at sea. You may even go further and say it is exactly the reverse of that, and that it has always been laid down that ships may in case of necessity be sunk at sea, but in every single case compensation must be paid. On those two questions alone the House will see what a difference of opinion there is as to what is international law. Leaving the lawyers, I should like to come to the shippers, who are the actual people interested in this question, and I should like to quote the resolution passed by the Liverpool Steamship Owners Association in 1904. It runs as follows:—
  "That, in consequence of the uncertainty existing among British merchants, shipowners, and underwriters as to what is contraband, the position is most detrimental to the interests of the country and the Empire. Therefore, this association begs to impress upon his Majesty's Government the vital necessity of an immediate and satisfactory settlement of the question of what is and what is not contraband."
  That is in 1904. And yet we are told here that the law has been fixed and has been perfectly well known for a couple of centuries that food cannot be considered contraband of war. The hon. Member for York and the hon. Member for Durham tried to confute the well known instance of 1885. There we know that France declared rice contraband of war. Lord Granville protested against it, and Prince Bismarck when asked pointedly, officially by the Kiel Chamber of Commerce his opinion on this subject, gave an answer which is very well known that he upheld—it came to that in effect—that he upheld the position of France on the ground, of
  516
  course, that if you increase the difficulties of the enemy you naturally shorten the duration of the war. The hon. Member for Durham has tried to get out of that by saying that this statement was withdrawn by Prince Bismarck. Prince Bismarck never withdrew this statement at all. What Prince Bismarck said was simply this, that in a specially given case—saltpetre—to that extent it was not to be considered contraband of war. But this is the important point of misquotation, quite unconscious, I am sure, by the hon. Member for Durham. He said that Count von. Bulow supported the position that this opinion of Prince Bismarck had been withdrawn. I want to give exactly the very words used by Prince von Bulow in the Reichstag. They are these:—
  "Contraband of war is a matter of dispute, and with the single exception of arms and ammunition is determined as a rule with reference to the special circumstances of each case."
  That is the exact quotation, which was not intentionally garbled, of course, but it did give a wrong impression to this House. I happened to have a controversy with Lord Desborough at the time about this very matter, so I remember it. The point was this, did the prince say what he was alleged to say in so many words or not? As a matter of fact, Lord Desborough rather reversed the ordinary order of things. He argued first of all that what Prince Bismarck said was never the view of the German Government, and after that he argued that it was withdrawn. I was quite easily able to show by chapter and verse that he was wrong on both points. This, of course, is a comparatively small matter, but its special bearing is this, that Lord Desborough, by his personal influence, did actually quite sincerely make a misstatement, and so helped or induced the Associated Chambers of Commerce to pass a vote against the Declaration. That is especially the point I wanted to make on that matter.
  I agree with every word of Sir Edward Fry. I agree that the Declaration clears up what is a perfect chaos at present of international law, and I believe it does give us a way out of that chaos, and it does that without diminishing in scope or weakening in application any single belligerent right. I believe it does give the shippers and shipowners what is the utmost which can be come to as an international agreement on maritime law by all the Powers, and, therefore, it lets them know what they may do in time of war, and in regard to

  517
  neutral vessels tells them what rights have generally been agreed upon that they may exercise; and if these rights are infringed it gives them a right to compensation. I contend that this is a very important matter indeed. It has been mentioned to-day that there are certain matters which have not been provided for in the Declaration. That is quite true, and one of these is the transformation of merchant ships at sea into warships. It has a theoretical and practical aspect. Theoretically, of course, we are all in favour of merchant ships only being converted into warships in the territorial waters of the Power whose flag they fly. That is very natural for us, because we have territorial waters and ports and coaling stations all over the world. Naturally and theoretically also, we can reasonably understand that Germany would take exactly the opposite point of view. She has very little territorial water in Europe, and out of Europe little or no territorial water, no ports, and also no coaling stations. Obviously, therefore, there was a conflict of opinion there. We very properly sought to maintain a position of enormous advantage. Of course, we should have taken up the same attitude as Germany if we had been in her position.
  There is another aspect of the case. Practically we do not know, for instance, what the international court will decide. I myself am of opinion—I think the First Lord of the Admiralty does not agree with this point—that this is a question which will have to be left to the international Prize Court to decide, whether a merchant ship can legally be turned into a warship on the high seas or not. The world is against us on this point, and we know that if we are at war to-morrow any Power could exercise this right. While we are bound by our own declarations and assertions we are debarred from exercising it, therefore we are in a position of inequality. Obviously if the court were to decide in our favour—I suppose theoretically we should say that suited us—but if it decides against us we are in no worse a position than we are at present. In fact we stand to win, and we cannot lose. That is not altogether an unsatisfactory position. Then we possess in merchant ships fit to be converted into war vessels twenty times as many as any other nation in the world, and, secondly the number of ships belonging to a foreign Power which are capable of being converted in this way into war ships is necessarily very limited. I am not going to ask the First Lord to divulge any secrets, but I am quite certain that every
  518
  single one of these ships must be known to the Admiralty if the Admiralty is worth its salt. In the case of war breaking out, would you attach a cruiser to each ship? You might, but much better not. Why not equip your own commerce destroyers, your own swift liners, and set them to follow and shadow and hunt these special vessels? At present, of course, supposing these vessels came in contact with several of our own liners in mid-ocean under our rule, we should say "No; we cannot capture these liners because they are more than three miles from home." So I contend that if the court were to decide against us, or if we felt it was going to decide against us, the proper plan would be for us to accept our opponents' position. I am sure in that way the great number of vessels that we should have—three or four to one if you like—would easily be able to surround a vessel coming out in the hope some day of converting herself and then, at a given moment, I suppose our commerce destroyers in perspective would throw aside their merchantman manners and, after a time, no doubt, thank God for their meeting. That seems to show either way that we have an advantage. Were the position theoretically in our favour in the international Prize Court, that is an advantage too, but if it were otherwise we should still easily hold our own and play that game very successfully indeed. The other questions of nationality and domicile need not be discussed. They are very interesting, but as a test of inequality perhaps one need not go into them very fully. The Conference appointed a committee to deal with this matter, and they were equally divided, and obviously the question may be very well left to the international Prize Court.
  I should like now to revert to the question of contraband of war and food supply and the doctrine of continuous voyage. Is it or is it not a matter of great moment to us that this doctrine of continuous voyage should not be applied to conditional contraband? I do not think it is at all. Of course, everything connected with the food supply of this country depends entirely and solely upon ourselves—whether we are to be starved or put to great inconvenience in war time. Everything depends upon whether we have a sufficiently powerful fleet. It is no use at all to tell us that if we temporarily lost the command of the sea this doctrine would be detrimental to us. If we temporarily lose the command of the sea we are doomed. There is no question of that at all. Our life, our

  519
  commerce, which is the vitality of our blood, and the integrity of our shores, which means freedom for every one of us, are absolutely dependent upon the strength of our Navy, and that is a point which hon. Gentlemen opposite have to remember. We must have a sufficiently powerful Navy to be able to permit all British ships to enter our ports without molestation. Comparatively speaking, neutral vessels do not count. It has been explained that 10 per cent. of the food and raw materials brought into this country is brought in by foreign ships, but that seems to be rather an exaggeration. Probably 95 per cent. of the whole imports of food and raw material are brought into this country by British ships. It is sometimes attempted to be proved in a curious way that we may ourselves retain command of the sea and yet, at the same time, cruisers may be able to cut off neutral ships coming to our ports without interfering to any great extent with British ships similarly engaged, which, if they were interfered with to any great extent, would force us at once to surrender because we should be starved out. That is so illogical that one cannot attempt to deal with it. It is perfectly hopeless.
  How does this doctrine of continuous voyage affect us adversely? What is the present position? Supposing we were at war with Germany to-morrow, and we blockaded her North Sea ports, she would get supplies through the neutral ports of France, Belgium, and Holland, without any difficulty. How does that affect us? She gets her supplies all right, and we might perhaps refer to the instance of Rotterdam particularly where she could certainly get them with much more ease and less expense than anywhere else What is the result there? They are transhipped. All the frontier railways are blocked. We know what the state of war is on a frontier with trains full of men, supplies and armaments, and all the traffic congested. You know really what a very poor chance Germany would have of potting supplies from there. What supplies she did get would be enormously increased in price. There would be the breaking of bulk, the handling, the rehandling, and the sending off. All that would cause such an enormous cost in the total that her industries would be quite starved, and, of course, the getting of food would be quite out of the question because the cost would be so great. What would be the difference
  520
  to us? At the present moment all our food could be stopped by any Power with which we might be at war if that Power were strong enough to drive our fleet off the sea. The amount of the imports to this country in these neutral ships in the way of food or war material is quite trivial. They would go into French, Belgian, or Dutch ports, and the goods could be very easily brought over here at very much cheaper rates than similar imports could be taken into Germany. I think there is no doubt at all on that subject.
  The only other question which was raised in the Debate was that in relation to the sinking of ships at sea. It is always assumed that the law is that we must not sink a neutral ship at sea. But there is no decision by any English court in the least bearing upon that. In all the cases which have been quoted to-day—the judgments of Lord Stowell and Dr. Lushington—the only thing they say is that if a ship is sunk at sea, then compensation must be paid. That is the only point with which they deal. Well, how do we stand at present? Supposing the Declaration of London is not ratified, we are precisely in that position with other nations. As we know by the memorandum sent in, we are at liberty to sink neutral ships, but because of our statements, and the assertions made by our Press, and so forth, we have not that authority. We have cast it aside, and deprived ourselves of it, and therefore we are in the awkward position that others may sink neutral ships, but we must not do it. I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh University (Sir R. Finlay). He said that extreme cases must not be taken as precedents in law. In the case of a ship with food for an enemy being seized, of course we could sink that ship, but although, according to the Declaration of London—and it is almost a paradox—there is permission given to sink the ship, I do not know how it is to be done. That ship must be trying to break the blockade, or be resisting the legitimate right of search, or have more than half of its cargo contraband.
  9.0 P.M.
  But then there is the other provision that the crew is to be placed in a place of safety. As the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, a warship going into action would hardly be considered a place of safety, and consequently the commander of that ship must charter a ship to take the captive crew on board. Otherwise he

  521
  could never sink the ship at all. I warmly support the ratification of the Declaration of London. I am quite certain that, although it may not load at present or in the immediate future to any diminution of armaments or any diminution of the terrible outlay on ships of war which now has to be borne by the people of the world; still it cannot have the opposite effect, and in time we may hope that it will lead to some general perception, which will be admitted by people generally of the value of arbitration. That is a very great and important step in advance, and I believe the ratification of the Declaration of London is a very important step in the history of the evolution of international law.
  Mr. CAWLEY: I agree with the view advocated by many exponents of the Declaration of London that this should not be a party question. I could have wished that it was a question from which the Government Whips could have been kept apart. I do not think anybody in the House can quote a single instance where a Bill of this magnitude brought in by the Government of the day, and for which the Government of the day was responsible, has not had the Government Whips telling. I believe that under the present system anything else is inconceivable, but I cannot see why because the party Whips are telling it should be made a party question. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly free to vote for the Bill in spite of the fact that the Government Whips are telling. I presume that the Opposition Whips will not be put on. In the case of a Bill of this magnitude if any Member on either side of the House holds the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) that this Declaration is fraught with danger to the country as a whole, I am sure he will not vote for the Government tomorrow night against the convictions which he holds. I am perfectly certain that the Government need have no fear of the result if every hon. Member in this House will give expression by his vote tomorrow night to his reasoned convictions.
  I admit freely that a large amount of opposition has been worked up against this Bill and against its corollary the Declaration of London. I know the way in which that opposition has been worked up. I know it in my own Division. The late hon. Member for King's Lynn went down to a dinner of the chamber of commerce and harangued them upon the subject. There was nobody to take the
  522
  opposite point of view with anything like the knowledge or ability of Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles. That I believe happened all over the country. It was the opponents of the Declaration of London who agitated, and by their agitation creating a false impression, managed to get a certain amount of support from chambers of commerce in this country. A short time ago one of the main reasons given for opposition to the Declaration of London was that the Colonies had not been consulted. That has now been dropped. To-day we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh University (Sir R. Finlay) a most extraordinary argument upon this point. He said it was perfectly right that they should be consulted, but having been consulted, no notice should be taken of their opinion. I believe that the actual words used were that this House should not be biased in any degree by what they said. What is the use of consulting the Colonies if you are not going to be biased in any degree by what they say? Now we are asked to consult a Royal Commission. I wonder would the same thing be said after the Royal Commission has been consulted?
  Surely if we are not going to be biased in any degree by the opinion of our Colonies we ought not to be biased by the opinion of a Royal Commission. If that report is against the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman we shall be asked to consult some further body, and if we consult that body we are not to be biased by their view. What is the basis of this demand for a Royal Commission? I have not heard to-day the suggestion of any kind of information which is lacking at present which has not been brought forward and which a Royal Commission might bring forward for the consideration of this House. It is about two years since the Declaration of London was first signed. During these two years a strong agitation against it has been going forward. Very clever men who felt strongly on the question have been putting their views before the country. I should like to know what are the kind of views, and what is the kind of information which it is suggested that a Royal Commission might furnish to this House? We have heard none. I admit that a large amount of opposition has been worked up against this measure. I believe that it has been mainly worked up by showing people the kind of thing that might happen under the Declaration of London. It has been shown, over and over again, by

  523
  opponents of the proposal that if the Declaration of London were in force war would be horrible. But war would be horrible if the Declaration of London were not in force. That argument was brought forward in that form yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. He presented to his audience a lengthy argument, occupying about a column of the "Morning Post," in which I read it, in which he pointed out the awful horrors that would result if this country were involved in war, and if the Declaration of London were in force. There is not a single item in the catalogue of horrors which could not happen as easily and would not happen as certainly if the Declaration were not ratified.
  It might be said, and has been said by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that considerable changes are made by the Declaration of London. It is said that food as conditional contraband will more easily and more certainly be stopped by belligerents who are at war with us. I would point out that at the present time conditional contraband is liable to capture which is shown to be destined for the use of armed forces or a Government Department. That is the rule as stated in the declaration of London. There is another rule in the Declaration of London, but that is a mere rule of evidence, and does not operate until the question comes before the Courts. The rule, and the the only rule, under the Declaration of London is that only those things can be condemned as conditional contraband, and liable to capture which are shown to be destined for the use of armed forces or a Government Department. That is the rule at present, and I would point out that no fewer than three hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have been speaking to-day in contrasting the present rule with the rule under the Declaration have stated this as the existing rule, and have stated as the rule under the Declaration, this, plus the rules of evidence which decide when things are to be presumed to be conditional contraband. But such rules exist at the present time, and it is not fair to state in one case the rule plus the further rules of evidence and in the other case to omit the further rules of evidence. The rules of evidence in the present case were stated to-day by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh University, to be that consignment to a port of naval or military equipment creates a presumption of contraband, and if in the one case you are
  524
  to take that presumption you must take it in the other. It was stated by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that a naval captain who captures a prize might well say "this is a warlike base."
  Surely the same thing applies at the present day. The naval captain might say that the particular port was a port of naval or military equipment. Take for instance the town of Manchester, which is the market for provisions for the towns in South Lancashire and probably about the most important market for provisions in the world. In time of war Manchester provides a brigade for the Territorial Forces. Would it not be possible for a naval captain to say that Manchester was busy mobilising a brigade of infantry and was a port of military equipment? It seems to me quite as simple and quite as right for a naval captain under those circumstances to say that Manchester is a port of military equipment as to say that Manchester, Liverpool or Bristol is a base of naval supply under the Declaration of London. I can see no difference. If you are to leave it to the discretion of the naval captain he is as much justified in one case as in the other, and would be as likely in one case as in the other to say that food is contraband of war. But the matter does not end there. Because there is no doubt that at the present time a hostile power might and probably would say that all food is contraband of war. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh University read us a lecture on the iniquity of that suggestion. He said in fact that it was playing in the hands of our adversaries.
  I think if a foreign nation takes that argument, it applies with equal force to the elaborate argument of the Leader of the Opposition in trying to extend the meaning of the word "base," or to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) in trying to show that the Declaration gives greater powers to others. But is it so absurd for a hostile Power to say that food shall be contraband coming to this country? The instance in regard to Prince Bismarck has been quoted. The actual words of Prince Bismarck do not exclude food, for he expressly approved of the declaration of food as contraband. He said the measure had for its object the shortening of war by increasing the difficulties of the enemy, and it was justifiable as a step in war if impartially enforced against all neutral ships. That was the opinion of Germany

  525
  then, and that was the attitude taken up by Germany during the Russo-Japanese War. They took up that attitude when Japan and Russia declared food to be contraband, and that belligerent Powers had the right to declare food to be contraband. I and a great many others believe that is what Germany would do if Germany were at war with this country. It is not only believed on this side of the House, but Lord Selborne, speaking in another place, expressly said he was of opinion that a hostile country at war with this country would declare all food to be contraband of war. He was putting an illustration. That is the opinion of a nobleman who held office in a Conservative Government as First Lord of the Admiralty. He believed, as many of us believe, that in the case of war we should have food declared to be absolutely contraband.
  I object to those people who think it is an absurdity to say that food would be declared contraband, when we have a nobleman, who was First Lord of the Admiralty in a Unionist Government, giving an opinion which I submit is not one to be lightly regarded. There would be differences between the present practice and what would occur under the Declaration of London. Those differences would be, firstly, that in the case of the condemnation of a neutral ship, and the sinking of a neutral ship, the circumstances would go, not before a belligerent Prize Court, but before an impartial court. There would be this advantage, that privateers would be almost certainly condemned. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when he opened this discussion this afternoon, said that the international Prize Court might say that they could not take cognisance of this matter of privateering, and that different Powers had taken different views of it. But if they did take cognisance of it, there are only three Powers who had declared in favour of merchant ships being converted into men-of-war on the high seas, and the great probability, if a majority in Parliament is against this, the majority in the international court would be against it. If the court does consider it at all, the great probability is they would take the view held by this country. If they did not, then, as has already been pointed out, we should be exactly in the same position as at the present time. We should be in the position that conversions on the high seas will be made, and we
  526
  should get no redress. That is exactly the position to-day. Conversions on the high seas would take place; they would go before the Prize Court of the wrong-doer, and we would get no redress. If, on the other hand, as I believe they would, the international court decided that such a thing is not legal, and could not be done, then we stand to gain everything and stand to lose nothing. Another difference would occur. The court under the Declaration would enforce that food could not be declared absolutely contraband as it can be at the present time.
  I think one really strong argument can be brought forward against the Declaration, and it was put with great force and moderation by Lord Selborne in another place, and it was put with equal force, but not with equal moderation, by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and that is this, that when neutral Powers have a court to look to eventually, they are less likely to intervene in a war. There is a possibility at the end of the war of obtaining redress in the international court, and they are less likely, therefore, during the war to press their objection. I believe there is something in that argument in so far as food supply is concerned. It must be remembered that what brings neutrals into war is not so much the view held by the few merchants who have suffered, and not so much the view held by the neutral Government, as the gradually rising irritation of the people of the country, but I believe there would be, certainly to a limited extent, a smaller likelihood of a neutral Power intervening in time of war owing to the acts of the belligerents, when there is a chance of compensation at the end of the war. Which is the Power most likely to irritate neutral countries? Which is the Power most likely to cause the animosity of neutrals owing to its action during a war? It is the strongest sea Power which is the one most likely to irritate, neutrals by action against neutral ships. The strongest sea Power at the present time is Great Britain, so that on the whole we stand to gain rather than to lose by lessening the likelihood of neutral intervention. These are some of the main reasons for thinking that we gain rather than lose as belligerents under the Declaration of London, if it is ratified.
  But besides the effect upon our food supply, there are many other things to be considered. There is the point that any effect which is produced is only produced upon a small fraction of the amount of food

  527
  brought to this country. It has been suggested that the greater portion of that supply would come in neutral vessels if war broke out. I would point out that when we talk of neutral vessels you are reckoning German ships. They would not be heard of in time of war with Germany, because her naval marine would be cut off, and to that extent the number would be lessened. Again, it may be said, would not America send a larger number of her grain ships? At the present time the burden of the carrying is done by this country, not only to this country but between foreign countries, and that supply between foreign countries would have to go on during the war. Where are you going to set free the ships? America cannot send them, and if she did, they would just be as liable to attack, so that the ships cannot be set free to take part in trade between Great Britain and America. I do not for my part think that the proportion of neutral ships would be increased; and it is quite certain that the proportion of neutral ships in time of war would be relatively an unimportant part of the carrying forces coming into this country. That is admitted by Lord Selborne. He said that the neutral ships were of great importance though relatively of small importance compared with that which is brought by our own ships. There can be no doubt about it that whatever happens it is only a small proportion of what is coming to this country which can be interfered with by any circumstances created by the Declaration of London. There is another point and that is, that the power of any of our adversaries to cut off any large proportion of our food supplies is very limited indeed. The Royal Commission which sat upon food supplies reported to that effect. The result of their report is summarised by the vigorous opponent of the Declaration of London, Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, in these words:—
  "We come then at last to this that, as regards supplies, no apprehension need be felt; that they will suffer no material diminution in quantity, and therefore can hardly suffer in material appreciation of their price; that the addition to price will be 'relatively small'; and that finally it is a question not of price but only of panic, not of scarcity but only of a scare."
  Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles himself says as his considered opinion, that unless the command of the sea were lost we can protect the passage of any such supplies, and even if we were not so predominant, that even then so wide and open are avenues of
  528
  access to the British islands that the supplies cannot be intercepted to any appreciable extent were all the navies of the world to be set to the task. That is the answer of the leading opponent of the Declaration of London to the leading argument against the Declaration of London. I think for that reason this argument about food supplies is not a strong one. It affects part only, and that part, according to the statement of the strongest opponent of the Declaration of London, cannot be seriously affected. As a matter of fact, the terms of the Declaration of London tend not to less, but to greater safety. There are one or two points in which we give up our offensive powers. I am prepared to admit that. There is, for instance, the doctrine of continuous voyage, and there is the point about the blockade beyond the area of the operation of the ships which are blockaded. Those are both points on which we do sacrifice something. I do submit those are entirely negligible points. I think, as belligerents, we do not gain much, but that we do gain on the question of neutrals and on the question of blockading, which are very vexed questions, and on which at present France takes a very different view. Those questions are cleared up. In the case of the Bundesrath we gave up our claim, or rather we allowed the Bundesrath to go through. Under the Declaration of London a question of that kind is cleared up once and for all, and numbers of points upon which we might come into conflict with neutrals are reduced almost to nothing. That is a real advantage. Secondly, we have the advantage that food under any circumstances cannot be declared to be contraband. As belligerents I am prepared to admit the advantages gained are not considerable. I think we gain something. I do not think we gain very much. As neutrals I think we gain enormously. I think we gain particularly by establishing certainty to a great extent as to what is and what is not contraband. We gain by the establishment of universal laws which are to be observed, and we gain particularly by having a court in which we can recover in case the international law is broken. In the past we have had to go to the courts of the wrongdoers themselves.
  A good deal has been said about the sinking of neutral ships. Never in the history of this country have we recovered one halfpenny because our ships, when neutrals, have been sunk by belligerents. We have had to go into the courts of the belligerents. The hon. and learned Member

  529
  for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) suggested that Russia withdrew its claim to sink neutral ships. Russia has done nothing of the kind. Russia sunk neutral ships before protest and after protest. She sunk them before she apologised and after she apologised, and when it came before her courts her courts upheld her, and refused to pay one halfpenny compensation for the ships which were sunk by the Russian Fleet. That is what has happened in the past. Our merchants have had to go into the courts of the wrongdoer, and they have refused to pay in the past. Now we will have to go to a neutral court administering definite laws, and will be able to recover compensation. That seems to me a real and very important gain from the Declaration of London. But I am prepared to admit that I support the Declaration for another reason, which I believe obtains very little support on the benches opposite or among the opponents of the Declaration. I think that when, and only when, no question of national security is at stake, that it is a very important gain to have secured an international court administering international law. I believe that that is a real step forward in international history. I think it is a step forward in the direction of widening the amount of international agreement and widening the number of things which are brought before an international court. I support this Declaration in the first place because I cannot see any way in which it affects our national security, and because I think that it does give a real and definite advantage as neutrals, and lastly because it does give us this great experiment and great step forward, and an experiment which I believe is pregnant with great advantage to the future of the world.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I cannot say that I agree with the statement which fell from the hon. Member who has just sat down that we have much to gain and very little indeed to lose by the ratification of the Declaration of London. I hold, on the contrary, exactly the opposite view. I am convinced that the real position is this—that we have much to lose and very little to gain. Neither am I much perturbed by the estimate which he gave us—I think, upon the authority of my hon. Friend, Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles—that, as regards the importation of food into this country, we should suffer very little injury and need have very little apprehension; because I am of opinion—and that is why I cannot say for a moment that I regret the introduction of this question—that the
  530
  real and vital question which we have to consider in discussing the Second Reading of this Bill is the effect of the Declaration of London, and also our present position in this country as regards food supply in time of war. The hon. Member has referred to the Report of the Royal Commission on Food Supplies. As I am one of the few Members of this House who served upon that Commission, as I was indeed myself mainly or largely instrumental in procuring its appointment, and as the subject is one with which I am thoroughly familiar, I hope the House will permit me to intervene for a very short time in this Debate. If I had not learnt by long experience—and I have served on. many commissions—how very little attention their reports in nine cases out of ten command even upon the most important questions, I own that I should have been surprised when I remember to how small an extent the Report of that Commission was successful in arousing the attention of the country as to the fool's paradise in which we have been living for so long and are living at this moment in regard to the security of our food supply in time of war. But there it is, and grave indeed were the facts elicited by that Commission. So serious indeed were they that with all those facts before them, how did the Commissioners commence their report? It will be found in one single sentence which occurs immediately after the quoting of the reference to the Commission:—
  "It seems to us impossible to over-estimate the importance of the subject that was entrusted to our care."
  To that statement the signatures of all the Members of the Commission wore appended, beginning with that of his present Majesty—because so important was this subject regarded as being by the Government who appointed the Commission that the then Prince of Wales was asked to serve, and graciously consented to do so. That was the first name, and the last was that of a Member of the Labour party in this House. That may give some idea of the importance and gravity which the members of that Commission themselves attached to the subject. What are the facts? The chief and most important of them I will give to the House as briefly as I can. Take the question of our food supplies and where they come from. In regard to meat, dairy produce, cheese and butter in particular, meat—which is held to include beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pork and bacon—and eggs, the quantities for which we have to depend on countries

  531
  across the seas may be given in the following proportions:—45 per cent. of the meat that we consume, 64 per cent. of the cheese, 53 per cent. of the butter, and 55 per cent. of the eggs. These are comparatively unimportant, because we produce considerable quantities of these articles at home. But when we come to our supplies of wheat and flour—in other words, of bread, which is the great staple food of the people of this country—the House ought to remember that the consumption of bread is immensely greater than that of any other kind or article of food, especially by the poorer classes—the facts are as follows. The Royal Commission reported unanimously in 1905, and I do not think I can put it more shortly than it is put in their own words to this effect:—
  "We are of opinion that the consumption per head per year will not normally exceed 350 lbs., which would give a present annual consumption of 31,000,000 quarters, equivalent approximately to 600,000 quarters as the average weekly requirement."
  Out of this enormous total it was estimated that rather less than 6,000,000 quarters consisted of home grown corn, or only 20 per cent. of the whole consumption. In other words, that for 80 per cent. of the great staple food which we require for the people of this country we are entirely dependent on supplies which are and must be brought to our shores across the ocean. As a matter of fact, the position of our country at this moment, quite independently of the Declaration of London, is very like to an army in the field cut off from its commissariat, unless you are certain of being able to keep your communications all over the world.
  In regard to the present supplies which are actually in existence in the country at any given time, I am bound to say that there was some small difference of opinion in the Royal Commission. The majority put the minimum supply at any given time in the country at six weeks and a-half. The minority, of which I was one, thought it would not be safe to put that estimate at more than five weeks and a-half. The difference between us arose as to the amount which shortly before harvest is left in the hands of the farmers of this country. Perhaps my experience of that particular branch of the subject was gained in the greatest wheat-growing county in the kingdom—Lincoln—a county which at one time grew as much or more wheat than was grown in the rest of the whole of the United Kingdom. I adhere absolutely to
  532
  my opinion. If I had the time, and if it was worth while, to give the House the grounds for my opinion, I am very confident that I should get the majority of the House to agree with me that my estimate was right, and that the other estimate was more likely to be wrong. As a matter of fact it is not a very serious question, and I do not therefore stop to dwell upon it. The exact amount makes very little difference, but I imagine that all parties in this House will agree that it is a position in which a country like our own—the heart and centre of an empire like ours, with all its great interests and responsibilities—ought never for a single moment to be placed.
  I think the House will be interested to know whence comes this immense proportion of our staple food. Eighty per cent. of the bread upon which we absolutely depend is brought from different parts of the globe in the following proportions:—In 1904—and again I take the figures of the Royal Commission, for I have only come back this afternoon from foreign climes, and I have not had the means or the opportunity of getting the latest figures—there came from the British Colonies and Possessions 39 per cent.; from Europe (including Turkey) there came 25 per cent.; from the United States of America 19 per cent.; and from other countries 0.4 per cent. One remarkable feature of these figures—to which I call attention because the question of the supplies coming from America has been referred to already this evening—a most remarkable feature, is the enormous falling off in the supplies from the United States. No doubt they will in the course of years become less and less, although there has been on one or two occasions a considerable rise since the time I quote. Then there is another consideration, one of vital importance. These vast supplies of our staple food are brought to us from all parts of the world, over, in many cases, enormous distances. There is another point, and one of the most extreme importance, and that is that a large amount of these supplies are still brought to us in sailing ships. Several witnesses called our attention to this point. One of them maintained, and I have never heard the accuracy of that statement questioned, that in what is called the cereal year 1891–2, 26 per cent. of the whole of our foreign imports of wheat were brought to us in the sailing ships of that time, mostly from the Pacific coast. That was due, I understand, to the paucity of coaling

  533
  stations—the difficulty of getting coal. No doubt that has diminished to some extent, but surely many of them still bring corn in that way. On that point in the memorandum which was sent to us by the Admiralty very early in our proceedings—and I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude and appreciation for the great courtesy that was shown to us by that Department and the readiness to give us information from the beginning to the end of that inquiry—there occurs a sentence which is certainly deserving of the attention of the House, and above all of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. What was said was this:—
  "It is to be noted that all or nearly all of the grain brought in sailing ships comes from the Pacific ports, the most of which is carried in full cargo, and that on the outbreak of war a large number of them would he already afloat for a long voyage and would afford an easy prey to any enemy on the alert."
  I think we must be quite certain of one thing, that if such a misfortune fell upon this country as that we were engaged in war with one or more of the great Powers of the world, the enemy would be quite certain to be sufficiently on the alert, and would know as much and very likely more, as to the progress of these vessels and the localities in which they were to be found as we ourselves should be likely to know. These are essential facts put as briefly as I can put them before the House. That is the position which was disclosed by the Report in 1905. We were informed at that time that the practice of buying less and less corn on the part of the merchants to keep in stock, and of buying more and more from hand to mouth, from week to week, just as it is wanted, was steadily increasing. I am sure the House may take it as practically certain that the amount of the stocks existing in the country at the present time is even less than according to the estimate I have given. That is the position. That being so, the question that we have to consider to-night, in my humble opinion, is how is our position, so exceptional and so dangerous as it would be in the unhappy contingency of war, to be met? Will our position be made better or will it be made worse by the ratification of the Declaration of London which we are asked to signify our approval of by the Second Reading of this Bill?
  On this question, I am referring now to the effect of the Declaration, there is one thing we ought never to forget, although it seems to me that upon the other side of the House it has rather escaped the atten-
  534
  tion it deserves from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, namely, that the situation in regard to our food supplies places us in a totally different position from that occupied by every other single country in the world. I think, therefore, that in arrangements of this kind, which may very well be adapted and perfectly satisfactory to countries like Germany and Russia and France, may be wholly unsuited to the United Kingdom, and not only that, but there may be dangers in them which are not always foreseen by those who have not the opportunity of giving very careful attention and study to this question of food supply upon which we depend for our existence and which quite conceivably in certain conditions might well become dangerous and fatal to the future of this country. It seems to me—and I say this with great respect, and with every desire in the world to avoid anything offensive in its character, because no one in this House feels as strongly as I do that, above all and before all, if that be possible, this question should be kept entirely outside party consideration—that either the Government or their representatives on the Declaration and previous conferences either ignored in their calculations or were not sufficiently well acquainted with or did not pay sufficient regard to, the different conditions affecting our food supply, especially in time of war.
  This matter is really far too serious for anything of that kind, and I say this because I have had occasion to give to this question a great deal of study and careful attention now for a very considerable period of time. Personally, I cannot help regretting that such element should be imported into this most important question, far more important than any other questions which are before the country at the present time in regard to the future security, both of the nation and of the Empire to which we all of us belong. That being my opinion as to the gravity of this question standing in my place in Parliament I do not hesitate to say, with a full sense of the responsibility that rests upon me, that the dangers which await our food supplies in times of war in the United Kingdom are bad enough and great enough already in the conditions under which we live even to-day, but that they will become infinitely worse under the provisions of this new-fangled Declaration, which, at all events, has all the appearance, whatever the intention may have been, of being carefully planned and constructed by some of those who were

  535
  responsible for it with a view to limiting and hampering as far as possible the undoubtedly great powers which are possessed by the British Navy.
  10.0 P.M.
  I am prepared not only to make that statement, but to rest my justification for making it upon what I believe must be, and can only be, the answer to two questions which I am going to put in the Government through the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. One of them is this. Arc the provisions for policing and safeguarding our trade routes, which have been very justly called the arteries of this Empire, adequate and sufficient to-day? I am inclined to think I can give an answer to that question myself, and to give it out of the mouth of a very distinguished admiral who gave evidence before the Royal Commission. He was a witness not called by myself, and as a matter of fact, if I may use the expression, belonging to a camp the very opposite to my own. I was always most apprehensive on the question of whether our food supplies in this country were safe or not. I was always myself for doing something in addition to the maintenance of a strong Fleet, which we were required to consider by the terms of the Royal Commission. The gallant admiral had no fears whatever upon the subject of food. He was quite easy upon that point, subject to one condition, namely, that we had our cruisers properly distributed, and that we had plenty of them, as he described it, to hunt other people away. Upon being pressed upon the rather crucial question as to how many cruisers he thought ought to be available for hunting other people away, he frankly confessed, and he was a great supporter and adherent of the Admiralty, "I should certainly like to see more. "What happened? He gave his evidence on 20th June, 1904. On 5th March, 1905, we had before us a return presented to the House of Commons, in which fifty-nine cruisers and ninety-four other ships, 153 in all, had just been struck off the list of effective warships in that year. Taken in connection with the statement of the admiral and the facts I have just related there is only one possible inference that can be drawn—I understand that those ships have never been replaced, and it is that our trade routes are not sufficiently guarded at the present time, and if that be so, they will be infinitely worse guarded under the Declaration of
  536
  London. What is likely to be the position? If the claims of Germany, France, and Russia, so definitely put forward for the re-establishment of privateering in its worst and most dangerous form is ever put into practice again there is only one answer to the question. How are you to know when, where, or for how many of those ships transformed on the high seas from merchantmen into war vessels you are to be prepared, and if you are not prepared for them, what is to become of your food supply? As you have practically agreed to sign this Declaration have you not to a large extent condoned the practice?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not dealt with in the Declaration. It is left an open question.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: My complaint against the Government is that they have left this an open question, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting into my mouth the words I was going to say. That is the whole position, and that is the great difficulty we are in. Having studied and considered this question for years, that, is what I am more afraid of than anything else, and that is why I am content to base my opposition to this Declaration upon that point if upon no other. There are many other points, but I am not going to dwell upon them now, because they will be thoroughly dealt with by those who are experts on the question, which I do not-pretend to be. Nevertheless, if I had remained silent having acquired the information on this subject which I have done from thoroughly legitimate sources—if I had not taken the earliest opportunity on. the very eve of my return from abroad this afternoon I should have felt I had failed altogether in my duty.
  Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House with very great truth of the value to us and the importance of our overseas trade in food. He seems to argue from the importance of that trade that we shall suffer severely if we sign the Declaration of London. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the vital importance of keeping our ports open to food supplies during war. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the existence or the absence of any agreements will of themselves be of very small importance in keeping our ports open. What we shall have to rely upon in order to secure our trade in time of war is our Navy.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Quite so. But have you got the ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is another question; but if we have not got the ships the whole discussion about the Declaration is quite irrelevant. If we are in danger in time of war and we have not got the ships we may as well at once put up our shutters.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I understand that you are able to police and guard our trade routes now and in time of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir. Our Navy is adequate to guard our trade routes and to secure sufficient full supplies of food for our people during war, and we shall rely on our Navy to secure that food, and not upon the existence or the absence of the Declaration of London How does the Declaration of London affect our food supplies? I would observe, in the first place, that in the whole course of the Debate right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite have only considered the Declaration of London from the point of view of Great Britain as a belligerent, and it is only from that point of view that I propose to speak on behalf of the Admiralty in reply to the criticisms which have been raised. As to neutrals the Declaration has not been attacked. I have attended the whole of the Debate, and I think it has been admitted that as a neutral we gain rather than lose by the Declaration. The important argument raised has been the effect upon this country as a belligerent.
  The argument on this point has been confined to three heads. First of all the conversion of merchantmen at sea to ships of war; secondly, the effect upon our supplies of food; and, thirdly, the sinking of neutral vessels. Upon all those three points those who have addressed the House have endeavoured to convince hon. Members that we should lose seriously as a belligerent. I propose to answer those three points. First of all, on the question of the conversion of merchantmen into warships upon the high seas. I pressed the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tell me how we should be affected as belligerents by the Declaration in that respect. The Declaration of London does not mention the conversion of merchant ships to men-of-war on the high seas. I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on this point, because I was anxious to know the full extent of the argument upon that point, and what is it? I reproduce it from the mouth of the most authoritative exponent of the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the late
  538
  Attorney-General. He told us that although the subject was not mentioned in the Declaration of London, nevertheless, as an international Prize Court may hereafter determine a question between a belligerent and a neutral other than Great Britain in which the belligerent has converted a merchant ship into a man-of-war and has captured a neutral vessel and the international Prize Court might then determine that compensation was payable to the neutral, that the doctrine of conversion would thereby receive a moral sanction. Am I right? Am I correct in stating the right hon. Gentleman's view that a decision of the Prize Court not affecting us might give a moral sanction to the doctrine of conversion which would bind us?
  Sir R. FINLAY: A legal sanction.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am really astonished at the use of that word by the right hon. Gentleman. What can the international Prize Court decide and only decide? It can only decide a question as between a belligerent and a neutral in this matter, and it can only decide whether a neutral is entitled to damages or not. That is all. It can decide only upon the facts of the specific case. It cannot determine any question as between two belligerents, and it is not within its jurisdiction to lay down any rule of law as to how one belligerent should treat another. I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman who has held high legal office should give the weight of his authority to those persons who would wish to cramp the authority of the British Government in this respect. If this Declaration were signed to-morrow, it would not bind the British Government in the slightest degree to allow belligerent rights to any merchant ship that was converted on the high seas, and no decision of the international Prize Court under any sanction or authority could hereafter bind the British Government and compel the British Government to allow belligerent rights to a merchant ship converted on the high seas.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has followed the point. The decision, although between other parties, if it proceeded on the legal precept that conversion might take place on the high seas, would most seriously prejudice our position.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is what I put before the right hon. Gentleman as his statement of the case, and I can assure him that in his view he is mistaken.
  Mr. DUKE: Would not the court follow its own precedents?
  Mr. McKENNA: The court has no jurisdiction as between belligerents. There is nothing in the Declaration of London which affects the rights of belligerents inter se. It only affects the rights of belligerents as against neutrals. Consequently, every belligerent, as against his enemy, is not bound by any decision of the international Prize Court, and the international Prize Court has no jurisdiction to give a decision binding upon a belligerent as against his co-belligerent. I am quite aware of the fact that nineteen-twentieths of the opposition to the Declaration of London is founded on a misapprehension of its contents. I say, after being fully advised on the subject and after a tolerably complete study of the matter—if we are engaged in war with a Foreign Power and after that Foreign Power converts its merchantmen into ships of war at sea, we are as completely at liberty to deal with the merchantmen so converted after the signing of the Declaration as we were before it. I think that disposes of the first point. [Hon. MEMBER: "No, no."] Then we disagree on a question of fact. But if I am right in my construction I take it the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me there is no objection to the Declaration of London on this point.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Of course the Declaration does not affect belligerents inter se. The argument of my right hon. Friend was this. That belligerents, if our contention be true, will find greater sanction in thinking it is right to destroy neutrals and that will in our opinion have a most injurious effect on the food supplies of this country carried by neutrals.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am only dealing now with the question of conversion, and, speaking on behalf of the Admiralty, which has to carry out the instructions, I say that under the Declaration, if we are belligerents, we should not hold ourselves bound as against the enemy to treat any merchant ships which he may convert on the high seas into men-of-war as entitled to belligerent rights. I cannot say anything more clear or precise on that point. So much for conversion at sea. We claim that no Power has a right to convert merchant ships into men-of-war at sea, and we should hold ourselves absolutely at liberty to take what course we thought right in such a case. We are not bound
  540
  in any way by the Declaration of London in that respect. So much for the first point.
  The next point was as regards the supply of foodstuffs to this island should we be engaged in war. The right hon. Gentleman declared with some emphasis that the danger to this country under the Declaration of London was very great. He really attributed to the Declaration a grave importance in the possibility of its limiting our food supply. Again, what are the facts in this very simple matter? As I have said, we rely upon the Navy to keep the sea open. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Declaration of London is going to put in jeopardy foodstuffs carried in neutral ships which would not be in jeopardy at the present time. How much greater must be the jeopardy of the foodstuffs carried in our own ships? And when we remember that nine out of ten ships in lime of peace carrying food are British ships—there would be more in war—even under his own construction how can he pretend that there is a serious danger to our supply owing to the Declaration of London? The Declaration only affects one ship in ten. It does not touch our own British ships if we are engaged in war. There is nothing affecting belligerent ships. Still the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this one-tenth of our foodstuffs—that is the maximum figure—that this one-tenth of our foodstuffs, which, according to him would be placed in jeopardy is of this most vital importance. But would the foodstuffs be placed in jeopardy under the Declaration of London in a degree greater than they would be in jeopardy now? The answer to that point is very simple. The Declaration of London so far from jeopardising the foodstuffs in neutral ships safeguards them. I not only think that the right hon. Gentleman's point had not any great value owing to the comparatively small amount of foodstuffs carried in neutral ships, but I think his point was wrong. The Declaration of London absolutely safeguards foodstuffs in neutral ships as compared with the present practice.
  Taking his own illustration of grain carried in an American ship, I would observe, first, that the United States Government are in favour of this Declaration. What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman took the case of contraband food in an American ship, and he argued that we should suffer under the Declaration because if we were engaged in war and our enemy captured an American ship carrying foodstuffs, the United States

  541
  Government would go to war about the neutral and would fight, whereas if we signed the Declaration of London, he says the United States would not go to war about it. I should think that the acute mind of the right hon. Gentleman would have seized the question that the vital point there would be whether the United States Government signed the Declaration. It would be quite immaterial whether we signed, because it must be supposed that it is our enemy who has captured the United States vessel, and it does not matter a snap of the fingers whether we have signed the Declaration. What does matter is whether the enemy and the United States have signed the Declaration. I want to make it perfectly clear that when we are belligerents, the ratification by us of this Declaration will not have the slightest effect upon the relations between the two other Governments, one our enemy, and the other a neutral. The right hon. Gentleman says that the United States Government would go to war with our one my if their ship was captured carrying food, whereas it would not go to war if their ship was captured by the enemy carrying food if this Declaration is signed by us and by them. Let us see whether that is so or not. The United States Government have approved of this Declaration, and they believe that the principles declared by it are just and proper. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, supposes that the United States Government are going to war because another Power docs what they think right and just. He has entirely mistaken the effect and meaning of the Declaration. He admits, and I admit with him, that in general practice food has only been conditional contraband, the condition depending upon whether it was intended for the armed forces of the enemy. That has been the general practice, although there has been very considerable exceptions, and no Power has ever admitted that it is bound by the general practice. I want to get to all points of agreement. The Declaration of London declares that food may become contraband under precisely these conditions—
  Mr. CHAPLIN: No.
  Mr. McKENNA: In that it is intended for the supply of the forces of the enemy. It always must become a question of evidence whether food is so intended or not, and the Declaration of London lays down that certain facts shall constitute evidence that it is so intended. [HON.
  542
  MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, that is so. But without the Declaration of London food would have been treated as contraband precisely in the same way by the enemy.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: How often in the last fifty years?
  Mr. McKENNA: How often have there been wars? It has been so treated in every war that has taken place in the last fifty years. There is not a single exception. That food has been treated as conditional contraband of war evidences can be found in every war that has taken place in the last fifty years. It is common ground between us that in the general practice food would have been treated as conditional contraband, and that the condition which the enemy would have to prove, not when he stopped and captured the vessel, but in the Prize Court, is that the food was intended for the forces of the enemy. But both before and after the Declaration the belligerents would have the duty of exercising precisely the same function of stopping ships carrying contraband neither more nor less, and the Declaration of London determines the conditions under which the belligerents shall pay compensation to neutrals—nothing else. It does not affect the operations of war, but it determines that if a belligerent wrongly stops a neutral ship and wrongly confiscates property it shall thereafter pay damages to the neutral who has been injured. What objection is there in that, and how does it affect food supplies coming to this country? The fact of the matter is that if we were at war, with or without the Declaration of London, and were unable to keep the seas open with our Fleet, the enemy would stop all ships carrying food to our ports. We know that the Declaration of London, unless there is something in the way of reprisal by a neutral Power, will not affect that in the slightest. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will indeed."] It will not affect it in the slightest degree. It will be his duty to stop all ships in precisely the same way in order to determine the destination of their cargo. If he is not satisfied that the destination of the cargo is harmless, he will capture the ship. But the difference between what has been the law up to the present time and the law under the Declaration of London will be that a belligerent having captured the ship will have to pay compensation if he was wrong in his judgment, and it is quite right that he should pay it. The hon. Gentleman argued that owing to the existence

  543
  of the Declaration neutral ships would be stopped by an enemy of ours in a way in which they are not stopped at the present time. He gave absolutely no reason for that belief—none whatever.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Article 34.
  Mr. McKENNA: Article 34 does not affect the stopping of the ship.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Article 34 is not only an invitation, but a justification to a hostile commander?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has not devoted, perhaps, as great attention to the consideration of what actually takes place in war as to the consideration of the words on paper. In the first place, how is the captain of the enemy ship or any cruiser to know what is on board until he has stopped the neutral ship? He will stop the neutral ship carrying cargo to our shores whether there is the Declaration of London or not. He will stop it and examine the papers of the ship and the cargo, and so this notion that there is any invitation in Article 34 is the purest invention. I cannot find language in which to express my view of the statement if I confine myself within reasonable limits. I take it that the commander of a cruiser who is endeavouring to stop the trade of the enemy, or put an end to the trade of the enemy, would slop every suspicious ship he saw, and he would examine the papers, whether under the Declaration or not under it, if he had any ground for believing that the ship carried contraband, or that the foodstuffs or conditional contraband were really intended for the armed forces of the enemy. Ho would not merely stop the ship, either under the Declaration or not under it. He would capture it.
  The Declaration of London does not affect that at all. That would happen in either case. There is no change in the law under the Declaration in that respect; nor would there be in practice. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that if this were adopted we should issue instructions to our captains of cruisers that they should in no circumstances stop a neutral, or that in all circumstances they were to stop a neutral? Of course not. No such instructions would be issued. We should rely whether under the Declaration of London or not under it for the protection of our commerce upon the ability of our Navy to
  544
  keep the sea clear of foreign commerce destroyers. If there are foreign commerce destroyers, foreign enemy cruisers, afloat our commerce would be in danger whether carried in our ships or in neutral ships, and the danger would be so serious that the Admiralty have felt justified year after year in asking the House of Commons to make adequate provision for the Navy. So long as they do make adequate provision for the Navy you have nothing to fear as regards the destruction of our food supplies, whether carried in our own ships or in neutral ships.
  The last point that the right hon. Gentleman referred to was the sinking of neutrals. Here again he alleged that in the event of war we should suffer serious damage by agreeing to the Declaration of London. I ventured to interrupt him in order to get from him more closely what is the precise point in this respect in which he believed that we should suffer as belligerents. How do we suffer as belligerents if the enemy sinks neutrals? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to speak as if he were under the impression that it was not merely a case of sinking neutrals, but of sinking British ships. I know he did not think so, but it is a view very generally held as to the construction of this Article, and it is a view which ought to be emphatically cleared up. This Article does not authorise or disallow the sinking of enemy's ships. If we are at war our ships may be sunk or not sunk exactly as our enemy pleases, and nothing in the Declaration of London affects his rights or powers to sink or not sink our ships. The only thing that is determined is the conditions under which a neutral ship may be sunk. How are we affected as belligerents by that? The sinking of a neutral ship is no doubt of very great importance to the neutral Government. It is important to us if we are belligerents. The probability would be that if it were often repeated the neutral Government who suffered would probably not submit to it. The right hon. Gentleman's point is, if I understand him correctly, that if we signed this Declaration we should be assenting to a plan which, if we did not sign it, would be so abnormal and so generally recognised as improper that any neutral would be roused to war if its ships suffered. Here again I ask the same question, how does our signing the Declaration affect the object one way or the other? Suppose we were engaged in war with a European Power, and a neutral ship of the United

  545
  States has been sunk by our enemy. How does our signing or refusing to sign the Declaration of London affect the feelings of the United States. The United States Government accept this Declaration. They believe that its provisions are right, and they are willing to accept the terms that our enemy may sink their ships under the conditions stated.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Are the United States willing to ratify the Declaration?
  Mr. McKENNA: The United States will ratify it.
  Sir R. FINLAY: How do you know?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed so. I am informed that the United States approve of the terms of the Declaration.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Are the United States willing to ratify whether this country ratifies or not?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I am not informed of that, nor do I think it is very material to my argument. My right hon. Friend reminds me that the United States Government have pressed us to act, and by pressing us to act they have indicated to us in the plainest terms possible that they approve of the conditions laid down in the Declaration of London.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman has stated a fact. Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the papers? Are you willing to produce the papers that have been quoted?
  Mr. McKENNA: Papers have not been quoted.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. He has stated a fact. Will he produce the paper to the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not stated the fact on certain papers at all. I have made a communication to the House on the authority of my right hon. Friend. It may or may not be in the papers; it may have been communicated by word of mouth, and the ordinary rule as to quoting would not apply, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows. I have not quoted from any document. Provided the United States approves of the terms of this Declaration of London, why are they likely to go to war because one of their ships is treated in a manner which they declare they think is the proper manner for neutral
  546
  ships to be treated under these conditions? It is really an outrage upon, common sense to suppose that we alone of all the Powers are affected, not by the actual terms of the Declaration, but by a sort of moral influence which the existence of the terms is going to have upon other Powers in preventing them from joining in a war in our defence. That is the sole argument that is used. If we ratify this Declaration, neutral Powers, who would otherwise be aggrieved, who would otherwise not get the benefits which neutral Powers obtain under this Declaration, would be induced to go to war with our enemy because they would not get the advantages which neutrals receive.
  It is a view which, I think, is extraordinarily far-fetched, and which is believed by the action of all the foreign Powers who are signatories to the Convention. I think that disposes of the main points dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) asked me as to the opinions of the expert advisers of the Admiralty. He has for a long time expressed considerable anxiety on the matter, and has asked many questions across the floor of the House. I am perfectly willing to give him the information for which he asks. In this matter of international law, under the practice of the Admiralty and the division of business with the Admiralty, the expert adviser is the officer whom we call the Director of Naval Intelligence. He is always an admiral of distinction, considerable distinction, and his office, which is outside the Board, is one of the most important offices which we have at the Admiralty. I know the opinion for certain of four Directors of Naval Intelligence on this point, and I believe I know the opinion, though I am not quite certain of it, of a fifth. I do not know the opinions of any others, but those four, whose opinions I know, and the fifth, whose opinion I believe I know, are unanimously in favour of the Declaration of London.
  Mr. BIGLAND: Members of the Board?
  Mr. McKENNA: Those are not members of the Board. The Directors of Naval Intelligence are expert officers who advise the Board on this particular branch of Admiralty work.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the question of the hon. and learned Member for York. He

  547
  asked for the opinion of the experts on the Admiralty Board. You have given the opinion of the Directors of Naval Intelligence, and are not on the Admiralty Board.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have nothing to conceal. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious about the point, and I will come to it fully in due course. The question I have been asked is the opinions of the expert advisers of the Admiralty. I gave him, therefore, in the first instance, the opinions of the expert advisers of the Admiralty on this particular branch of work, the Directors of Naval Intelligence, whose opinions are of more weight because they are experts, and of more weight than those of many distinguished admirals who write to the newspapers, and who have not made a deep study of matters of this kind. Of all the Directors of Naval Intelligence that I have been able to discuss the question with, certainly four, and a fifth whose opinions I believe I know, are in favour of this Declaration. I do not know the opinions of any more, but so far as I am aware—
  Sir F. BANBURY: How many are there?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is only one Director of Naval Intelligence, the officer who advises the Board of Admiralty upon these matters and questions of this kind. I have discussed the question with four different gentlemen who at one time or another have been Directors of Naval Intelligence, and I have had the advantage of hearing the opinion of a fifth. Naturally they cover a period of a great many years, and they are unanimously in favour of the Declaration of London. So much for expert opinion first of all.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is Admiral Slade in favour of the Declaration?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have the opinion of Admiral Slade strongly in favour of the Declaration of London. If the hon. Member doubts my word I will show the opinion to him.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I am astonished after what I have read.
  Mr. McKENNA: Then we come to members of the Board. I have stated, and I repeat, that the Board of Admiralty support
  548
  the Declaration of London. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not satisfied with that. He wants now, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham) the opinion of the expert members of the Board. Questions like this Declaration of London come within the special Department of the First Sea Lord. There have been two First Sea Lords who have been concerned with the Declaration of London—first Lord Fisher and then Sir Arthur Wilson. Both are in favour of it. I only mention these facts because a great many questions have been addressed to me from the other side of the House always upon the supposition that I have something to conceal, and that because I refuse to disclose the opinions of Members of the Board they must be against me. I mention it now only after a long delay, and with the express warning, if I may be allowed to give it to the House, that it would be found in practice most unfortunate if there were quoted the opinion of particular Members who are not Members either of this House or of the other House, and able to speak for themselves. I have never varied my opinion upon that point; but I have been pressed by the hon. and learned Member, who has pressed me up to the point of saying that the whole of the Navy are opposed to the Declaration. No distinguished officer, whose opinion upon a technical subject of this kind is worth any more than the opinion of the man in the street, is against the Declaration of London. Naval officers vary in their views, but upon the construction of a treaty of this kind naval opinion in general is not likely to be well informed. The experts in the Navy are very well informed, extremely well informed, and they are in favour of the Declaration. I never saw a more wanton suggestion made in this House or out of it, that the Navy—or, as I have seen it in print—that the whole Navy is opposed to the Declaration—
  And it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Thursday).

PARSONAGES BILL [Lords].
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
Adjourned at four minutes after Eleven o'clock

  Carpenters (Board of Works, Belfast).
  Carpenters (Board of Works, Belfast).
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Steam Trawling (Kerry Coast).
  Steam Trawling (Kerry Coast).
  New Road (Crookenden and Casey Estate).
  New Road (Crookenden and Casey Estate).
  Turkish and British Battleships (Coat).
  Turkish and British Battleships (Coat).
  Coronation Public Holiday (Naval Establishments).
  Coronation Public Holiday (Naval Establishments).
  Board of Education (Pensions).
  Board of Education (Pensions).
  Importation of Nursery Stock (United States).
  Importation of Nursery Stock (United States).
  Census Returns.
  Census Returns.
  South Norwood Postal Arrangements.
  South Norwood Postal Arrangements.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD DINEVOR—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Woking Urban District Council (Basingstoke Canal).
Metropolitan Railway.
East Kent Electric Power. [H.L.]
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).
Metropolitan Electric Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).

THORNEY DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 106.)
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PERJURY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Busby and District Gas Order, the Preston Gas Order, and the Uxbridge Gas Order.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Cannock Gas Order.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection with regard to the Order No. 2 and Order No. 3.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.] PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for Tuesday next.
RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 107.)
SELECTION OF JUSTICES.
Return showing the constitution of the Advisory Committees (for Counties) already appointed to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the selection of justices, pursuant to the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission: Ordered to be laid before the House (The Lord Chancellor).
SALES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BILL. [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of the Committee of the County Council of the County of Renfrew appointed to attend to the administration of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
(Guisborough Water Order.)
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
(Cannock Gas Order.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
(Harrow and District Order.)
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
(Order No. 2 and Order No. 3.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Hardwicke,

E. Northbrook,

L. Barnard (chairman),

L. Belhaven and Stenton,

L. Aldenham;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

DUNDEE WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Morley of Blackburn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bills.
1.—(1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.
(2) A Money Bill means a public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions "taxation," "public money," and "loan" respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.
(3) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His Majesty for assent the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by hint that it is a Money Bill.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, the three Amendments which stand in my name and the first of which I now move would, if agreed to, make subsection (1) read as follows—
"A Money Bill having been passed by the House of Commons shall, 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."
The object of these Amendments is to make clear what is the avowed intention of this Bill. It is freely urged by members of the Opposition that the whole effect of the Bill will be to reduce your Lordships'
1032
House to the level of a debating society. But whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the effect of Clause 2, there can be none at all as to what would be the effect of Clause 1, for it is framed for the express purpose of preventing your Lordships from amending or rejecting a Money Bill. Any amount of discussion in this House cannot have the effect of inducing or enabling the House of Commons to make any change in a Money Bill which they have sent up to this House, and it seems to me a waste of time that we should debate the matter. If we disapproved of taxation which was proposed and expressed our opinion, we should only provide material for paragraphs in Radical papers winding up with the congratulation that by this Bill our teeth had been drawn, and that, however much we might bark, we were unable to bite.
Personally I quite agree with what was said on this subject by Mr. Keir Hardie at Merthyr Tydvil. Speaking of the House of Lords he said—
"They are not to have power to amend a Money Bill, nor to reject it, nor to suspend it. Then why send it to them? Why make two bites at the cherry? Why not say here and now that the House of Commons shall be supreme in finance, and send Finance Bills direct to the Crown without going to the House of Lords at all?"
It is true that the Prime Minister expressed a different opinion. He said that he thought the country ought not to deprive itself of the advantage of hearing the financial proposals of the Government discussed and reviewed with all the vast resources of dialectical skill which your Lordships possess. But if the Prime Minister is unable to take advantage of the discussions and debates on these matters in your Lordships' House—and he certainly will be unable to do so—I cannot see how he is to benefit by having heard the view of your Lordships upon the Government's proposals. If this Bill passes and in the future some financial measure is brought forward which your Lordships think will be very injurious to the country as a whole, it is not a feeble whine from an impotent House of Lords which will prevent its passing into law. That can only be done by the action your Lordships may take outside this House. A few more speeches such as that which was made at Manchester by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, will do more to convince the country than any amount of debate in the House of Lords constituted with the powers which it would

1033
then enjoy. It seems to me that our position with regard to this is very much that of surgeons who have a patient brought before them and placed in the theatre for the purpose of operation, and who see that it is absolutely necessary that an operation should be performed to restore the patient to health, but who are unable to perform that operation themselves; and not only that, but those who, as the Prime Minister told us, are anxious to have our advice on the subject are themselves unable to perform the operation although they may agree with our diagnosis of the case. I submit that this is an unworthy position for your Lordships' House to occupy. That is why I have placed these three Amendments on the Paper, the first one of which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("If").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Marquess opposite asked me whether it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to give a fair hearing to all Amendments that might be moved in this House, and I said, in reply, that nothing was nearer to my heart and to the hearts of my colleagues than that we should pay all attention to Amendments that might be moved and to any arguments that might be brought forward in support of those Amendments. But I am afraid I must make a bad beginning, because the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved is really, if he will allow me to say so, an Amendment without any substance whatever. It is an Amendment turning upon the dignity of your Lordships' House; and when the noble Lord implies that he is induced to move this Amendment by paragraphs in Radical newspapers and by speeches such as that of the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, I do not think those are points that ought to weigh with your Lordships for a single moment. Nobody is more bound than I am to pay attention to paragraphs in Radical newspapers, but I would not think for a moment, standing where I happen to stand now, of asking your Lordships to take a single step in one direction or another because you were alarmed or perturbed by paragraphs either in Radical or Conservative newspapers. We are here to look at these things from the point of view
1034
of this House. The Amendment of the noble Lord is to the point that the dignity of this House is affronted by the Bill as it stands, and that therefore you had better say, "Do not trouble us with your Money Bills. Take them, and let us be done with it." I do not think that is the right point of view from which to open the discussions we are to-day beginning, and therefore, in spite of my very sincere desire to meet any Amendment and to listen to any arguments from noble Lords opposite, I am afraid we must oppose a negative to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount has treated the proposal of my noble friend on the Cross Benches rather hardly. He told him that he regarded his Amendment as one of no substance, and the reason he gave for that statement was that the Amendment was one turning on the dignity of this House. I trust that that is not an indication of the general attitude of the Front Bench opposite towards questions concerning the dignity of this House. I am sure we do not desire to be meticulous on these points or to stand too much on our dignity, but I do trust, on the other hand, that when questions affecting the position of this House and the respect to which it is entitled at the hands of the country are raised, we shall not be told that those are questions of no importance and that they merely concern the dignity of the House of Lords.
My noble friend's Amendment is founded upon a feeling on his part that the opportunities for consultation which will be afforded under this clause are so meagre that they are really not worth having at all. I gather that, sooner than have what might appear to be a sham consultation with this House, he would have no consultation at all. The noble Viscount suggests that that might not be the right point of view, but it is a very natural point of view indeed, and it is one which I cannot help thinking will be somewhat widely entertained. But I own that I attach more importance than my noble friend does even to those very meagre opportunities which will be afforded to us under this clause of discussing financial measures in this House. To my mind even slender opportunities are better than no opportunities at all, and I for one would be reluctant to part even with those slender

1035
opportunities. The discussions which may take place here in regard to Finance Bills may not be without effect upon the public mind. I can almost endeavour to persuade myself that they may sometimes not be without effect upon His Majesty's Ministers. There is an indication in the clause which leads me to hold this opinion rather more strongly. I notice that under the words of the clause a Finance Bill must be passed in this House within a month "unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary." Those words evidently are not put in without some meaning, and I hope I am right in interpreting them as meaning that in special cases the period of one month might be extended—in other words, that the period of one month is a minimum and not a maximum. For these reasons I would venture to suggest to my noble friend that we had better leave the Bill as it is on this point. I hope, therefore, he will not press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, after the appeal that has been made to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Amendment, and not move the other two standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to omit from subsection (2) of the clause the provision under which the Speaker of the House of Commons had to decide whether or not a Bill was a Money Bill, with the object of subsequently moving the insertion of the following new subsection—
(3) The question whether a Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of this section shall, on a resolution in that behalf being passed by either House of Parliament, be referred forthwith for final decision to the Court of Appeal, and that Court shall, in private deliberation and without submission to it of argument or evidence, determine whether the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of this section, and the decision of the Court shall be final and conclusive, and shall be communicated to both Houses of Parliament: Provided that a Judge of that Court who is a member of the House of Lords shall not take part in any proceedings relating to the consideration or decision of any such question.
The noble Viscount said: I am sure your Lordships will fully understand that in no remarks that I make do I wish to reflect in any way on the Speaker of the House of Commons. The position which the Speaker has gained for himself by his
The Marquess of Lansdowne
ability and tact is well known, and the last thing I would wish to do would be to see anything placed in this Bill which would militate against his high position. Personally I am rather surprised that the members of the House of Commons should run the risk of the Speaker losing the great position which he new holds, for any measure which he may have to decide upon will no doubt be a measure which will give rise to Party discussion, and whichever way the decision is given one side or the other will be dissatisfied. I may be told that this is a matter for the House of Commons to consider for themselves; but when it is proposed that the Speaker should be the sole arbiter as to whether a Bill comes under the category of a Money Bill or not, it is a matter which concerns this House very seriously. We must remember that the Speaker is the representative of the House of Commons, and that when he attends in this House to receive His Majesty's approbation on his election he claims for the House of Commons, as their representative, all the rights and privileges which the Commons alone enjoy.
It is rather stretching the point to say that one who solely represents the House of Commons—and we must remember with regard to this that the Speaker is elected to that position by the majority of the House of Commons—should be the sole arbiter in this matter. It has been the custom for the Speaker to be re-elected in successive Parliaments, but if the idea is entertained that the Speaker is actuated in any way by partisan motives, however unreasonably that idea may be held, I am afraid we shall not see that continuity in regard to the Speakership which we should like to see. The object of my Amendment is to endeavour to remove the whole question as to what is and what is not a Money Bill absolutely and entirely out of the way of any Party feeling whatever. So anxious am I to do that that in a subsequent Amendment I propose that there shall not be any Party argument or discussion before the tribunal to which the question goes, but that the point should be decided on its abstract merits. I propose that it should go to the Court of Appeal; and as we have begun for the first time to have a written Constitution, it is not unreasonable that we should ask that a written Constitution should be interpreted by

1037
legal authorities. That is the case in other countries. In America the Supreme Court is called upon to give a decision in such cases, and I cannot see what objection there can be to a written Constitution being interpreted legally by the Court of Appeal. So anxious am I to see that there should be no Party feeling whatever introduced that I have carefully provided that any Judge who should happen to be a member of this House should not sit on that Court of Appeal. That is practically the object of my Amendments. I move the first one now, and in due course I will submit the other.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons").—(Viscount Galway.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There are alternative proposals before your Lordships. The noble Viscount proposes to leave out twelve words, six of which are necessary should the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Cromer be discussed. I think, therefore, that the most convenient course would be that the question put to your Lordships should be that the first six words proposed to be left out by the noble Viscount—namely, "which in the opinion of the"—should stand part. The other words can follow as a consequential Amendment if that is carried.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, the change in the form of the Amendment proposed by the Lord Chairman is well founded. This Amendment is one of a not very large but very important group of Amendments, and the object of that group is to substitute for the Speaker of the House of Commons or for any other body—a Committee of the two Houses, for example—a judicial tribunal. The noble Viscount proposes the Court of Appeal. In another place the proposal was made that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should decide whether the electors at a given moment intended this or that. It is not becoming to read in your Lordships' House long quotations, or, indeed, any quotations, from speeches made even by important men in another place, but if any of your Lordships are captivated by the arguments which the noble Viscount opposite has brought before you, I would refer you to the speech made by
1038
the Leader of the Opposition in another place if you want a complete and emphatic repudiation of all attempts—whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Court of Appeal is proposed—to transfer to a legal tribunal questions which are distinctly and unmistakeably and inevitably Parliamentary questions. We may quarrel as to the exact share the House of Lords should have in discussing a Money Bill, but if anybody wants a complete answer to proposals of this kind he will find it in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in the other House, in which he repudiated all ideas and proposals of this kind with great emphasis.
It is surely an untenable position that the two Houses, distribute the respective powers of each as you will, should submit their views and convictions as to what is or what is not pure finance to a legal tribunal. A legal tribunal—of which I would, like Mr. Balfour, speak with all respect—is guided by precedents and very strict construction of terms. That is not the way in which either this House or the other House does its business. It is not the point of view from which either House has been accustomed all these years, I might almost say all these centuries, to regard these distinctions. Consider what would be the effect of transferring to a legal tribunal an issue of this kind—whether a given Bill is or is not pure finance. The effect would be to set up precedents. You would have a great body of case law established. We have always been accustomed, and I hope it will continue to be the custom, to look at all these financial proposals from a practical point of view, without reference to a great body of case law, important as that is in dealing with legal business. This is not legal business.
I admit that we are embarking to a certain extent upon written elements in our Constitution. I admit that it might seem natural, in an operation of that kind, that there should be a legal tribunal to interpret the writing. Upon that we shall hear more by and by. But whether this business is to be discharged by the Speaker of the House of Commons, as we propose, or by a Joint Committee such as the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer) proposes—however you may settle that, it should be decided upon Parliamentary

1039
and public considerations and not upon strict legal technicalities. Of course, one could elaborate this to any extent, but I will only refer to the arguments used by the Leader of the Opposition in the other House against a judicial tribunal, and I ask your Lordships not to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down was very determined as regards the transference of this power to a legal tribunal, but he was not equally determined, or he said nothing which justified us in thinking that the Government were prepared, to stand by the letter of the Bill, leaving the matter as at present proposed, in the hands of the Speaker. On this side of the House we hold, perhaps not so strongly as the noble Viscount, the view that it is undesirable to set up a legal tribunal. If you come ultimately, as we are coming, to a written law as regards our Constitution, it seems not improbable that then certain matters will have to be decided by some legal tribunal, but our practice and our traditions are equally divided from that position at present, and I apprehend that, though my noble friend behind me has made a great case for change in the practice proposed in the Bill, there will be no general acceptance by your Lordships of the proposal to make these decisions a judicial question.
We have seen in the last few days something of the danger of dragging judicial authorities into anything like the political strife of the day. Unfortunately there have been a number of election petitions, and in some quarters there has not been the same readiness as there has always been in the past to accept the Judges' decisions as absolutely impartial. In reference to one matter—it was not a matter of elections, but a matter of politics—which had to be decided by law, we have had grave reasons to complain of language used with regard to the Judges from a very high quarter—from a quarter which should have been the first to defend them. That is an indication to us that, if men in high positions cannot in a moment of strife refrain from ill-considered and ill-balanced remarks of that kind, there would be considerable danger that when political feeling ran high on a question so vital as that which is
Viscount Morley of Blackburn.
1040
now before us, recourse to the judicial authorities might result in their being dragged into the arena of politics, from which we desire to keep them free.
But if we cannot go the whole length with my noble friend who has moved this Amendment, we by no means accept the position of the Government. The Lord Chairman will put the question that these words stand part of the clause. We cannot agree that they should stand part. Like my noble friend behind me, I have had a long experience of Speakers in the House of Commons, and I am not going to do more than follow my noble friend in saying how earnestly I associate myself with him in respect for the present Speaker and for the office which he represents. But do not let us conceal from ourselves that the position of the Speaker has changed very much in recent years. He has become in closer relations to the majority of the House of Commons year by year, and by the action of both Parties in the State, than were the Speakers of the last century. The Speakers of the Tudor period upheld the right of the Sovereign against the House of Commons. They managed the business of Parliament, and they settled in some cases what subjects should be discussed. The Speakers of the present day uphold the rights of the House of Commons against all comers. The Speaker has been again placed in the position of settling the business to be discussed, and also of settling, not the prerogative of the Crown which former Speakers in old days upheld, but the privilege as it is so called, but in reality the prerogative, claimed by the House of Commons.
Many of us who have sat in Ministries may be to blame, but I ask your Lordships to consider how great has been the change. When in the eighties the closure was first adopted the Speaker was limited, by the most careful language, to imposing the closure when the evident sense of the House desired that there should be an ending of debate, but he had to take a responsibility for the management of business which he never had before. A few years later closure by compartments was adopted, and in that case it became necessary for the Speaker, at a time when the evident sense of the House could not be shown, to decide that certain portions of a Bill should be debated and dismissed in a certain

1041
number of hours. But now, by reason of the new fantastic system under which Bills are sent up to this House, the Speaker or the Chairman as the case may be decides, not merely what time shall be given to a measure, but what subjects, in a list containing fifty or 100, should be discussed in relation to it before a Bill leaves the House of Commons. That is the greatest invasion of the rights of Parliament, the greatest invasion of free speech, which has ever been attempted in this country; and it is quite impossible that the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, who has to administer this power should be entirely at one with the minority of the House when he has to impose such regulations and has to settle, without hearing arguments at all, whether eleven Amendments out of twelve should be placed altogether out of court and out of discussion.
Remember that from this despotism there is no appeal. Under this clause a Bill so manipulated, so undiscussed, could be sent up to this House, where we could not reject it and could not discuss it. Your Lordships would have no remedy, the people of the country would have no remedy; and I cannot but feel that to ask an official like the Speaker, who is charged already with difficult and onerous duties, to put on the cloak of impartiality between the two Houses and to put aside all that he is bound to consider on behalf of the House to which he is attached—to ask him then to decide that your Lordships have no right to touch a certain Bill because it is a Money Bill, and still later in this measure to decide the other intricate questions that may arise, is a burden too great to put upon the shoulders of any man, and one, moreover, that must have the effect of causing people to challenge the impartiality of the Speaker when he has to stand between the two Houses on a purely political subject.
Without impeaching the Speaker's impartiality I wish to say this, that no man who has looked into the precedents can deny that the privilege claimed for the House of Commons has grown, is growing, and ought to be diminished. In the last measure on which this question arose both sides of the House concurred. On the Old Age Pensions Bill, when Amendments were sent back broadcast to this House which had been ruled out of order
1042
by the privilege of the House of Commons, the noble Marquess behind me observed—
"Amendments have been rejected, not on their merits; they have been rejected in spite of the fact that their merits are in some cases incontestable, and that they help to carry out the objects of the framers of the Bill. Privilege has never been asserted in so aggressive a form as in connection with this Bill."
What was the comment of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India (Lord Crewe), whom we are all so glad to see amongst us again? The noble Earl said—and this is very remarkable and most important for the discussion in which we are now engaged—
"The grievance of the noble Marquess is not against us but against the authorities of the House of Commons, who put a certain interpretation upon the question of privilege."
So that, reading between the lines, we might even infer that had not the question of privilege been raised on some of these Amendments the noble Earl would have been prepared to assist in placing them in the Bill. I am only going to ask your Lordships to consider two of those Amendments in order chat you may see to what a distance and how far apart we have run from the Speaker of the House of Commons in our notion of privileges.
I will trouble you with two cases, one to prove that the Speaker himself, although he is called upon so often to assist the majority in carrying a Bill, is not always listened to when he asks the House not to insist on their privilege. On that occasion the Speaker, with regard to one Amendment—an Amendment which prevented a man putting a sum of money into a security at very low interest and then saying he came within the purview of the Old Age Pension Act—used these words:
"It would be the doctrine of privilege run mad to insist upon it in regard to this Amendment."
But the Government, who had it in their power, advised the House to insist upon their privilege, which in itself is an indication that the Speaker is not able always to guide the House to the position which he thinks right as to those very measures in regard to which he will have to act as umpire. I come to the second case, where I venture to think the judgment of the Speaker was a very extreme one. Lord St. Aldwyn had carried an Amendment in your Lordships' House which everyone

1043
who had that Bill at heart must have regarded as a fair Amendment. It provided that if two persons living together as husband and wife, each of them having £800 in Consols and therefore an income of £20 a year each, claimed an old age pension, in fairness to others their means ought to be calculated actuarially on their life interest in the sum. No one contested the principle of that Amendment, but the Speaker of the House of Commons felt himself bound to rule that it was a breach of the privilege of that House, and that astonishing provision is at present in the Bill.
I have chosen those two instances merely to point out that it is impossible to take an official, however high, who is the mouth-piece of one House and make him the arbiter between the two Houses. What we desire to do when we come to discuss the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, is this, to take the Speaker out of the position which he now occupies as counsel for the House of Commons and put him on the Judicial Bench with an adequate surrounding of impartial men whom he may assist to guide to a decision, but who will themselves influence him by their impartiality and their arguments. I am glad that the noble Viscount opposite did not in his speech shut the door to any such proposal. It would indeed be a sorry thing for this great Parliament if between us we could not find a body of impartial men who could decide what the noble Viscount called a purely Parliamentary question, but one which must be decided as a Parliamentary question and not as a Party one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount in his anticipation of the discussion which will arise upon the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, and I cannot help thinking that the references that he made to the Amendments on the Old Age Pensions Bill which were refused by the House of Commons on the ground of privilege are more germane to the coming discussion than to the present. The Amendment now before the House proposes to forbid the Speaker of the House of Commons from being the judge as to what is and what is not a Money Bill, and to substitute for him some
Viscount Midleton
1044
judicial body—the Court of Appeal. It is quite clear that whenever you have a written Constitution, and for broad practical purposes we may say we have not any such thing—in the wide sense we have not any such thing now—you must have some body to discriminate between the different classes of business and the different duties that arise under the written Constitution. That is essential and elementary. The noble Viscount proposes that it should be a judicial body. Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons protested against Parliament being placed under the domination of any Judges, however eminent, and no one could feel more strongly than I do how inadvisable it is to have a judicial body to decide a question of this kind. It is not a legal question in the sense in which such matters come before Courts of law. It is a question of mixed law and Constitutional custom, usage, and point of view, of which a great number of the most eminent Judges have no experience whatever. They have never been in Parliament, or, if they have, they have not addicted themselves to the particular study of this matter, and I do not think any question of this sort ought to be decided by them.
This Amendment as it will be put from the Chair will decide the point whether the Speaker's opinion is to be the dominating opinion or not. On that I wish to say a few words. The noble Viscount said, and I think with truth, that the position of the Speaker of the House of Commons has in some degree become different in regard to his functions from what it was quite a short time ago. When I first entered the House of Commons there was no rule as to closure of any sort, kind, or description. I will not describe to your Lordships the state of suffering in which a good many of us were placed by reason of that circumstance. At the commencement of my life in the House of Commons it was found necessary to introduce something in the nature of the closure. I say these things because the noble Viscount expressly referred to them. That was resisted with the utmost strength of the Conservative Party, and naturally, for it was a great innovation. But gradually it was found by reason of the pressure of business to be indispensable, and from 1881–2 down to quite a short time ago successive amendments of procedure in the House of Commons have been made by both Govern

1045
ments. The noble Viscount will agree that if one Government was to blame the other is equally to blame. I think neither was to blame; and the noble Viscount will also agree that most of these enlargements of the closure were at the necessary instance of the Government of which he was a member. The remedy for that I will not enter upon now. It is to give the House of Commons a little less work to do and a little more time in which to do it.
Now see how that bears on the position of the Speaker. He has to decide constantly on the question whether a matter is to be put to an issue at once. A great deal of difficult work has been put upon him. What has been the result? Everybody who knows the House of Commons will admit that it has not cast the smallest shadow of any kind upon the reputation of the Speaker. He would tell you that the exercise of these functions has not in the smallest degree impaired the reputation, character, or standing of the Speaker of the House of Commons for impartiality. How are you to find a better man than the Speaker for the business we have in hand—to decide not what is a legal question but what is a Parliamentary question, a question with close affinity to other questions which he has to decide. The view of the Government is that, after all has been considered—and you have to consider not only the merit of this proposal that the Speaker should be the arbiter, but the merit or demerit of the alternative proposals—the Speaker is the best tribunal. As I read the Bill, if this Amendment is rejected it does not prevent the raising of the question in the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I take it that it may be for the convenience of the Committee that we should reserve for future discussion the points raised by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Cromer, and I will therefore say one word, and one word only, in regard to the limited question which I conceive to be now before us—that question whether, if we desire that these duties should not be imposed upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, we desire to put in his place a Court of law. Upon that point I am bound to say that I
1046
agree rather with what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord opposite than with what has been said by my noble friend behind me. I think it is desirable that we should avoid placing the control of these matters in the hands of any Court of law. I can well understand that my noble friend should argue that now that we are about to introduce into this country a Constitution which will, in part at all events, be a paper Constitution, we are coming nearer to the time when the introduction of something like a Supreme Court on the American lines might become inevitable, but I do not think we have arrived there yet; and I have it strongly in my mind that the general desire of Parliament is to maintain its independence of Courts of law. Whatever tribunal may be invoked to decide this question—I mean the question whether a particular Bill is or is not a Bill of a purely financial character—it seems to me clear that the decision will have to be given, not upon strictly technical and legal grounds, but upon what I think the noble and learned Lord described as broad Parliamentary grounds—grounds of general convenience and of common sense. The noble and learned Lord referred to an important speech delivered by the Opposition Leader in the House of Commons, in which Mr. Balfour declared himself decidedly opposed to bringing in a Court of law for this purpose. I have no doubt that speech was read by most of your Lordships and has not been without weight. But I think it right to remind the House of another consideration which I think will be regarded as entitled to weight by your Lordships, and that is this, that in the month of November last year your Lordships passed a Resolution under which it was expressly stated that the question of deciding whether a given Bill was a financial measure or not was to be referred to a Joint Committee presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That, I must say, seems to me to tie our hands considerably. But quite apart from that think, upon the merits of the case, that if we are to have a tribunal it is better that it should not be a Court of law, but a tribunal of the kind which by and by my noble friend on the Cross Benches will propose. I fear, therefore, that I cannot support my noble friend behind me, although many of the arguments which he brought forward were of a kind which were certainly entitled to considerable weight.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, as I understand that if my Amendment were persisted in it might prevent the noble Earl on the Cross Benches bringing forward his scheme, I will withdraw my Amendment now, reserving to myself the right to reopen the question at a later stage should it be necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CROMER*THE EARL OF CROMER moved to leave out the words "Speaker of the House of Commons," at the commencement of subsection (2), and to substitute in their place the words "Joint Committee."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, three Amendments stand in my name, and although as a matter of procedure it may be necessary to take the sense of the Committee separately on each of them, at the same time they are so intimately connected that it is impossible to deal with the arguments which bear on one Amendment without bringing in those which bear on the others. I propose, therefore, with your Lordships' permission to speak on all three Amendments at the present stage of our proceedings. These Amendments deal with two subjects—first, the constitution of the tribunal which is to decide whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill; secondly, with the functions which are to be exercised by that tribunal. After what fell from the noble Viscount who moved the previous Amendment and from Lord Midleton, I had not proposed to say anything as to the unsuitability of the Speaker to be the sole judge of whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill; but I rather understood the noble and learned Lord opposite to contend, in his speech just now, that the Speaker was the best judge, and that obliges me to repeat to a certain extent arguments similar to those already used by the two noble Viscounts to whom I have referred.
I wish to speak with the utmost respect, not merely of the personality of the present Speaker, but also of the high and dignified office which he holds. Successive Speakers have established an honourable and well-deserved reputation for impartiality. But, my Lords, what is the precise nature of that reputation, and on what does it rest? I maintain that it is a reputation for dealing impartially with internal questions
1048
which arise in the course of discussions within the House of Commons itself, and that it is based on the acknowledged fact that when a member of that House, to whatever Party he may belong, is chosen to be Speaker, he at once lays aside all spirit of partisanship and deals impartially with the views laid before him from every quarter of the House. But, my Lords, is there anything to show that this strict spirit of impartiality will be preserved when it is no longer a question of dealing with the internal affairs of one House, but with questions relating to the respective functions of the two Houses? I cannot think that there is. The Speaker would really be almost more than human if he were not influenced by the political atmosphere by which he is surrounded, and if he were not unconsciously biassed by a desire to assert the privileges and extend the functions of the House over which he presides. There is an old law maxim, with which the noble and learned Lord opposite must be well acquainted, to the effect that it is the function of good Judges to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Court to which they belong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Old and bad.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Will not the Speaker be very much tempted to act on the principles of that maxim? Will he not almost certainly be animated to a certain extent by that esprit de corps which runs through the whole of English political and social life, the spirit which makes every one educated, say, at Eton, pass through life singing Floreat Etona, and which makes every officer in the Army or Navy think that his own regiment or his own ship is incomparably the best of regiments and the best of ships? Moreover, my Lords, what guarantee have we that all future Speakers will possess the high qualifications of Speakers of the past and present? Is it quite certain that in course of time the Speaker will not come to occupy in this country the same position as he holds in the United States—that is to say, the position of a strong political partisan? It appears to me that we should not lose sight of this danger. I need not dwell any more on this point. I believe that the majority of your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that it is not a fair or reasonable proposal that a high official of one House should be able

1049
on his own ipse dixit to curtail the legislative functions of the other House.
What tribunal, therefore, should be substituted in the place of the Speaker? I will not dwell on the question of establishing a purely judicial tribunal, for that has been already discussed and settled. I will proceed at once to state how, from my point of view, the Joint Committee which I suggest should be composed. I propose that it should be composed—exclusive of the Speaker, who will be Chairman and have a casting vote—of fourteen members, namely, seven members of your Lordships' House, and seven of the House of Commons; that the individuals should be chosen jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons; and that these two high authorities should make their selections in such a manner as they think best adapted to provide an impartial tribunal. In the course of the discussions which have taken place on this subject, both inside and outside Parliament, a great many suggestions have been made as to the proper constitution of this Joint Committee. I admit that the question presents some practical difficulties, but I submit that it is by no means insoluble. It is very easy in ordinary parlance to express what I believe we all want. We want a Committee which will be composed in about equal proportions of supporters and opponents of the Government of the day. It is more difficult to translate this simple idea into language which will be suitable for insertion in an Act of Parliament. What constitutes being a supporter and what being an opponent of the Government of the day? We have long passed the time when political Parties were represented by a solid phalanx of Tories on one side and of Whigs on the other. It is, I think, regrettable, but it is certainly a fact that the whole tendency of the day is towards the formation of groups. A Liberal Government would, I conceive, find it very difficult, amidst the rather confused jumble of Parties which now exists in the House of Commons, to state precisely who were and who were not to be counted as their supporters, and even in this House a difficulty might arise, although probably in a less acute form. A question which naturally comes home with very special force to myself is, How is an occupant of the Cross Benches to be classed? The Roman jurists had an old saying to the effect that
1050
in civil law all definitions were dangerous. I think it applies in the present instance. I propose, therefore, that no attempt shall be made in the Act of Parliament to define the precise qualifications which it will be incumbent on a member of the Joint Committee to possess, but that the choice should be left to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Chancellor, subject to the general direction that they must use their best endeavours to constitute an impartial tribunal. I think that every one will agree that the Speaker of the House of Commons is the proper person to select the members from that House. The case of your Lordships' House presents somewhat greater difficulties, for the Lord Chancellor does not, politically speaking, occupy a position analogous to that of the Speaker. He is a member of the Cabinet of the day, and therefore necessarily and avowedly a Party man. But, my Lords, when it is remembered that the Lord Chancellor must always be one of the most eminent lawyers of the day, that he must necessarily be accustomed to deal with matters in a judicial spirit, and that further, not only the present occupant of the Woolsack, if he will permit me to say so, but also his predecessors, to whatever Party they may have belonged, have always commanded in a high degree the esteem and confidence of the whole House, I think it may safely be anticipated that no future Lord Chancellor will abuse his powers by attempting to take any Party advantage, and that he will conscientiously carry out what will be the manifest intention of the Act. As regards the actual members of the Committee, the point is not one on which it is possible to entertain any strong opinion, but I may observe that in adopting an uneven number it will be possible to represent in some degree the normal Party preponderance in each House, and thus to a limited extent introduce the principle of proportional representation.
I have heard it said outside that it is useless to appoint a Committee of this sort, for that each set of representatives will be certain to vote on strictly Party lines. I am not altogether sure that this will be the case. We may charitably entertain a pious hope that even political partisans will be occasionally open to conviction and will not be altogether deaf to argument. But even supposing this assumption to be correct I should like to point out that the House of Commons will, at all events, have no cause

1051
to complain, because in these circumstances the decision will virtually rest, as they propose, with the Speaker. There will, however, be this notable difference between the amended procedure and that proposed in the Bill—that the Speaker will at all events have had the advantage of hearing the House of Lords case fully and ably put before him, whereas under the Bill as it now stands there is no certain guarantee that the House of Lords point of view will be considered at all. I have now said all I have to say on the subject of the tribunal. I will only add that it is quite possible that in the course of this debate some suggestions, both as regards the members of the Committee and their mode of appointment, may be made which will commend themselves to your Lordships in preference to that which I have embodied in my Amendments. In that case they will, without doubt, be fully considered.
I now proceed to deal with the other main object to which my Amendments are directed—namely, the functions of the Committee. When I speak of the functions I am perfectly well aware that at a later stage, under the Amendment which will be moved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, those functions will be extended to other matters than Money Bills. To discuss that now, however, would be entirely outside the scope of the Amendment before the Committee at this moment. I therefore propose to limit my remarks entirely to the functions of the Committee on Money Bills. Any member of your Lordships' House who attempts to deal with this question lies under a certain disadvantage. That disadvantage is that we all of us labour under the suspicion of wishing, not only to reassert all the powers which constitutionally this House has up to the present time possessed in respect to Money Bills, but even to extend those powers. I gather from some remarks made a few days ago by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War that I am more especially the victim of these suspicions. I hasten to assure the noble Viscount that, so far at all events as I am myself concerned, he may dismiss these suspicions from his mind. Without going into the question of what ought or ought not to be, in theory, the functions of a Second Chamber in respect to financial measures, I take as my point of departure the Resolution of the noble Marquess to which I have already alluded and to which this House
The Earl of Cromer.
1052
has already agreed. It is worded in the following terms—
"The Lords are prepared to forego their Constitutional right to reject or amend Money Bills which are purely financial in character, provided that effectual provision is made against tacking."
The only practical question to be discussed is, as it appears to me, whether the Bill now under consideration provides any effectual provision against tacking.
The intentions of the Government on this subject have been stated over and over again in the most positive terms. The subject is so important that I feel constrained to trouble your Lordships with some quotations from Ministerial utterances. On April 11 the Prime Minister, in dealing with the clause we are now discussing, said—
"The object of the Government on this Definition Clause is two-fold. It is, in the first place, not to enlarge the boundaries within which, as we believe, Constitutional practice and usage has established the authority of the House of Commons in matters of finance. On the other hand, it is to include by a statutory definition everything which is within the boundaries so established by usage. That is our governing principle."
And again later, on the same day, he said—
"These words are most careful to exclude, first, the possibility of including in this Clause a Bill financial in form or title of which the object of its other provisions was the real and governing purpose; and, secondly, to exclude the annexation or tacking on to a financial Bill of extraneous provisions intended to be applied for political or social purposes."
Your Lordships will observe that the identical phrase used by the Prime Minister—namely, "governing purpose"—is introduced into the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. Mr. Winston Churchill also used very similar language on May 9. The intentions of the Government are therefore quite clear.
But, my Lords, in spite of some minor and salutary changes which were made during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, can it be seriously contended that the Bill as it now stands gives effect to those intentions? I cannot think that it does. I maintain that this Bill provides no sort of adequate guarantees against tacking. There is practically no limit to the political and social changes which may not be effected by "the imposition, alteration, or regulation of taxation." And, my Lords, it is especially to be observed that the Bill does not in any way authorise the Speaker to include in his

1053
purview of the situation the political and social changes which any alteration of the fiscal system may make. He has merely to ask himself whether the Bill on the face of it ostensibly deals only with the imposition, alteration, or regulation of a tax, and unless he can answer this question in the negative he will have no option but to sign the certificate including the measure in the category of Money Bills.
What guarantee is there that under the Bill as it now stands a 50 per cent. Income Tax will not be imposed, or a tax placed on landed and other property which will virtually deal a death-blow to all property? None whatever. And yet, my Lords, surely measures of this sort, which would involve social and political changes of the highest importance, cannot reasonably be regarded as mere Money Bills. I know I shall be told that we must rely on the commonsense of the people of this country not to sanction monstrous proposals of this sort. I am perfectly aware that in a democratic country we must rely ultimately on the commonsense of the democracy. But, my Lords, I submit that vague generalities of this description, which may equally well be used to justify the most subversive changes in the laws of this country, are not a sufficient answer to my criticism. We have, I think, a full right to claim that there should be a definite statutory provision which will, as far as legislation can prevent it, put a stop to any attempt being made to evade the spirit of the Act of Parliament. We want, at all events, a clear provision that the Speaker and whatever other tribunal may eventually be instituted shall be authorised to consider whether the real and ostensible object of any proposed measure are identical, and whether under cover of a Money Bill political and social changes are not contemplated which would reasonably bring the Bill within the category of general legislation. The object of my Amendment is to bring these considerations, which are at present excluded, specifically within the purview of the authority which has to decide.
To sum up, my Lords, in respect to the tribunal I ask the Government to act in the spirit of the declaration made by Lord Crewe in this House, which was to the following effect—
"I may perhaps venture to say that if some other tribunal within Parliament can be found which can be expected to carry out these duties with equal authority and impartiality, this is not a matter we should regard as vital to the Bill."
1054
Although I do not wish to forestall what the noble Viscount opposite will say on my Amendment, I hope I gathered from his preliminary remarks earlier this evening that he is prepared to give this proposal reasonable consideration. In respect to tacking, I merely ask His Majesty's Government to place on the Statute Book a provision which is in entire conformity with their declared intentions. I maintain that these proposals are reasonable and moderate and although, in common with many of your Lordships, I hold strong opinions as regards the conduct of His Majesty's Government throughout this Constitutional crisis, I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to advocate them in reasonable and moderate language. I would earnestly appeal to noble Lords opposite to meet these suggestions in the spirit in which they are brought forward—that is to say, in a spirit of conciliation. Other important issues await discussion, but if this very important question of the treatment of Money Bills could be settled by a reasonable compromise, a considerable step forward would, at all events, have been taken to arrive at that general settlement of the Constitutional question which I believe every sensible man in this country earnestly desires.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("Speaker of the House or Commons" and insert ("Joint Committee").—(The Earl of Cromer.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, no one could have listened to the speech of the noble Earl who has just addressed the Committee without having a sense of the sincerity of his desire to do what he thought to be best in getting over the difficulties with which we are faced. If I have to criticise his arguments it will be largely upon this ground, that I think his propositions owe their support to arguments of a too abstract kind, and have too little reference to the actual living Constitution which is ours, and to the history and traditions which we are bound to recognise. It is not possible to go back to a state of things where you have a blank sheet of paper on which to write. The noble Viscount opposite referred, by way of illustration, to the change in the position of the Speaker. He contrasted the position of the Speaker as it is now with what it was in the days of the Tudors, when he was the exponent of the wishes of the Sovereign in the House of Commons, and when the form of a Bill used to begin

1055
with a petition to the Throne. The position of the Speaker as it is now is the result of evolution, and the result of functions of the House of Commons as they have come to be defined with the growth of our unwritten Constitution.
The noble Earl said he wished to prevent tacking. I agree that we do not want to enable tacking to take place. We desire to prevent it. But how does the noble Earl propose to prevent it The Joint Committee is to have the power to declare that a Bill comes not under the category of Clause 1, which deals with finance, but of Clause 2, which deals with general legislation. The position of the Speaker under this Bill, and necessarily also the position of the Joint Committee, is a statutory position. There is no appeal against their decision. Something that fell from the noble Viscount made me think that he had it in his mind that the House of Commons could control the Speaker if the Speaker were taken as the judge here. That is not as I read the Bill. If the Amendment were carried, the Joint Committee would have statutory authority also absolutely free from the control of Parliament. Under the noble Earl's Amendment the Joint Committee could declare a Bill which was financial on the face of it, because of what they conceived to be its purpose and its policy, to fall within Clause 2 and therefore to be the subject of consideration under a wholly different procedure. The effect of that would be to give to this House larger powers than this House has claimed to possess for many a long day past. The old Resolutions of 1671 and 1678 are, I believe, Resolutions which your Lordships have in practice at all events accepted. You have given up explicitly the Constitutional right to reject a Money Bill; and even upon the question of amending a Money Bill it is by no means clear that your Lordships put forward your right in an abstract form. But the Amendment of the noble Earl does not confine the situation to the position in which it is at the present day, in which the House of Commons exercises control over the general character of finance, but enables the policy underlying that finance to be taken into account.
The noble Earl referred to a speech which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill in criticism of something that fell from himself. I think I was right in that criticism, and I am rather confirmed by
Viscount Haldane,
1056
what he said to-day. He means by tacking something quite different from what we understand by tacking. He means by tacking that a Finance Bill is to be altogether colourless and to have no policy in it. If you applied that definition you would at once give this House control over a number of Bills and over measures of a character as to which control has never been assumed. Take the Appropriation Bill—a Bill which your Lordships have never amended or rejected. What is the Appropriation Bill but a Bill embodying in many cases general policy? It is a Bill which gives effect to the Votes of the House of Commons for Supply for carrying out the policy of the Government of the day. Very often most important questions of general policy come in under that Bill, and the Appropriation Bill would come within the words of the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CROMER: What I mean by tacking is what the Prime Minister described as the annexation or tacking on to a financial Bill of extraneous provisions intended to be applied for political or social purposes.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am dealing with the noble Earl's Amendment, and it is an Amendment which carries things very much further than the question of tacking. The second Amendment which the noble Earl has on the Paper provides that if, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, the governing purpose of a Bill or of any portion of a Bill is such as to bring the Bill within the category of general legislation, the Bill is to be subject to the provisions of Clause 2. A Bill introduced by the House of Commons in order to give effect to the financial policy of the Government would become subject to this kind of consideration. The truth is, it is impossible to define in writing what is general policy and what is not. There is hardly a financial Bill which comes from the House of Commons which does not embody general policy. A definition of tacking may be difficult to give, but it is clear that there are things which are undoubtedly in the category of tacking. One gets at these things by illustration. It is impossible to define them. You cannot separate general policy from finance, and there are Finance Bills which do not aim at tacking but which do bring in general policy. That is my first criticism on the

1057
Amendment—that it goes further than the situation at the present time, and that it would in effect repeal many of the things in the Resolutions of 1671 and 1678 which now form part of our Constitution, and would diminish the position of the House of Commons. But I cannot separate in my mind the proposal to set up this Joint Committee from other proposals with respect to it not moved by the noble Earl but to be moved by the noble Marquess opposite. I do not propose to discuss them, but I do feel that the introduction of this Joint Committee is the introduction of a principle which is wholly foreign to anything we have yet known. It is a statutory Committee to have enormous powers—the power to say that the country has not sufficiently pronounced on a subject, and to refer the matter to a Referendum. That is a proposal of great magnitude. It is not a proposal which can be limited, and it is not limited even under the words of the noble Earl, to tacking.
Let me for a moment glance at the other difficulties. I will put out of count those that I have stated, in order to ask your Lordships to come face to face with what would be to my mind the overwhelming difficulties of procedure in the House of Commons if this Amendment were carried. In the passage of a Money Bill through the other House there are Amendments constantly brought up which it becomes the duty of the Speaker as the guardian of the rules of order to rule out, and for the purpose of ruling them out, either as not having originated in the proper form or as not being germane to the character of the Bill, the Speaker has to give rulings from time to time and rapidly. But supposing this proposal were carried he could not give those decisions, and if he could not do that he could not discharge his present functions as Speaker. He could not give a ruling without calling together the Committee, and in that case the condition of business in the House of Commons would become even more congested. What has been the reason for the closure? It has been the want of time in the House of Commons to deal with the increasing mass of business which it has to handle. Until you relieve the House of Commons from that mass of business the duty of the Speaker must be heavy. But how much heavier would it be if business had to be interrupted because
1058
the Speaker could not prejudge questions by giving rulings without calling together the Committee? Therefore if this Amendment were carried, not only would it involve enormous difficulties of the kind I referred to in the earlier portion of my remarks, but it would paralyse the conduct of business in the House of Commons. It is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that our Constitution is one which in theory leaves you defenceless against all sorts of wild people whom the imagination can conjure up getting into power, but I am not sure that there has been any great danger shown of our proceeding in that fashion. Undoubtedly legislation is getting increasingly democratic. That is because the democracy is more and more getting the control of affairs. You cannot stop that by any measure you can introduce. You have to accept it and make the best of the situation as it is. You have to judge the proposal contained in the noble Earl's Amendment not merely as an abstract proposition to be written on a blank sheet of paper, but in the light of the actual situation to-day and the position of Parliament and its responsibility to the country; and if this Amendment were passed in such a form as we have it now, not only would it lead to embarrassment of public business, but it would run counter to the very proposals which seem to me to be the foundation of the Constitution as it is to-day.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am placed in some difficulty, because there are surely two subjects which have become somewhat confused in the course of this discussion. There is the subject which is directly raised by the Amendment of the noble Earl, and which places before the Committee the question whether the tribunal to decide upon Money Bills should or should not be the Speaker of the House of Commons. That, I thought, was the subject directly raised by the Amendment, and the one to which our speeches ought to be directed if they were strictly in order. There is the further question, if the Speaker of the House of Commons is not to be the tribunal, whether there can be suggested from this side of the House or from any quarter a better tribunal, and upon that point the noble Earl on the Cross Benches has submitted to us his ideas. Then there is the further question, what is to be the procedure of the Committee when it sets to work to

1059
decide whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill. I confess to being in absolute doubt whether I am to discuss all three, or whether the proper procedure would not be to recall the Committee to the direct order of our business and to say a little more than has hitherto been said upon the question of the Speaker. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me, as I feel somewhat strongly on the question of the Speaker, to say a word or two at any rate to start with on that point. I confess I was very much disappointed with the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor. I gathered from him what I take to be the intention of His Majesty's Government—namely, that they mean to adhere to the position as to the prerogatives and the authority which they are giving to the Speaker of the House of Commons by this Bill. I do not know whether I am justified in drawing that inference from the few sentences of the noble and learned Earl relating to the subject, but unless he contradicts me I must proceed on that hypothesis.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said that in our view it was the best proposal.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: In the first place that is a great disappointment to us, because it throws absolutely to the winds the hopes that were undoubtedly aroused in our bosoms by the passage in the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India which was quoted by Lord Cromer. When the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, told us in a previous debate that, if some other tribunal than the Speaker within Parliament could be found which might be expected to carry out these duties with equal authority and impartiality, that was not a matter which the Government would regard as vital to the Bill, we certainly were encouraged to think that if we were in a position to submit a suggestion for such a tribunal to this House—a tribunal to be created within Parliament and a tribunal which I venture to think would carry with it great weight and authority—at least it would receive respectful consideration from His Majesty's Government even if it were not adopted by them. And there was another reason that might have led us to hope for some modification on this point. I allude to the debates in the House of Commons. Probably most of us, even if
Lord Curzon of Kedleston,
1060
we did not have the pleasure of attending those debates ourselves, at any rate followed them more or less closely in the newspapers, and I shall be in the recollection of your Lordships when I say that on no part of the Bill was a more destructive and unanswered and unanswerable criticism directed against the proposals of the Government than on that which related to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Yet those arguments appear to be thrown away, for when we come to this House the Lord Chancellor, in a couple of sentences, adheres to the position which has been taken up by His Majesty's Government. He seemed to regard the matter as so much settled that it was hardly worth while for him to give us any arguments in its favour.
As we have not been favoured with any arguments in support of the proposal in the Bill, may I be permitted to give one or two arguments against it? I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that it was a most reasonable thing that the Speaker of the House of Commons should be asked to exercise these functions because they were more or less strictly analogous to those which he at present discharges in the House of Commons. Speaking as an old House of Commons man—and there are many in this House—I say that there is really the widest difference between the two. At the present moment the Speaker of the House of Commons has, roughly speaking, to discharge two sets of duties. In the first place, he is the custodian of the Rules and the order of the House of Commons. As such he does not utter obiter dicta. He is largely guided by the volume of precedents; to that he adds, no doubt, from time to time; but, broadly speaking, those are functions confined entirely to the business and order of the House of Commons. Then he has a second function to perform as the custodian of the privileges of the House of Commons. It is for him to say, when Bills go down from this House or when Amendments are introduced by this House, whether in his judgment those Bills or Amendments violate the privileges of the House of Commons as he conceives them to be. But when he makes that pronouncement it is common knowledge that he commits nobody beyond the House to which his pronouncement is addressed. He is laying down the law for the House of Commons. He is not laying down the law

1061
for the House of Lords; and has it not happened over and over again within the last fifty years that the version of privilege which has been given by the Speaker in the House of Commons, binding though it may be upon that Chamber, has been repudiated by us—that we have expressed our dissent from it? We may not have contested the point, but we at any rate have not accepted it. Also should not this be borne in mind, that there has always hitherto remained in the hands of the House of Lords the power in the last resort, if they disagreed with what happened in the House of Commons, to adhere to their own Amendments and throw out the Bill? That makes the whole difference in the situation.
What are you going to do now? You are going to place upon this great official duties no longer confined to the interpretation of the privileges or to the enforcement of order in the House of Commons. You are going to make him decide political issues of the greatest importance. You are going to empower him to say not merely whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill—that might seem to be a question on which he was well qualified to pronounce—but also to say whether a Bill, if he pronounces it to be a Money Bill, shall be brought before the House of Lords with no power of amendment whatsoever; or, if he pronounces it not to be a Money Bill, shall go through a course of two years' dispute in the two Houses of Parliament. In other words it is proposed to put it in the hands of the principal officer of the House of Commons to say whether a measure introduced by the Government is to be carried into law in a single session or shall be protracted over two or three years. Those are entirely novel functions, which raise grave issues of politics, and which it will be most undesirable to ask the Speaker to perform. The Speaker surely is not appointed for functions of that description. The Speaker is selected partly because of his high character, partly because of his dignified manners, partly because of his regard for the privileges of the House of Commons, and most of all because he is not a politician or a partisan. I know of no case in modern times in which a strong partisan has been selected for the office of Speaker. Yet in future the Government are going to call on him to discharge these difficult
1062
political duties which must almost inevitably throw him into that category.
Much has been said about the great character which has been built up by recent occupants of the Speaker's Chair. No doubt in the last forty or fifty years the authority and prestige of that Chair have increased. There is now sitting in this House the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, whose manner of conducting the business of the House of Commons from the Chair is a memory which all of us who sat under him will for ever cherish. A more dignified or more noble exhibition of dignity and impartiality in the discharge of a Speaker's duties it is impossible for any man to imagine, and that high character has been carried on by his successors. But it does not follow that it will be eternal. In the future one might conceivably have a Speaker suddenly called upon to decide these momentous points in the early days of office before he had years and authority behind him; or there might be a weak Speaker, who bore in mind that Parliament was likely soon to come to an end, and that his own re-election would depend on the votes of those who sat before him. There might even conceivably be a partisan Speaker. Would it not be a danger to hand over to him the great authority contemplated under the Bill? I agree that the impartiality and prestige of the Speaker's Chair are one of the great assets of the nation. Speakers of the House of Commons were once partisan, but they have ceased to be so in this country, while corresponding officers have remained partisan in other countries. I hope nothing will be done to impair the great authority which we have so laboriously and successfully built up.
Before I pass on to the question of the Committee, there is one other point I should like to take about the Speaker as Chairman of a Committee. It may be said—I am not certain it was not hinted at—that if you appoint a Committee and then put your Speaker as Chairman of the Committee, you are practically calling upon him to perform the same or similar duties to those which the Government themselves propose to place upon him. That remark is greeted with applause by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Is there really any analogy between the two cases? There is a great difference between calling upon the Speaker alone, in private,

1063
without any consultation so far as one knows with other authorities, to decide these difficult questions, and providing him with a Committee drawn impartially from the two Houses of Parliament and composed, as I am certain it would be, of the best men in both Houses. I do not believe such a Committee would be animated by partisan feeling. In these questions I think some people are inclined to take too low a view of human nature. I believe if you have a Committee of this description appointed by Statesmen who hold the position of the noble and learned Lord in this House and the Speaker in the House of Commons you will get a body of men animated with the sincerest desire to give their decision impartially and without regard to the interests of the Party to which they belong. And if you did get such a body as that, am I to be told that it is not to the advantage of the Speaker to hear their deliberations before a decision is arrived at? Am I to be told that it would not be a great advantage to them to have the Speaker in the Chair and to listen to his advice? Am I to be told that there is any analogy between the two cases of the Speaker deciding alone and the Speaker assisted by such a tribunal as that proposed by the noble Earl?
Then I may pass on—and I can only assume I am in order, otherwise the speakers before me were equally out of order—to deal with the points that have been made against this Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, said that the principle of such a Committee would be wholly new. No doubt the application of the principle is new because the situation is new. You have a Government introducing revolutionary proposals. How can you possibly hope to deal with those proposals or cope with them by ordinary measures? Our plans have to be adjusted to their proposals. If that answer is thought, as it seems to be, quite inadequate, is it not fair to point out that the principle of conference between members of the two Houses of Parliament is one to which noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have frequently signified their adhesion during the last year or two, and one which figured prominently in the proposals of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman for dealing with the Constitutional situation and was alluded to pointedly and with great approbation by the noble Earl, Lord Crewe, last year? It was contemplated
Lord Curzon of Kedleston.
1064
that if there was a disagreement between the two Houses over a Bill it might be settled by a Conference between a small number of members of both Houses. I cannot, therefore, see anything startling in making such a body the arbiter on the question of Money Bills.
Then the noble Viscount went on to say that the existence of such a Committee would give great powers to this House. I confess I did not understand that objection. In what way does it add to the powers of this House? As I understand, it is proposed that the composition of the Committee shall be, half and half, from members of the two Houses of Parliament seven of one and the same number of the other, with the Speaker in the chair. In other words, the members of this House would never be in a majority, and in the case of a division between them and the Speaker voting they might be overruled. But it is most unreasonable to suppose that members of the House of Lords will all vote as House of Lords men, and that, on the other hand, House of Commons men will vote as House of Commons men. Surely we may presume to think that they will vote as sensible men and as patriots. I fail to see the situation which the noble Viscount predicates, that the presence on this Committee of a certain number of members from this House would add to the power or authority of this House. I may, of course, have quite failed to understand his argument, and it may, perhaps, be put before us later on; but I am unable to see that the members of the Committee belonging to this House will give any more to this House of Parliament than the corresponding members of the Committee from the House of Commons will give to the other House of Parliament.
In the course of his remarks upon that point the noble Viscount made one admission for which I think we ought to be grateful. He said that there is hardly a Finance Bill which comes up to this House that does not involve some question of general policy. My Lords, that is the whole of our contention. It is because finance is so inextricably interwoven with these other questions that we want some impartial tribunal to decide this matter in the first place, and are not willing to leave it to the arbitrament of a single man. Then there was one small point made by the noble Viscount which again I did not quite understand. He seemed to

1065
contemplate that the existence of this Committee would paralyse the conduct of business in the House of Commons, that there would constantly be occasions arising in which the Speaker would, so to speak, have to leave the Chair and run away to a room in the background, collect his Committee together, and find out what they thought. Surely we do not contemplate anything so absurd as that. I understand the noble Earl proposes that this Committee should be set up at the beginning of the session and that it should deal at a preliminary stage with the Bills that it is contemplated by the Government to introduce.
THE EARL OF CROMER: That was a provision as to which I did not make any remarks, but I attach great importance to it. I do not propose to have the Committee appointed ad hoc when a particular question arises, but to have it appointed at the beginning of the session before they know what questions they will have to decide. The point is one of great importance.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, and not only would they be appointed at the beginning of the session, but surely their work would be done at the beginning of the session. It is not a case in which they would be suddenly summoned.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: How could it be done at the beginning of the session? There is no Money Bill ever passed then.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I mean when the Money Bill is first brought forward by His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I referred to Amendments, and I asked how this Committee was to deal with Amendments arising in the course of Bills.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The Committee is surely not called upon to decide as the Amendments are introduced. The Committee has the Bill before it when the Amendments have been put into it, and then it decides the question. I think my point is a correct one.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Amendments are constantly arising in the course of Bills, and the question is what is their character. The difficulty is to give a
1066
ruling on that on the spot; otherwise the Bills cannot proceed. The Speaker may negative them or allow them, and how is that to be done by the Speaker without prejudicing his functions as the head of this tribunal?
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I assume that the Speaker will discharge on those occasions exactly the same functions as he performs at the present moment. I do not conceive that those are the cases which the Committee will be called upon to assist him in deciding. It is rather difficult to carry on this discussion across the Table, and I have no doubt other speakers, and the noble Earl himself, will be prepared to elaborate it later on. Starting with the question of the Speaker, I hope I have not unduly deviated into the other branches of the discussion which were taken up by noble Lords opposite. All I will say, in conclusion, is that we shall have opportunities of discussing this Committee later on when the larger and wider functions proposed to be attached to it will come under consideration. But do let this House pause before it accepts the advice of His Majesty's Government and decides to impose upon the Speaker of the House of Commons functions foreign to his office, functions entirely different from those which he has hitherto been called upon to discharge, and functions which must, if thrust upon him, bring his office into disrepute and impair the great position which a series of renowned Speakers have built up.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I need not say that I entirely subscribe to the noble Lord's panegyric to a great Speaker under whom both he and I had the honour of serving, and I entirely agree with what he has said as to the character of past Speakers and the character which we may expect future Speakers to maintain. We are asked what attitude we really take with regard to the advantage of the Speaker of the House of Commons being the deciding authority upon the point whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill. If noble Lords opposite can persuade us that there is any better plan of erecting a deciding authority I can promise that we will listen to it. But this at all events is certain, that nothing will induce the Government to assent to this Joint Committee. And why? Lord Cromer very naturally said that his proposal affects not only Clause 1 but Clause 2, and is deeply

1067
involved also with the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. On that we shall have a great deal to say, and so will noble Lords in every part of the House, when we come to it, because I think we apprehend that if that Amendment in its present form is maintained anything like a possible agreement between us on these Benches and noble Lords opposite vanishes.
As to the Committee proposed by my noble friend, does the House realise how that Committee would be composed? It is to be composed of seven members of this House, seven members of the House of Commons, and the Speaker, who is only to have a casting vote. They are to be men chosen by the Lord Chancellor and by the Speaker—men of impartial mind. Whether those are the exact words or not, we know what is meant. That sounds very easy, and I cordially agree with the noble Lord in thinking that we do habitually assume that the character of noble Lords here and of members of the House of Commons is lower than it really is, and that they will abandon themselves to purely Party or even factious purposes with a culpable facility and readiness. But, nevertheless, when you get a large body of fifteen gentlemen I do not believe it is possible, taking a high view of the character of public men in both Houses, to divest such a body entirely of Party considerations. Supposing my noble and learned friend in this House were to choose seven noble Lords to decide upon an issue of this kind—to decide whether a Bill is or is not a purely financial Bill, or whether it does not involve all kinds of social and ulterior considerations—I do not believe, speaking candidly, that we should assume it was quite easy for my noble and learned friend to be certain that he would find seven men who would, when it came to a critical point—say the Budget—divest themselves entirely of Party considerations. He might, of course, look to the Cross Benches, but I am not at all sure that he would find such men even in that latitude. Now look at the House of Commons. Men are sent there as politicians. They are not sent there to meditate upon human affairs at large; they are sent there as Party men, and what is commonly meant by this choice of men of broad minds and flexible convictions, and so forth, is that you will have the seven men chosen from the House of Commons either cranks or Party nobodies. I submit that it would be
Viscount Morley of Blackburn.
1068
exceedingly difficult to constitute a fair and impartial tribunal in the nature of a Joint Committee with the object of deciding political questions, because the effect of that decision is a political and Party effect.
Some language used by the noble Lord opposite just now, and by a noble Lord previously, implies that this Joint Committee is simply to advise the Speaker, who would advise the House of Commons. It is not merely that. The Joint Committee is to decide and to impose upon both Houses its own view of the question submitted to it. That is a very serious thing. You want something much more than fourteen meditative minds, and you certainly will not get fourteen meditative minds. You will get fourteen upright men, straight men, and careful men, but they will be essentially politicians. What are they to do? What is the real object of the Joint Committee. To construe the definition of a Money Bill given in the first clause of the Bill under discussion. It is no good talking in this high vein about impartial men. In one sense it would be wise to have a Court of law as the tribunal. But you do not want men to construe this defining clause from the technical and strict view of a Court of law; you want men well acquainted with Parliamentary practice and usage, men of Parliamentary habits of mind. I can imagine there being added—I hope the Committee will not think that I am for a moment recommending it—one or two men of special and almost technical acquaintance with the practice and custom in respect of Money Bills. That might or might not be an advantage. I myself do not believe that the Speaker would have any more important decisions to make than he has to make at present. The noble Lord obviously foresaw one of the answers that would be made to his argument. He said how unfair and disadvantageous it was to throw on the Speaker alone this invidious duty which the Bill proposes that he should discharge. I submit that it would be far more invidious for him to go against the seven men whom he had himself put on the Joint Committee—at all events, it would be just as invidious for him to go against the views and wishes of those seven men as under the provisions of the Bill—
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Why are we to assume that the seven men will be all united? It is exactly that against which I protest. Why are we to assume

1069
that the seven men of the House of Commons will be united and that the seven men of the House of Lords will be united?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I am rather astonished that the noble Lord puts that point. He knows very well, with his immense experience of the House of Commons and his considerable experience of this House, that supposing a Chancellor of the Exchequer brings in a Budget which is palatable to his own Party it is probable that out of the seven men of the House of Commons four or five of them will represent the Government view. You could not get seven whose minds were entirely empty, and they would not be worth very much if you could. The probability, almost the certainty, is that five of the seven from the House of Commons would go one way, and you are putting the Speaker in a tremendously invidious position if you tell him to overrule those men. Surely we have had in the last few months in this House evidence enough that men go with their Party, and of course these fourteen men, or most of them at all events, would go with their Party, and I for one should respect them the more for it. Now there is one remarkable feature in my noble friend's proposal. This Joint Committee is to be set to work either at the request of a Minister of the Crown or by a Resolution of either House of Parliament. I think I am right in that.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Quite right.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I cannot for the life of me make out why on earth a Minister of the Crown should request the Joint Committee to set to work to find out whether his Bill is or is not in order. I cannot understand it. The Minister has his majority in the House of Commons, or else he would not be a Minister. He brings in his Bill, and he is supported by that majority or else he would have to give up his office. What is the sense, then, of allowing him to move the Joint Committee? Perhaps my noble friend will explain that, but it puzzles me enormously. It leads me to suspect that my noble friend—and I say so, as he knows, with profound respect—has not quite thought out all that his proposals involve, or else he would not have put in a proviso of that kind.
Do remember—and it is almost the only other observation with which I will trouble
1070
the Committee—that Clause 1 is a clause which does nothing but put into legal form, according to the best judgment and knowledge that we have been able to procure, what has been the custom and practice of an indefinitely long number of years. We do not want a Joint Committee to determine matters of that kind. The Speaker decides now questions more important than can arise upon the construction of the definition of a Money Bill, and on that ground, at this stage at all events, we must adhere to the placing of this authority in the hands of the Speaker, who by his office, his history, and his experience is better acquainted with what the custom and practice has been than this Joint Committee, as to which I am afraid. I shall have to say a great deal more before we get to the end of the Bill. In the meantime we cannot accept the Amendment.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, the argument of the noble Viscount who has last spoken amounts practically to this, that the Speaker of the House of Commons is the only person who can be trusted to deal impartially with questions that may arise as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. Very likely the present Speaker of the House of Commons or any of his predecessors would have been more capable of dealing with such questions than any possible tribunal that could be imagined, but, if we may judge at all by what has happened elsewhere, the giving to a Speaker of great political powers has a remarkable effect upon his position and upon the attitude he assumes. I have been looking at what has happened in America, according to Mr. James Bryce in his well-known book on "The American Commonwealth." He says there that the Speaker of the House of Representatives in his title and attributes is taken from the English original, but the character of the office has greatly altered from that of the original. He has immense political power. It is not necessary for me to amplify what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, as to the great political power which would be given to the Speaker by the proposals of the Bill we are discussing. It would lie with him to decide whether any Bill was to be debated and decided on exclusively by the House of Commons, or whether it was to be subject to prolonged discussion in this House and outside. Mr. Bryce, in a very few words, draws a striking contrast between the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The note of the Speaker

1071
of the House of Commons, Mr. Bryce further pointed out, is impartiality; custom as strong as law forbids him to render help to his own side even by private advice; it makes little difference to any English Party whether the occupant of the Chair comes from their own side or not. But of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Mr. Bryce says that he may, and does, advise the leaders of his Party privately; that he is expected to serve his Party in all possible directions; that a "certain measure" of fairness to his opponents is required of him, and that he must not palpably exercise the rules of the House to their disadvantage though he may decide all doubtful points against them. That official, as regards his title and attributes, and, I believe, his original functions, was modelled, we are told, on the English original. The change I have mentioned has been brought about by giving him immense political power, and I do not think anybody can argue that the Bill we are discussing does not give immense political power to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
LORD MARCHAMLEY: My Lords, I only desire to say one word on one particular point. I cannot help thinking that the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl is a step in the wrong direction, and a very dangerous step. The danger will, I think, be apparent when it comes to the constitution of the so-called Joint Committee. The Bill proposes that in all cases the decision as to whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill should be in the hands of the Speaker—that he should be the sole arbiter. I have the greatest possible respect for the judgment and the impartiality of the Speaker, a respect which has been shared by every speaker throughout this debate. I do not think it is in any way his wish, nor is it to his advantage—and I have had some experience in these matters—to aggravate or increase difficulties between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It is rather his business, if possible, to smooth difficulties away. Such matters are questions of the most anxious consideration and deliberation by the Speaker. It is not as if he acted, as some suggest, if I may so describe it, "off his own bat." He refers to precedents, consults with his Clerk, and with his legal advisers in the House of Commons, and he never comes to a decision without the matter having first been well thought out. Some noble Lords seem to regard the
Earl Fortescue.
1072
Speaker as a hot-headed youth who rushes in and gives ill-considered decisions. Nothing of the sort. He desires to be absolutely impartial and to act in a strictly fair and unbiassed way.
What is the alternative proposed by the noble Earl—an alternative which I may say deals not with the question of Money Bills alone; it is one that is going to be developed, if we may judge by the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Earl proposes a Joint Committee which is bound, in my judgment, to be a political Committee and to assume the political aspect of the Government of the day. The noble Lord says that surely it ought not to be impossible to get seven impartial men in the House of Commons and the same number in the House of Lords. The noble Lord has greater faith in human nature than I have. He thinks that everything is for the best; that all men are good and true, and honest, unbiassed, and impartial, and that they will do their duty. The noble Lord has been in India lately and it may be so there, but it is not so in the House of Commons. Just see how this Joint Committee is going to be selected. There is to be a delegation of seven Members from the House of Commons chosen by the Speaker or by the Whips. All these Committees are bound to be chosen and selected in proportion to the representation of the Parties in the House of Commons. Whether they are selected by the Whips or by the Speaker they are bound to give a majority to the Government of the day, and I suppose the representation would probably be: the Government four; the Opposition, two; and the Irish, one. Then we come to the seven noble Lords appointed by the Lord Chancellor in this House. Consider the invidious and painful task you are putting upon the Lord Chancellor. It is one that he cannot carry out to the satisfaction of both sides of the House. Supposing the Lord Chancellor says, "I recognise there is bound to be a majority in the House of Commons delegation of one in favour of the Government, and I will neutralise that by appointing four of the Opposition and three of the Government." How could he either neutralise that or accord to the Opposition the majority vote in that Committee? He could not do so. Unlike the Speaker in the House of Commons he

1073
is a politician and a Party man, and he would be bound to consider the complexion of that Committee. He could not appoint a delegation from this House that would give the control of that Joint Committee to members of the Opposition. He would neutralise all the desires of his own Party if he did. I am certain that the Lord Chancellor would do his duty, but at any rate he would be in a dangerous and invidious position and one which no Lord Chancellor would desire to be in.
To sum up, you have at the present time in the Speaker an arbiter with whom every noble Lord who has spoken to-night has expressed himself satisfied. It has not been even hinted that the Speaker would not act fairly in these matters. Instead of him you are proposing to set up what is bound to be a political Committee—the Whips would endeavour to make it a political Committee. It will not only be Money Bills that will be referred to it, for, if you read one of the Amendments in the name of the noble Marquess, a vast variety of topics, embracing almost every subject that comes before the House of Commons, will have to be so submitted. The suggestion of the noble Earl is, in my opinion, a mistake. I feel sure that if noble Lords carry the Amendment they will do wrong, and will make this Committee a battle-ground for politicians in the future. It would, I think, be better to leave the decision in the hands of the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the Bill proposes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, there is a well known saying that no one makes such a good keeper as an old poacher. To-night the noble Lord who has just spoken, and spoken with the authority of a late Chief Whip, tells us that there are not to be found in the House of Commons seven impartial men. He made some other remarks about this House, though his acquaintance with this House is not so great as his acquaintance with the House of Commons. But I was very much surprised when the noble Viscount who leads the House said very much the same thing. He said that House of Commons men are Party men, and are sent there for that purpose, with the exception of a few cranks. He further asked, How could the Speaker vote against his seven men?
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I only said it would be more invidious than anything he has to do now.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Viscount asks, How can the Speaker incur this invidious task of voting against his seven men? The Speaker, being an upright man, will vote against those seven men if they are wrong just as readily as he will vote against the other seven. Then we were told that we interfered with the Speaker in his present duties. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, said that. How do we interfere with the Speaker in his present; duties? So far as the House of Commons is concerned, I presume the Speaker will continue to act in that House as he does now. He has at the present time questions of order and so on to settle. Why is he not to continue to decide those questions just as he does now?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: He has to rule on Amendments arising on these very points, and thereby would prejudice his judgment as statutory head of the Joint Committee.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: So long as he is dealing with the Bill in the House of Commons he has a perfect right to exercise, and I presume he would continue to exercise, his judgment, and deliver his judgment in any way that he saw fit.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: His pre-judgment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Bill is not before the Joint Committee at that time. That is exactly what the noble Viscount forgets. The Bill will come before the Committee at a later stage, and if the Speaker has formed his judgment I presume that he will vote according to the way in which he has formed his judgment. I know a little more of this House than I do of the other, but if you cannot find seven independent men in the House of Commons I am quite convinced the Lord Chancellor will have no difficulty whatever is finding seven impartial men in this House. Anyone who has any knowledge of this House knows perfectly well that when men are picked out in this House, whether it be as Chairmen or in any other capacity, and are told that they have to put aside their personal predilections

1075
and give a judicial opinion—anyone who has any knowledge of this House knows that there are a great many men here, and I believe on both sides, who are quite able to perform that duty.
I cannot see how the Speaker' position will be prejudiced in any way. You say you are only giving to him duties which he discharges at the present time. Is the Speaker at the present time called upon to decide questions of tacking? The questions which he will be called upon to decide are new questions to him altogether. Hitherto the Speaker has been occupied with questions relating to the House of Commons only, and now you are going to put him upon the entirely new duty of deciding questions which concern the relations of the two Houses. I know if I were Speaker I should be most grateful to have the assistance and advice of, and to take counsel with, fourteen men chosen from the two Houses. Remember you are not proposing to give the Speaker any advice to assist him. He will be called upon, as has been already stated, to decide without any outside assistance and according to his own unaided judgment. I cannot conceive that the Speaker, possessing a vote and at the head of fourteen men, seven of whom were chosen from his own House, would not then find himself in a much more easy position and one in which he would be much more able to perform his duty than if he were called upon to decide this question alone and in private.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I think everyone must see the extraordinary difficulties we get into—I say this with great respect—the moment we begin to depart from the integrity of the Constitution. Noble Lords opposite need not think that, having said that, I am going to support their proposal, because in my opinion their proposal is a great deal worse than the proposal which is put forward from the Cross Benches. I shall reserve the remarks I have to make with regard to this Joint Committee till a later stage, because I learn from the Amendments on the Paper that it is proposed that this Committee shall not only apply itself to finance—and I can conceive a Constitutional body which might be able to adjudicate on what was finance and what was not finance being set up with a certain amount of advantage—but to the consideration of a variety of other matters, and that almost
The Earl of Camperdown.
1076
any Bill which comes to your Lordships' House will have first of all to run the gauntlet of this Committee.
It is very refreshing to notice that during the whole of this debate, with the exception of Lord Marchamley, not a single Peer on the Back Benches opposite has got up to defend this proposal on the part of their own leaders that the Speaker of the House of Commons should be placed in this exceedingly invidious position. We must have listened with delight to the erudition which Lord Fortescue brought to bear on this extremely important subject, from which it appears that the Speaker in another Assembly has become in effect, as the Speaker is bound to become here if the Government's proposal is persisted in, the dominant wire-puller of the Party in power. We have a Speaker now in whom we all have the most profound confidence. That is a line that the adherents of this proposal always take when they are defending it, but it must be repeated for the thousandth time that the present occupant of the Chair is not always going to occupy it, and a Speaker can conceivably be found who will meet the demands of those who put him there. Another thing to be considered is that by the proposal to pay members of the House of Commons you will be introducing a type of politician who will be much more prone to make bargains with officials and to create Speakers of the kind wanted. The proposal to pay members will bring into our public life a type of politician who will be less scrupulous than the friends of Lord Marchamley whom he described just now, I have no doubt in perfectly suitable terms.
Some noble Lord suggested that it was unfair to assume that you could not find seven impartial men in the House of Commons. Whoever made that remark said, I believe, nothing more than was absolutely true, because all the best men in both Houses of Parliament—with every apology to noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches—are those who take an active part in Party politics in this country; and whatever may be said with regard to the House of Lords, there is no doubt whatever that, in the condition things have got into now, there is no political hope whatever for anybody in the House of Commons unless he is a very pronounced Party politician. I should not at all mind seeing finance Bills of the character of the

1077
Chancellor of the Exchequer's referred to seven gentlemen who hold views such as Mr. Harold Cox does. I believe we should be perfectly safe in his hands. Mr. Harold Cox spoke against the Budget of 1909 every time he had an opportunity of saying anything in the House of Commons, but I also notice that he went into the Lobby with the Government, so far as I could follow his movements, as often as he possibly could. But on account of the non-Party character of Mr. Harold Cox's career there is no place for him in public life at the present day, and there is no morn in the House of Commons under our Party system for anybody who is not a rabid Party politician.
My Lords, I am going to support this proposal for a Joint Committee to adjudicate upon the question whether a Bill is a finance Bill or whether it is not, but I give no pledge now as to whether I am going to support it as applied to other Bills. I for my part am not much in love with the idea that what used to be the functions and privileges of this House should be usurped—I do not mean it in an offensive sense—or handed over to some other body constituted in any way whatever. Human nature is, after all, human nature, and I am afraid that sometimes I am rather inclined to take a higher view of human nature when it agrees with what I wish it to agree with than when it does not. It is quite easy to conceive in future a Committee which might possibly, when you have a complaisant Speaker and a Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords also a partisan—I do not mean the present Lord Chancellor, but some successor—consist all of Conservatives, or all of Liberals. I have risen for the purpose of entering a protest against this proposal to place the Speaker in a position which he ought never to be placed in, and never will be placed in if we can possibly help it. I shall support the alternative proposal, although I do so with a certain amount of misgiving, and I must not be taken as supporting the proposal of this Committee as applied to subjects other than finance.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, the few remarks I ask leave to address to your Lordships on this question I will confine entirely to the operation of the Amendment before the House in relation to the first clause. I think a good deal may be said as to the distinction between the action of the proposed Committee in reference to finance Bills and in reference to
1078
general legislation. I do not wish at all to prejudge what may be considered proper in respect to general legislation, but in respect to pure questions of finance I must confess, having considered this question as dispassionately as possible, I have arrived at the conclusion that the proposal of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches is totally inadmissible. I say this confessing great regret that it should be necessary to bring in the Speaker in the way proposed in the present Bill, and admitting also most fully that the argument founded upon the past reputation of Speakers is not completely convincing with respect to what may happen in the future. The quotation made by my noble friend opposite from the book of Mr. Bryce does show that Speakers can deteriorate, and although I hope that the character of the Speaker here will not deteriorate and may be strong enough, and I think will be strong enough, to withstand all the temptations involved in the present proposal, we cannot rule the point out, and if there was an alternative which could be admitted I, for one, would be quite ready to consider it and almost eager to embrace it.
Consider the proposition in the Bill as it stands. It is nothing more or less than what we have understood to be the operation of our Constitution in past years—at least up to two years ago. It is with reference to Money Bills and Money Bills alone that I am now speaking. A Money Bill we all held could not be amended, and most of us held that it could not be rejected by this House, and the question whether it was a Money Bill or not ultimately depended upon the opinion expressed to the House of Commons by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker's opinion on that subject in reference to the Old Age Pensions Bill ruled the matter so that no Amendments inserted by your Lordships were considered; and, with regard to another question of recent occurrence, the decision of the Speaker was practically final and unquestioned that a Bill was a Money Bill and could not be amended by this House. Now if, under the guise of a Money Bill, a system of tacking had been adopted in the past, what would have been the procedure This House might have proceeded to take out the tacking clause. The Bill would then have gone back to the House of Commons, and it would have rested with the Speaker to decide whether or not that interference was an interference with the privilege of the

1079
House of Commons. The Speaker himself has been the authority up to the present upon the question of whether a Money Bill is purely a Money Bill or not, and the clause in the Bill now before us leaves that matter entirely as its stands. The vital alteration is this, that the Speaker might have decided what he liked, but your Lordships had definitely the power of rejecting the Bill in the end, and you might have done that if you had liked in respect to the Old Age Pensions Bill, but you did not. In future, if this Bill becomes law, you will have no such power, and the Speaker's decision will be final. It is that which makes the matter very grave, and it has been brought upon us unfortunately by what happened two years ago. It is necessary to decide this matter now. The country will not stand the interference which your Lordships have exercised in the past. You all recognise that.
Now what is the alternative? It is to set up a Joint Committee of fourteen, presided over by the Speaker. A good deal of language has been used as to the selection of those fourteen which does not appear to me to be in agreement with the terms of the proposal in question, Over and over again your Lordships have spoken of seven Peers being selected by the Lord Chancellor and seven Commoners being selected by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is not the language of the proposal as it stands. The language as it stands is that the fourteen are to be selected jointly by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor will have a say theoretically as to the members of the House of Commons to be chosen, and the Speaker will have a say theoretically as to the members of the House of Lords to be chosen. Surely that is a matter that will have to be corrected before it can go any further. Then supposing the Lord Chancellor has agreed upon a certain number but not agreed as to the remainder. What is to happen? The noble Earl on the Cross Bench does not tell you. You have this Committee of fourteen to decide, under the presidency of the Speaker, as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. There is this novelty, which was pointed out by my noble friend the Leader of the House, in the proposal before us, that this Committee is of superior authority to both Houses of Parliament. This Committee is to govern us. That is one of the novelties of the situation. This unprecedented Committee is to be brought into
Lord Curzon of Penwith.
1080
operation and its conclusions are to govern us altogether. Another point which I may refer to, in passing, is with regard to the position of the Lord Chancellor in having to exercise a function of this kind. Hitherto the Lord Chancellor has exercised a most noble influence in this House, but he has not in any sense had the functions of a Speaker here, and this proposal gives him new powers and new authorities totally foreign to those hitherto vested in him. You now propose to set up this Committee of fourteen, with the Speaker as the Chairman, to decide a question whether a Money Bill is a Money Bill or not, not knowing how your Committee is to be appointed, not having settled it clearly in your own mind, not knowing what the influence of the Speaker will be, and exposing the Speaker to the embarrassment pointed out by Lord Haldane, that having already taken action in respect to the Bill in the House of Commons in his individual capacity there, he will have to consider it again in reference to the Bill as it comes up here.
There is another point as to which singular divergence has been displayed. When is this Bill to be submitted to the Joint Committee? Lord Curzon spoke of the Committee being appointed at the commencement of a session, and said that when a Bill is introduced into the House of Commons it was to be submitted to this Committee. On the other hand Lord Camperdown, who always speaks after close attention to all the details of the case, spoke of it as being submitted to the Committee at the stage of its being brought up here. I should suppose that that would be the proper stage at which it should be submitted to the Committee, because then, and then only, could the final question arise as to what the possible action of this House might be. But looking at the matter on both sides, and sincerely desirous, if possible, of getting the Speaker out of this trap, and conscious that the introduction of this novel power may possibly have a deteriorating influence on the character of Speakers in future, I confess I fall back reluctantly to the conclusion that the scheme of the Bill is the only scheme possible with respect to Money Bills, and that the proposal of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches—I say it with all respect—is totally inadmissible.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was rather glad when I heard my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke say

1081
a few minutes ago that though he intended to support this Amendment he did not regard the vote he was about to give as in any way prejudicing Ids decision in regard to an Amendment standing in my name. In two of the speeches delivered from the Bench opposite reference was made to that Amendment, and I think I may say that a certain amount of prejudice was brought against the Amendment of my noble friend on the ground that the Committee which he contemplates would, under my Amendment, have other and more extensive duties imposed upon it. This Amendment has, however, nothing to do with my Amendment. We are at this moment voting on the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Cromer. We on this Bench shall certainly support it, for we attach the greatest importance to it. It seems to us to be one of the most vital Amendments to this Bill. The question of the tribunal which is to decide whether a Bill is or is not to be withdrawn from the cognisance of this House is most import ant. The definition of a Money Bill, I do not care whether you take the definition contained in the Bill as it now stands or any other definition which may be suggested, must necessarily be to a certain extent vague and undefined, and everything to my mind depends on the weight and authority and confidence to be reposed in the tribunal by which that definition will be interpreted.
The Amendment raises two questions. Are you to have for your tribunal the Speaker without any aid or assistance whatever? If you are not to have the Speaker unassisted, what tribunal are you going to adopt in his place? Let me say frankly that I should have been very glad indeed if His Majesty's Government had seen their way to keep the Speaker out of this clause altogether. I am not going to travel over the ground covered by my noble friends, but I think they must have satisfied the House that whatever respect we may have for the present Speaker, or for his illustrious predecessors, however deeply we may be convinced that they have been successful in maintaining an attitude of impartiality between the two Parties in the House of Commons, no Speaker of the House of Commons can really be wholly impartial as between the two Houses of Parliament. The business of the Speaker is to claim for his own House everything which he thinks the practice of Parliament permits him
1082
to claim, and it is undoubtedly the case that in recent years that claim has been pressed with much greater insistence and pertinacity than in former times. In our view it is unfair to the Speaker himself and unfair to both Houses of Parliament to impose this new burden on that high official.
When we remember that under this Bill the Speaker is to have this new duty imposed upon him, and that he is to discharge it without assistance, the case from our point of view becomes very much worse. So far as the House of Commons is concerned the Speaker is in close and constant touch with it, familiar with the currents of thought that prevail within it, and familiar with every item of business that comes before it. What opportunity has the Speaker of making himself aware of the feelings of this House? He has none whatever, he is completely cut off from us, and therefore in our view it is absolutely necessary that he should be assisted by persons competent to assist him. The suggestion that that assistance should be given by an impartially constituted Joint Committee seems to us to meet the necessities of the case better than any other suggestion that has yet been made. What more reasonable can be suggested? We understood the noble Viscount to express a kind of general readiness to consider whether some other tribunal might not be discovered, but the noble Viscount went on to say that our proposal was one which nothing on earth would induce His Majesty's Government to accept.
If you are to exclude a Committee, what else is there to fall back upon? I venture to attach great importance to this Committee; and for this reason. It seems to me that the Committee would establish, what is very much wanted, a bond of more intimate contact than anything we have got at present between the two Houses of Parliament. To my mind the greater part of our inter-House troubles arises from the fact that we have no such point of contact. Some of us have had experience of those hurried conferences which take place in the last days of the session in regard to contested measures, and know how unsatisfactory those conferences are. We want something better than that. Our troubles have arisen because the two Houses in the past have been too much in the habit of holding one another at arm's length. The noble Viscount told us that the proposal

1083
of a Joint Committee was one wholly foreign to our Constitution, or words to that effect. My noble friend Lord Curzon pointed out that in principle there was a certain amount of similarity between this proposal and the proposal of conferences between the two Houses which formed a conspicuous part of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's proposals. Another proposal is that there should be Joint Sittings of the two Houses. The Joint Committee now proposed is conceived in the same spirit. I believe that by setting up some machinery of this kind we should add a most valuable element to our Constitutional system. As to the constitution of the Committee, the number of members and mode of selection, I understood my noble friend to say that his mind was open as to these details. I can quite conceive that someone may be able to invent a better mode of composing the Committee, or a number which would work better between the two Houses; but what we care about is the principle of the thing. Amend the proposal if you can, but we desire that something in the shape of this Committee should be added to the machinery of this Bill. I must say that I have not been in the least intimidated by the gloomy prognostications we have heard from noble Lords opposite as to the hopeless difficulty which would be encountered in forming a body of fourteen honest men drawn from the two Houses. As usual on these occasions we had an illuminating speech from the noble Lord on the Back Bench, once Chief Whip of the House of Commons, who not for the first time has thrown light upon the manner in which business is transacted in the Whip's room elsewhere. But, my Lords, although we must accept the noble Lord as a high authority upon House of Commons matters, I venture to express my confident hope that when he knows us a little better he will be of opinion that we could provide seven members of a Committee of this kind, chosen impartially, and so chosen that every one of them would be able to contribute usefully to the deliberations of such a Committee as this. My Lords, I have said all that I desire to say at this time of the evening. I presume we shall now proceed to a Division, and I for one shall very gladly give my vote to the proposal of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before your
The Marquess of Lansdowne.
1084
Lordships go to a Division, I desire to say a few words, and they shall be very few. I confess to considerable disappointment at the result of to-night's discussion, first because of the hope which I had understood the noble Viscount to hold out to us of not merely a friendly hearing, but of what he described, I think, as a full discussion of the Amendments that were proposed. With an honest desire to agree if I possibly could with the noble Viscount's case and with the Bill as it stands, I have, literally, heard no arguments, I was going to say worthy of the name—I do not mean it disrespectfully—but worthy in point of adequacy, brought forward in answer to the objections to the sole arbitrament of the Speaker in this matter. I held myself perfectly open to conviction on that very difficult question, but I have had no opportunity of being convinced, because the arguments have been very far short of dealing adequately with what is obviously a most grave and serious question.
In the next place I am deeply disappointed to hear the opinion that is held, not in one part of the House only but in many, as to the difficulty of finding men who for this purpose would be impartial in dealing with such a matter. Surely, my Lords, there is a good deal of something more than misunderstanding as to the use of the word "impartial" in this particular matter. What is it that these men who are here suggested have to decide? It is not primarily a Party question at all. It is this—"Is there, or is there not, within the four corners of this document something that covers such and such a branch of legislation." I entirely decline to believe that there would be any difficulty in either House of Parliament in finding men able to state that, which is not primarily a Party question at all. I should be sorry to believe that it is impossible to find in either House seven men who would be perfectly able to decide such a question. Then the noble Viscount Lord Morley said that the men selected would vote for their Party, and that he would respect them the more for doing so. I am totally at a loss to know what voting for the Party means when the question is a question whether there is or is not within the four corners of a Bill something which is not a money question; and how I should respect a man more because he voted with his Party on such a subject I fail to understand.

1085
While I am perfectly ready to be convinced by argument that the sole authority of the Speaker is the best arbitrament, I feel at present that we really have had no substantial argument to prove that to be right. The very name of that great officer means, if I understand it rightly, that he is the spokesman and the representative of the House of Commons, and if indirectly rather than directly a Party question between the two Houses must necessarily be raised, it seems to me that the Speaker, the definition of whose duties in the little Dodd which lies on the Table and which I have consulted is, in the forefront, to uphold the privileges of the House of Commons, is the last man almost upon whom to lay the sole arbitrament of a matter of this kind. Lord Courtney, who speaks with impartiality on these questions, expressed his desire to "get the Speaker out of this trap," and that is the kind of position I find myself in in regard to this particular proposal.
As at present enlightened, I am not greatly enamoured of the proposed Committee in all its plans and in all that lies ahead of it, and I am glad to think, if I understand the rules aright, that our first Division to-night will be on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part. The words proposed to be left out are "the Speaker," and I am prepared to vote for leaving out those words although I confess to feeling very much less secure about putting in the words which are proposed in their place. That is a position with which one cannot rest satisfied very long, and I think there ought to be, and I hope there will be, alternative proposals before us for alleviating the gravity of the situation if the matter is left to the Speaker alone. I did feel a little hope when I heard Lord Morley say that "at the present stage" this proposal must be opposed. That led me to hope that there might be a readiness on the part of His Majesty's Government to consider other suggestions if they were made. But at present what I am personally conscious of is a lack of the constructive argument for what prima facie seems a strange proposal—that the man who is Speaker of one House of Parliament should be the arbiter when questions arise between the two Houses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the most rev. Primate's view at present, apparently, is that he is not satisfied that the Speaker should discharge a duty which
1086
somebody must discharge, and he does not know who else ought to do it. He is asking us for a suggestion. Our suggestion is that the Speaker, if I may put it so, is the least bad instrument for an absolutely necessary work. What we are at the present moment discussing is whether the authority is to be the Speaker or a Joint Committee. Let me, very shortly, put the reasoning in favour of the Speaker. The Speaker is impartial. He is really the man who has decided hitherto, and his decision has been accepted by both Houses in the past.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. It was repudiated by a definite Resolution two years ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The year 1909 was not a very happy year to begin with. It seems to me all our trouble has arisen from this, that this House being above all the House which ought to be bound by custom, usage, and tradition, and not by the strict letter of the law, forgot that usages and customs, like houses, are supported by leaning one upon the other. The situation has been created. I say the Speaker is the person who has hitherto been in the habit of giving undisputed decisions on this subject. He has also this advantage, that he is in the House of Commons when a Money Bill or what is said to be a Money Bill is introduced. It conies up and he is present, and in the Report stage certainly he watches it and decides then, if necessary, and warns the House of Commons. He says "This will not be merely a Money Bill."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He does not warn them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He can do so if he likes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble and learned Lord quote one single instance of his having done so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am pointing out what he may be able to do under this proposal. I am not talking of the law as it is. I am referring to what may happen if this clause is inserted. I say the proper person—and I appeal to House of Commons men—in the House of Commons to warn the House by saying "This Amendment is not in order" is the Speaker. Supposing the House of Commons were warned by the Speaker that a particular Amendment would prevent a Bill being a simple Money Bill and would necessitate

1087
its transference to Section 2, the House of Commons could refuse the Amendment, and see that the measure remained purely a Money Bill. But such a procedure is not possible in the case of a Committee. I thought the noble Earl felt that to be a weak point. The Committee cannot operate until the Bill has been passed through the House of Commons. Whether the Bill is or is not one which the House of Lords is bound to accept depends upon the decision of the Committee, who have no opportunity of warning the House of Commons, and who may take a different view from what the Speaker took when he was in the House, and so disappoint and surprise everybody.
Then you have this situation. Suppose it is the Finance Bill of the year, does not that Bill contain a political purpose? My noble friend Lord Haldane said that nearly every Money Bill contained a political purpose, and the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, said the same thing. He said that nearly every Finance Bill contained political principles, and that was the reason he liked this proposal. That is so, and that is what would make nearly every financial Bill that came up amenable to the Committee, and probably, if the noble Earl is right, likely to be treated by the Committee as one to which Clause 1 of this Bill would not apply. In other words, it would dethrone the House of Commons from its hitherto acknowledged supremacy in matters of finance, and instead of things being better for the House of Commons, instead of your Lordships' powers being limited and restricted, as I thought was going to be the result of what took place two years ago with regard to the Budget, this would be an invasion of the privileges and rights of the House of Commons greater than any which has hitherto been proposed and it would really leave this House in respect to Money Bills, if the noble Earl is right, at the mercy of the decision of the Committee. What would be the position of the Government then? The House of Lords might reject the Finance Bill if they thought proper, and place the Government of the country in this position, that either they must dissolve or appeal to a Referendum. This is a proposal for a deciding Committee and not an advising Committee, and it constitutes a greater invasion of the liberties of the House of Commons and of the ancient usages that have been observed with regard to financial Bills than anything that has hitherto been proposed.
The Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I will only detain your Lordships for a few minutes. I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marchamley, on having thrown what is to me a very lurid and perfectly novel light upon the effect produced by long residence in the East. The noble Lord seemed to think that long residence in India and elsewhere in the East inspired people with a high ideal of human nature, and that long acquaintance with the House of Commons inspired them with a totally different feeling. Those remarks convinced me that the noble Lord was more acquainted with the affairs of the House of Commons than with affairs in the East. A good deal has been said with respect to the question of impartiality. I could not quite understand the line adopted by the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, on that subject. He began by saying that he agreed with Lord Curzon as to the possibility of finding impartial men, but he went on to observe that any man would certainly vote according to strict Party principles with the exception of some very unimportant individuals and other persons like myself, whom he designated as "cranks." Impartiality is a relative term. It is quite possible to find men who are Party men but who at the same time are not so deaf to argument as not to be convinced when convincing arguments are brought before them.
Lord Morley criticised the proposal for bringing the Committee into operation at the request of the Minister of the Crown, or by Resolution of either House of Parliament. He asked why that should be so, and I think said that I had not fully considered that point. I may tell him that that point was very fully considered and discussed by us. I quite recognise that the Minister of the Crown will not bring the Committee into operation. Why should he do so? But ex hypothesi there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses, and we therefore thought that we had done all that was necessary by allowing either House to move the Resolution. Of course, there are other ways of doing it. One method, which was a good deal discussed, was whether the Committee should not be brought into operation at the request of a certain number—say fifty—of members of the House of Commons, but on the whole we thought this was the best proposal. I think most noble Lords will agree with me that we have had a most disappointing debate after the promises

1089
given to us, and after the opening words of the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount invited us to bring forward suggestions, and said that if we could persuade him that our proposals were good ones they would be adopted. But I think the impression left upon our minds is that His Majesty's Government are open neither to conviction nor to persuasion, and I really think it is hardly worth the trouble of bringing forward any other proposals. It seems to me to be a very unfortunate result, but I think
that is the result. That is all I have to say, and we will now go to a Division.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is to leave out the words "Speaker of the House of Commons."
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-contents, 183.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Boston, L.

Pentland, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Brassey, L.

Pirrie, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Reay, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Eversley, L.

Robson, L.

Farrer, L.

Rotherham, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Glantawe, L.

St. Davids, L.

Spencer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Glenconner, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Craven, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Shaw, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller.]

Haversham, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Russell, E.

Hemphill, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Haldane, V.

Ilkeston, L.

Swaythling, L.

Allendale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Armitstead, L.

Marchamley, L.

Weardale, L.

Blyth, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Willingdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Haddington, E.

Halifax, V.

Halsbury, E.

Hampden, V.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Hardwicke, E.

Hood, V.

Beaufort, D.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Bedford, D.

Lauderdale, E.

Portland, D.

Leven and Melville, E.

Iveagh, V.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Londesborough, E.

Llandaff, V.

Somerset, D.

Lovelace, E.

Peel, V.

Wellington, D.

Lytton, E.

Portman, V.

Macclesfield, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Malmesbury, E.

Ailsa, M.

Mar, E.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Bute, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Exeter, M.

Mayo, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Lansdowne, M.

Morley, E.

Salisbury, M.

Morton, E.

Addington, L.

Winchester, M.

Nelson, E.

Allerton, L.

Zetland, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Alverstone, L.

Plymouth, E.

Ampthill, L.

Amherst, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Armstrong, L.

Ancaster, E.

Powis, E.

Ashtown, L.

Bandon, E.

Radnor, E.

Atkinson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Rothes, E.

Avebury, L.

Cadogan, E.

Sandwich, E.

Bagot, L.

Camperdown, E.

Scarbrough, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Clarendon, E.

Selborne, E.

Barrymore, L.

Cromer, E.

Stanhope, E.

Basing, L.

Darnley, E.

Temple, E.

Bateman, L.

Dartrey, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Derby, E.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Belper, L.

Devon, E.

Westmeath, E.

Biddulph, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Wicklow, E.

Blythswood, L.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Eldon, E.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Fortescue, E.

Falkland, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Falmouth, V.

Castlemaine, L.

Guilford, E.

Goschen, V.

Churston, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Gwydyr, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Plunket, L.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Harris, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Clinton, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

Rathdonnell, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Heneage, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Colchester, L.

Hindlip, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton, L.

Rothschild, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Inchiquin, L.

Sackville, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

Kensington, L.

St. Levan, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kilmaine, L.

St. Oswald, L.

De Mauley, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Saltoun, L.

Deramore, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Sanderson, L.

Desborough, L.

Langford, L.

Sandys, L.

Desart, L.(E. Desart.)

Lawrence, L.

Seaton, L.

Digby, L.

Manners, L.

Sempill, L.

Dinevor, L.

Massy, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Dunalley, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Sinclair, L.

Dunleath, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Stanmore, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Sudeley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Elphinstone, L.

Monson, L.

Tennyson, L.

Farnham, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Farquhar, L.

Mostyn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

North, L.

Vivian, L.

Forester, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Greville, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Wynford, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at half past nine.]
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I beg to move that the words "Joint Committee" be now inserted in place of the words "Speaker of the House of Commons" which your Lordships struck out immediately before the dinner adjournment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after the words "of the" insert "Joint Committee"—(The Earl of Cromer.)
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, it is with the greatest diffidence that I rise to offer any remarks upon this Amendment, because having had no experience of the House of Commons I have no personal knowledge as to the practice followed by the Speaker in his consideration of what is termed a Money Clause or a Money Bill. But I listened with attention to what was said by Lord Courtney, knowing his great experience of the practices of the other House. There was a sentence in his speech which impressed me very much, and there was one in the speech of the noble Marquess which also attracted my attention. The noble Lord, Lord Courtney, said that the Speaker gave very careful attention to
1092
these questions, and consulted the Clerk to the House of Commons. Well, it seems to me that that is making what is already, from the point of view of some of us, rather objectionable, even more so, because that is merely consulting an official of the House of Commons. On a question of this kind materially affecting the House of Lords the Speaker of the House of Commons apparently consults an official of the other House. The noble Marquess said that one of the gravest objections that we have to the proposal of the Government is that this question is to be referred to the Speaker solely, without any opportunity of advice. It is upon that expression that I venture, with the greatest diffidence, to ask whether a suggestion I have to make, although I have not a resolute opinion on it myself, might not be worthy of some consideration. To put it without further argument, the suggestion is whether the same result would not in the end be secured if the Joint Committee were made an advisory Committee, instead of an executive Committee, by which I mean a Committee with the power of voting. The noble Marquess complained that the Speaker has no opportunity of getting any advice. That objection would be equally well removed by an advisory Committee, a Committee on which some members from the House of Lords would have an opportunity of advising as to the views of this House as to whether a Bill was purely a Money Bill or not.

1093
As regards the Joint Committee proposed by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, are we sure that that is going to be as impartial as he hopes? I confess that my experience of politics leads me to have some doubt on that point, and I cannot help thinking that people who attend closely to political matters do acquire Party bias. It is unavoidable, and there is a possibility—perhaps something stronger than that—that this Committee may become a purely Party Committee. It has been suggested in various quarters this evening that it is not reasonable to suppose that from both Houses of Parliament there could not be obtained impartial members who would not allow their minds to be biased by Party feelings. That may be so, but it is purely prophetic, and I do not know that my prophecy that it is possible that the Joint Committee may become as influenced by Party feelings as are ordinary politicians is not just as valuable as theirs. Were that the result, you would then arrive at practically what the position is now—that is to say, the Speaker, who would have a casting vote, would become the arbiter upon these questions. If that is the result of the Amendment of the noble Earl and the other Amendments dealing with the powers of this Committee, then you obtain a body which argues the question from a Party point of view, and the Speaker eventually decides, not from any Party feeling, but from his own experience of what has been the practice in the past. I am not sure that we should then arrive at a happier state of affairs than we should arrive at if this Committee were made purely an advisory Committee. I only throw this out as a suggestion.
It seemed to me that the idea of the Joint Committee was that the members of it should argue these questions before the Speaker, and that the object of giving him a casting vote was that, having heard the arguments on both sides, he should come to his conclusion. That seemed to me to be a reasonable proposal; but this Committee is to have very much larger powers than those merely dealing with decisions upon financial points, and. I certainly cannot pledge myself at this stage in the debate to vote for a Committee which should have powers of decision on subjects other than those of finance. I confine myself purely to the subject of finance, and upon that point I am not
1094
quite satisfied that the object that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches aims at will be secured. I am apprehensive that the Committee may become actuated or influenced by Party feeling, and that the Speaker will then decide, as he does now, from his own experience. If there is a possibility of that being the result, then I venture to ask those who have very much greater experience of these matters than I have, and whose advice I have followed all my political life, whether they are satisfied that this is the best form in which to frame this Committee. The Speaker has now been excluded from the Bill, and the proposal is to insert the words "Joint Committee." I do not know whether this is the right moment, but if my idea is a sound one possibly this would be the occasion to put in some such words as "Advisory Committee."
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. The Lord Chancellor gave us his view of the effect of this proposed Amendment. I imagine that he was assuming the other Amendments that are down on the Paper to be carried and the Joint Committee to be what is aimed at by the whole of those Amendments—a very powerful body as far as deciding a number of questions besides finance. I could not help feeling influenced by what the noble and learned Lord said—namely, that the setting up of such a Committee would be infringing very seriously upon the privileges of the House of Commons. If that is so, is it a very wise thing for us to press? Looking at it, from a purely Party and a tactical point of view, I am rather doubtful whether if we succeeded in carrying it we should have the sympathy of the country, because clearly we did not have it when we, from the House of Commons point of view, infringed their privileges over the Finance Bill. I venture with the greatest diffidence to offer these observations, having, as I said before, had no experience of the House of Commons or of the practices of the Speaker. Failing the suggestion of some better body, or some other individual, it does seem to me worthy of consideration whether the whole of the proposals concerning the formation of this Committee are not going rather too far in giving it an executive power, and whether practically the same result, and as useful a result, might not be obtained by making this a Committee more of an advisory than of an executive character.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I think that a great many noble Lords on this side of the House feel—it is one of the great complaints we have against this Bill—that the Bill puts the sole power into the hands of one Chamber, that you are creating a system of one-Chamber government. With regard to this particular clause now under discussion, not only does it appear to me that we are creating a system of one-Chamber government, but we are creating a system of one-man government. We are putting enormous powers into the hands of the individual who happens to be Speaker of the House of Commons. Like many others in this House, I sat for a short period in the House of Commons, and there is no one in this House or out of it who feels greater respect than I do for the office of the First Commoner of England, or for the gentleman who now fills that office with so much dignity. But, as has been said over and over again this afternoon, we are not discussing the character, the qualifications, the dignity, or the impartiality of the present Speaker. What we have to consider in this Bill is whether we shall give to any future Speaker these enormous and practically unlimited powers to decide whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill.
It is a truism to say that we are travelling pretty fast at the present day. I trust noble Lords opposite will not think for a moment that I wish to say anything personally offensive, but there is hardly anybody in this House who a few years ago would have expected to hear from a gentleman in such a high position the language used on public platforms by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. We should have been surprised that any gentleman who filled such a high office should have gloried, as I think he has gloried, in rendering poorer certain classes of the community. We should have been equally surprised to find a gentleman in the position of Home Secretary using the language the present Home Secretary has used, in regard not only to Justices of the Peace, but to Judges of the High Court. And I think I could refer to other cases of gentlemen in high office who nowadays appear to have a very different standard from that which obtained formerly. Therefore what I wish to lead up to is this, that I fear we cannot expect the high standard of the present Speaker of the House of Commons and of his
1096
predecessors for so many generations always to be maintained. The Government ask us to open our mouths and swallow what they are pleased to give us in this respect. Personally I cannot think that it is right that any future Speaker of the House of Commons should be afforded the practically unlimited despotism that would be given by the Bill unless some such Amendment as that suggested by Lord Cromer is carried. The solution suggested by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches may not be the best solution possible, but I think it is at all events a happy solution, and I am prepared to go into the Lobby with the noble Earl.
There were two things in the course of the debate this afternoon that may have struck your Lordships as rather curious. From the Front Government Bench we have heard over and over again language protesting against any innovations on our part, or anything that will impair the powers and prerogatives of the Speaker. I hope the Front Government Bench will forgive me for suggesting that among their many admirable qualities a sense of humour is somewhat wanting, because to hear from the Front Government Bench denunciations of us for attempting to do things contrary to tradition in this country, breaking up old traditions, and interfering with the prerogatives of ancient officials like the Speaker of the House of Commons, does appear to me, and, I think, to many of my noble friends on this side of the House, as—may I venture to say—somewhat ludicrous. And there was another thing that struck me, and, I believe, others who sit on this side of the House. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marchamley, indicated such a profound distrust of the character of those with whom he had been associated in the House of Commons that one felt for the moment prouder than ever of belonging to this House. I must ask your Lordships' forgiveness for making these rather desultory observations on the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, but the truth is that if the Amendment of Lord Cromer is carried—as I hope it will be—I should be debarred from moving the Amendment in my name or saying anything upon it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I hope the Government do not propose to allow this debate to finish without giving

1097
us a little enlightenment as to their views. Your Lordships must have been struck before the adjournment with the fact that in the case of at least three gentlemen, who generally express themselves with such moderation, those three gentlemen made up by the extremity of their language for the absence of argument. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, told us that nothing would induce him to accept this Amendment, but he hardly tendered a single argument for its rejection. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that it—
"dethroned the House of Commons from its hitherto undoubted supremacy in finance."
How can that be said? This tribunal would decide, not on the ordinary Amendments which come before the House of Commons, but on the question whether a measure is in its governing principle a financial measure. How can this be dethroning the House of Commons from its hitherto undoubted supremacy in the matter of finance?
But the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War excelled his colleagues. First of all he said there was hardly a Finance Bill which did not involve general policy. Of course there is not, but the noble Viscount who is a lawyer knows that that proves nothing as to the governing principle of a Bill. Every measure must involve general policy; but the only question the Committee would have to decide is whether the governing principle of a Bill, if it is one of general policy, ought to be passed over our heads as a matter of finance. Again, the noble Viscount conjured up, as a sort of bogey, the assembling of this Committee, I think he said, on every afternoon. I assume that perhaps once every session, and probably not once in most sessions, this Committee would be called together. To say, because there is a difficulty in the matter of forming a tribunal which now and again may discuss these subjects, that therefore we must fall back upon an obviously prejudiced tribunal such as the Speaker of one Assembly to decide matters between the two Assemblies is really a distortion of language. I use the word "prejudiced" because the Speaker is the Speaker of the House of Commons, and it is no use endowing him with all the merits in the world, and especially those of impartiality between the two
1098
Houses when he is retained by his office to protect the privileges of one House. The Government find difficulty in seeing how to produce seven impartial men, and because they cannot see that to their own liking they leave us without any guidance whatever in this critical matter—a fact which cannot be passed over without leaving a sense of injustice.
The noble Lord, Lord Curzon, pointed out that in the House of Commons the Prime Minister had said, obviously feeling that the tribunal was not satisfactory, that if some other tribunal could be suggested he would be glad to consider it. I think we have a right to some help from the Government at this moment. My noble friend Lord Harris suggested that the members of the Committee might be advisory and not executive. Though personally I do not see much outlet in that direction, at the same time I think it is a proposal which should receive some reply from the Government. If the Speaker is left the sole arbiter he can go to the House of Commons and say, "This Bill, in my opinion, is a Money Bill, and the House of Lords cannot touch it." That is a position which no Government could defend. The arguing of the matter before him would be something, but our view is that he ought to sit as one of a body, if he sits at all. It has been suggested by more than one noble Lord that it would be well if the Speaker of the House of Commons, for his own sake, were not dragged into such discussions. I believe myself, for the future of the Speakership, that that would be the most satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I do not think anything shows more than does the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, our extreme desire to meet the views of the House of Commons and to avoid that which the Lord Chancellor, in what I submit was exaggerated language, described as dethroning the House of Commons from its hitherto undoubted supremacy in finance. Nothing can prove more our desire in that direction than that we have proposed to give the Speaker the chairmanship of this important Committee.
I sat in the House of Commons as long as did the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane. I venture to say that every member of the House of Lords who has sat there—and there are many behind me—

1099
knows that the vision which the noble Viscount conjured up and which is, no doubt, to play a great part in the arguments used, that you would have this Committee constantly interfering with the Speaker, is nothing but an exaggerated picture of what would occur. I cannot imagine that on any ordinary measure the Committee could do that. In all ordinary matters the Speaker will give his decision. It may be that after a Bill has passed through Committee the Speaker might choose to assemble this Committee and submit to them the question whether or not a Bill as it stands would be regarded strictly as a Money Bill. I submit that this is a practical and reasonable proposal, and it is one to which we attach great importance. It may be possible to change this Committee, or to find something which would be a better solution of this difficulty than a Committee, which we believe could be framed impartially. But of one thing I am certain. If you leave the Speaker as the sole arbiter, you will leave a sense of injustice and dissatisfaction in, this House. Bismarck said on one occasion—
"Flagrant injustice is not only unlovely, but it is unstatesmanlike in politics as in private life."
I do hope we shall hear something from the Government before we part front this subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down reproaches me and my colleagues, in a kindly way, for having used violent language. All I can say is I was not conscious of it, and I certainly did not intend to use violent language. I wished to compress what I had to say into as narrow a space as possible, because the limits of time forbid me from enlarging unduly upon any proposition. If one makes it clear, one can leave it to the judgment of the House. Now we have been prevented front having the Speaker of the House of Commons as the arbitrator or umpire. Every one agrees that there must be some authority to decide. We think there is difficulty at all times in applying arbitral methods to Parliamentary proceedings. We are not blind to the fact that there may be objections to the Speaker as well as to anybody else, but we think there is, for obvious reasons, much less objection to the Speaker than to anybody else.
Viscount Midleton.
1100
Let me criticise what the alternative is, because it is not sufficient for any one to take up the attitude of the most rev. Primate and say that he is going to vote against the Speaker being the person when he is really unable to tell us what the person ought to be. He does not seem to be favourable either to a Committee or to anybody else. There must be somebody. Let us see what can be said about the Joint Committee. Noble Lords opposite speak as though there had not been in the past a practical supremacy—an almost uncontrolled and undivided authority in regard to matters of finance in the House of Commons. I am not going to enter upon the history of this subject, which is long and complicated, and which did not, perhaps, receive assent on the part of the House of Lords all through. But practically every one knows that in substance the House of Commons has had control over finance for generations. We have always counted upon that, and every one has counted upon it who has ever sat in the House of Commons. We know also that there was a departure made two years ago—a departure which I think was fatal and lamentable, but which has been the basis of the whole of the trouble which has now arisen.
Now what does this Bill propose to do? This Bill proposes that in regard to finance the House of Commons should retain its supremacy and its sole authority, but it must be only in regard to finance; and the real question we have to determine is whether it is a useful method that a body should say that a particular Bill that is brought forward is a Bill solely relating to finance. Let us see what the Committee has to determine. Mark, not to advise, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested in a speech which was well deserving of attention, but to decide. The Amendment says that the House of Lords is to have power in regard to Money Bills exactly the same as it has in regard to any other kind of Bill—a Drainage Bill or any other—if the governing purpose of the Bill, or any portion of the Bill, is such as to bring the Bill within the category of general legislation.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That is not the Amendment now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am reading the Amendment in connection with

1101
the other Amendments. Is it not to the point to consider what the duties of the Joint Committee are to be?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Take the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am taking the Amendments. The Bill does not contain the Joint. Committee. I think the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, does not quite follow me, and no doubt it is my own fault. The noble Lord discussed very properly the different parts of his Amendments taken together. Let us see what the different parts of this Amendment are. He takes away the power from the Speaker. He bestows it upon a Joint Committee, and what the Joint Committee have to determine surely is material to consider. What is the question that has to be decided by this Committee consisting half of members of the House of Lords and half of members of the House of Commons? Let us suppose that a Bill has passed through the House of Commons and comes up to this House. The Joint Committee can act either on the motion of a Minister, who is certainly not likely to move in the matter, or on the motion of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons. As the Bill has passed the House of Commons, it is not likely that the Motion will be passed there. The result is that the Committee is put in motion upon a Resolution or by the request of the House of Lords, and what it has to inquire into is what is "the governing purpose of the Bill or of any portion of it," and if the Committee comes to the conclusion that it is such as to bring the Bill within the category of general legislation, then away go the whole of the privileges of the House of Commons and the Bill becomes subject to the provisions of Section 2. That is to say, it can be dealt with in the same way as any other Bill, not a Money Bill, that comes before the House of Lords. The result is perfectly obvious. If this Joint Committee should decide that in regard to any portion of the Bill, or the Bill itself, the governing purpose is such as to bring it within the category of general legislation, all the privileges of the House of Commons disappear at once. The result would be very naturally this. Take the graduated Income Tax. It may be that the Committee would say that the governing purpose of the Bill was to tax rich people as against poor, and that it was a political subject.
1102
Take the case of Tariff Reform. They might say that the object of that was to find employment It is often said it would have that effect. Take the case of the taxation of the liquor trade. The Committee might say with truth that the object of that, the purpose of part of it, at all events, was to suppress drunkenness. The result is that all these different subjects could not be made the subject of the supremacy of the House of Commons. I have tried to put it as clearly as I can, and without any attempt at speaking violently.
The beginning of this trouble has been what the House of Commons has declared to be, and what many of us have declared to be, the invasion of their financial rights and privileges by the House of Lords, and here we have a more acute and exaggerated invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons than would be perpetrated by an occasional or by a very rare interference with a Money Bill such as took place in 1909. And the result, as have pointed out, would be this. Take a Liberal Government which brings in a Bill for the taxation of licences or the liquor trade such as I have already adverted to. The Joint Committee might come to the conclusion, on the invitation of the House of Lords, that the governing purpose of that measure was to suppress this particular form of selling drink in the country and to set up some other form of selling drink. What would be the position of the Government with the Budget of the year containing that clause left at the mercy of the House of Lords? By the decision of the House of Lords this proposition, I have no doubt quite conscientiously, could be thrown out for a period of two years, leaving the Government in exactly the same confusion that they were left in in 1909. They might have the Referendum, it is true, and they might have a Dissolution under the Amendments which are proposed, but I am entitled to show what the difficulties are. The whole subject is surrounded by difficulties of all kinds. We make a simple proposal, and I believe the Speaker will in the end, after all our discussions, really turn out, to the minds of all reasonable people at any rate, to be the best authority to deal with this matter.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has addressed himself to an Amendment which has not

1103
yet been incorporated in the Bill and has practically founded his whole argument against the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, on the difficulties of that Amendment. If that Amendment should be pressed, personally I should be very much inclined to join with the noble and learned Lord in pointing out the difficulties that accompany it. But I wish to take the Bill as it stands. I wish to take this first clause as it stands, and to ask whether the Speaker is the proper tribunal to work that part of the Bill. Now the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, cannot touch any part of this subject without a reference to that King Charles's head—the rejection by your Lordships of the Budget of 1909. May I hope that at any rate I shall not be regarded as prejudiced in the observations I am about to address to your Lordships, because I did not agree in that rejection. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I am as anxious as he can be to maintain the supremacy of the House of Commons in matters of finance. I do not think that the proper way to maintain that supremacy would be to pass the Bill making the Speaker arbitrator between the two Houses. This is not a question of supremacy in finance; it is a question of interpreting what finance is. That is a question between the two Houses of Parliament, and surely it is no more right that the Speaker, the principal officer of one of the Houses, should be made arbitrator between the two Houses in this matter than it would be right in the case of two municipal corporations or two companies to select the auditor of one of those corporations or companies as arbitrator on some point of dispute between the two. That really is the point which has been placed before you in many a speech this afternoon, and it was accepted by your Lordships' vote, not only by a large majority, but, let me point out to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, opposed by a very small minority indeed. The figures were 183 to 44, and that is a Division which means a good deal more than a mere Party Division in your Lordships' House.
I voted cordially with the noble Earl on the Cross Benches in support of the Amendment against the Speaker as the sole tribunal, but I frankly say, speaking for myself alone—and I have no right to speak for any one else—that I am not quite content with the Joint Committee
Viscount St. Aldwyn
1104
that is proposed as the tribunal in place of the Speaker. To my mind, however much the members of that Committee might desire to be impartial in their decisions, it is impossible that they should not have taken an active part on one side or the other in a matter which might come before them for decision, and I confess I think it would be better if some other and smaller tribunal of a more official kind could be suggested which should deal with the matter. Would it not be possible for the Speaker, the Lord Chancellor, and the two Chairmen of Committees in the two Houses to be associated together, and to select a fifth person who should be a member of the House of Commons and might, for example, be the Chairman of the Committee of Selection of the House of Commons, as the tribunal to decide this question as to what is a pure Finance Bill and what is not? I throw out that suggestion because my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition invited suggestions, and suggestions were also invited from the Front Bench opposite, but I do ask noble Lords opposite, as representing the Government, seriously to consider whether we have not a good case for some change in the tribunal proposed in the Bill. The Government surely wish that there should be a fair arbitration between the two Houses in this matter. It is not a question, as I have said, of the supremacy of the House of Commons in matters of finance; it is a question of interpretation alone. As was well said by Lord Midleton, it is a matter that should be settled by reasonable agreement, and should not be left to a tribunal which will cause dissatisfaction and leave a sense of injustice.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I concur with the noble Viscount who has just spoken in his observation that we ought not to leave an open sore of resentment and so forth, but his own idea did not strike me as a very promising one. It does not touch those difficulties which arise almost from day to day when you have what he is well acquainted with, an elaborate set of Budget proposals. At what point are you to invoke the decision of this Committee or tribunal, whatever it may be? I think the tribunal he has proposed would be very awkward. You would never know when exactly to call this body of men to work.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I suggested a very small tribunal because it would be easy for the Speaker to consult all the members I have named at any moment.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: That is quite true, but recollect that by an Amendment lower down on the Paper my noble friend Lord Cromer proposes—and I think it would apply to the Committee of the noble Viscount—that the decision of the Committee should be invoked only at the request of a Minister of the Crown or on a Resolution of one of the two Houses of Parliament. No one will recognise more thoroughly than the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, that that is an impossible proposal, having regard to the daily course of business in the House of Commons. The Speaker will be put in the same difficulties if he has, as Lord Harris suggests, an advisory Committee. He will have to make up his own mind, and even in my noble friend's proposal he is to have the casting vote. Therefore in spite of all these proposals and suggestions, the responsibility in the long run must ultimately rest with the Speaker.
I invited noble Lords opposite to propose something outside of the proposals in the Bill. The difficulty of finding a better tribunal than the one set up in the Bill is shown by the fact that in substitution for it about fifteen different tribunals were suggested in the House of Commons. The first proposal was a Committee consisting of the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, and three Lords Ordinary of Appeal, the Speaker to be chairman and have a casting vote. I wonder whether the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, with his long practical experience of Parliamentary affairs, would think that a good working proposal. Three Lords of Appeal. I rather gather that the House has already ruled out the reference of these issues to a judicial tribunal, or to any members of a judicial tribunal as such. Another proposal was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker acting as assessors. I am President of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and therefore I am bound to speak of them with respect, but I cannot imagine a body less fitted to decide a question of this kind. And the idea of putting the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker as assessors to these gentle
1106
men, some of whom are entirely unfamiliar with Parliamentary practice and Parliamentary custom. That was the second proposal. Here was a third—the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. How do you view the proposal that the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker should be the tribunal? That is for your Lordships to consider. And then there is the Court of King's Bench—that was moved by rather an important member of the other House. The Lord Chief Justice is there, and nobody will speak of him with more regard and respect than I do. He is arbitrator in some matters of administration, and I wonder if he would like, or whether the House of Commons would like, that he should be arbitrator in this matter instead of the Speaker.
Another proposal was that the authority should be the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. I need not go over again the arguments which were stated with great force by Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons. A further proposal was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sitting in private and no Minister of the Crown to be allowed to sit. Would the judgment of such a body as that sitting in private, and no Minister of the Crown allowed to sit, be worth a straw? Another Member moved that they were not to listen to counsel; they were not to listen to any arguments; and their decision was to be beyond question. Will your Lordships support a device of that kind? I think not. Then, a Joint Committee consisting of three members selected from each House of Parliament—three members, not seven with the Speaker as chairman. Well, if I were obliged to choose between three and seven, I would without hesitation give my vote for three. If you had six men, and the Speaker would be the seventh—I think the Speaker was included—it would be less apt to be what in my view a Committee of fourteen would be—a political body. Therefore I would go for this, but it is open to a hundred objections. The last with which I will trouble your Lordships is the Appeal Committee consisting of two Lords Ordinary of Appeal, together with a person selected by His Majesty. On whose advice? And a person elected by the House of Commons, and a person elected by the House of Lords. These proposals were not made by irresponsible men, but by men of judgment and men of a certain standing in the House of Commons. You

1107
have ruled out the Speaker and you have these rambling proposals before you as an alternative. Then there is the proposal of my noble friend, which is not at all rambling, but which, for the reasons already stated, is in my opinion thoroughly contrary to the whole spirit of the proposals before the House and will land you in enormous difficulties. The power of the House of Commons will be lessened. Let us reflect for a minute. The origin of this Bill—you will forgive me for referring to the events of November, 1909—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: King Charles's head.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I don't want any forgiveness, because I respectfully advised your Lordships not to pass that disastrous vote. It cannot be denied that this Bill had its immediate origin in what happened in November, 1909, and we have landed ourselves here—or you have landed yourselves—into admitting that this House is not a Chamber of moral authority. That was implied by the noble Marquess's Bill which was passed without a Division. You admit your moral authority is not what it was two years ago—that follows from your assent to that Bill. The object of the Parliament Bill is to vindicate the supremacy of the House of Commons in finance, and noble Lords opposite are now going to entrust the decision of whether a Bill is or is not true finance to a Joint Committee of which half, less the Speaker—I admit the exception is worth taking into account—are to be chosen out of the House of Lords. To say that you are not weakening and restricting the powers of the House of Commons in so doing is to my mind an untenable position.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, it is easier to blame others for travelling beyond the Amendment now before us than to keep to it ourselves. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, in an earnest appeal to the Front Bench on this side, devoted most of his remarks to showing why the Speaker of the House of Commons should not be the tribunal. But as the Speaker had already been ruled out by the House his remarks were not very germane to the proposal before us—it was a case of slaying the slain. The same remark applies to the speech of the noble Viscount who spoke afterwards. Yet severe censure was offered to the Lord Chancellor because
Viscount Morley of Blackburn.
1108
in illustrating the operation of this Amendment he looked at the scope of all the Amendments. I am willing to deal with this Amendment apart from any prospective Amendment, and to consider what would be the effect. After all, the scheme which the noble Viscount has suggested as an alternative would come more properly in a new clause when we see how the Joint Committee is constituted. It might be a Joint Committee of Convocation and the London County Council. We do not know what it is to be "joint" of. Notwithstanding the remarks of Lord St. Aldwyn, who is very anxious to keep strictly to the Amendment before us, we cannot help travelling to the composition of the suggested Committee. I do not know whether the noble Viscount in making his suggestion spoke for noble Lords sitting round him.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No, for myself.
LORD SHEFFIELD: It is hopeless to ask the Government to consider hypothetical propositions until they know that they come as firm offers from the other side as a whole. The Government will have hard work to persuade its supporters to accept any modification whatever of this Bill, but for the sake of peace, if we can possibly settle this question by anything approaching agreement, even though it may be a reluctant agreement, it would be much better than that the Government with the help of other means that the Constitution puts in their power should ride roughshod over every one who opposes the Bill.
I am not going to mention King Charles's head. But after the last two elections no one can doubt the feeling in the country. There has been a deadlock between the two Houses of Parliament, and the electors have affirmed that the House of Commons should be supreme.—[Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.] That is my interpretation. If those noble Lords who say "No" took part in the elections perhaps they will remember what they said, and how they were received. Though it is distasteful to your Lordships, ordinary people, at any rate, will consider the result of those two elections as a declaration by the electors of the country in favour of the House of Commons as against the House of Lords. It is not fair to ask the Government Front Bench to express

1109
an opinion on a hypothetical new organisation to be set up until we have got what we may call a firm offer from the whole of the other side as to what they propose. It would be very foolish for any persons in authority on this side of the House to express a willingness to entertain a proposal until it is put substantially forward by the bulk of the other side. In the meantime, we have been having a very long discussion on a very small point, because, strictly speaking, this point should have been taken as consequential without discussion, because on the Paper the Amendment was that certain words be struck out in order that the words now under discussion might be inserted. I cannot help thinking that we should get something more definite from the majority in this House before we are asked to express our opinion upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I desire before this part of our discussion closes to protest once more against the assertion which has been so freely made on the other side of the House that this Amendment represents an attempt on the part of the Opposition to dethrone the House of Commons from its supremacy over finance. Nothing is further from our thoughts or intention.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only said the effect of it would be that. I would never desire to question a statement of his intention made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am quite willing to accept the Lord Chancellor's explanation of his words, but my answer remains the same. I deny altogether that the effect of this Amendment will be to dethrone the House of Commons from its position with regard to finance. It is quite true that by the Resolution of 1910 we recognised the supremacy of the House of Commons over Money Bills of a purely financial character; but it never was our intention when we passed that Resolution to abdicate all authority over the whole of that vast field of legislation which is covered by measures which are partly financial and partly political. It was truly said by a noble Lord opposite that all financial legislation involved a question of policy. That is perfectly true. But what we urge is that the relation of political to financial con
1110
siderations varies infinitely according to the nature of the particular measure. There may be a financial measure with very little political effect in it, or you may have the converse case. What we desire is that there shall be some authority which in all cases of mixed legislation of this kind can rule and decide once and for all whether a Bill belongs to the region of pure finance or whether, to use the words of my noble friend in his Amendment, "the governing purpose" of the measure is not financial but political or social. Those words, as I think my noble friend pointed out, were the words used by the Prime Minister himself, when he was dealing with this Bill. If the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will look at the report of the speech, he will see that the Prime Minister explained that what he desired was that the old practice as between the two Houses of Parliament should be maintained, and he described that practice as being one which, when the governing purpose of any measure was other than of a financial character, placed that measure within the category of those which both Houses of Parliament might discuss. I shall be very glad to give the noble Viscount the reference to Mr. Asquith's speech. But supposing the Committee, or whatever the tribunal is, decides that the Bill is not a purely financial Bill, one would think from the language of noble Lords opposite that it would be taken entirely out of the control of the House of Commons, that that House would have nothing more to say. But the effect of that decision will simply be that the Bill will be dealt with under Clause 2; and under Clause 2, as we all know, this House has an opportunity of discussing the measure during two years, and if at the end of those two years the House of Commons is obdurate, then the House of Commons will prevail. Therefore it is idle to talk as if by taking a Bill out of Clause 1 and putting it into Clause 2 we ousted the House of Commons from all right to interfere.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I would remind the noble Marquess that it might be the Supply Bill of the year, and whilst you were making up your minds how you would deal with it the Army and the Navy and the Civil Service would be starving.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I take it that the very worst that could

1111
happen in a case of that kind would be that if there was some particular provision of the Finance Bill which was open to the imputation of being a political provision, that provision might have to be held up for further consideration. With regard to the constitution of the proposed Committee, as I have already ventured to say, we are by no means irrevocably pledged to the composition suggested by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Cromer. Personally I think it a very fair proposal, but there may be better proposals. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, who always speaks with authority upon such questions as this, has suggested an alternative composition. By all means let us consider it, but I do not gather that it found more favour with noble Lords opposite than did Lord Cromer's proposal. The powers of destructive criticism of the noble Viscount opposite are immense, but he offers us nothing in the nature of helpful suggestion. At any rate, I conceive that if we pass the Amendment of my noble friend it will be open to us further on to consider whether we can improve the composition of that Committee or not. One word more before I sit down. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggested that because we had brought forward a Bill for the reconstitution of this House we had therefore, by implication, admitted that there was no moral authority behind our action when we threw out the Budget Bill.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess. The abdication of the moral authority was not in throwing out the Budget but in the introduction and the passing without a Division of the noble Marquess's Bill for reforming this House. My point was, for whatever it was worth, that that was an admission that the House to-day has not got the moral authority that it had two years ago.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then the noble Viscount's suggestion is that because we passed a Bill for improving the constitution of this House, therefore this House as we know it to-day is deprived of all moral authority. I must say I think that is not only a very ungenerous but a very unfair argument. Are we to be told, because we have shown our readiness to co-operate with noble Lords opposite in improving the constitution of this House, that therefore we have, pend
The Marquess of Lansdowne.
1112
ing that reconstitution, lost all moral authority? That is a monstrous doctrine. Let us see where it would carry us. Is the noble Viscount quite sure that the House of Commons as we know it to-day is perfectly constituted? I think Lord Morley would probably desire to see a Bill putting an end to plural voting, with the anticipation that the passing of such a measure would materially affect the constitution of the House of Commons. A great many of us think that the manner in which votes are distributed over the constituencies is little short of a scandal. We should therefore all unite in saying that the constitution of the House of Commons might be very much improved. But are we going to suggest that in the meantime, until these blots have been removed, the House of Commons has no moral authority behind it? The proposition seems to me to be an absurd one. I do not know whether your Lordships are ready to go to a Division, but I shall certainly support the Amendment moved by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not propose to detain you more than a moment or two before the Division, but I wish to refer to the Bill, because I think we have been getting a little away from the facts with which we have to deal. One always listens to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition with the deepest respect, because he is a wise and moderate counselor. But if you want to see what the difficulties are, turn to subsection (2) of Clause 1, which contains this definition of a Money Bill—
"A Money Bill means a public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects—namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges," and so on.
If a Bill goes outside that definition it comes under Clause 2. The noble Marquess seemed to think it was a small thing, or only meant a little delay. It may mean the postponing of Bills of the greatest financial moment. Take a Budget Bill. A Budget Bill may desire to provide for an increased Navy, for payment of Members, for the provision of old age pensions. It may be directed to half-a-dozen subjects. There are always governing purposes in all general legislation, which never have been, and I hope never

1113
will be, excluded from the purview of the House of Commons. Yet when a Bill is declared to be outside the definition in Clause 1 it may be delayed for over two years—for three sessions. Is it possible to work even the machinery that Lord St. Aldwyn suggested? When a Money Bill is passing through the House of Commons the Speaker is charged with seeing that it remains in the category of Money Bills, and he has to advise the House from hour to hour as to whether Amendments proposed will carry it outside that category. The Speaker has to see that it remains in the category of Clause 1. That can only be done by one who is free to act from time to time. It has been suggested that the proper time for the Joint Committee to come in is at the conclusion of the Bill; but that may come late, and the calling together of the Committee may come late, and it may result in the delay of a Bill for two years.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Oh, no.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It may mean a repetition of the financial confusion of which we have had recent experience. There is only one way in which the machinery of Subsection (2) can be arranged, and that is by a single person charged with the responsibility of dealing with these matters and guiding the House of Commons from time to time. Your Committee, whether it be that suggested by Lord Cromer or the better one suggested by Lord St. Aldwyn, is a clumsy and impossible instrument compared to the Speaker, who is on the spot and gives guidance to the House of Commons from time to time as the Bill goes on. It seems to me that we are at this moment on a very relevant consideration of the question whether the working of the financial machinery of the House of Commons is to be made impossible, whether it is to be hampered, or whether you are to adopt what I agree is the lesser of two evils—the decision of the Speaker, a decision which is to be a statutory duty and under our proposed amendments.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I have had some experience of the financial working of the House of Commons, and I demur altogether to what has just been said by the noble Viscount opposite. He said that my Amendment, or the Amendment
1114
which will be moved by Lord Cromer, would make the financial working of the House of Commons impossible. I absolutely deny it. What would happen? During the progress of a Money Bill through the House of Commons the Speaker would guide the House precisely in the way he does now, and when the time arrived for the Third Reading he would take counsel with the Committee as to whether the Bill was anything more than a Money Bill. If the Committee decided that it was something else, it would be perfectly possible for the Bill to be recommitted and the objectionable provisions taken out. The whole thing would be done in a week, and to say that it would make the financial working of the House of Commons impossible is to my mind, and I say it with all respect to the noble Viscount opposite, ridiculous.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I do not think there is a single noble Lord on this side of the House who would wish noble Lords opposite to feel that any injustice may arise between the two Houses if this Bill becomes law, or that the tribunal that is going to decide matters of importance is packed against them. But, frankly, I am unable to understand how any suggestions that have been thrown out better the position of noble Lords from what it would be under the Bill as it stands. Let us deal with the remark of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, who said that if the Bill passed as it stood, they would go away with a sense of flagrant injustice. Were the Speaker of the House of Commons a violent Radical partisan, and to be retained in office because he was a partisan, that might be the case.
A NOBLE LORD: He may be in the future.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: The Speaker, as we all know, is a member of the Party of noble Lords opposite, and it is well known, not only to those of us who have sat in the House of Commons but I think to other noble Lords, that the Speaker is always chosen from amongst the most moderate men that can be found in the House. In my years in the House of Commons I sat under two Unionist Speakers and under one Liberal Speaker, and, if my memory serves me right, one of the great

1115
recommendations of the Liberal Speaker was that he had never made a speech of any kind in the House of Commons before he spoke from the Chair. I was struck by the alternative that was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn. He did not like the Speaker as the tribunal, and I understood him to suggest that four people should act, with a fifth chosen by them from outside. And who are the four to be? He suggested the Speaker, the Lord Chancellor, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, and the Chairman of Committees in this House. The noble Viscount was speaking for himself, but I would like to know whether noble Lords opposite consider that a better proposal from their point of view than the proposal of the Government. Two of the four must be partisans. The Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons is not chosen as the Speaker is. He is put in by the Government and is supposed to press on the Government's business. He is impartial, but he is not chosen markedly for impartiality by either side as is the Speaker.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: He never votes on a Bill.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: No, but it is well known what his political opinions are, and he is there to help on the Government work. Then there is the Lord Chancellor for the time being. The Lord Chancellor, as your Lordships will admit is not an impartial person as regards Government business. Those are two out of the four. The third is the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, a gentleman who is presumably a supporter of the Party opposite. We have one left—the Speaker. At present he is of the Party opposite, but, as the noble Lord just now said, it may very well be that he may later on be a Liberal. Therefore under the proposal put forward by Lord St. Aldwyn you will have the matter settled by four people, two of whom must be Liberals, the third may be a Liberal, and the fourth may conceivably be a Liberal. Is that a fairer proposal than the one put forward by His Majesty's Government? We have had important discussion all the evening, but the Government are unable to support the proposal of the noble Earl. But surely there must be something that noble Lords opposite can suggest on which the two. Parties might get nearer to one another.
Lord St. Davids.
1116
I was struck by a remark of the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Marquess said that some future Bill might be settled by a Speaker of the House of Commons over our heads without our being able to approach him or to put our case before him. May I throw out a suggestion? If that is the feeling, could not noble Lords put forward some Amendment to meet the point. The noble Earl has left the Speaker as chairman of the Joint Committee; in Viscount St. Aldwyn's suggestion the Speaker is left as one of the four—everybody proposes to leave the Speaker in in some shape or form. Could not noble Lords opposite propose something of this kind—that the Speaker should decide, but only after he is acquainted with the views of this House given to him by a Committee of noble Lords appointed by this House. That would make it impossible, as the noble Marquess said, for the Speaker to give his opinion without the views of this House being properly put forward and represented to That is the suggestion I make, as I think it is a pity, when we all wish to get the best tribunal possible, that noble Lords should be left with a feeling or a sense of injustice.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I need not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes. I think the outcome of this discussion is this, that whereas we on this side of the House think that the leaving of this important matter to the decision of the Speaker is not only a bad solution but the worst possible solution of this difficulty, noble Lords opposite, although they recognise the objections to the proposal of leaving the whole matter to the Speaker, at the same time, for one reason or another, have not given the least indication that they are ready to accept any other solution. In the course of this debate one or two valuable suggestions have been made. Lord Harris suggested—and a noble Lord opposite said something to the same effect—that the Committee instead of having executive should have advisory powers. Perhaps it would be more suitable to discuss that later, when we come to deal with another Amendment I have on the Paper. The proposal is not altogether new to me, for I had already thought of it as one probably worthy of consideration. But in order to bring in a proposal of that sort we ought to have some indication as to the view of the Government. Up to

1117
the present we have had nothing from noble Lords opposite but criticism, and barren criticism at that. As regards the constitution of the Committee, let me say that I am not in the smallest degree enthusiastic over my own proposal, but I think that in default of anything better for the moment it holds the field. An admirable suggestion has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, and possibly something may occur to other noble Lords. What has been the attitude of noble Lords opposite? The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, has given us a list of things which it is impossible to do, but; he has given no indication of the extent to which the Government would be prepared to go in our direction. It may be good Parliamentary tactics, but it is not the way to arrive at a solution. If a serious effort were made, and if their professions that they desire to help to get to a solution of this difficulty are sincere, I cannot help thinking that there is some way out of the difficulty. Meanwhile, in default of any other proposal, I must ask the House to give their opinion on my Amendment.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I would point out that our solution is in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Quite so. I understand that the noble Viscount's solution is in the Bill, and that he adheres to the Bill and will have nothing else. My contention is that there has been no indication of yielding one iota, and that if there had been any desire to come to a solution some attempt would have been made to arrive at agreement on the subject. That is the whole of my point.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow: The Committee to have precedence of other Notices and Orders of the Day.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a(according to order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.

TRUSTEE (BODIES CORPORATE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must ask the noble Lord to defer for some little time the Third Reading. As I told him, I have some criticisms or Amendments to suggest, but I have been quite unable to find time to deal with them.
LORD AVEBURY: I will defer the Third Reading until it is convenient to the noble and learned Lord.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SALES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BILL. [H.L.]
The Lords following were named of the Select Committee—]

E. Leven and Melville.

E. Chichester.

L. Clinton.

L. Saye and Sele.

L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

L. Saltoun.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

SELECTION OF JUSTICES (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this Day), and to be printed. (No. 108.)
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND, &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the North British Railway (Superannuation Fund, &c.); read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland), and reported from the Committee. (No. 109.)

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.] THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Report from the Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [H.L.] and the Thames Conservancy Bill, that the said Bills ought to be allowed to proceed: The said Report (with the
1120
proceedings of the Committee) to be printed: The Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [H.L.], reported with Amendments. (No. 110.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.