Sitting of 2 March 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the Report laid upon the Table by Mr. Speaker, as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following case, namely:—
Brighton District Tramways.
Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Belfast Corporation,
Metropolitan Electric Tramways.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Brighton District Tramways [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Sligo Corporation Bill (by Order),—
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 16th March.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),—
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  "To confer powers on the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the county borough of Halifax for the construction of tram-
  522
  ways, street works, and waterworks, and to make further and better provision with regard to the water and other undertakings of the Corporation and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  RHOS-ON-SEA PIER BILL.
  "For confirming the construction of a pier and works known as the Rhôs-on-Sea Pier, and authorising the construction of new works and conveniences connected therewith; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Ayrshire (Loch Bradan) Water Distribution Order Confirmation Bill,
Irvine Burgh Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Slavery (San Thomé and Principé).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he was now in a position to make any announcement to the House with regard to the taking of prompt and effective steps to deal with the conditions of slavery in San Thomé and Principé?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): It is for the Portuguese Government, and not for His Majesty's Government, to take and announce steps of this character. It is not with the conditions of contract labour in San Thomé and Principé, so much as with the conditions of the recruitment of labour in Angola, that the Portuguese Government have had to deal. So far as I am aware, no recruiting has taken place in Angola during the past year, and as long as that is so there is obviously no need to say anything more about it.

  United States and Canada (Tariff Agreement).
  Mr. REMNANTasked on what date the first official communication was received from Mr. Bryce respecting the reciprocity-negotiations between Canada and the United States; and what was the nature of that communication?
  Sir E. GREY: As papers are to be laid soon, I propose to defer any statement about the nature or dates of communications which have passed, till they can be commented upon as a whole.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it will be possible, in view of the great interest taken in this matter, for the papers to be laid at once?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes; I am having a statement prepared on the subject, and it will be laid as soon as possible.
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention had been called to the official Report of the debate in the Canadian House of Commons, of 21st February, 1911, which shows that M. Lemieux said that the arrangement of reciprocity with the United States was not unfriendly to England because it had been approved by the British Government, and had been made with the assistance of Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador to the United States; and if he will now lay Papers showing what steps were taken by Mr. Bryce to bring about this reciprocal arrangement?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already explained the real position in reply to questions, and papers shall soon be laid.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the assistance given by Mr. Bryce in these investigations has the approval of His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, certainly; Mr. Bryce's action has been approved by His Majesty's Government, and I explained the other day how it came to be taken.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the statement made by M. Lemieux in the debate in the Canadian Parliament is a correct one?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already answered the question more than once.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the other day, in answer to this very question whether Mr. Bryce had been instructed by His Majesty's Government to further and assist these negotiations, he said, "the answer is in the negative"?
  Sir E. GREY: I said no instructions had been sent to Mr. Bryce. I was asked a supplementary question as to whether the Canadian Government had asked that definite instructions should be sent to Mr. Bryce and I said they had not so far as I remember made a special request. During recent years Mr. Bryce had frequently given assistance in many matters to Canadian Ministers, and Canadian Ministers had particularly expressed their satisfaction and gratitude for the assistance Mr. Bryce had given. It had been, therefore, regarded during recent years as a matter of course that when Canadian Ministers went to Washington they would receive his assistance without special request.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the statement made by M. Lemieux, the Postmaster General of Canada, in the Canadian Parliament on Tuesday last, to the effect that the reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States had been made with the assistance of Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador to the United States, and that it had the approval of the British Government; and if he will state what form that assistance took?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given.
  Sir G. PARKER: Will the papers when laid show the nature of the assistance given by Mr. Bryce to the negotiators?
  Sir E. GREY: They will contain Mr. Bryce's report.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention had been called to the differences of opinion which exist as to the proper meaning of Article 33 of the Declaration of London, which declares that, Les articles de coatrabande conditionelle sont saisissibles s'il est établi qu'ils sont destinés à l'usage …. des administrations de l'état ennemi; whether the words, administrations de l'état

  525
  ennemi, are to be construed as excluding all the civil departments of the enemy state; whether such view is in accordance with the illustrations given of the meaning of this Article in M. Renault's Report; and whether for the elucidation of this subject he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which has passed between the Foreign Office and the Bristol branch of the Navy League in continuation of the correspondence between those parties which has been already printed in Cd. 5418, but which did not go beyond the letter of 25th November, 1910, from the Foreign Office to the said Bristol branch?
  Sir E. GREY: The words, "administrations de l'état ennemi" are expressly declared in the Report of the Committee of the Conference to signify departments of the central government. This necessarily includes its civil departments, but local or municipal bodies are expressly excluded. The later correspondence with the Bristol branch of the Navy League is not worth laying in addition to papers already published, but to remove any doubt on this point I am prepared to lay it.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in those cases where the rules of international law as laid down in the Declaration of London differ from the rules of international law as laid down and applied by the Prize Courts of this country, such new or altered rules could be enforced as against our fellow subjects in this country or in our overseas dominions and possessions without the authority of and Act of Parliament?
  Sir E. GREY: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Declaration of London will be applied by the Prize Courts in the countries which ratify it as part of the law of nations. The answer to the hon. Member's question is, therefore, in the affirmative.
  Mr. BUTCHER: When it is applied by the Prize Courts it corresponds with international law and therefore it would require the assent of Parliament.
  Sir E. GREY: I understand that the assent of Parliament is not required to enable Prize Courts to administer international law.
  Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask whether new laws which are to be enforced upon British subjects within British jurisdiction do not require the sanction of Parliament?
  Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Member will put down a question as to the powers of Prize Courts generally, I will endeavour to answer it on the whole point, but I cannot answer a wide question of that kind without proper notice.

  Bagdad Railway.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of British capital becoming interested in the Bagdad Railway, he will take steps to secure that there would be some guarantee or agreement that where Great Britain had a right to protect, these interests would be protected, either by Great Britain or the other Powers concerned?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say until I have been informed of the precise terms upon which the British participation in the undertaking takes place, or is contemplated. We shall, of course, take what steps are in our power to protect British interests generally.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering that the Khanikin route is the only route of entry, not only for British, but for all Indian goods, into Persia, that are too heavy or too bulky for mule or camel transport, he will take steps to secure that the interests of Great Britain and of India in the proposed branch line from Sadijeh, some twenty or thirty miles north of the town of Bagdad, to Khanikin, on the Persian frontier, are duly protected, especially from the possible effect of rebates or preferential rates or other forms of unfair competition that might be brought in by other countries?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

  British School, Constantinople.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the urgency of further financial provision for the British school in Constantinople, he would ascertain the views of the British Ambassador by telegraph?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative. I am quite sure that, in the strenuous competition, which exists on all sides, to increase the public expenditure of the country, I cannot make a claim for this particular object prevail by telegraph reports.
  Mr. LLOYD: Has not His Majesty's Ambassador expressed to the Foreign Office his approval of helping the school in every way possible, and, in view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that he will do something in the matter?
  Sir E. GREY: As far as I recollect, His Majesty's Ambassador has expressed his approval, but it entails further public expenditure, and there are other people besides His Majesty's Ambassador who have put forward claims with very good reasons for increases of public expenditure. The Government cannot meet them all, and until I get a full report from the Ambassador on the question, I obviously am not in a position to take any steps in regard to this particular claim.
  Mr. LLOYD: Has it not been persistently advocated as part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, that our trade should be assisted, particularly in educational branches abroad, and is not this a case where a desire might be shown to carry that policy into effect?
  Sir E. GREY: That is perfectly true, but it is equally true that claims to assist British trade and British interests come from all sides, and the Government must have an opportunity of deciding as to which is the most urgent.

  Constantinople to Basra Chester Railway Scheme.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information as to a railway scheme recently described by the Turkish Finance Minister in the Turkish Chamber of Deputies as the Constantinople to Basra Chester scheme; if the scheme is a British scheme, involving a concession for the construction of the line to a British syndicate; and if the scheme has the approval and support of the British Foreign Office?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received reports from His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople on the subject of Mr. Chester's scheme for building railways in Asiatic Turkey, and I understand that it is proposed to build a line from the Gulf of Alexandretta through Diarbekir in the direction of Lake Van, with a branch to the south-east in the direction of Sulimanieh. I have not yet heard whether the concession has been granted by the Turkish Government. Mr. Chester is a United States citizen, and I have received
  528
  no information to the effect that a British syndicate is interested in his scheme. There has therefore been no question of giving the proposal the official approval or support of His Majesty's Government.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this concession or this application for a concession includes a scheme for railways to Bagdad and Basra from the coast of the Mediterranean—that portion mentioned by the Turkish Finance Minister?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask for notice of that question. I have given all the information in my possession.

  Commissioners of Intermediate Education. (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has seen the statement issued by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, Ireland, at the time of paying results last time, in which they stated that they had to draw on their reserve fund to meet the expenses of the year, and that they could not do so again; and whether, seeing that Ireland is entitled to at least £100,000 per annum from the Imperial Exchequer for secondary education, he will take steps to secure this Grant for Ireland this year?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have seen a copy of the statement referred to. I am not in a position to promise that any additional money will be granted this year for Intermediate Education in Ireland.

  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing the condition of secondary education in Ireland, teachers without fixed or adequate salaries, without registration, pensions, or security of tenure, and also considering the growing desire in Ireland since the establishment of the national university, to give better facilities for education to the children of the poor by connecting and linking the three systems, primary, secondary, and university, he will consider the advisability of appointing a small committee to consider and report on the best means of bringing this about?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question of appointing a committee to inquire into the condition of secondary education in Ireland has been under consideration, but I do not think it is likely that a committee will be appointed.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked whether the delay in vesting the estate of W. E. Marshall, Callinaferry, county Kerry, in the tenants is due to the negligence of the Estates Commissioners, who for a year and a half after the landlord got his money never took any steps to let the tenants know that any further agreements were necessary; and whether, considering this delay, for which the Estates Commissioners are solely responsible, the Commissioners will reconsider their decision regarding those tenants and give them the benefit of purchase from the time that the landlord was paid his money?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not responsible for the delay in the case referred to. The purchase money of the estate was paid on the 29th July, 1909. A trust deed relative to the upkeep of the embankments was prepared, approved of by trustees, and when finally settled, was sent for signature by the trustees and the tenants concerned, in March 1910, and was only returned duly signed last month. The Commissioners have no power to comply with the suggestion in the last paragraph of the question.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: When will the estate be vested?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say, but the matter will be pushed on quickly.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether a memorial was presented early in 1910 to the Congested Districts Board by the tenants on Sir Morgan O'Connell's estate, near Waterville, requesting the Board to open negotiations for the purchase of the estate; what action has been taken in the matter; and whether the landlord has now expressed his willingness to sell the property to the tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The memorial referred to was received, and the Congested Districts Board wrote to the owner stating that they would be willing to negotiate for the purchase of his estate, but no reply has been received. The Board are again approaching the landlord on the subject.
  Mr. CONDONasked whether Mr. Patrick Nagle, of Coolonan, a tenant on the estate of Lady Beatrice Pole-Carew and another, declined to sign a purchase agreement on the terms proposed by the vendors, which meant a reduction of 4s. 6d. in the £ on his second term rent, on the ground that the same was quite
  530
  inadequate, and that his solicitor pointed out in a letter to the inspector of the Estates Commissioners on 14th April, 1909, that the Commissioners had the right to prevent any vendor from imposing unfair terms on a tenant who had refused to sign a purchase agreement, and that it was their duty to fix a fair price at which he could afford to buy; whether the sale of the estate was closed and Mr. Patrick Nagle excluded without any intimation having been given to him or his solicitor as to what the Commissioners considered a fair price, or as to whether the Commissioners were of opinion that the price at which the vendors offered to sell the holding was an equitable one; whether intimation to the last-mentioned effect was only given to the tenant's solicitor on 3rd October, 1910, long after the sale of the estate had been closed; and whether it is in accordance with the usual practice of the Estates Commissioners to exclude a tenant who has not signed a purchase agreement without having informed him of their view on the subject of the terms offered him, and without any intimation of their intention to exclude him, or of the fact that they had excluded him, until the latter fact was obtained from them on inquiry by the tenant a considerable time subsequent to the event?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the vendors offered to sell to Patrick Nagle, a second-term judicial tenant, on the same terms as to the other second-term tenants, who had agreed to purchase their holdings. Nagle refused to purchase at these terms and, as no agreement for the purchase of his holding was lodged with the Commissioners, the holding was not included in the lands declared an estate for the purposes of sale and vested in the purchasing tenants. It was not the duty of the Commissioners to fix a price in this case, nor have they any power to compel Nagle to purchase at the price offered by the vendors, which the Commissioners considered fair. The Commissioners acted in this case in accordance with their usual practice. If he is now prepared to purchase, it is still open to him to do so by entering into an agreement with the owners.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statutes under which agricultural land is sold to tenants in Ireland not at its true value, but in non-zone cases at the amount for which a holding is security, and in zone cases at an amount exceeding

  531
  value and security by the measure of embarrassment and the desire to escape from untenable tenancy; whether he has made himself acquainted with the Weir case, in which prices were fixed upon nominal rents which had not been paid, and the Estates Commissioners were rebuked from the Bench for having withheld prices known by them to be in excess of both value and security, and were prohibited from making any inquiry regarding value in such cases; and whether, in order to prevent any increase of tax upon agricultural land, Revenue officers will be forbidden to assess probate or other duty on the purchase price, or treat that price for any purpose as if it were the value?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member's objection goes to the root of the zone provisions of the Act of 1903, which were fully discussed in connection with the Act of 1909, which had the effect of reducing the maximum zone limit by two years. I see no reason to reopen the question. I have no power to give any directions to Revenue officers.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the tenanted and untenanted lands, the property of Mr. Eyre Stack, situate at Ballyconory, Listowel, have been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board; whether he is aware of the number of uneconomic holdings in the district; and whether the Congested Districts Board will take immediate action for the purchase of the lands in order to relieve congestion in the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to was offered to the Congested Districts Board under the Act of 1903, but the owner was informed that owing to want of funds they could not purchase the lands. The Board will again ask if he is now willing to sell.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the Listowel union owing to the amount given by the Congested Districts Board for distribution by the parish committees; and whether he can state if the amount granted for Listowel union is given on the same principle and basis as the grants to other unions in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The amount for Listowel parish has been given on the same principle and basis as the grants to other Unions in Ireland. I am not aware that any dissatisfaction exists.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister, whether he can yet arrange a date for the discussion of the present state of land purchase in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am afraid that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

  Evicted Tenants Act (Langdale Estate, County Monaghan).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary if he was aware that on the sale of the Langdale estate, in the county of Monaghan, Mary Conlon, an evicted tenant, was reinstated in her holding from which she was evicted; that she applied for a grant to enable her to restock the farm and to put the buildings into repair; and that recently the Commissioners had stated that they did not propose to take any action in reference to the matter; will he now state on what grounds the Commissioners arrived at this decision; on what date the holding was inspected on behalf of the Commissioners; when the report of the inspector was lodged with the Commissioners; and would he request the Commissioners to reconsider their decision with a view to giving this evicted tenant a fresh start?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first three paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. The holding was inspected, but the Estates Commissioners, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by statute, refused to make a grant in this case. They see no reason to reconsider their decision.
  Mr. HAYDENasked if the Estates Commissioners have purchased certain untenanted lands on the Crichton estate, in the parish of Kilbride, county Roscommon; if so, do these include the lands formerly held by Dr. Dillon and Mr. D. Owens; and whether such lands will be reserved for distribution amongst the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the district.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owner has instituted proceedings for the sale of this estate to the Estates Commissioners. Dr. Dillon and Mr. D. Owens hold certain lands on the estate, the former under lease, the latter as a yearly tenant. The estate has not yet been reached in order of priority, and, until the Commissioners have their inspector's report before them, they will not be in a position to make any further statement in the matter.

  National Schools (Coalisland, County Tyrone).
  Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to the state of the national schools, Coalisland, county Tyrone; whether the Commissioners of National Education have repeatedly called on the manager, the Rev. P. Quinn, P.P., to get the schools rebuilt, and that the application for the necessary funds was sent in over two years ago; whether the manager secured a site, employed an architect, and had special plans drawn up, which were approved of by the Board of Works' engineer; and whether, in view of the urgency of this case, where a school is required providing accommodation for 300 children, he will take immediate steps to see that the necessary funds are provided?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts with regard to these schools are correctly stated in the question. The case is one of several which have recently been the subject of correspondence with the Treasury, but I am not in a position to say when money will be available to deal with this particular case.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that last year on several occasions he gave practically the same answer to numerous questions from these benches, especially to the hon. Members for West Belfast and Kilkenny City, and will he state whether he proposes to let this matter, so far as he is concerned, stay in its present state of stagnation? If not, will he use his utmost influence with the Treasury to see that some steps are taken in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member it is not a case of stagnation. As I have already explained, the National Board of Education have to arrange how they will deal with the money placed at their disposal by the Treasury for the erection of new buildings. It is a difficult question.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say in his previous answers that the Treasury were prepared in all urgent cases to exempt these urgent cases from the suspension of the Treasury Grant, and is not this case distinctly an urgent one?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is really a difficult matter. There is no doubt about the facts, It is in the power of the National Board to deal with urgent cases out of their turn,
  534
  so to speak, and to make a distinction between these cases, but the difficulty is to decide which are the most urgent.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Who is to decide? Is it the National Board or the Treasury, or the right hon. Gentleman himself?

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary the result of the consideration given by the Commissioners of National Education of Ireland to the claim made by the National School teachers for the monthly payment of their salaries; and whether he can hold out any hope that arrangements will be made that these salaries shall be paid monthly from the commencement of the next financial year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question of the hon. Member for Cork City on the 16th inst.

  Fatal Assault (Rathfriland).
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether the police authorities have yet placed under arrest the persons suspected of the fatal assault on the late Mr. Thomas M'Clorey, of Rathfriland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No arrests have yet been made, but the police are pursuing their inquiries.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether it is intended to place under arrest those persons who are suspected of having committed the murder, and, if not, why the usual practice is to be departed from?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My information is that the man was unable to identify his assailants, and that there were no witnesses of the assault—at all events, none have come forward. There are, of course, rumours and suspicions as to the identity of the assailants, but the evidence is not sufficient to justify arrest.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: If the victim had been a landlord everybody suspected would have been placed under arrest.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a question which should be put.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the practice in Ireland whenever a murder takes place to arrest all who are suspected of having committed the murder? Why has the usual practice been departed from in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There has been no departure from the usual practice in this case. I am sorry to say that a difficulty exists in making arrests in other parts of Ireland.
  Mr. JOYCE: There is no difficulty in Galway.

  Newcastle (County Down) Harbour.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the condition of the harbour at Newcastle, county Down; and whether, in view of the necessity for rendering it safe for fishing boats and for preventing the accumulation of sand at the mouth of the basin, he will draw the attention of the Development Commissioners to the desirability of extending the north pier?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the Board of Works drew the attention of the county council to the accumulation of sand at the mouth of Newcastle Harbour, and the county council stated that a contract had been made for removing the silt. The question of extending the North Pier has not been before the Board of works, but it is open to the county council to make representations on the subject to the Development Commissioners through the Treasury.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the application for an old age pension of John Currane, Mastergeehy, county Kerry, has been refused on the ground that his name cannot be traced in the Census records; and whether, in view of the fact that his claim has been on each occasion approved by the local committee since the first claim was lodged at the end of 1908, he will cause further inquiry to be made into the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The cases of several persons named John Currane have been before the Local Government Board, but none of them can be identified as that of the person referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. BOLANDasked on what grounds the application of Patrick Sheehan, Doory East, Mastergeehy, county Kerry, for an old age pension has been refused, in view of the fact that he has furnished all the evidence he could procure in proof of his having exceeded the statutory age; whether the applicant's father was a labourer, and that some of his children
  536
  were brought up by relatives who happened to be a little better off than he was, so that the Census enumerators possibly could never find the whole family together at any time; and whether further inquiry will be made into the facts of the case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal on the ground that there was no proof that Patrick Sheehan had reached the statutory age. If Sheehan can produce satisfactory evidence that he has attained the age of" seventy, it is open to him to make a fresh claim.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the case of Mrs. Honoria Ward, who satisfied the old age pension sub-committee at Clifden, county Galway, that she, being over seventy years of age, was entitled to an old age pension, but the appeal of the pension officer against her claim was sustained by the Local Government Board; and whether, in view of the evidence that this woman was born in 1840, he will have the case re-considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the case of Honor Ward, of Fountain Hill, Claddaghduff, Clifden, the Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal, as there was no satisfactory evidence that she had reached the statutory age. There was no evidence put before the Board that the claimant was born in 1840.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that it is the custom and practice of the Local Government Board to take the opinions of paid officials of the Government in preference to the sworn testimony of independent and reliable witnesses, such as clergymen, doctors, rate-collectors, etc., in all matters pertaining to the granting of old age pensions in Ireland; and whether in future cases where applicants whose names cannot be found in the Census will be decided on the merits of evidence produced before the local pension committee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board do not accept the opinions of pension officers in preference to those of other persons regarding the age or means of claimants for old age pensions, nor can the Board, as an independent appellate tribunal, decide appeals solely on the merits of the evidence brought before local pension committees. Their practice has always been to consider the evidence submitted on its merits, irrespec-

  537
  tive of the conclusions formed by other persons after consideration of part or the whole of such evidence.

  Untenanted Lands (County Sligo).
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a Resolution adopted by the Dromore West District Council, county Sligo, requesting the Congested Districts Board to take action in order to acquire untenanted lands within the district for the purpose of relieving congestion; and whether he can give any assurance that effective steps will at once be taken to relieve the congestion which is well known to exist in this district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Resolution referred to has been received. The Congested Districts Board are taking action in this district. Four estates that have been offered for sale will be inspected as soon as possible.

  Dublin Vacant Land Cultivation Society.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked out of what funds the Irish Board of Agriculture made a grant in aid of the funds of the Dublin Vacant Land Cultivation Society in August last?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The grant in question was paid out of the funds placed at the disposal of the Department by the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.

  Lord Normanton v. Colonel Trant's Estates, County Tipperary.
  Mr. HACKETTasked the result of the inquiries which the Estates Commissioners have directed to be made in respect to the congestion complained of in the memorials received by the Estates Commissioners from the occupiers of the congested holdings on the estate of the Earl of Normanton, situated at Bishopswood, Dundrum, county Tipperary, and the estate of Colonel Trant, situated at Ballinahow, Thurles, county Tipperary; and what steps the Estates Commissioners propose to take to remedy the congestion complained of?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As regards Lord Normanton's estate the owner has lodged the necessary documents, and the lands will be inspected at an early date. As regards Colonel Trant's estate, the Estates Commissioners have asked for further particulars, and will consider the matter when they are furnished.
  Mr. HACKETTasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received a memorial from the occupiers of congested holdings on the estate of the Going Minors, situated at Ballyphilip, Ballingarry, county Tipperary; whether the tenants on the estate have expressed their desire to purchase their holdings on reasonable terms; whether within the past week several of them have received letters from Mr. Morgan, solicitor, demanding payment of full rents and arrears and costs, and threatening further proceedings unless payment is made immediately; and whether, under the circumstances, he will advise the Estates Commissioners to take prompt steps to effect an amicable arrangement on this estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the memorial referred to, and have requested the memorialists to furnish them with further particulars, so that the purchase of this estate may be considered. The Commissioners have no power to interfere with any legal proceedings which the owner may institute for the collection of the rents due by the tenants.

  Monaghan County Council University Scholarships.
  Mr. MOOREasked if the Monaghan County Council have provided in a scheme under the University Act that any Roman Catholic student who gets a scholarship provided out of the rates must go to the Dublin College of the National University, and to nowhere else, while any other successful student may go to any Irish university selected; if it is competent for the county council to do more than assist by scholarship any student to any university; if such a condition, driving all Roman Catholic students from county Monaghan to this particular college, is contrary to the professed undenominational character of the university; why this Ulster county council uses the ratepayers' money to deflect its Roman Catholic students to Dublin; and if similar conditions have been made by other Nationalist county councils?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The only knowledge I have of the matters referred to in the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is drawn from a short newspaper reference to the scheme. I do not infer that there is any religious qualification imposed in connection with the scholarships, which are offered for free competition; but that

  539
  it is stipulated that in the case of a successful Catholic competitor the scholarship should be held at Dublin College of the National University. In the case of a successful student of any other denomination, the scholarship can be held at any university or college selected by the student's parents. Without having the precise scheme before me, it would not be possible, even if it were open to me, to express any opinion on its legality. If the council have in any way transgressed their powers the ratepayers have their remedy.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this scheme, and, as head of the Local Government Board, will he instruct the auditor to see that the rate struck is legal?
  Mr. LARDNER: As a member of the Mixed Committee appointed by the Monaghan County Council to draft the scheme in question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that although the scheme has been before the public for some weeks no dissatisfaction has been expressed by any ratepayer in the county, Catholic or Protestant?
  Mr. MOORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been brought to the difference between the Belfast University and the Dublin National University, it being necessary that the students should take compulsory Irish at Dublin?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no desire to enter into any legal point which I have no right or authority to decide, but I am sufficiently acquainted with the University Act to know that the county councils are authorised to assist by scholarships any student of any university.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the scholarships which have been provided by the Monaghan County Council are open to students of all religious denominations without distinction, and that the County Council of Armagh county represented by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Moore) has not voted one penny for University education of any kind?

  Untenanted Lands (Limerick).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners are taking any steps to acquire the untenanted lands of Ballynorth, near Askeaton, in the county
  540
  of Limerick, on the O'Grady estate; and, if so, whether there is any likelihood of a sale being effected in the near future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners had a preliminary inspection made and communicated their estimate of price to the representatives of Dudley O'Grady. The Commissioners understand that their interest in the lands is not such as would enable them to sell under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have yet purchased the untenanted lands at Mount Henry, Coolcapper, in the county of Limerick; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, having regard to the fact that the landlady, Miss O'Grady, Delmege, has long since signified her willingness to sell the lands?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 19th April last to the question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to acquire the untenanted lands at Craggs, Borrigone, in the county of Limerick, on the Cooper estate; and whether he is aware that the landlord is willing to sell these lands to them, and that a great number of small holders in the district have petitioned the Commisioners to acquire these lands for them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners understand that the owner of the estate referred to is not prepared to sell at their estimated price. Formal proceedings for sale of the lands to the Commissioners have not yet been instituted by him.

  Congested Districts Board (John Flood's Estate).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the estate of John Flood, situated at Cornagee, Dowra, county Leitrim, has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board through the Land Judge's Court, and that the Court refused an offer of £621, although the net yearly rental was only £36 18s. 2d.; and whether, having regard to the poor quality of the land, the inconvenient situation of the property, and to the fact that the poor tenants will

  541
  soon be called upon to pay another year's rent at the old high rate, the Board would take such steps as are necessary to bring about the completion of the sale and thus relieve congestion on the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The offer made by the Congested Districts Board of £621 has been refused by the Land Judge, and the Board cannot take any further steps until the estate is offered for sale by auction in the Land Judge's Court.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is in a position to state when the Second Reading of the Bill for providing the additional million under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts will be taken; and whether reasonable opportunities will be afforded for a Debate on the general principles of the measure?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Second Reading of the Bill will be taken at the first opportunity, and as I am not aware that general principles of the Bill are at all controversial I trust that the Second Reading will not be further opposed, and that it may go upstairs to be discussed.

  Purchase Agreements (Security of Holdings).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would say in what way the Estates Commissioners protect, pending completion of sale, tenants who, relying upon their protection, have, under duress, signed purchase agreements at prices found by the Commissioners to be in excess of the amount for which the holdings are security; whether they are indifferent to the weakening of the security caused by making the extra payment with borrowed money or with money due to be spent on the necessary improvement and working of the holdings; and whether, in the specific instance on Colonel James Smyth's estate, Westmeath, they will make themselves parties to the landlord's conduct by allowing him to exclude from the sale a holding so circumstanced and to evict the tenant, who is willing to buy at the price the Commissioners have found the holding to be worth?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The rate of interest in lieu of rent payable by a purchasing tenant pending the advance of the purchase money is a matter of agreement between the vendor and the purchaser and
  542
  is not one in which the Estates Commissioners can interfere. The Commissioners are not prepared to advance in full the amounts applied for in respect of certain holdings on the estate referred to in the question, and the solicitors having carriage of the sale have been so informed.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is not the Commissioners' decision that a holding is not security for a larger sum than that offered substantially a decision that the holding is not worth more, and while the Congested Districts Board takes action to restrain the landlord in such cases in the exercise of their compulsory power will the Estates Commissioners take similar action?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; they have no power to do anything further in these cases than they have done. The interest which is paid in lieu of rent is a matter of agreement between landlord and tenant.

  Talented Students (Secondary Education).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the general desire in Ireland that a special fund should be provided by the State to enable talented students of primary schools to obtain secondary education with a possibility of matriculating in a university; and whether he proposes to take any action in that direction this present Session?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The matter is one deserving of most careful consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for a Bill for this purpose, which is, according to the Paper, to be introduced to-day?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not seen the Bill. I do not know what it involves.

  Board of National Education (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary, whether he can see his way to opening the inspectorships under the Board of National Education in Ireland to competition limited to teachers under that Board, and discontinue the appointment of external inspectors having no experience in teaching and no interest in education?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education could not approve of the proposal to confine the competition

  543
  for inspectorships to national teachers. National teachers are eligible for these appointments, and have privileges in regard to age not granted to other candidates. It is not correct to say that the inspectors appointed under the present system have no experience of teaching and no interest in education.

  Fosberry Estate, Fosberry (County Limerick).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary, if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to purchase the untenanted lands on the Fosberry estate, situate at Clorane, in the county of Limerick, for the purpose of dividing them among the small holders and labourers in the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No proceedings for the sale of the land referred to appear to have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.

  House of Commons (Length of Speeches.)
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling expressed on both sides of the House, the Government will appoint a Select Committee to examine the various methods adopted by public bodies, both in this country and abroad, to regulate the length of individual speech in Debate, and report thereon to this House as soon as possible?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I could not adopt this suggestion unless I were satisfied that it was supported by a general demand.

  Constitutional Conference, 1910.
  Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether it was at the request of the Liberal Members of the Conference that it was agreed that its deliberations should be kept secret; and whether the Conference was agreed that questions in dispute should be submitted to a joint session of representatives of both Houses?
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Unionist leaders at the last Conference meeting urged that an official statement should be made as to the extent to which agreement between the two Front Benches was reached, but that the four Liberal leaders opposed this request, arguing that if silence were observed the method of Conference could be kept alive for use on a future occasion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The decision of the Conference on the subject of publication was unanimous. In my opinion and (I am authorised to say) in the opinion also of all the surviving members of the Conference, it would be inconsistent with this decision to make any further statement in reply to the questions on the Paper.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: May I ask whether he is able consistently with the arrangement which has been arrived at to say whether the agreement as to secrecy was made at the beginning or at the end of the Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was announced in this House at the beginning of the Conference that all the proceedings would be confidential.

  State-aided Emigration.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister if he will explain to the House the views of the Government in the matter of State-aided emigration from the Motherland to the self-governing Dominions oversea; whether the Government are prepared to set aside a sum of money annually to be used towards assisting suitable and desirable persons to emigrate; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of extending the machinery of the Labour Exchanges so that if an applicant has work awaiting him in some one of the oversea Dominions he may be able to obtain from the State the same financial help towards the payment of his passage money as he can now obtain towards his travelling expenses if work awaits him in any part of the United Kingdom?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what, if any, steps have been taken by the Government to carry into effect the resolution dealing with emigration and immigration within the Empire passed unanimously by the members of the Conference?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the expectations held out on behalf of the Government at the last Imperial Conference that the Emigrants' Information Office should be reconstructed, any and what steps have been taken towards such reconstruction; and, if none, will he explain the cause of the delay, and undertake that the matter shall receive early consideration?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I will reply at the same time to the question which the

  545
  hon. Member has put to the Prime Minister and the two questions which he has put to myself. I am not aware what precisely is meant by the statement that expectations were held out at the last Conference that the Emigrants' Information Office would be reconstructed. The views of the Government on the question of emigration were stated at that Conference by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on pp. 170–172 and pp. 177–178 of Cd. 3523. In particular it was stated (page 177) that it had not been the policy to grant votes of Imperial money for emigration and (page 172) that if the Self-Governing Dominions considered any of the work done by the home agencies could be improved, any suggestions from them would be cordially welcomed. I may further refer the hon. Gentleman to the note printed on page 25 of Cd. 5273. He is aware that the question of the representation of the Dominions on the Managing Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office will be discussed at the forthcoming Conference on a resolution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The question of the possibility and best method of utilising the machinery of the Labour Exchanges in connection with applications and vacancies noted in the Oversea Dominions has for some time been engaging the attention of the Board of Trade and the subject has been put down for discussion at the Conference.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that expectations were held out by the President of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No; I am afraid I do not carry in my mind what expectations have been entertained in consequence of any views which have been expressed by my colleagues.

  Clancarty Estate, County Galway.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state if the Clancarty estate, county Galway, has been offered to or purchased by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Proceedings have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of this property under the Irish Land Act, 1903, portion of it as a direct sale, and portion, including the untenanted land, as a sale to the Commissioners.

  Weights, Measures, and Coins (Imperial Uniformity).
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he received from the Governor-General of Australia a telegram, dated 24th December, 1910, recommending for discussion at the approaching Colonial Conference the advisability of the reform of the present units of weights, measures, and coins; and, if so, why he omitted all reference to weights and measures when enumerating in his letter to Governors-General, etc., dated 20th January, 1911 [Cd. 5513], the list of subjects proposed by the Commonwealth for submission to the Conference?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The reference to "currency and coinage" on page 12 of Cd. 5513 should have been to "coinage and measures"—the subject of the tenth Australian resolution on page 9. That resolution will be discussed with the others at the Imperial Conference.
  Mr. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman send an amended list or a supplementary list to the Governors-General who may make the correction to which he has just referred with regard to weights and measures?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No; it will not be necessary, because if the hon. Member looks at the Australian resolutions on page 9 he will see it is included.

  Colonial Office (Permanent Under-Secretary).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, owing to a Permanent Under-Secretary of State not having yet been appointed, important matters at the Colonial Office are left unattended to and the efficiency of the staff is thereby impaired; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen the statements in question, which are for the most part, inaccurate. I have refrained from making any appointment to the vacant post of Permanent Under-Secretary, pending the meeting of the Imperial Conference, as important questions affecting the future conduct of business relating to the Dominions will come before the Conference, and I consider that it would be discourteous for me to take any step which might seem to prejudge the result of that discussion. This decision is naturally attended by some inconvenience to myself,

  547
  but it is wholly untrue to assert that important matters remain unattended to, or that the efficiency of the staff is detrimentally affected. I am glad to think that I shall be able to avail myself of Sir Francis Hop wood's experience and knowledge at the Conference, as, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's and his own concurrence, I intend to reappoint him, during its session, to his former post—of course, in an honorary and unpaid capacity.

  Malay States and Straits Settlements.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the offices of High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States and Governor of the Colony of the Straits Settlements being united in a single official, he has considered the desirability of the chief resident officer of the Federated Malay States being an officer of a considerable degree of independence; whether the change made since 1st February in the designation of that official will alter his status in such a manner as detrimentally to affect the interests of the Federated Malay States when they may conflict with those of the Colony; and whether due weight has been given to the strong unofficial opinion against the change in the Federated Malay States?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am satisfied that the change, which was made with the cordial approval of the native rulers, and after the fullest consideration, is in the interests of good administration, and will in no way detrimentally affect the Federated Malay States.

  Education Grants (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amounts voted by Parliament to each of the three countries, England, Scotland, and Wales, for secondary education and for higher grade primary schools, respectively, in the year ended March, 1910; and what is the amount voted to Ireland for the same purposes in the same period?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on Monday, the 13th ult.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is it not a fact that in England about £800,000 is voted for
  548
  secondary and higher grade schools, while in Ireland not a penny is voted?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I cannot admit the comparison of figures in any way.

  Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department have given consideration to the grievances of the preventive men in His Majesty's Customs; whether he was aware that the men in this branch of the service perform their duties efficiently, and that their duties and conditions of work are laborious; and whether, in view of the low standard of their wages at present and the tardiness and irregularity in the course of their promotion, he could promise that their grievances would be looked into and redressed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on this subject addressed to me yesterday by the Noble Lord the Member for Newton.

  Returning Officers' Expenses (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked what is the Treasury estimate of the total amount of returning officer's expenses incurred at a general election in Ireland which the proposed Government measure, if passed and applied to Ireland, would have been discharged by the Treasury?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that it is not possible for me at this stage of the proceedings to give any estimate of the kind asked for.

  Motor Spirit Duty (Medical Practitioners)
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, if a medical practitioner in claiming rebate of motor spirit duty is not bound to prove payment of duty by manufacturer or dealer, will he explain why the rebate due to Dr. Gibbon, of Mullingar, in respect of 1909 and 1910, duly claimed and vouched, has not yet been paid, and has in effect been refused; and, as many cases depend upon this one, will he say when payment will be made in all those cases of overdue rebate?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A claim for rebate of Motor Spirit Duty in respect of 1909 has been made by Dr. Gibbon, of Mullingar, but has not been allowed because the firms who are stated to have supplied the dealers from whom Dr. Gibbon purchased the spirit could not show to the officer

  549
  engaged in testing the validity of the certificates of sale that duty had been paid to the Crown on the spirit in question. Two claims for rebate in respect of 1910 have also been made by Dr. Gibbon. Payment of these claims has been delayed because the certificates, submitted with the claims, were incomplete. It is expected, however, that the claims will be decided upon at an early date.

  Secondary Schools (Free Places).
  Mr. O' DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the total number of free places in secondary schools in England and Wales given in consideration of the higher grant from the Board; and what, approximately, would be the average fee had each student to pay for himself?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): In the 785 secondary schools in England and Wales receiving the higher grant from the Board, the number of free places which had to be offered at the beginning of the current school year in order to meet the Board's requirements was 10,497. The number actually given was, however, 13,289, besides 322 more which were offered but not taken up. The variation among the fees charged in these schools is so great that it is impossible to say, even approximately, what the average fee would be. The fees differ not only as between school and school, but also in the same school according to the age of pupil, the area from which pupil comes, and other circumstances.

  White Bread (Physical Degeneracy).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, as the result of the statement contained in the Annual Report for 1909 of the chief medical officer of the Board that 20 to 40 per cent. of the 6,000,000 children in the public elementary schools of England and Wales suffer from extensive and injurious decay of the teeth, and in view of the opinion of the medical officers that such condition is largely traceable to the consumption of bread from which the germ and the skins of the grain have been mechanically extracted to ensure whiteness, and of the general ignorance as to food values and the preparation of food for human consumption, any steps are being taken by the Board, by the preparation of a special syllabus of domestic economy instruction or other-
  550
  wise, to minimise the magnitude of youthful physical degeneracy disclosed by the above Report?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board's medical officers have expressed no opinion as to the relation between the consumption of bread of any particular character and decay of the teeth. The best hope of arresting tendencies to physical degeneration appear to the Board to lie in the development of the school medical service and of school hygiene in its various aspects. In this connection the Board rely upon the efforts of local education authorities, care committees, and others to secure the co-operation of parents. The Board do not propose at present to attempt to deal with the matter by means of the issue of syllabuses, but the hon. Member need feel no doubt that the whole subject is engaging the earnest consideration of the Board.

  Provision of Meals Act.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked if education authorities in administering the Provision of Meals Act are obliged to ascertain that a child is destitute before supplying it with food?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the expenditure of rates for the provision of meals by a Local Education Authority. The conditions under which such expenditure may be incurred are set out in Section 3 of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906. That section requires as a preliminary to expenditure out of the rates for this purpose that the Local Education Authority shall have resolved that children attending an elementary school within their area are unable through lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them, that they shall have ascertained that funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food furnished in meals under the Act, and that they shall have been authorised by the Board of Education to spend money out of the rates for the provision of such food.

  Army Estimates.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the date upon which the Army Estimates will be introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; but I hope that I may be in a position to make a statement next week.

  Private Members' Time.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the amount of private Members' legitimate time has been absorbed by Government business, he will consider the desirability of allotting extra days to private Members after the Coronation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It would be premature to make any statement on this subject as yet.

  Imperial Conference, 1911.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that at the Colonial Conference of 1887 expert evidence was called in to assist the deliberations; and whether he will consider the advisability of following the same course at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the first meeting of the 1887 Colonial Conference was attended by the Prime Minister of the day and many of his colleagues, as well as by Members of the late Ministry, former Secretaries and Under Secretaries of State for the Colonies, Members of both Houses of Parliament, and other eminent men well known for their interest in matters relating to the Colonies; whether this arrangement met with the approval of the Conference; and whether he will consider the advisability of issuing similar invitations for the opening meeting of the Imperial Conference of 1911?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer the next question at the same time. The precedents for the forthcoming Conference are those of 1897, 1902, and 1907, which were Conferences with the Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominions, and its constitution has been defined by the first Resolution of the Conference of 1907. I do not see how the Conference of 1887 can be cited as a precedent, since it included other persons than Ministers, and also Crown Colony representatives. Any expert assistance which may be required will be provided by the official assistants of the Ministers, who will be present.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: With reference to the 1887 Conference, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proceedings were arranged by the Prime Minister himself, and not by the members of the Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not in any way affect my answer. The proceedings of this Conference are determined by the resolutions of the last.

  Scottish Fishermen (Loans).
  Mr. COWANasked the Lord Advocate whether the Government is prepared to consider the advisability of lending money to Scottish fishermen at a low rate of interest and on reasonable conditions as to repayment, to assist them in the purchase of steam fishing vessels or motor boats, with a view to enabling them to adapt the national industry in which they are engaged to modern competitive conditions?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Private enterprise has hitherto been very successful, according to my information, in meeting the necessities occasioned by the transition from sail to mechanical power, and there seems no strong case for the intervention of the Government.
  Mr. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that private enterprise is sufficient in Scotland while Government assistance is given freely in Ireland?
  Mr. URE: My information is that it is sufficient in Scotland.
  Mr. COWAN: Is the proposal not clearly within the scope of the Development Act, and will the right hon. Gentleman agree to receive a deputation on the subject?
  Mr. URE: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper I will answer it.

  Imprisonment in Default of Fine Payment.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say how many persons were in England and Wales committed to prison in 1910 in default of payment of pecuniary penalties, and how many of these were under the age of eighteen years; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation on the subject at an early date?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): There are no returns of the number of prisoners under eighteen, and they could not be given without much research. Moreover, they could not be very accurate, as the Prison Commissioners would have to rely on the prisoner's own statement as to whether he is above or below eighteen. I hope shortly to introduce legislation

  553
  which will greatly reduce the number of persons committed to prison in default of the payment of fines.

  Lanarkshire Mines (Aliens Employed).
  Mr. FELLasked if the number of the Poles and other aliens employed in Lanarkshire and the adjoining counties is increasing; through what ports they enter into this country; do they come in under contract to work in the mines; and are any of them rejected by the emigration authorities under the provisions of the Aliens Act?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no reason to think that the number of foreigners employed in the Scottish mines is increasing. The inspector of mines for the district reports that so far as he has been able to ascertain the number during the last four or five years has remained more or less stationary. The arrivals, as observed under the Aliens Act, of foreigners who express the intention of seeking work in Scottish mines have during the same period shown a decrease. The principal port of entry is Grimsby, but some come through London, Leith, and Grangemouth. So far as my information goes, they do not come under contract. Those of them who are found to be undesirable immigrants within the meaning of the Aliens Act are refused leave to land.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if these Poles are required to comply with the regulations under the Act?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They are subject to the ordinary regulations of the Act.
  Mr. FELLasked if the Poles employed in the Lanarkshire coal mines have given notice of their intention of remaining in this country permanently; if any of them are becoming naturalised; or if they return to Russia with their savings?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No such notice as indicated in the first part of the hon. Member's question is necessary. Very few, if any, of these Poles become naturalised. I am informed that very few of them return to Russia, but that a certain number proceed to America.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these questions about aliens in Lanarkshire mines have any connection with the fact that a by-election is proceeding in the North-Eastern Division of Lanarkshire?
  Mr. FELLasked the Home Secretary if he can state how many Poles or other foreigners from Russia or Austria are now employed in the coal mines in Lanarkshire; if such Poles can speak English; and, if not, what steps have been taken to avoid risk of danger to themselves or the other miners in the event of any accident occurring?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Exact figures are not available; but the number is estimated roughly at about 2,000. The majority speak English sufficiently well to understand the instructions given to them by the officials; those who are unable to do so are employed with others who have been in Scotland some time and have a knowledge of the language. The abstract and rules are printed in Lithuanian for the use of these foreigners. Careful inquiry has been made from time to time, but no evidence has been forthcoming to show that their employment is a source of danger.

  Released Convict (David Davies).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Home Secretary if he will say in what counties the search for David Davies, the Dartmoor shepherd, is being conducted?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on Tuesday last.

  Roller Skating on Street Pavements.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of Mrs. Emily Stewart, a widow of 85, who said she had been knocked down in Cropley Street by two boys who were roller-skating on the pavement; whether he is aware that at the inquest at the City mortuary on 27th February there was no evidence rebutting the statment; that the jury, in fact, found that she had been knocked down by two boys; that Inspector William Duncan admitted that roller-skating in the streets was a nuisance; that a juror expressed the opinion that it ought to be prohibited; and that the coroner, Mr. Danford Thomas, thoroughly endorsed that opinion; and whether, having regard to this additional indication of the dangers of roller-skating in the streets and these expressions of opinion, he will now reconsider his refusal to sanction by-laws by local authorities relating to the practice?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest in this case,

  555
  from which it would appear that there was evidence rebutting the statement that the deceased was knocked down by boys on roller-skates. But whatever may be the facts of this particular accident, I see no reason to alter my views which I have already fully explained. I am prepared to consider a general by-law to regulate the practice where it can be shown to be dangerous, but I am not prepared to prohibit it any more than I would prohibit cycling, or driving, or motoring, because occasional accidents may occur; nor can I consent to make it a criminal offence in particular Metropolitan boroughs, while leaving it to be treated as a lawful pastime in other parts of the Metropolis.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the very great danger caused to the children themselves by the habit of using roller skates in very crowded thoroughfares, and whether he is prepared to order the police to stop the traffic at such places as Piccadilly Circus and Oxford Circus in order to allow this pastime?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that this practice is not only common but general in Berlin, and I do not think we need take a more drastic view of children's pastimes than is taken by the police in Berlin.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the conduct of boys who skate round Tufnell Park?

  Railway Companies Weights.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware of the unrest existing on the part of the general and trading public whose contracts are generally based on railway weights, in connection with the weights of merchandise carried by railway companies, on account of the condition of their weighing apparatus; whether the requrements of the Weights and Measures Acts, and regulations relating particularly to Section 1 of the Act of 1889 and to Regulation 9 of the Weights and Measures Regulations, 1907, are complied with as regards railway companies; and, if not, will the Board take steps to require from inspectors of weights and measures, or alternatively from their local authorities, a Return giving a list of railway companies' weighbridges in their inspectorial districts, showing the number
  556
  of weighbridges which do not bear a stamp, as provided by the Act, and the dates of the stamps of the weighbridges which bear such?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Weighing instruments in use on railway companies' premises for the purposes of trade, as defined in the Weights and Measures Acts, are subject to the provisions of those Acts and of the Regulations made thereunder. It is the duty of Inspectors of Weights and Measures to see that such instruments have been duly verified and stamped, and to test them from time to time. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any case in which he has reason to believe that the Acts are not being put in force I will call the attention of the local authorities to the matter.

  Colwick Yard, Great Northern Railway.
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident to a shunter named Burdett whilst riding on the step of a shunting engine at Colwick Yard, Great Northern Railway, on 17th November, 1910; if so, whether his attention has been called to the dangerous method of working in this yard, where the men are neither supplied with uniform nor rule book; and whether any representation has been made by the inspecting officer who conducted the Board of Trade inquiry?
  Mr. TENNANT: An inquiry was held into this accident (which took place on 28th October) and the Board have been in communication with the company as regards certain recommendations contained in the sub-inspecting officer's report. The company state that it is their practice to provide every supernumerary porter regularly employed with a copy of the rule book, and that it is regretted that there was a failure to do so in this instance. I do not gather that absence of uniform had any bearing upon the accident. The Board of Trade are still in correspondence with the company as to the method of working the yard.
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that uniform is the only method by which the men can be distinguished, and that therefore the absence of uniform has a distinct bearing on this man's death?
  Mr. TENNANT: That will be borne in mind.

  Trip-Cocks on Railways.
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the trip-cocks in operation on the Metropolitan and other railways are so placed as to render their operation dangerous to the men; whether he is aware that the men's lives are unnecessarily risked in having to leave the motor cab to attend to these cocks; and, having regard to the fact that there are trip-cocks in use which obviate these dangers, he will take steps to deal with the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: Only one accident is recorded as having occurred in closing the trip-cock on any railway on which this apparatus is in use. An inquiry was held into that accident, and both the position of, and the method of closing, the trip-cock were gone into. I am advised that it is not altogether desirable to arrange for the closing of the trip-cock from the motor cab, but the company concerned has been asked to consider whether other means can be adopted for preventing possible danger to the men.

  London and North-Western Railway (Enginemen and Firemen).
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London and North-Western Railway Company have added to the work of enginemen and firemen at certain stations by compelling them to clean their footplates, and threatening them with punishment in the event of their failing to do so; and, having regard to the fact that such work can only be performed when the engine is standing in order to comply with the company's instructions in these matters, which makes it practically impossible for the men to carry out Rule 55, and having regard to the importance attached to the observance of this rule, whether he will communicate with the London and North-Western Railway Company with a view to their co-operating and assisting the men to carry out a rule framed for public safety?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have invited the observations of the railway company upon the representations contained in this question, but, as my hon. Friend was informed in reply to his question of 13th February, I am unable to make any statement on the subject of Rule 55 until the reports of the inspecting officers on recent accidents have
  558
  been received, and we have had time carefully to consider them.

  Unemployment Insurance.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fluctuations in employment in the slate trade, being as it is dependent on the building trade, whether he has considered the request made by the quarrymen's union for the inclusion of slate quarrymen in the proposed Bill for insurance against unemployment?
  Mr. TENNANT: I should be reluctant to extend the scope of the proposal at the outset beyond the three great groups of trades—building, engineering, and shipbuilding.

  Tunstall Post Office (Employment of Women).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Postmaster-General whether women were employed during last Christmas at the Tunstall office on duties terminating at times varying from 9.30 p.m. to 11.40 p.m.; whether they were released from duty without conveyance or escort; whether a woman was also employed at this office on 23rd and 24th December who was not a member of the staff; and, if so, what payment was made for her services?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am making inquiry, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Postal Delivery (Glencree, County Wicklow).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Postmaster-General whether complaint has reached him of the inconvenience caused by the non-delivery of letters on Sunday at the Glencree reformatory school, county Wicklow; and whether he intends to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Complaint has reached me of the inconvenience caused by the non-delivery of letters on Sunday at the Glencree reformatory school, but in view of the loss already incurred on the service in the locality I regret that I do not feel justified in sanctioning the extra delivery.

  Mombasa Mail Service.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked what the cost of the Aden-Mombasa mail service was in the years 1908–9, 1909–10, and what was the estimated cost for 1910–11?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The net cost actual or estimated to the United Kingdom of the mail service between Aden, Mombasa, and Zanzibar is £9,025 for each of the three years in question, including transit payments to foreign postal administrations.

  Post Office Pensions (Army and Navy Service).
  Mr. CROFTasked whether previous service in the Navy and Army will in future count for pensions in the Post Office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Service in the Army and Navy cannot, under existing Statutes, be taken into account in calculating civil pensions.

  Potato Disease.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. George Roberts)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his Department has caused experiments to be made with Nicholl's Black Scab Compound (Patent No. 4831); and, if so, whether such experiments were conducted in a manner approved by the patentee, and can he give the result thereof?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board have caused careful trials to be made of the compound referred to by the hon. Member, but it has failed to prevent wart disease from attacking the potatoes.

  Small Holding (Beddington, Kent).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. George Roberts)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if his Department has received an appeal from Mr. Herbert King, of South Beddington, to be allowed to retain possession of his present holding pending his taking up the land to be provided for him by the Kent County Council, with the undertaking that he receives such compensation as the law allows upon relinquishing his present occupation; whether King s request has received consideration; and, if so, has action been taken in the matter, and with what result?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, an appeal was received from Mr. King, but in view of his refusal to accept what the Board considered was a very reasonable offer from the parish council, whereby Mr. King could have retained his allotment until his small holding was ready for occupation, the Board do not propose to take any
  560
  further action in this matter. Mr. King is not entitled to any compensation.

  Small Holdings Act (Cardiganshire).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. George Roberts)asked if the Felingyffin farm, on the Gogerddan estate, for the compulsory hiring of which the Cardiganshire County Council has sought the Board's confirmation, was, at the time the county council opened up negotiations, incorporated with the Dwlgan farm, in the occupation of a Mr. Griffith; whether it was subsequently transferred to the daughter of Mr. Griffith; whether evidence has been adduced to show that this was intended to evade the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; and whether further action is contemplated in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Order of the County Council was made on 23rd August last. The Felingyffin farm had been let as a separate holding to Messrs. Griffith nearly two years before. The Board have no reason to believe that this was done with the object of evading the Act.

  Isle of Wight Bee Disease.
  Captain BARINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention had been drawn to a disease, known as the Isle of Wight bee disease, which was causing considerable loss to bee-keepers in certain parts of Hampshire; and if so, what steps he proposes to take to stamp out this disease?
  Captain CLAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that an outbreak of Isle of Wight bee disease has occurred in West Kent; when will the Board of Agriculture issue their Report on the subject; and, pending the issue of such Report, what steps the Board propose to take to check the further development of this epidemic?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: May I be allowed to reply at the same time to the question to be asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tonbridge. The Board are well aware of the existence of this disease, and it has been under investigation for some year's, but no remedy for it has yet been discovered.

  Tenant Farmers (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. ERNEST JARDINE (for Mr. C. Bathurst)asked what are the terms of reference to the new departmental com-

  561
  mittee to consider the position of farm tenants consequent upon the increasing tendency of agricultural landowners to put their estates upon the market; whether such committee has already been constituted; and, if so, of whom does it consist?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Committee will be appointed to inquire into the position of tenant farmers in England and Wales on the occasion of any change in the ownership of their holdings, whether by reason of the death of the landlord, the sale of the land or otherwise, and to consider whether any legislation on the subject is necessary. I hope to be in a position to announce the names during the next few days.

  Development Fund (Agricultural Grant).
  Mr. E. JARDINE (for Mr. C. Bathurst)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) what is the total amount which has been applied for out of the Development Fund by the Board for various agricultural purposes in Great Britain; when and in respect of what specific purposes, other than the breeding of light horses, was such application made; and to what extent has such application been approved; (2) what steps the Board is taking in view of the insignificant amount appropriated out of national funds to purposes of agricultural research in the United Kingdom compared with that of the grants made for this purpose by other European Governments, and in view of the unanimous opinion of the leading agricultural organisations in this country that such object should be given priority in respect of grants out of the Development Fund, to secure the allocation by the Development Commissioners of an adequate portion of the fund for this purpose?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: May I be allowed to reply at the same time to another question to be asked by the hon. Member? The Board applied in September last for a grant of £50,000 per annum from the Development Fund to enable them to aid research and to provide scientific and technical advice for agriculturists. The application has been the subject of frequent communications between the Board and the Commissioners; but no decision has as yet been arrived at. The Board have also asked for a grant of £20,000 per annum for the organisation and co-operation, with regard to which communica-
  562
  tions are also passing between the Board and the Commissioners.

  Sugar Beet Experiments.
  Mr. E. JARDINE (for Mr. C. Bathurst)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the experiments in the growing of sugar-beet, proposed to be conducted through the agency of agricultural colleges, are the only experiments of the kind contemplated by the Board this year; if he will say over what area such experiments will be made; and whether the cost involved will be defrayed by a grant out of the Development Fund?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. To the second that the area has not yet been definitely settled; to the third part the answer is in the negative.

  Agricultural Land (Wales and Monmouth).
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked what was the total rateable value of agricultural land in Wales and Monmouth in the years 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1910?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Prior to the year 1896, when the Agricultural Rates Act came into operation, the rateable value of all agricultural land was not shown separately in the valuation lists or poor rates, and consequently it cannot be stated for the years 1880 and 1890. The total rateable value of agricultural land in Wales and Monmouth, according to the valuation lists in force at 25th March, was,

  In 1900

  …

  …

  …

  £2,055,788

  In 1910

  …

  …

  …

  2,138,889

  IMPRISONMENT OF MRS. WOOLMER (EPPING)
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which I have given private notice: whether the responsibility of the husband of Mrs. Woolmer, who was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for neglecting her five children, was considered by the Bench; whether at the hearing the woman pleaded guilty at the husband's request, and, if so, whether, in consideration of that and also of the fact that the neglect for which Mrs. Woolmer is imprisoned, arose from the husband frequently earning no more than eight shillings a week, which, together with the situation of the cottage, con-

  563
  duced towards making the woman mentally defective, the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to order her release, so that she may be placed under the charge of one of the number of persons who have offered to care for her and nurse her back to health?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As I did not get notice of the question just put, I am not prepared with a formal answer. I am carefully watching and considering the case, and if the hon. Member would repeat his question on Monday next I hope to be able to give him some further information.

BUSINESS FOR NEXT WEEK.
Mr. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the business next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we will continue the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates, and we propose to suspend the 11 o'clock rule.
On Tuesday, we will take the Second Reading of the Revenue Bill,
On Wednesday the Civil Service (Vote on Account), and
On Thursday the Committee stage of the Revenue Bill.
As to Friday, I hope to make a statement next week.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In arranging that programme, has the right hon. Gentleman borne in mind the fact that, owing to an amicable arrangement across the floor of the House, the discussion on the Report stage of the Resolutions was practically foregone; I do not mean that that is literally true, because there were three hours of discussion on the Report stage, but, in effect, there was no discussion of the Report stage; in the circumstances does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a little more time ought to be allowed to the House for discussing a Bill which, I think, contains no fewer than fourteen clauses and omits a great many others?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I do not see my way to give any more time.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to go into Committee on the Revenue Bill on Thursday and only give one day?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  UNIVERSITY OF WALKS BILL.
  "To define and enlarge the rights of graduates in medicine of the University of Wales," presented by Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES; supported by Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, Sir Herbert Roberts, Sir Francis Edwards, and Mr. Ormsby-Gore; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th March.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To regulate night employment and to prohibit week-end employment in certain factories and workshops," presented by Mr. JOWETT; supported by Mr. Gill, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Snowden, Mr. William Thorne, and Mr. Toulmin; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 23rd March.
  NATIONALISATION OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS BILL.
  "To provide for the nationalisation of Railways and Canals," presented by Mr. WILLIAM THORNE; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Parker, and Mr. O'Grady; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th March.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Elections," presented by Mr. WALTER REA; supported by Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Rowntree; to be read a second time upon Thursday next.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
  "To alter the age of exemption from Attendance at School," presented by Mr. WALTER REA; supported by Mr. Arthur Henderson, Viscount Morpeth, and Mr. Whitehouse; to be read a second time upon Thursday next.

  SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOLAHSHIPS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To enable local authorities in Ireland to make provision for Scholarships in Secondary Schools for pupils leaving primary schools," presented by Mr. MOORE; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th March.
  Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Ordered, "That Mr. Walsh be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee."
Ordered, "That Mr. Tyson Wilson be added to the Committee."—[Mr. Gulland.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered—" That the Proceedings on the Parliament Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
PARLIAMENT BILL.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING.— [Fourth Day.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [27th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time:"—
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and add instead thereof the words "this House would welcome the introduction of a Bill to reform the composition of the House of Lords whilst maintaining its independence as a Second Chamber, but declines to proceed with a measure which places all effective legislative authority in the hands of a Single Chamber and offers no safeguard against the passage into law of grave changes without the consent and contrary to the will of the people."—[Mr. Austen Chamberlain.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Amendment, Sir, which you have just put from the Chair may remind the House of a point on which we are all agreed, namely, that some constitutional reform is desirable at the present time in the opinion of both parties. I remember what probably no one else does, that, speaking on the First Reading of this Bill last week, following the Prime Minister, I welcomed the fact that upon this subject there was common agreement, although there was probably the widest divergence of reasons which had led to that harmony of opinion. I think it may be worth while for the House just to consider what the various reasons are which have induced the different sections of the House to arrive at the conclusion that in this year, 1911, it is desirable to proceed with some measure of constitutional reform, dealing with the Upper House, and dealing with the relations of this House to the Upper House. We are divided into several schools of thought, widely divergent. The Irish party hold as a party that the reason for supporting this Bill is that it is a necessary preliminary,
  566
  and, as they believe, an adequate preliminary to obtaining a measure of Home Rule. I daresay individual Members of that party may have divergent views upon the abstract question of whether there should be a Second Chamber, and if there is to be a Second Chamber, how that Second Chamber should be constituted. But all those individual or personal views are merged in the common policy openly and honestly avowed, that the Irish party are supporting the Government—under some difficulty in regard to other questions—in order that they may get out of the way what they regard as an obstacle to the realisation of their Nationalist ambitions. I will have to say a word about that later, but at this moment I pass from that school of thought to another, which received support last night in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), which has received immense favour in different sections of the constituencies, and which has bulked largely in all the controversies which have raged round the central problem during the last three years—I mean the school of thought which desires to abolish the existing Second Chamber because it objects to what is called the hereditary principle.
  I confess personally to having the very smallest amount of intellectual sympathy with those diatribes against the hereditary principle, at all events against those who think and those who uphold that that is inherently contrary to universal reason, while representative Government, as it is practised, and as it must be practised, is in complete harmony and accord with the dictates of universal reason. It is a very foolish doctrine. I hold as strongly as the Member for Blackburn himself, I hold as strongly as any man in this House does, that what is called the democratic form of Government is absolutely the only form of Government under which a community like ours, having reached this present stage of political and social development, can possibly live peaceably or carry out effectively its national and Imperial work. In that sense, which is the only true practical sense, I am as strong a democrat as is to be found in this House, but when I am asked to follow the Member for Black burn into those abstract regions of speculative thought, it appears to me that he and those who think with him are absolutely misleading the House upon a point which has more than an interest, extending far beyond mere abstract and academic discussions.

  567
  Has the thought occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the system which he regards as the only one consistent with reason is practised by a small section of the human race, that the whole of history shows us, not that it seems reasonable to the ordinary man to acquiesce in a system of representative government, but that what may seem reasonable to the ordinary man, looking at it historically, looking at it if you like as the world is constituted now—if your gaze embraces the whole world—is the hereditary principle. If you tell him that what reason really requires of him is to regard himself as being represented in an assembly for which he has perhaps given a vote for a candidate who has been rejected, and in which the majority holds views that he does not share, he would say:—" They do not represent me; they are no better than I am; I differ from them, why should I obey them? Give me the old plan—my nation, or my tribe, or my clan, or my sept. Give me the practice I understand, and do not try to explain to me that I am being represented when in fact the people who represent me are doing everything to which I most object."
  4.0 P.M.
  The truth is that it is folly to appeal against the House of Lords on the ground that it is based upon the hereditary principle. There are other reasons which I should give why I think it ought to be changed, but that is not the reason. If the House will forgive me for being a little too abstract, and leaving for a moment this practical interchange of friendly blows with the Opposition, I say it is folly for us as practical men simply to lay down the proposition that we have noting to do with the hereditary principle. What we ought to see as practical men is what we can get out of it. There it is, part of our inherited traditions. There it is in conformity with the general feeling of mankind over the greater parts of the earth. Let it be our servant, let it be no longer our master. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Which part of that proposition do hon. Members cheer? Who wants it, who in this country for generations has ever wanted it, to be our master? Certainly nobody who sits on these benches. That, as a doctrine, so far as I am aware, has been abandoned, or has fallen silently aside, and is held by no man now living, nor has it been held by any man who has lived for generations.
  There is the other view of the problem. Do you not think that we ought, if we can,
  568
  to make it our servant? Can we not use it for some purpose? Let the House notice how absolutely invaluable in the development of the Constitution has been the hereditary principle in the case of the monarchy. You could not at this moment, and I defy any man to imagine a Constitution in which our diverse Empire could exist for a year apart from the hereditary principle. Do you think it is to your transient majority or to a transient minority; do you think it is to this House, or to the two Houses, that the Dominions beyond the seas, or our fellow-subjects in India, look. No, Sir, the common bond of Empire is based upon the hereditary principle, and in the great evolution which has taken place in these centuries we have known how to turn to account the powers of the Sovereign in a manner never dreamt of by our forefathers, but which I venture to think are more beneficent, more useful, more invaluable, more absolutely necessary to the continuance of your Empire than was the power of the Crown at the time when the power of the Crown was most undisputed. I care nothing whatever for the hereditary principle, for the hereditary privileges, as they are called, of any Member of the Upper House, except in so far as the continued use of that principle or that practice may serve to give us the kind of Second Chamber which, if we can only look at this great problem apart from the turmoil of party disputes, I believe we should all wish to have, a Second Chamber, in other words, which has not in it the seeds, the inevitable seeds, which will ultimately develop and grow so that the Second Chamber shall be a real rival to the first. I do not believe you can avoid that solution unless you use, as I advise you still to use, the hereditary principle, not to the extent it is used now, not the way it is used now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not, explain why not, why change the House of Lords at all? Is that the question? I will come to that. In the meanwhile I am dealing with the first school of thought, or the Home Rule school of thought. The second school of thought is the school ably represented by the hon. Member for Blackburn, and many people who seem to think they are driven on the path of great constitutional change by those imaginary dictates of pure political reason. That is an illusion.
  I turn to another school of thought, of which I think the Government are the great representatives. They want a change, and they tell us the reason they

  569
  want a change is that, in their own words, they "do not get fair play for their legislation from the present constitution between the two Houses." I have never suggested, either in public or in private, that I do not think it is a misfortune that through political causes, which everybody knows, gentlemen who, either in their own persons or in that of their immediate ancestors, were recommended to the honour of peerages by Radical Administrations no longer support the Radical party. The practice has been undisputed, and I think has reached proportions which are a just ground of comment and criticism. But at the same time I do think this way of looking at politics as if it was some game in which the rules were rather unfairly loaded in favour of one side is not the attitude of mind in which statesmen should approach the reform of their hereditary institutions. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to think that we are, as it were, opposed bands of football players, and that we insist on playing always with the wind behind us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought and I hoped my sporting metaphor might meet with some approval among the athletes on the other side. Could there be a more flimsy reason, I will not say for changing the Constitution of the country, but for the particular kind of change which the Government are proposing. They say here that when the Radical party come into power they find themselves constantly thwarted by the House of Lords, and they are usually good enough to add that the House of Lords always acts by my own particular suggestion. It was only when I heard the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite that I saw what a great man I really am. Certainly I have not been conscious of those extraordinary and far-reaching powers, but when I heard them attributed to me by one orator after another I began to wonder after all whether I am not too modest.
  I shall say a word as to how much truth there is in the charge of hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen of being so perpetually thwarted and illegitimately thwarted by the House of Lords. Let us grant for the moment that the allegation is so, that the allegation is correct, let us grant for a moment that the House of Lords have mis-used the powers which they are by the Constitution intended to have for the purpose of checking hasty legislation, and that they have mis-used them in that sense, and always exercised them when hon. Gentlemen opposite were
  570
  in office and never when we were in office. That, I understand, is the point. Indeed I should be very dull of apprehension if I did not understand it, because every Gentleman opposite has said it several times. That may surely be a reason for so modifying the House of Lords or so devising some other expedient that a check may be placed on your legislation. Why, if checks be desirable at all, and the whole contention of the Government is that they are desirable, is it a reason for removing the checks from the Radical side. Grant that this kind of sporting equality should be the goal of our legislative and constitutional ambition, surely the equality should be attained by an endeavour to find some proper check over the legislative operations of all Unionist Governments, instead of allowing all Governments, what-ever their views may be, whatever their policy, whatever their ambitions, to run free with all the uncontrolled licence which the Bill, as drafted by the Government, without the Preamble, will inevitably come to. Hon. Members have never attempted to deal with that point so far as I know. Hon. Members below the Gangway may be doctrinaires about the hereditary principle, but at all events they are perfectly consistent. They say practically openly we do not want a Constitution in which there are any checks. The hon. Member for Blackburn told us "we want the will of the people"; by which he means the will of the majority in this House for the time being. "We want that carried through into law with all possible speed, irrespective of any checks at all." That is very wild politics, but at all events it is a perfectly comprehensive coherent body of doctrine. That is not the body of doctrine held by hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. They think, as we think, that checks are necessary. Then, if they think that we are not sufficiently checked, let them apply their great constructive intellects to find some way of dealing with that situation. Do not let them remove from their own hearts checks which they admit to be an integral part of any properly constituted Constitution. Hon. Gentlemen in one sense do themselves injustice. They assume in all their speeches that their legislative ambitions are as modest as those which characterise the Unionist party. Therefore, they do not seem to think that any more constitutional checks are required in their case than in ours. I do not agree with that. I think the party which boasts itself to be the party of rapid and effectual change is

  571
  the very party which ought not to be stopped in its onward career if the country approves it, but to have a constitutional check which will make it clear, whether or not the country does approve of it. Frankly, I think it is more necessary in their case than in ours, and I should have thought that they would have agreed with that. I should have thought their own pride as legislators, as political innovators, would have made them admit that. But if they think differently, if they think that violent changes are as likely to emanate from the quiet benches behind me as from their own ranks, we need not dispute it for the moment; let us simply say: Devise checks; find a system which is a check; and then, if you can, apply it to both sides. But let it be a check; do not let it be a sham.
  May I on this point remind the House of a speech delivered by the Home Secretary a few nights ago. The right hon. Gentleman has explained on many occasions, with not less eloquence and fervour than his colleagues who sit near him, that no self-respecting Ministers could continue in office when their legislative projects were liable at any moment to be defeated by the House of Lords. I have always sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman and his friends who have contrived to remain in office under these humiliating conditions for so many years. But quite a new picture of the situation was drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the other night. I gathered, to my surprise, that it was entirely due to the activity of the House of Lords that we still have the pleasure and profit of seeing him in office. He told us so quite unmistakably. It was a very interesting and able argument. He said, "If the House of Lords had not done this, that, and the other, we should have sunk under the load of our own iniquities; we should have been hurled from office as other people have been hurled from office; you would not have seen the unexampled spectacle of the same Government coming back after three successive General Elections." That you owe, he explained to the House of Lords, and to the House of Lords alone. I thought that a very interesting side-light on contemporary history, and it gave me much food for reflection. The first reflection it gave rise to was, what an ungrateful person the right hon. Gentleman is. He owes the continuance of his political existence as a Minister, so he says, to the House of Lords. I think the least you can
  572
  do for your benefactor is not to belabour him with hard words. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] May I not spend five minutes upon what took twenty minutes in the right hon. Gentleman's speech? It was a most absurd, if he will allow me to say so, and fanciful argument, because it not only proved that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely ungrateful, but surely it also proved that the House of Lords, when it rejected certain Government measures, rightly gauged public opinion. But what is the right hon. Gentleman's argument? He says: If we had carried these measures, the country would have turned us out; our Bills would have been in operation, but we should have suffered the unpopularity which all Governments suffer when their Bills are carried out; the reforms which we had effected would have been found to do very little good to those they were intended to benefit, and a great deal of injury to those who objected to them; and the country would have found out that our beneficient projects of legislation were, after all, very little good to anybody.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Churchill): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to do injustice to the argument I put forward; I said that grievances would have been redressed and large classes would have been satisfied.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; he did say that; but he also explained that it was because the House of Lords had not passed those Bills that he is there. He is perfectly right to interrupt me if he feels that I have misrepresented him, as I am sure I have no desire to do that. That brings me really to the third school of those who desire a reform in the Constitution, of which school I am one. Why do we want a change in the Constitution? I want it, speaking for myself, and perhaps for others on this side of the House, because I think that recent events have shown that the House of Lords is not strong enough as at present constituted to carry out its functions. I deduce that conclusion from almost every speech which I heard delivered on the other side attacking the action of the House of Lords in recent years. What is the gravamen of the charge brought against them? First, that they threw out the Budget; secondly, that they modified the Education Bill; and, thirdly, that they dealt with the Licensing Bill. Nobody will deny that those are the three main points; I do not say they are all. There

  573
  was another grievance against the House of Lords which I will not comment upon; it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn last night. He said that the House of Lords passed the Trades Disputes Bill, but they did not like it. That may be a criticism on their taste, but I do not think it is an adverse comment upon their action. Their taste in that respect was a taste shared largely in very important quarters above the Gangway.
  But, after all, the gravamen of the charge against the House of Lords is the three matters I have mentioned. The Budget was a reference of financial proposals of great novelty and great magnitude to the judgment of the constituencies. It was avowedly done in that way and for that purpose. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken as if it was the ambition of any party or of any individuals in the House of Lords to arrogate to themselves the granting of Supply or the managing of the financial affairs of the country. That never was the wish of the Second Chamber. They thought, and in my opinion they thought rightly, that proposals so novel as those of the Budget were proposals on which the country ought to be consulted. They may have been right, they may have been wrong; as the Prime Minister says, they may have committed political suicide by their action; but it was, in my judgment, a perfectly legitimate action, considering the novelty of the Budget, and as such I think it will be judged by history. There was the Licensing Bill; there was the Education Bill. Will it really be pretended that the action of the House of Lords about either the Licensing Bill or the Education Bill went beyond what a proper Second Chamber ought to be able to do? [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly."] I do not argue at the present time the merits of either of those measures. Let it be remembered that the Government themselves have not contended or thought that the Licensing Bill had behind it the opinion of a majority of the electors of the country. As to the Education Bill, all that the House of Lords did was to make an effort that the parents of this country should have for their children the kind of religious teaching that they desired. That, and that alone. It is absurd to tell us that in making that effort, not in throwing out or destroying the Bill, but in fighting for that principle, they went beyond what a Second Chamber might most properly and most legitimately do. If you want a proof of that, I ask you
  574
  to look at the result of the subsequent elections. You boast, and you are perfectly justified in boasting, of your majority of 124 or 125, whatever it is, in favour of the Parliament Bill. That is perfectly proper; make what you can of it. But nobody pretends that in the House that I am now addressing there is a majority either for your Education proposals or for your Licensing Bill. In this House, where you boast of your omnipotence, you could neither propose nor carry by itself, irrespective of general policy, either of those measures. Is it not folly then to say that the Upper Chamber, whose function it is in certain circumstances to cause such delay as may involve the certainty of the constituencies really understanding and approving a policy, outstepped the line of their duty by those Amendments when the result of the election which followed has been to endorse the action which they then took?
  This being the view which I, at all events, take about the action of the Second Chamber, I observe that a great body of opinion in this country, represented, I freely admit, by a majority in this House, is of opinion that the House of Lords went beyond their proper function, and that an adequate reason for altering them has arisen. I say, if a Second Chamber cannot do so much, if that modest plea for delay on their part is to be met as it has been met, you must strengthen your Second Chamber. I suspect there are more than we think on both sides of the House, and in all parties in the country, who would like to see the House of Lords go on exactly as it is now in external appearance, but shorn of all substantial power to check or to delay, or to carry out the proper functions of a Second Chamber. I do not agree with that view. Personally, I attach no value, except an æsthetic value, to ancient institutions which have lost all living force and reality. If the House of Lords is to be merely an ornamental part of the Constitution, re-minding us of our long history, connected with many ancient and picturesque ceremonies; if it is to be classed with the beautiful armour in the Tower, as something ancient and valuable, but wholly useless for any modern purpose, well, then, I say, I care as little for the House of Lords as any hon. Gentleman opposite. I want a Second Chamber. The Government also want a Second Chamber. We are in happy agreement about that. I suppose when the Government say they want

  575
  a Second Chamber they mean a real Second Chamber—one which will carry out the functions of a Second Chamber. That is exactly my view. If it be true—and I think the events of the last few years have indicated that it is true—that under our existing system the House of Lords is not strong enough to carry out their functions, well, then, see to it that you have a Second Chamber which is strong enough. It may be asked why checks are necessary. It may be asked why a Second Chamber—among other checks at all events—is a necessary and desirable part of a free Constitution, and has always been thought to be a necessary and desirable part of a free Constitution by almost every statesman and every thinker who has devoted his attention to the subject. I think you can very easily see the reason by studying the facts of contemporary political history. These very facts upon which I dwell have been dwelt upon by some Members of His Majesty's Government. What is the nature of the system under which we live? We live under a representative party system. The representative party system in this country always tends to work out into something like rough equality between the two opposing camps. Ardent rhetoricians in the height of victory tell us that this party or that party have suffered a crushing defeat, have been hurled from power, have been driven into exile by their indignant countrymen, and all the rest of it. When the election is over and all this hurling and crushing is finished, you will find that the people who are in the minority are a fraction less than half the voters, and the people who are in power are a fraction more than half the voters—and not a very big fraction. Therefore we are apt to work in this House under a great delusion in this matter. However big the majority may be—take, for example, that which destroyed the Unionist Government in 1906, and to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred—even at that time you will find that those who suffered that defeat have behind them a vast body of their countrymen, and those not the least intelligent! What is called a great victory or a great defeat merely means what was admirably pointed out in the speech of the President of the Board of Education last night. He explained to us very lucidly, and I thought quite accurately, how the matter stood. If that be so, you must take count of it in framing your Constitution. The transfer
  576
  of these relatively few votes from side to side under the impulse, it may be of some absurdly mistaken passions, some violent prejudice; it may be "Chinese labour," or some other historic cry; the transfer, I say, of these votes from side to side carries with it the principle of the absolute transfer straight off of all administrative power. It is quite right that it should do so. I am entirely in favour of it. The party system, when these administrative powers have been transferred from side to side, gives some stability to those who are entrusted with the difficult task of Government. There again I think the party system is an immense advantage. However much I might desiderate greater individual independence when we are discussing the provisions of Bills, I do think that the party system is absolutely necessary if you are to have stability of administration. I would rather have a bad Government in office with some kind of security of tenure, if only a brief one, than have the buying from day to day of this little section or that little section by some administrative concession. But when we turn from administration to legislation the case becomes somewhat different. More particularly does it become different when the legislation which you are dealing with is legislation touching the fundamental inheritance of the Constitution of the country. I think it is utterly absurd to say that the transfer of these few votes at a General Election under the violent impulse of some hope, fear, or passion of the moment, is to give a universal Power-of-Attorney to any Government to do exactly what it likes with the British Constitution. That seems to me to be altogether an absurd proposal. I am violently opposed, and always have been to this delegate theory of representation. I am opposed, and always have been opposed, to this talk or overtalk about mandates. Let me add, I think the system of pledges at elections is carried much too far—I think it is a great and growing evil. I wish we Members, we representatives, of the people who meet in this Chamber could meet here as men, not always thinking what we said at the last General Election, or what we promised to this deputation or the other deputation. I want us to devote impartial minds, or minds as impartial as we can make them, to the legislative work just before us.
  Mr. MONEY: What about the Referendum?
  Mr. BALFOUR: If you are going to give that power to Members of Parliament, if

  577
  you are going to cut us adrift from the monstrous theory that we are the mere delegates of our Constituents, then I say there must be some limitation of the power which this House possesses for fundamental constitutional legislative problems. An hon. Member interrupted me just now and said: "What about the Referendum?" He thinks, as the Prime Minister thinks—so I gather from the speech he made the other day—that the use of the Referendum to protect fundamental questions turns us into a debating assembly. It does nothing of the sort. It is the one thing which prevents us being a debating assembly. It takes away from us the unlimited power which we ought never to possess, and it leaves us the powers which we ought to possess—the power of determining absolutely what shall be the administration. It leaves us the power absolutely of Voting Supplies, and of carrying on the general administrative work of the country, subject to review, revision and check by the other House, and it prevents the two Houses together—or it may do so—from making some inroad upon the Constitutional heritage of the people which no temporary assembly has the least right to do. Those are the reasons why I want a Second Chamber. Those are the reasons why I want a reform of the Second Chamber. I have given reasons for both. If the Government do not agree with all my arguments, and I am afraid they do not, at all events they will agree with the conclusion I have come to. Why, therefore, cannot we just trust them to approach the legislative work before us in the spirit of those who, having had entrusted to them the custody of the Constitution, are to amend it, and approach it with a strong feeling of responsibility, of care, of caution, and of that impartiality which the self-imposed task they have taken in hand ought to inspire? We know why we cannot trust them. We cannot trust them because they are not approaching this question as they would approach it were they an independent party. They are approaching it because they are coerced by their alliance with the Irish party. The President of the Board of Education last night said that we were always twitting the Government with the Irish alliance. He added that we would be perfectly ready to have Irish support if we could get it.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: When you got it before you were glad of it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The President of the Board of Education entirely mistook what I believe to be the situation, or, at all events, he entirely mistook what we think is the situation. Of course, any party in this House, when it goes into the Lobby, is glad to see other parties, and fragments of other parties, supporting them. Men of sense never doubted that. However much we differ politically we do not regard each other as the unclean things who, even when they agree, are not allowed to co-operate. What is it we do object to? We object not to the fact that the Government act with the Irish party because they agree with the Irish Nationalists, and that the Irish act with the Government because they agree with the Government, but that both have deflected their course from what it otherwise would have been in order to obtain the support of the other. When two Heavenly bodies approach each other, and come into the same system their course is modified and perturbed by the attraction each of the other, and so the natural orbit of the Irish party has been perturbed, and so has the natural orbit of the Radical party been perturbed. The only point in which my metaphor breaks down is that contrary to the ordinary laws, of gravitation, it is the smaller body which has perturbed the bigger body. Nevertheless, there has been perturbation on both sides, and it is really a curious thing to reflect that if there had been no alliance there would have been no Budget, and if there had been no alliance there would have been no prospect of Home Rule. The Irish party would certainly have defeated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had there been no alliance I do not think we should have seen this Bill in its present shape, and I am quite sure we should never see what we understand is to follow this Bill—the Home Rule scheme now agitating and tormenting the constructive souls of the Cabinet Committee, which is trying to devise it.
  That, Sir, is the reason why we object to the alliance between these two parties. As to the Irish party, I do not say anything more than I have already said. They have accepted it, and they have been perfectly frank about it, much more frank than hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have openly told us that they did not like the Budget, but that they took it because this Bill is framed in this way, because this constitutional reform is so framed as to give them what they want. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not been quite as

  579
  candid as that, but it is perfectly fair inference, from everything they have said, and everything they have done. What has happened was not unexpected. Everybody knew if parties became so balanced in this House, that the Irish party could turn out the Radical Government whenever it suited them, there would be what I would call perturbation in the orbit of the Radical party. Everybody who knows anything of politics is aware of the fact, and it has been stated in terms almost cynical, both by Mr. Gladstone and by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, before it happened. Each of them foresaw, each of them expressed in powerful language the inevitable pervertion of the true Radical course that would follow upon the Radical party being dependent upon the Irish party, and if neither of these eminent statesmen dwelt upon it after the event, well, that is only natural. There are some evils which we can clearly foresee and prophecy, but which we do not like to talk about at any great length after they have come upon us. It has been mentioned explicitly by these two eminent persons, but it was foreseen by every rational man. It was foreseen by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and if I remember rightly by Mr. Parnell before him as something that must, in the natural course of events, inevitably happen. It has happened, and its consequences have been what they were bound to be, and the result is this Bill, which in its central position none of the Members of the Government have attempted to defend from the beginning to the end of these Debates.
  Supposing anyone unacquainted with the practical working of our party system were to be shown this measure, and were told, "This is the final result of the hard work of a reforming Ministry; they are strongly impressed with the need of checks in our constitutional system. They believe as thoroughly as any of our forefathers in the necessity of a Second Chamber, but there is one interval of indefinite length during which that necessity need not be fulfilled, in which this country can happily get on under Single-Chamber rule," and if the inquirer said, "Is there no chance of anything being proposed in that interval which fundamentally touches the Constitution?" the Government would have to say, and do say, "Oh, yes; there is almost the most important thing that could possibly be proposed, is going to be attempted during the Single-Chamber
  580
  system, and it is only after that has been disposed of that we shall return to the safe and sober path of constitutional Government, in which there is a Chamber of check and supervision for preventing any aberration on the part of the representative body."
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: Without any Veto!
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands the point. The point is the Government say there ought to be a Second Chamber for purposes of check and revision, but they refuse to create it—they leave an interval before creating it in which there is to be no Second Chamber, and when asked whether that is a peculiarly safe interval in which, as a matter of fact, nothing of a constitutional character is going to be attempted, they point to obscure passages in some of their speeches, and say, "On the contrary, we always meant to carry out the greatest possible revolution which this country has ever seen." That is the result of the Irish alliance. That is the perturbation which has occurred in the orbit of the party opposite. They could not trust to themselves, but have to depend for their Parliamentary existence upon Gentlemen from Ireland. I say the results will probably be disastrous to the country, and are certainly discreditable to the Government. They are doing what they have no right to do. They are using the powers given them by the transfer of these relatively few votes from one side to the other at a given election—they are using them to make fundamental changes in the Constitution of which they are the guardians, and they openly say they are going to force them through one branch of the Legislature by coercion, as they have imposed them on the country by fraud—
  [Interruptions.]
  HON. MEMBERS: "Order," and "Withdraw."
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not going to withdraw. [Interruption.]
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether it is your ruling that the word "fraud" as applied to individuals and political parties is in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: When applied to individuals certainly it is out of order, but when applied to a party I do not think the expression is out of order.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That, Sir, is why—
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: The Tory party are frauds. [Interruption: HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. MATTHEW KEATING: The Tory party are frauds. [Interruptions, and HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will not withdraw. I am just repeating his own words.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The Gentlemanly party!
  Mr. BALFOUR: That, Sir, is why—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must respectfully ask the House to allow the Debate to proceed. If violent demonstration is made against the Leader of the Opposition, it is quite open to the Opposition to retaliate, which would not be in the interests of orderly Debate. I have ruled that the expression is not a disorderly or unparliamentary one.
  Mr. BALFOUR: For these reasons, while agreeing with the Government that the time has come when sundry changes should be made in our institutions I think the spirit in which the Government have approached them is utterly unworthy of a great subject, of a great party, and of a Government which I am the last to deny contains men of great distinction.
  5.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has made an exceptionally interesting and illuminating speech—interesting because he has drawn with even a more lavish hand than usual from his unfailing reservoir of sophistical dialectics, and illuminating because we now know, on the highest authority, and with perfect lucidity, what is the real motive which has inspired the Tory party to take up the cause of the reform of the Second Chamber. It is to make that Chamber stronger, it is to make that Chamber—however it is going to be composed, and on that point the right hon. Gentleman has thrown very little light—stronger as against the chosen representatives of the people. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by analysing the composition and motives of the various parties, and sections of parties, who are in favour of a change in our present constitutional arrangement. He started with the Irish party, and he said that their only motive for desiring a change and supporting this Bill was to promote the cause of Home Rule. I have no doubt that that was the large and govern-
  582
  ing motive with the Irish party, but it would be a great mistake to suppose that, quite apart from Home Rule, Ireland has not an inveterate and perpetual quarrel with England.
  I come now to the concluding passages in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He thought it seemly and becoming, and in accordance with the traditions of the House of Commons and our public life, to suggest that we who sit on these benches would never have taken the course we are taking, would never have promoted this Bill, and asked for the assent of the House of Commons and Parliament to it, if we had not been dependent upon the support of hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. He went on to say that our conduct in this matter, meaning, if words mean anything, that we were deliberately putting before the electors and before Parliament a scheme which in our consciences and our hearts we do not believe to be just and right, and he said that in order to obtain the support of those votes for the retention of these places, we had "committed a fraud." [Cheers.] Those cheers are, I think, a little premature. Let us examine the facts.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: The "old nobility."
  The PRIME MINISTER: What was the origin of the scheme which is embodied in this Bill? Many hon. Gentlemen opposite were not in the Parliament of 1906 and 1909, and they have not refreshed their memories by a reference to history. What was the origin of the proposals embodied in this Bill? It was moved in terms, at this box where I am now standing, by my predecessor in the office of Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in the summer of the year 1907, when we of the Liberal party had a majority not only independent of the Irish, but over all parties in this House—a majority of considerably over 200. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why was it dropped?"] This is the "fraud" upon the electorate. Talk of perturbations and deflections in the elections—we have never departed by one hair's breadth from that day to this from the lines laid down by our late Leader—laid down without any reference whatever to the conveniences of party alliance with hon. Gentlemen opposite; laid down because we here of the progressive party, acting independently of the grievances of Ireland, have found that Liberal legislation, progressive legisla-

  583
  tion, with the House of Lords constituted as it is has become an impossibility and a sham.
  "Fraud," indeed, "upon the electors!" Let me pursue the story of this electoral fraud. Before the General Election, after the House of Lords had rejected the Budget, before the General Election took place—in the month of January last year—I myself, on behalf of the Liberal party, while still in possession of an overwhelming majority in this House, announced in the most formal and definite terms that this was the manner in which we proposed to deal with the constitutional question, and I said, at the same time, we should hold ourselves free to take up the question of Home Rule. I say at that moment we were in a position of overwhelming Parliamentary strength. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knows it well, and those sitting on the bench opposite know it well. To pretend that we have adopted our present course and prosecuted this Bill, not because of our conscientious convictions, not because we were coerced into that course years ago, before there was any question of dependence upon the Irish vote—to pretend that it is a deflection, that it is the result of perturbation and party interest—is to make a charge which I do not hesitate to say is less supported by reason and by evidence than any charge I have ever heard made in this House.
  Mr. BYLES: He should withdraw.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; let it go to the judgment of the country—this defrauded electorate, which twice in the course of twelve months has returned an overwhelming majority to this House, which we shall see in the Division Lobby to-night. To go back for a moment to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he seems to have discovered another class—another school of opinion—in support of constitutional change which he appears to think exists only in the Labour party below the Gangway—those who are opposed to the hereditary principle. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he is a "convinced democrat." He is a democrat who believes the representative system can only be safely worked when it is tempered and diluted by the hereditary principle.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That is not what I said.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quoting the actual text, only the substance of
  584
  the right hon. Gentleman's words. But let me refresh his memory. He said:—
  "Let us not deal with abstractions; let us come to practical realities. Let us come to the test of experience: take the hereditary principle. What can we get out of it?"
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have got a great deal out of it, and I am not surprised that, judged by this rude practical test—this profit and loss account, where the balance is so overwhelmingly in favour of the right hon. Gentleman himself—he finds the hereditary principle an excellent thing, a practical working instrument for securing the absolute supremacy of this House when there is a Tory majority here, but a working instrument to frustrate and nullify the functions of this House when there is a Liberal Government in power. That is the "hereditary principle." That is what the right hon. Gentleman gets out of it. Then he says:—
  "Let it not be our master"
  So say we. It is because it has been our master—because at this moment it is our master, because it enslaves and fetters the free action of this House—that we have put these proposals before the House, and we mean to carry them into law. The right hon. Gentleman said, as though it were relevant to the question, that we recognised the principle of heredity in our monarchy. He pointed out with perfect truth and justice what everyone admits, that the Monarchy is an institution which is valued by all classes and conditions of men, by all schools of opinion in this country, and is the centre—the respected centre, and the indispensable centre—of our Imperial unity. Yes; but why is that? What has become of the Veto of the Crown? Does anyone suppose that if our Sovereigns had been foolish and short-sighted enough to persist in claiming an effective exercise of the legal right which at this moment they possess just as much as the House of Lords possess it, just as much as Queen Elizabeth possessed it—the legal right to refuse the Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament—does anyone suppose that if our Sovereigns had not been wise enough to forego the exercise of that power, to abandon their legal right, to recognise their constitutional position as part and parcel of a democratic system of government, the Monarchy would have held the position that it holds to-day? That argument is absolutely irrelevant, and those who are arguing in favour of continued exercise of the Veto of the House of Lords lose sight of the undoubted fact that we have

  585
  in this country a valued and an hereditary Monarch. The right hon. Gentleman says there is another school. Let me say, in passing, that I entirely assent to the view, which he seems to think is confined to a small knot of people below the Gangway, that we cannot combine by any form of ingenuity in the long run a really representative system with the existence of an hereditary autocracy.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were others amongst us—particularly my hon. Friends who sit behind me—whose main motive in this matter is the desire for fair play. I think he was a little too modest in the view which he took of his own powers and authority with regard to the action of the House of Lords. Those who sat in the Parliament of 1906 became familiar in the course of time with those powers, which formed a part, a regular and consecrated part, of our Parliamentary proceedings. The signal that was raised and the banner which was waved by the right hon. Gentleman was invariably responded to by the House of Lords. But whatever may have been the right hon. Gentleman's opinion in the past I do not gather that he now says that there is fair play. He says I am with you in holding that there ought to be, at any rate, an appearance of fair play. "You are removing by this Bill all checks upon Radical legislation. It is not the means, or the proper means, of securing it." Checks against what? A great deal has been said about constitutional checks. What does any sensible or rational person mean by constitutional checks? Not perpetual machinery for clogging and fettering the free action of the representatives of the people; but a constitutional check in the only sense in which I understand the word is a check against stealthy, unconsidered, precipitate change. Such a check this Bill abundantly provides. I start, as I said before and as I repeat, with the presumption which lies at the very root of the theory of representative government, the presumption that the representative House is the true organ and mouthpiece and exponent of the will and of the opinion of the people. I say we have secured, so far, as human ingenuity can secure it in this Bill that that which is always presumptively true shall be actually true. By shortening the duration of Parliament, bringing the House of Commons into constant and ever-freshly renewed contact with those whom it purports to represent; and by providing for prolonged delay and consultation between the two Houses
  586
  whenever they differ from one another, we have secured that the presumption shall be a reality. The only constitutional check, therefore, you really require is the constitutional check, we have gone out of our way by this Bill to provide and render effective.
  Then we come to what I said in my opening sentence is far the most instructive and illuminating part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said: "I am going to tell you why I am in favour of a constitutional check." Why? Was it because the House of Lords had done wrong? Was it because there was anything in the action, recent or remote, of that assembly which the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to vindicate and justify? Nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he says, even as regards the Budget, they were perfectly right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen share his view. "They were perfectly right—to refer it to the people," and, as regards education and licensing, "Why," he says, "you know you dare not introduce!"—if this Government last in office long enough we shall see—" measures relating to those subjects in any way in conformity with those which the House of Lords rejected three or four years ago." According to the right hon. Gentleman, we have got in actual working so far as its practical operations are concerned, exactly the sort of Second Chamber which every rational democracy ought to desire. It has a clean Bill. Every count in the indictment against it fails. It has done the things which it ought to have done, and it has left undone the things which it ought not to have done. What more can you say of any legislative Chamber in the world? Why, in the name of conscience and commonsense are we going to have a violent constitutional change? They have done right, says the right hon. Gentleman. They have done what they ought to have done. The country has endorsed their view. A marvellous illustration of the right hon. Gentleman's perspicacity and ingenuity. After three elections, in each of which the House of Lords has been conspicuously rebuffed, the country has endorsed their view! But, he says, they exposed themselves to criticism. They do not look well on paper. They are difficult to defend when you come face to face with the hard-headed electors of Lancashire and Yorkshire. So let us put something in their place which will do the same as they do, but look a little more plausible and presentable. Now we know the real inwardness and the true meaning

  587
  of the desire of the Tory party to reconstitute the Second Chamber. I did not think we should have it, I confess, so frankly or so candidly from such a master of nebulous dialectic as the right hon. Gentleman. I admit to the full that in this respect the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly consistent with himself. I have here—I am sure he will be very glad to have it quoted—a passage of a speech delivered by him at Manchester in October, 1906, and it is in strict harmony with what he was telling us to-day. He said:
  "The chamber of review which we are now fortunate enough to possess is not quite one which would be easily improved even by the most ingenious constitution-mongers among us. It stands impregnable, not merely upon its historic past, but upon its present utility."
  That is rather a hard saying for those ingenious constitutional mongers whom I see upon the benches opposite, meeting more or less stealthily—[HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh."] I mean no offence. It seems to be difficult to get an accurate or an authentic report. But whatever else they are doing they are constitution-mongering. They are trying to find a substitute for this admirable Chamber, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, stands not only in its historic past, but on the record of its present utility. [An HON. MEMBER interjected an observation.] I heard a very foolish interruption, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so with courtesy, because it had no relevance to what I am saying. What we are doing I will say in a moment. I was addressing myself to the constitution-mongers. I dare say they are anxious to divert their attention to somebody else. I should like to know why, if what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1906 was true, and I gather it is in strict harmony with his real convictions to-night, we are to have this gigantic process of constitutional investigation, and speculation, and architecture, which is going on behind the scenes, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) said truly last night was not yet quite matured, but which I suppose in the course of a week or two at any rate will be ready for production in the House of Lords and in the country. People talk of the reconstruction of the House of Lords. It is one of the charges made against us that we have hurried precipitantly into this business. The charge is founded upon the Preamble of our Bill. What does that Preamble say—the Preamble, which it must be taken, as everybody in the course of these Debates has admitted, was approved of by the country in the
  588
  course of the last General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, if the Bill was, I presume the Preamble was also. What does the Preamble say? It recites that—
  In the opinion of Parliament, it is necessary to reconstitute the House of Lords—the Second Chamber—upon a popular basis, but it goes on to say that is a step which ought not to be taken immediately, but is to be postponed till after the operative part of this Bill has become law. Everybody, therefore, who assented to this Bill, including the whole of the electorate of this country who voted for it, knew perfectly well. Talk about a fraud upon the electorate! They had their eyes open—that the first effort of the new Parliament and of the Government, if they supported them, would be to destroy the absolute Veto of the House of Lords and to substitute for it a suspensory veto, to take away entirely its alleged powers over finance, and to shorten the duration of the House of Commons.
  I do not retract; I have no reason to retract or to qualify, one single word I have ever said either in this House or on the platform, since I have held a responsible position, as to my view as to the desirability and the expediency of a Second Chamber. I hold absolutely and entirely to everything I have said; but I laid down, when I introduced these Resolutions, what I repeat now, conditions which seem to me and seem to my colleagues to govern any solution of this problem. What are they? First, that this House must be predominant in legislation. Next, that the functions, and the only functions, which are appropriate to a Second Chamber, are the functions of consultation and revision and, subject to proper safeguards, of delay. Further, that the body which is to perform those functions shall be a relatively small body. Next, that it must be a body which does not rest on an hereditary basis. And, lastly, it must be a body which, as I said here last March, in its origin, composition, and attitude is not governed, as the present House of Lords is governed, by partisanship tempered by panic. It must be a body which discharges its proper duties with a fair mind and an even hand. That is not a body which it is very easy to bring into existence; and will anyone contend, anyone on the benches opposite, that those conditions are satisfied in any of the schemes hitherto put forward or adumbrated on the other side. I will not go into details of them—some are not yet finally settled—but they all perpetuate a Second Chamber in which

  589
  one side will be permanently predominant. To sum up the matter: How then do we stand as this Debate is drawing to a conclusion? After three elections in which the electors have given a progressive majority, after two elections in which they have approved first the principle and then the actual plan which is embodied in this Bill, how do we stand? We are invited under those conditions by the right hon. Gentleman and by the party opposite to wait, to hold our hands, to put this Bill aside until some vast and revolutionary but still crude and formless change in the whole structure and mechanism of the Constitution has been thought out and then worked out. Meanwhile, with regard to this and to all other legislation, we are to remain with our hands tied by the Veto of the House of Lords. It is not upon such an errand that we were sent here by the constituencies. Their plain and reiterated demand, and our first and paramount duty, was to pass this Bill into law.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman made, as he invariably does, a speech of great skill and ability; but on this occasion he displayed his ability by evading the arguments of my right hon. Friend. What were the two points made by the Leader of the Opposition? The first was that the Second Chamber should be strong enough. Strong enough for what? We have no difficulty in answering that question. It should be strong enough to secure that the will of the people should be carried out, at any rate, in fundamental matters. Do the Government say anything different? Do they want a Second Chamber which will not be strong enough to secure that the will of the people shall be carried out?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: That is not the duty of the Second Chamber.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Then what do you want a Second Chamber for?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: For revision, consideration, and suggestion.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: All those things depend on going to some body—some tribunal which can enforce it. The right hon. Gentleman says that a Second Chamber must prevent stealthy and precipitate legislation. To what end, if there is no one to interfere? Stealthiness is no evil except to evade ultimate control; precipitancy, too, is no evil except on that condition. I suppose the hon. Member really means that the Second Chamber is
  590
  to be strong enough to secure that the will of the people shall be carried out. Then my right hon. Friend's second point com-batted by the Prime Minister was that if you are to secure that the will of the people shall be carried out you should have that Chamber in operation before you undertake a highly controversial and profoundly fundamental change like Home Rule. The Prime Minister elaborately evaded those two arguments from beginning to end. He said not one word for the grotesque arrangement for which he is responsible, but he said the reconstitution of the Second Chamber brooked no delay. But that reconstitution is now indefinitely postponed because he says he does not see how he can constitute a Second Chamber to his mind. The reason why the Government do not reconstitute a Second Chamber is that they and their followers are divided on the subject. What is the use of these pretences? All the rest of it is a dialectical veil thrown over them to conceal their infirmities. The case for this Bill depends on two main propositions—or rather two points. The House of Commons is a complete and ideal instrument for expressing the will of the people. Is the existing Constitution or would the amended Constitution be fair as between the various currents of the nation. The Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Education, and other speakers have treated it as self-evident that the House of Commons is an instrument for expressing the will of the people.
  What is meant by "representing." You may represent a thing in two different senses. You may represent as a letter represents the mind of the writer; or as a will represents the mind of a testator. That literally and exactly might be called the mandatory theory of the House of Commons, and some phrases of the Prime Minister seem to suggest that he holds that theory, because he suggests that the Preamble of the Bill had been submitted to the country, and therefore has the country's approbation. Therefore he adopts for the moment the doctrine of the mandate in its most extreme form. If he is strictly logical he ought not to have a Committee Stage at all on this Bill, because the Bill has been before the people and approved by the people, and what has the House of Commons to say further? It has to carry out the will of the people. Then there is the old constitutional theory of the representative system, of which Burke was the great exponent, and according to which the House of Commons comes

  591
  to its work perfectly free. It is representative, but in quite a different sense; it is representative in the same sense in which you speak of a cricket team being representative when it appears for England or Australia. I often read in the reports of cricket matches that the M.C.C. have secured a very representative team. But it does not mean that they are going to bat and bowl precisely as the M.C.C. direct them, it means that that particular body of cricketers are the best exponents of the game that can be found in England, and that they are going to play the game to the best of their ability. The old theory of the House of Commons representation was that it was representative in that sense: that the Commons of England selected a team of politicians who went up to exercise their own free and independent judgment on the questions submitted to them by the Crown. Burke, in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol, refused to carry out the wishes of the electors; he said he was not Member for Bristol but a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Parliament has been three times reformed since.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member will not allow anyone to speak about the Constitution but himself: he has made it his monopoly: he has patented the invention. That is the theory: that a Member of Parliament is to be perfectly free. I should be very glad to see it restored, but it is not in operation. Amongst other things you would have to greatly modify the party system. How is that system exemplified? Yesterday, the House being in a deliberative mood, it was thinly attended; to-day, because there is a vote to be given, everybody is in London. That is typical of the modern House of Commons. I should be glad to see adopted the method of voting by ballot in this House: that would give some chance of restoring the old theory. Then you have the mandatory theory. How absurd is that theory. How are Members of Parliament elected? When there is a vacancy one body of ardent partisans chooses one candidate and another body of ardent partisans chooses another. The only function the people have to perform is to choose which of the two they will send to Westminster. They have no other choice in the matter. Sometimes this produces very strange results. An hon. Member may be ardently concerned with the question of Free Trade
  592
  or with the question of Chinese labour. How is he to vote in defence of the Union in an election in which Home Rule is concerned if he can only vote in defence of the Union by sacrificing Free Trade or continuing Chinese labour in South Africa? It is manifestly evident that the theory of the mandate is utterly unreal. The Government are proud of their majority, but if the House of Commons had been elected on the system of proportional representation their majority in the last Parliament would only have been fifty, and in this only thirty-eight. With such a majority it is safe to say the Government would never have been engaged on a Parliament Bill at all.
  In the Parliament of 1906 their true proportional majority was about 100. With such a majority they would not have carried the Education Bill, Licensing Bill, or the Budget through this House, so that if a dispute with the other House had arisen it would not have been the same dispute as that which has now arisen. It is in that connection the Referendum is put forward. By it, at any rate, you get rid of many of the evils of the mandatory system. You ask the Government a plain question, "Do you want this Bill or not?" and in that way the will of the people is made manifest. What is it the Government intend to do. They propose there shall be two years' delay. Let us consider the alternative of solving the difficulties between the two Houses. The object of the two years' delay is that there is to be an agitation in the country, and in that way the will of the people will be manifest, and that the Government would be bound. What conceivable disadvantage attaches to a Referendum which does not equally attach to this informal Referendum which by implication the Government desire. I see a great many disadvantages in the Government scheme which do not attach to the Referendum. I see none that attach to the Referendum which do not attach to the Government scheme. The right hon. Gentleman asks is it to be supposed that legislation is not now made up with the object of catching popular support. But was it a mere happy accident that the Land Taxes were put in the forefront of the Budget. The truth is there are difficulties about the democratic system however you work it. There is the objection that it gives a great opportunity to demagogues to mislead. The Referendum would not, of course, destroy the arts of demagogy. There is no need, therefore, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the

  593
  Home Secretary to resign their offices, but you would not be able to say if, for example, you carried Lancashire on Free Trade that you carried it on Home Rule, or if you carried old age pensions in country districts you could not pretend that it is a mandate for abolishing the Veto of the House of Lords. Those are the arts which my right hon. Friend stigmatised by a many-syllabled word, which gave great offence on the other side of the House. Those arts the Referendum will be a great safeguard against, and I am not surprised, therefore, that, like the sellers of silver shrines, who saw their professional means interfered with, the Government should rush into the streets, and cry: "Great is representative government." The truth is that if we are really honestly agreed that the will of the people is to prevail, we have approached very nearly to a complete agreement upon the whole subject. It remains only a question of machinery. If the Government are really in earnest in saying that the value of their two years' delay is to prevent Bills which the country disapproves going through, and I am quite unable to conceive any other value, the Referendum really does solve the difficulty. No doubt you cannot have a Referendum in every case, because you cannot make the will of the people solve every tiny question, but you can make it apply wherever the Government safeguard applies. The Government only propose that their remedy would be used in the case of a Bill of some magnitude, and about which they contemplate an agitation which would go all over the country. Why are you to have an agitation and not the far simpler method of a vote given once for all? Of old time a great many questions were settled by acclamation. Afterwards, voting was introduced as a better system. What the Government really propose to do is to go back to this clumsy, inefficient, and insecure system of shouting at the top of your voice from one end of the country to the other to settle which has the largest measure of popular support, instead of the new system of voting on the question and so deciding it. I read that in the old days bishops used to be elected by a mob in a certain cathedral, who shouted for several hours that they wanted a particular person to be bishop. That was one way of ascertaining the popular will, though not nearly so good as having the name of the bishop submitted to some proper authority and selected. How would the Government system of two
  594
  years' agitation, with all its confusion work in the crucial case of Home Rule. Is it possible to conceive a less judicious way of carrying a Home Rule Bill? Confessedly, Home Rule excites great passion. Confessedly it is threatened—and, in my opinion, most justifiably threatened—that there will be resistance in the north-eastern counties of Ireland. How do the Government propose to deal with that situation? By no expedient more statesmanlike than submitting to the country for two years' agitation the question of Home Rule. People much less in the right, and much less excitable than the population of the north-eastern counties of Ireland might well be wrought up to the point of rebellion by two years' agitation. It is impossible to conceive anything more clumsy and more unworkmanlike than such a proposal. The Prime Minister says he wants a Second Chamber to stop stealthy legislation. I wish I knew whether he thinks that his new Second Chamber, whenever it is formed, will delay more or less efficiently than the existing House of Lords, or shall we say more or less in accordance with the will of the people? Above all, I should like to know whether the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are satisfied with the proposition that the less efficient House of Lords—the House of Lords which they condemn—should go on determining for an indefinite interval all sorts of public questions, so far as the Government leave them any power, when they are deeply committed to the proposition that the Second Chamber should be reformed. I think that those two Secretaries of State have a very deep responsibility in this matter. It is quite certain that if they had not gone with the Government the Government could not have gone on as fat as it has gone. It is quite certain that if they had resigned last year, or before the election, the Government would not have come back with their present majority or probably with any majority at all. I am sure that no two Members are less capable of doing anything dishonourable, but I earnestly protest against those two right hon. Gentlemen lending their reputation to the Government as a sort of umbrella, for use in rainy weather when storms beat on their head—an umbrella to be then put away in the Foreign Office or War Office as something not to be used until a future occasion. They have used their reputation to protect the Government; that involves an honourable obligation on their part to see that

  595
  the electors who trusted their authority and reputation for moderation and statesmanship are not defrauded—no, defrauded is too hard a word, but do not find themselves mistaken in the end. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will take care of that."] Yes, but they will not take care of it by passing Home Rule before they reform the House of Lords. That is not what the great mass of the electors who trusted to their moderation and statesmanship expected.
  The question the Government are asked is, are the House of Lords to proceed to decide questions of the utmost importance before the Constitution is in the state to which they themselves wish to bring it. I am persuaded that what the Government are doing is injurious to themselves and will in the end be injurious to the country. They are injuring themselves because they are dealing with a matter which concerns an ancient Constitution merely with a view to the exigencies of party. The Leader of the Opposition did not charge the Government, as the Prime Minister supposed, with being deflected from their course in respect to bringing in the Bill at all. His charge was that they were deflected from their course by the influence of the Irish Members in respect to bringing in Home Rule during the interregnum between the passing of this Bill and the setting up of the new reformed Chamber. Either that or they are the victims of some mysterious disease. There can be no other reason. What conceivable reason can there be for reforming the House of Lords at all if you can deal with Home Rule quite well without that reform. If the Government are not under the influence of the Irish vote I really think that a doctor should inquire into the condition of their minds. They are intent upon carrying Home Rule in one of two ways. Either it will be carried under their Bill after two years' agitation with all the disturbance and all the growth of passion that that means, or it will be carried, as some people suggest, by submerging the House of Lords by a large creation of Peers. If so violent and unconstitutional a course as that is taken it will be proper to say that a Parliament so created will be no Parliament but a sham, and the laws that it will pass will be sham laws. When King Charles II. and his Ministers, and afterwards King James II., packed the House of Commons, they set up a body which had no moral authority whatever. A packed House of Commons
  596
  or a packed House of Lords has equally no authority. If you cannot change the Constitution by the consent of the three bodies that make it up you cannot change it at all as far as moral authority goes. If, having first created a sham Parliament, you impose Home Rule upon the Irish people, will not the north-eastern counties be justified, and more than justified, in separating themselves from the bastard republic that you are going to try to set up, and in adhering to the ancient monarchy? I am sure this Bill leads to revolution and disorder. In itself it is a method so futile, so unworkable, so vexatious, that it can be compared only to the proposal to prevent a carriage being run away with by putting sand into the wheel-axle. Every power you give to the House of Lords will be useless to protect the subject against changes in the Constitution, against which he ought to be guarded, will be efficient only for the purpose of causing friction and vexatious and unending disturbance between the two Houses. From every point of view it is a dangerous Bill, a Bill fraught with possibilities of revolution and disorder. Take it away from us, and give us something better—something which will be, in truth, a counsel of wisdom, something of which it may truly be said that it is a message of peace.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I feel grateful to the House for the kind indulgence which they will no doubt give me in putting the House of Lords question in a somewhat different light than that in which it was put by the various speakers who have gone before, because, having regard to what I know and have studied about it, if I am not in a position to say something new on the subject I have lived in vain. Before I do so, however, I should like to clear away two misconceptions. One has reference to the Irish party and the other to the Prime Minister, and as I shall speak perhaps rather personally of him I am very glad he is not here. First of all, in reference to the Irish party, certainly my heart warmed within me when, a moment ago, I heard the Prime Minister absolutely deny and repudiate the idea that the Members of the Irish party would not support this Bill if it did not mean an avenue and road to Home Rule. We gladly support it for that reason, but we would support any Bill which would make the people, in the words of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, masters of their own House, and which would clear away the vexatious obstacles and destroy the class privileges which pre-

  597
  vent the giving of true democratic power to the representatives of the people and aid them in carrying out the people's desires. The Irish people, it has been truly said by the Prime Minister, have their own special grievance against the House of Lords.
  6.0 P.M.
  If they have destroyed, so far as they could, all social development of the English working classes, if they might be described by Lord Shaftesbury as a heartless, apathetic body calculated to paralyse every honourable and philanthropic endeavour, what have they done for Ireland? Their 110 years of rule in Ireland has been one chapter of tyranny. I will only take two or three instances in which this House of Commons, or rather its predecessors, the unreformed House of Commons, passed measures alleviating the condition of the Irish people which were ruthlessly thrown out by the House of Lords. Twice the Catholic Emancipation Bill was passed by the House of Commons and twice it was thrown out by the House of Lords. Three times this House of Commons passed Bills in order to assimilate the franchise, municipal and Parliamentary, in Ireland to the franchise in England. Three times it was thrown out by the House of Lords. But there is one matter, greater than all, which should never be forgotten. In 1881 the Gladstone Government passed a Bill to enable tenants to stay in possession until what time they could pay their rents by instalments—the starving and impoverished Irish tenants who were reduced to a last stage—and this House passed it. The House of Lords threw it out by a greater majority than had ever been gathered together in that House in their own history up to that time. It was a remarkable thing, because it was that historic date which marks the severance of Lord Lansdowne, the Leader of the House of Lords, from the Liberal party. Mr. Gladstone pitchforked Lord Lansdowne, then a young man, from one office to another for many years. Lord Lansdowne left the Under-Secretaryship of State for India in order to vote against his own Government in reference to the Evicted Tenants Bill. He produced, by the destruction of that Bill, a land war which was brought to such a wonderful achievement in reference to the destruction of landlordism by Mr. Parnell.
  One word about the Prime Minister. He has been represented as a sham Home Ruler and as a Gentleman who is advocating Home Rule in order to have the Irish vote. It is said that he wants to get
  598
  this, and will then establish a Parliament in College Green as the price of our vote. That is the meaning of his being led by the "Dollar Dictator." There were not many American dollars coming for Irish agitation forty years ago. I can assure the House that the present Prime Minister when he was a student at Oxford was as firm, as convinced, and as enthusiastic a Home Ruler as any Irish Nationalist Home Rulers there were there. He has never receded from that point and has never turned, in principle, or in character, from the high-minded, patriotic fellow he was in Oxford forty years ago. If I were of his own party I could not speak so enthusiastically of him, but I can view him with an air of detachment, and these are proper and completely historic criticisms. As I am in a mood of reminiscence, and as this thing excites it, let me say this. It has been frequently observed during the Debate by such diverse authorities as the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley) and my two distinguished Friends (Lord Hugh Cecil and Sir William Anson) that this Debate and the appearance of the House have not been of a very excited or revolutionary character. Where is all the excitement and all the enthusiasm which ought to usher in a tremendous constitutional change? There are no bands outside, there is no booming of guns to announce a Dissolution of Parliament. As the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson), the most revolutionary person I have met, rather regretted, there is not a proper element of excitement. I am very much astonished that Gentlemen of their Parliamentary experience should take that as a proof that people are not interested. The late Mr. Lecky once said, in that curious manner that he had of perpetually washing his hands, "It takes only a fortnight in this House of Commons to know more about it than if you were writing and reading about it outside for twenty-five years. The dull appearance of the House, so far from being an evidence of non-excitement, is to me an evidence of the reverse. It is an evidence that the people have made up their minds. They want no further argument on the matter." This four days' Debate provides a time for possible conciliation, just as perhaps a man condemned at the Bar is asked if he has anything to say why execution should not be passed on him. That is the meaning of the dulness of the House. This House at present is an exact replica of the House that Grenville accused, in the Parliamentary Petitions, when they were heard by the whole

  599
  House, of being an audience where the persons present to hear the Debates were very few, and the judges were very many. The judges to-night will be very many. They will show that it is a practical thing we are at. We mean business, and not talk.
  I never heard a revolution defended so weakly as by the Leader of the Opposition and my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil). If they had lived in the time of the barricades they would have come in and destroyed the barricades, perhaps by quotations from Aristophanes. I will ask hon. Members to consider that this shows how mightily this great cause has progressed. Mr. Bright in 1880—I was thinking over it when the Prime Minister expressed his abhorence and disgust and contempt of the hereditary system—speaking at the Bingley Hall, said that twenty years before, in 1859, he had made a speech in which he said that the hereditary principle could not have any permanent place in the free institution of a self-governing people. He then told his audience that when Lord Palmerston was forming a Government in 1859, he wrote to him and said, "I should be delighted to have had you in the Cabinet, but I cannot have you in on account of those revolutionary views of yours in reference to the House of Lords." Again, I recollect this curious incident. Mr. Labouchere gave notice of a Resolution, copying it from a Resolution of the Parliament of 1642—the Long Parliament—to this effect, "That the House of Lords is useless and is dangerous, and ought to be abolished." As a matter of privilege, the Resolution was brought to the notice of the Speaker, and Mr. Speaker Brand said he would call to order any hon. Member who spoke of the House of Lords in Debate as "useless," and the word "useless" would have to be eliminated from the Motion. Mr. Labouchere did not lose heart. He submitted his Motion, and he got a day by ballot—and this in the 1880 Parliament, the great Parliament in which the Liberals swept the Conservatives—and, could you believe it, they would not allow him to have a House. A House was not formed. In 1882 there was a House formed, and Mr. Labouchere was allowed to make his speech, and his Seconder was allowed to speak, and immediately after that the House was counted out. We are indebted to some of these worthies of former times. Perhaps I will show the House a Resolution which was submitted
  600
  —the very first Resolution on the House of Lords—which was submitted to this House, and one will see that it is, in rough outline, of the form and scope of the Parliament Bill. The Resolution was moved on 21st November, 1884, by Mr. Labouchere, and seconded by Sir Wilfrid Lawson. It is this:—
  "That in view of the fact that the Conservative Party is able, and has for many years been able, through its permanent majority in the House of Lords, to alter, defeat and delay legislation, although that legislation has been recommended by the responsible Ministers of the Crown and approved by the nation through its elected representatives, it is desirable to make such alterations in the relations of the two Houses of Parliament as will effect a remedy for this state of things."
  We shall vote for that to-night, and vote for it successfully. I rejoice to think, looking over the Division list, that we have with us now, thank God, some of those who voted and spoke for the resolution. It was rejected by 145 to 71. I see in the list the honoured name of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Father of the House. I see likewise the name of John Morgan. We all know who he is. He is a Peer, and I wish they were all like him. There is also the name of Charles Russell, who was afterwards the Lord Chief Justice of England. Then we see names which are perhaps dearer to my heart. I see the name of Mr. Biggar here, my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and the Member for Roscommon, the hon. Member for one of the divisions for Waterford, and the hon. Member for West Clare. That is a proof, that, so far as the Irish party are concerned, they are true as steel in reference to the House of Lords, and represent the democratic feelings and instincts of the people. That was when the Liberal party as a whole were opposed to Home Rule, and when we had good hope that the Tories would give it.
  I want to say a word about the reform of the House of Lords. They are all now anxious to reform. They are, in fact, eager and desirous to reform; but in all their efforts at reform they make themselves very safe. All the chief reformers secure that their positions in the House of Lords are unassailable. They are like the directors of a company who have got into very great trouble, and the first thing the leaders do is to save themselves. In the old form, the Duke of Wellington used to say, "Officers to the front." Here it is nothing of the kind. It is the victims, the "backwoodsmen," who are to go to the front. The backwoodsmen are to efface themselves politically in order to give Lord Lansdowne and Lord Curzon a better lease of political life than they have at present.

  601
  How were proposals for reform received by the Lords formerly? In 1885 they scouted Lord Rosebery's methods. Sometimes Lord Rosebery is a prophet. He spoke well when he said not long ago that the time is too late for the Lords reforming themselves. They scouted the proposals for reform which were made by Lord Salisbury and Lord Dunraven. They also scouted Lord Carnarvon's proposal to deprive the House of Lords of men who had committed some offences. During their whole existence only two reforms were passed by them. One reform was in 1869 to prevent bankrupt peers sitting in Parliament while they were bankrupts, and the other was the establishment of the Court of Appeal. They were not reformers in 1909 when they threw out the Budget Bill. When they threw out that Bill they went to the country as the saviours of the people, and we know the result in the constituencies. Then they turned round and said they were determined to reform themselves, that they were the promoters of the people's will and wish, and that they only wanted to know what the people wished them to do. We did not hear much about the Referendum in 1887, when a Bill was passed by the power of Pigott's letter. That Bill was passed to destroy constitutional government in Ireland. It was passed by the aid of the guillotine in this House, and, though it was obstructed by the Irish Members to the last degree, the Lords, when it went up to them, carried it in a single day. There is no such thing at present as a properly constituted revising Chamber. It is an absolute pretence for the House of Lords to claim to be a revising Chamber. It keeps up the privileges of a class against the rights of the people at large. I should be sorry to say anything unkind of them personally. When they passed the Bill to which I have referred in one day they utterly destroyed any claim they could have to be regarded as a revising Chamber.
  There is one thing in reference to this Bill which has not been spoken of in the Debate, and I think it is the most salient feature of it, namely, the proposal for the shortening of Parliament. That proposal is to me almost as valuable as the destruction of the absolute Veto of the House of Lords. In 1693 a measure for triennial Parliaments was passed, and William III. vetoed it. It was sent back to him in the following year and passed. In 1716 there came the Septennial Act, the reason for passing that measure being that they were
  602
  afraid there would be a change in the succession. That Bill which extended the life of Parliament from three to seven years was intended to be a temporary measure, but it has remained on the Statute Book from that day to this. One thing which is not generally known is that Lord Chatham said he was a convert to the Triennial Act and would like to see it become law. All the great reformers, including Lord Grey himself, were in favour of shortening the life of Parliament by three, four, or five years, and so late as 1849 a Bill for shortening the life of Parliament was actually given its first reading in this House by a majority of five. The shortening of Parliament has always been a Radical measure.
  Another thing in this Bill has not been spoken of at all, but it is a proposal which I regard as extremely constitutional and highly elevating to the rights of this House. Not only is the power of this House over finance absolutely established by this Bill, but Mr. Speaker is to judge whether a Bill will come under the description of what is known as "tacking" or not. He is also to judge whether Amendments made by the Lords or any alterations in our Bills, in the slightest degree infringe the principle that the House of Commons is to have full power over Supply. That is an enormous accession to our privileges. In giving Mr. Speaker this power, it is not so much to the individual as to the House of Commons, whose mouthpiece and representative he is. So far from being an exaltation of the individual, it is a recognition of the power of the House of Commons placed in the man in whom we all have confidence. As regards the Veto itself, there is nothing more clear than that what is proposed by the Bill will give every opportunity for delay and revision if any Bill were brought in against popular feeling. Mr. Gladstone, writing in 1878, expounding the character of our institutions for the benefit of the American public, said, in reference to our septennial Parliament, that it was utterly impossible that they could pass measures contrary to the people's will. He pointed out that there was an election on the average every month, and that Members of Parliament were good judges of political weather. I could mention many measures, including the Repeal of the Corn Laws, which were passed through the House of Commons in obedience to popular feeling. This is not an ideal representative Assembly, but it

  603
  may be regarded as a genuine reflex of every phase of political life. I rejoice that I have lived to see this day when a reform of the Constitution is to be brought about, entirely unaccompanied by the revolutionary incidents which my hon. Friend the senior Member for Oxford University expected. I believe this is a very historic and interesting period. I recollect reading a speech made by Mr. Disraeli in which he paid a panegyric to Mr. Cobden on the occasion of his death. He said that in Parliament, and in the history of Parliament, there was from generation to generation a communication of sympathy and communion with those who had gone before, and that on great occasions we felt we were not merely individuals passing away, but links in a mighty chain. When we go into the Lobby to-night everyone will feel that he is carrying out the principles of the great men who have made this Parliament the home of national liberty, the defence of the poor, and the refuge of the oppressed. I have no doubt that all the great men, from Simon de Montfort to Fox and Windham, to Grattan and Sheridan, to O'Connell, Peel, and Gladstone, if they could speak, would be in spirit with us to-night, when with God's blessing we will put a stop to a very great and harassing evil.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL: The Prime Minister resented the suggestion that this Bill was the outcome of an alliance between the Liberal party and the Irish Nationalist party. The hon. and learned Member for Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) said that the Irish party, apart from the question of Home Rule, were in favour of the limitation of the Veto of the House of Lords. I should like the House to consider what was the position of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Irish party immediately before this Bill was introduced here last year. The Prime Minister went back to the earlier period when the question of the relationship between this House and the House of Lords had been considered. We all know that that question has been considered for many years past. The hon. and John Redmond) has spent his political life endeavouring to obtain Home Rule cal life endeavouring to obtain Home Rule for Ireland. He and his party have struggled for it, notwithstanding that they have realised that the great majority of the people of the country is absolutely opposed to it. When the Home Rule Bill
  604
  which passed through this House was thrown out by the House of Lords the hon. and learned Member spoke about that very point and as to the position of the House of Lords with regard to the popular will. He said:—
  "The House of Lords have no power to-day to withstand the declared will of the people, They have never done so. Let the popular will be once emphatically declared in favour of any popular reform and the House of Lords must, as they have always done in the past bow to the popular will.… Had the rejection of the Home Rule Bill been appealed from by the Government, as every similar rejection of every great reform was appealed from in the past, and if the verdict of the people was in favour of Home Rule this I assert, the Home Rule Bill would now be law; and I say further, let the election be held to-morrow on the question of Home Rule pure and simple, and if a majority is elected in the Constituencies in favour of it then the House of Lords will not attempt to oppose it. The rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords so far from being protested against, has been justified."
  If that means anything, it means that the people of this country were opposed to Home Rule, and that the House of Lords, in rejecting the Home Rule Bill, was merely echoing the voice of the people. On a subsequent occasion the hon. Member, referring to the same Bill, said that the House of Lords threw out the Home Rule Bill, and the people endorsed their rejection. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has spoken to the same effect. On 14th March, 1909, he caid:—
  "I have read English history and have never been able to discover one single case in the whole history of Great Britain in which any great cause which had been taken up by the people and the democracy was defeated by the obstruction of the House of Lords."
  The problem which the hon. Member for Waterford and his party had to face, and had faced for twenty-five years, was this. The great majority of the people of the country are against Home Rule, for if that had not been so he would only have had to get an election in which the people had decided in favour of Home Rule, and according to his own statement the House of Lords would have passed it. The problem he had to solve was how to get Home Rule against the will of the majority of the people. That was the problem before him in April last year. What was the problem before the Prime Minister on the same occasion? The Prime Minister had in 1909 a great Budget passed through this House and sent to the House of Lords, and by them referred to the people for their decision. The Nationalist party, to a man I believe, voted against the Second Reading of that Budget, and abstained from voting on the Third Reading, and in the election of January of last year Nationalist Members in Ireland spoke in the most bitterly hostile terms of that Budget. In this

  605
  House, when the Budget was introduced, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he must expect throughout the strongest opposition to that Budget on the part of the Irish Members, and he had it. On 10th February the hon. Member said:—
  "If Home Rule is put on one side then I will fight the Budget, and if it is a question of the Budget or Home Rule I will accept the Budget."
  The position of the Prime Minister therefore was that the majority of the representatives of the people were returned to oppose that Budget. There was a certain section coming from Ireland who were determined to oppose that Budget, but also wanted Home Rule. That was an opportunity of enabling the Prime Minister to get through his Budget against the will of the people by buying the votes of the representative who had been sent here to oppose that Budget, by promising them that which they wanted—Home Rule.
  Home Rule is a permanent thing. The Budget is, in a sense, transitory. If the Budget is passed to-day it can be repealed or amended next year, but Home Rule once granted is granted and gone for ever, and the United Kingdom is set asunder. Some hon. Members laugh. Do they suggest that once Home Rule is granted it would ever be possible again to unite the United Kingdom? In this House, before the introduction of this Bill, the hon. Member for Waterford, speaking for his party, made an offer to the Prime Minister. I have no doubt it was merely a repetition of an offer which had been made before. The Prime Minister had come down to the House and said that the Budget was the first item, and then came the question of the Veto. Then it was that the hon. Member for Waterford repeated the offer that I believe had been made before. He said on 1st February, in this House:—
  "Let the right hon Gentleman give us reasonable assurance that he will be able to carry his Veto Bill into law this year and we will not abstain from voting on the Budget. We will vote for it. We are willing to pay that price, but we are not willing to pay that price for nothing."
  That is an offer of a bargain pure and simple. What is the price? They will vote for that Budget which they were returned to oppose, but in return they want Home Rule. That is a bargain as plainly made as any bargain could possibly be made. "We will sell you our votes upon the Budget to enable you to get your Budget through against the will of the people if you, on the other hand, will en-
  606
  able us to get Home Rule through against the will of the people." That was the bargain that was struck in this House, and this Bill is now being forced through this House under the guise of giving effect to the will of the people though the majority of the people are opposed to it—
  Mr. KEATING: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but is he willing—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt. The hon. Member speaking is entitled to finish his speech.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL: That was the bargain. The hon. Member for Water-ford was to be enabled to solve his problem how to get Home Rule against the will of the people, and the Prime Minister was to be enabled to solve his problem how to get the Budget against the will of the people, and then they introduce this Bill and force it through the House, pretending that its object is to enable the will of the people to be carried out. It is said that this Bill is not a Home Rule Bill. I noticed, in the course of the Debate, that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir Clifford Cory), and I believe there are others opposite in the same position, said he had been returned to oppose Home Rule. The difficulty in his mind was as to whether this was really Home Rule; but the hon. Member for Waterford has given an answer to that question. He said:—
  "We will regard the abolition or the limitation of the Veto of the House of Lords as tantamount to granting Home Rule."
  The object is to get rid of the block which stands at present for the will of the people as against Home Rule. So long as the people are against Home Rule so long will that block stand. You have got to remove it, and then you can bargain for votes which will carry Home Rule against the will of the people. That is the position which this House is asked to accept under the pretence that you are passing a Bill in order that the will of the people may prevail. That is really an imposture upon the good sense of the House and upon the people. It has been said that this Parliament Bill was before the people of the country, and that the people have adopted it and sanctioned it. I wonder how many of those who voted at the last election ever saw or heard or read a single line of the Parliament Bill. How many of them understood it How many of them knew what was intended by that Bill? What were they deciding on that Bill? Was the Bill put fairly, fully, and truthfully

  607
  before the people of the country? Before you can say that the last election resulted in a great national verdict in favour of your Parliament Bill you must show that it was put before the people fairly, fully, and truthfully, and that, understanding it, the people voted for it. Instead of that, however, on every platform up and down the country speeches were made in which the question between the House of Lords and this House was not fairly, fully, or truthfully stated. The way it was put before the people of this country was whether the Lords should be allowed to tax the food of the poor, or whether the Parliament Bill was to be passed in order to enable the Government to tax the possessions of the rich. That was the line which was taken; those were the arguments used, and by no less an authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me read what the right hon. Gentleman said, speaking at Mile End on 21st November last. He was speaking of his famous Budget, and I take it that his purpose was to explain to the people the real dispute between this House and the House of Lords, which necessitated this Parliament Bill. He said:—
  "We also needed money for the purpose of great schemes of Social Reform, long promised by both Parties, much too long deferred. That was our need No one denied it. How did we meet it? By taxing great incomes, great fortunes, and the luxuries of all classes. That was our proposal. We sent it to the House of Lords. What did they demand? That great wealth should be spared; that we shauld pass luxuries by untaxed and untolled, and the money squandered on luxuries also, and that we should impose the burden on the bread and the meat of the people. What was our answer? We said, not an ounce would we tax out of the necessities of the life of the people. Then the Lords said, 'Out with your Budget then,' and we have come here to ask you to help us to put them out."
  Does that represent the reason for this Parliament Bill at all? Where have the House of Lords ever said that you shall not tax great wealth, and that you ought to impose burdens on the bread of the people? Is there any resolution to that effect to be found anywhere? Is there any single vote of the House of Lords that can be taken to justify that statement? Does that truly represent the reason or the object or purport of this Parliament Bill? It represented to the people to whom it was addressed that the question between the House of Lords and this House was whether the rich man was to be taxed, or whether the poor man's bread and meat should be taxed—that this House wanted to tax the rich man's wealth, and that the House of Lords wanted to tax the poor man's bread. That never was the
  608
  issue. There is no justification whatever for the statement that the House of Lords have ever sought to prevent the rich man's wealth from being taxed, and to impose burdens on the bread and meat of the people. That is only one instance. You can go through every speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Home Secretary, and by many other politicians on the other side and you will find the same thing repeated and echoed over and over again. That is how votes were got for this Parliament Bill. People were got to vote for it, not by telling them exactly what are the object and substance of this measure, but by treating it as a question of the taxation of the rich or the taxation of the poor. This Parliament Bill has no more to do with taxing the rich or the poor than any other Bill. However, the course taken was strong enough for the purpose of taking the votes of the people who did not know what the Bill was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said some time ago, and it was repeated by an hon. Member of the Labour party in the course of this Debate, that when a great issue of this kind was pending, it was exceedingly wrong to misstate the issue to the people whom you are asking to vote. I have read a very great number of speeches made during the last election by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and I have not found in one of those speeches that the Parliament Bill was read to the audience, or explained. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I do not profess to have read them all. I am not suggesting that I have done so, but I have read a great many, and in none have I seen that the Parliament Bill was explained to the audience.
  But the point is this, that the Parliament Bill was got through the last election by speeches such as that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not by clear and simple statements of the intentions and purposes of the measure. If you have got the Bill through in that way you cannot say that it has the deliberate will of the people behind it. In order to justify this statement that it has the support of the great national verdict, you must show that the people who gave that verdict understood fully and truthfully what it was they were giving a verdict about. Having gone up and down the country during the election for the purpose of getting votes, and having succeeded in securing them by the means to which I have referred, it is impossible for hon. Members opposite to say that these votes are votes in favour of the Parliament Bill.

  609
  Another method was adopted for the purpose of getting votes for this Bill, the moment an election became certain the people were told by the Radical Press that the Lords "broke up the Conference, and that the fact must be driven home while it is fresh in the public mind." Is that true—the Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt can answer—that the House of Lords broke up the Conference? If it is not true, why is that statement made? [An HON MEMBER: "You made it."] The statement was published in a leading article in the "Daily News" on the 15th November, 1910. [An HON. MEMBER: "Copied from the 'Daily Mail.' "] I am glad of that interruption. Just see what it means. If it means anything it means that the "Daily Mail" contained misleading and false statements Supposing it were so, all the stronger my case. If both sides made misstatements how can we say that the people understood the Bill? I have not found for my part, and I do not think hon. Members have been able to quote in the course of their speeches in the Debate, misstatements as to facts made in the last election on behalf of the party of which I am a humble Member. I am putting to the House here a statement made by a leading organ of the Press of the party opposite, and made immediately before the election for the purpose of getting votes, a statement which is untrue. How would that statement in the "Daily News" be used, do you think? What was it intended for? I do not suppose that anybody but Radicals reads the "Daily News," and they were not likely to be affected; but this statement was published so that street orators and corner-end orators were able to use and tell their audiences that it was the wicked House of Lords that had smashed the Conference. That was how votes were obtained in favour of the Parliament Bill.
  If you go through the speeches of candidates and supporters of the other side during the last election you will find over and over again statements with regard to the question between this House and the House of Lords which are absolutely unfounded in fact—statements made for the purpose of catching votes. These people know their business when they are vote-catching. They make those statements knowing what will be their effect, and knowing that they will get votes. Having obtained them by these means they, forsooth, come down here and say, "We have a great majority in favour of our Parlia-
  610
  ment Bill." If that Bill had been simply and carefully and truthfully explained to the people, if they had been told that this Parliament Bill was intended to put the whole power of legislation in the hands of a Single Chamber, and to do that primarily for the purpose of granting Home Rule to Ireland—if all that had been put clearly before the electorate, I think the result of the last General Election would have been very different. It has been stated in the course of this Debate that the people were told over and over again that the Home Rule question was to be decided during that election. It has been pointed out as a curious fact that no Minister mentioned the question in his address. But I happened to be in Wiltshire, and there I had placed before me a speech which was made by a Minister who is no longer a Member of this House (Sir John Fuller). He made a speech for the purpose of getting votes in that election. Speaking at Melksham, on 30th November, he said:—
  "I am wanting, so far as I am able, to conduct the campaign so that Liberals shall not be blinded by any side issues, and pay no attention to Home Rule."'
  What does that mean? If that means anything, it meant that Home Rule had nothing to do with that election. Why did Sir John Fuller make that statement? Because he realised that there was a large body of the electorate who were opposed to Home Rule, and their votes were wanted.
  7.0 P.M.
  I have no doubt what was done by Sir John Fuller was done also in other constituencies where there was a strong anti-Home Rule feeling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am quoting a statement from a speech of a then Minister of the Crown, and is it not a sound presumption that the followers would do the same. The position is, first, that this Bill is the outcome with the view to enabling the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to get through their two measures against the will of the people; and, secondly, it is impossible to say that this Bill was fairly, fully, or truthfully before the people of the country at the last election, or that the last election is a verdict in favour of this Bill.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken put two points very prominently before the House. The first was that the supporters of this Bill had failed to submit the Bill to their constituents during the election. The second was that we had been guilty, either directly, or through the Press that supports

  611
  us, of misrepresenting the position. As to the first point, in my judgment never was a question so thoroughly submitted to the constituencies as was the Veto Bill during the last election. At any rate, if other Members experienced what I experienced in my Constituency, even if I had been desirous of shirking the issue, my opponents did not permit me to do so. I will venture to say that what I did most Members did who are now supporting this Bill—namely, in going to their constituencies for re-election they submitted one question, and one question only, through their election addresses to their supporters, and to their constituents. In my own case, I admit the soft impeachment that has been thrown over the floor of the House repeatedly during this Debate, that in my election address I did not mention the question of Home Rule. Why? That was my fourth election in seven and a half years, and I took good care I submitted only one issue in my fourth election, for the simple reason I wanted those whom I represented in this House to understand that the work they had sent me to do was impossible of accomplishment, including the question of Home Rule, because of the obstructive tactics of the House of Lords. Therefore, in my election address I said, the supreme issue in this contest, and I shall endeavour to concentrate upon it, is the removal of the Veto of the House of Lords. In regard to the second point made by the hon. Member that the position had been directly or indirectly misrepresented in the country, I was most surprised that an hon. Member occupying his position, especially professionally, should have begun to quote from a paper giving us the name of the paper without telling us that the paper was actually using a quotation from a paper on his own side.
  Mr. H. TERRELL: Will the hon. Member kindly tell me what quotation?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Member quoted from the "Daily News," and I wish to suggest that the quotation was included in an article in the "Daily News" calling attention to what had been said by the "Daily Mail" and commenting upon it.
  Mr. H. TERRELL: The passage I quoted from the "Daily News" does not purport in any sense to be a quotation from the "Daily Mail."
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Member distinctly said that the "Daily News" charged the Lords with breaking-up the Conference. I think I am in the recollection of the House in that statement. Hon. Members on this side of the House threw over the challenge that that was a statement from the "Daily Mail." Now I hold, when it first appeared in the "Daily Mail," and when it was being quoted in the leading article columns of the "Daily News," that the hon. Member ought not to have thrown the statement to us from the "Daily News," but from where it first originated—namely, in the columns of the "Daily Mail."
  Mr. H. TERRELL: I quoted from the "Daily News" what appeared in the "Daily News" as a part of the article of the "Daily News," and not as a quotation; and so far as I know—and I may be wrong, as I do not read the "Daily Mail "—it never appeared in the "Daily Mail." [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: When I have got anything to withdraw I will willingly withdraw it, but I again repeat that the statement appeared in the first case in the "Daily Mail" the morning after the Conference was publicly known to have failed to come to a conclusion. Therefore, I think that I am right in saying that the statement ought to have been traced to its source before it was quoted in this House. I am the more surprised that the hon. Member quotes it when he admits he does not read the "Daily News," and did not read the article.
  Mr. H. TERRELL: I did not say I did not read the article. I read the article in question from beginning to end in the "Daily News," not in the "Daily Mail."
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I understood him in his speech to say that he did not read the "Daily News."
  Mr. H. TERRELL: No, the "Daily Mail," I said.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I think he said only Radicals read the "Daily News," and as he is not a Radical I assumed that he did not read the "Daily News." I do not know that we need pursue the matter further. Since this controversy was brought prominently before this House there has been no ambiguity about the position which we on these benches took up. I think we have always been perfectly straightforward. The right hon. Gentle-

  613
  man the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech to-day, quite unintentionally, I will admit, did not do quite justice to the position which we take up. He made a very strong point when he was discussing the different sections that support the Government on this question, based upon the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), that our only objection, or our main objection, to the House of Lords was because of the hereditary principle. I do not think that that quite fairly states our position, and I think he certainly ought to have known that it did not do so. What was the position that we very fully declared in the Amendment which we moved in 1907, when Resolutions on this question were submitted to the House. That Amendment was as follows:
  "The House of Lords, being an unrepresentative part of the Legislature, and of necessity representative only of interests opposed to the general well-being, is a hindrance to national progress, and ought to be abolished."
  To that position we still hold, and, in fact, if anything our adherence to the principle it contains has been strengthened since 1907. We, as a young party, and I think our presence here in 1906 had its significance, came here in 1906 strongly desirous of seeing certain great social and economic reforms effected. We did our best in supporting those reforms as they were brought from time to time before this House. But what did we find? Time after time the very questions that we had been sent here to support were rejected or so mutilated as to be made impossible of acceptance at the hands of the House. Therefore I say, having regard to what has passed since 1907, our adherence to the principle that we then declared for is, if anything, stronger. In fact it appears to us that any other position would be inconsistent with the complete supremacy of this representative House. Any other position would also be inconsistent with the increasing democratic tendencies of the times, and with that changed outlook that is operating almost amongst all sections of the community with regard to the need for great social and economic changes. We are convinced that democracy receives neither fair play nor justice from our present irresponsible and non-representative Second Chamber. Moreover, when we consider the history of the House of Lords, its composition, and its powers, we find that there is nothing about it to commend it to the consideration or compassion of the com-
  614
  mon people of this country. Its decisions have ever been marked by class prejudice or political partisanship, by which it has frequently defrauded the people of the fruits of representative government. So far as we on these benches are entitled to speak for the organised workers of this country we wish it to be understood that the long and serious nature of our grievances is the measure of our determination to insist upon a remedy that will make a repetition of the offence for ever impossible. We are not alone in our opinion of the class character of the House of Lords. Many quotations have been given during the course of this Debate, and I am going to quote, not a member of the great rank and file of the democratic forces of this country, but to give a quotation from an article in the "Nineteenth Century," by the late Duke of Marlborough. He said:—
  "It is certainly discouraging to an admirer of the hereditary system to take note of the mental calibre, not to say the physical appearance, of certain noble Lords who on great occasions are dug up from their graves of dignified oblivion to assist in defeating a measure which is distasteful to the hereditary Chamber. It is certainly hard on the people, who spend their time and their energy in sending Members to Parliament, that a parcel of incapable and ignorant gentlemen should have a right to come down when they choose to the Upper Chamber, and obstruct indefinitely the progress of "measure which is for the benefit of the nation."
  The Duke of Marlborough goes on to say:—
  "The House of Lords has used its direct and indirect influence for eighty years to impede and stave off all reform, until it has endangered not only the just rights of property, but also the very integrity of the Empire."
  He also declared the House of Lords to be an institution representing essentially the landowning class. It is in the spirit of the statement I have made and the statement I have quoted that we approach the consideration not only of the Parliament Bill, but also of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire. We frankly admit that neither the policy of the Bill nor the policy of the Amendment meets the position of hon. Members on these benches. Apart, however, from the Preamble of the Bill, which we deplore, and which was condemned very emphatically by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) on the First Reading of the measure, we are drawn towards the Bill, as we think it provides for an admitted grievance a remedy that will be practical, immediate and effective. We also support the Bill because its provisions are the only proposals, in our judgment upon which the country has been consulted and has given judgment in

  615
  a constitutional way. I know what on this point we have been told in the course of the Debate that the difference between the supporters of the Bill and its opponents is so small that we are outraging the feelings of nearly half the electors by forcing the measure through. Is it to be the new theory that we are to heed the lesser half and ignore the definite instructions of the greater? Is that to be the new theory in connection with our electoral system? In our opinion the constituencies have been consulted, and, though, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the question of mandate might be pushed too far, yet certainly never during the eight years I have been in this House and never in any election that I have known has a single measure been so definitely and so clearly submitted to the judgment of the nation as was the Parliament Bill last December.
  In thus giving our approval to the Bill we are not unmindful of the dangers that may follow the process of delay which the Bill sets up. I do not know that I am far wrong, remembering the process of delay that may follow every measure of importance, and especially every measure to bring about those social and economic changes which we so much desire to see, in thinking that in years to come those of u s who are supporting this measure will be charged with having supported one of the most Conservative measures ever placed upon the Statute Book. We regard the Parliament Bill as a compromise, and in our opinion it is the full limit to which we ought to be invited to go. Our position is the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. We are always perfectly candid about our position, and that is our position on the present occasion. So long as the Government stand by the Bill in its principle, and endeavour to secure its speedy passage into law, they will have our cordial support. What about the alternative set forth in the Amendment? When we come to analyse that Amendment and the speeches by which it has been supported we cannot resist the conclusion that it seems to make the composition of the Second Chamber, and not its powers and functions, the supreme issue in this controversy. In the second place, it seems to me to relegate the settlement of the powers and functions of the Second Chamber to a more remote period. If this is not the case, what becomes of the doctrine of the mandate of which we have heard so much? To consent to the in-
  616
  definite postponement of the fixing of the powers and functions of the Second Chamber appears to me to be altogether contrary to the wishes of the majority of the electors, and to disregard the urgency of the need for an immediate remedy of this long outstanding grievance. Members opposite seem to have displayed throughout the Debate a remarkable contempt for the past, and they invite us to explore with them the uncertainties of the future. We are invited by them to reject the Veto Bill which we have seen, in order to undertake some scheme of reform which we have not seen, and upon which I venture to say hon. Members opposite themselves are not yet agreed.
  In spite of the fact that I have followed most carefully this discussion, it is necessary for me to inquire what these reform proposals that are now being nursed so much by the other side really are. It must be admitted that the Debate has not thrown a considerable amount of light upon the position of the Opposition. We do not know, as yet, whether they are unanimously agreed—I am not overlooking the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition—upon the complete abandonment of the hereditary principle. I believe that the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) is to take part in the Debate. I should like to have an assurance from him that there is general agreement that the hereditary principle is to be abandoned. We have not been told yet whether the young Tory democrats, who I believe have held more than one meeting in the Committee room upstairs, have themselves agreed that the new Second Chamber shall be entirely elective, or whether they have persuaded their leaders to take up the position which we know many of these Tory Democrats hold. Is the Second Chamber to be chosen by the people and responsible only to the people? In view of the questions which have been put on the other side, I think these are inquiries which might very pertinently be submitted for answer before the Debate closes. May I say without offence, that all the schemes under discussion are in process of being sat on, and it would be dangerous to say what will be the result when the egg is hatched or when the process of incubation is terminated. It would be dangerous to say whether we are going to get the real article or something that will be less savoury. Are the Opposition certain that they have a mandate for the reform schemes about which they have talked so much during this Debate?

  617
  Have they a mandate for setting up the Referendum as part of the Constitution? It seems to me that one or two of their own papers have rather given them away. For instance, this is what I read in one of the strongest papers behind the party opposite. The "Morning Post," as recently as 28th January last, said:—
  "Whatever else the people may or may not have decided by the recent election, they rejected the Unionist schemes of Constitutional reconstruction, and they did not reject the whole Constitution on which they were not given an opportunity to pronounce."
  Then the paper goes on to say:—
  "Patriotic self-sacrifice alone is needed to clear the path for the Unionist party to revert to a constructive policy. Abandon Constitution-mongering,"
  It seems to me that Members opposite might take to heart the advice given to them by one of their stoutest organs. Are they quite sure that they have a mandate for reconstruction, reform, or the Referendum? Whichever scheme of reform the Unionist party ultimately take up, whether it be Lord Lansdowne's scheme, Lord Curzon's scheme, Lord Rosebery's scheme, or a mixture of them all, or perhaps the scheme which is being considered so carefully by the energetic Members of the party in the committee-room upstairs, we are not convinced that the scheme will be satisfactory from our point of view. Anyone of them will still retain an overwhelming majority of class representatives who will be against the social and economic position for which we are fighting. Therefore we want to say that we cannot agree with the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to have, not a better, but a stronger Second Chamber. If we have suffered all these years by having our measures thrown back, by having the will of the people flouted, then it seems to me that we ought to be very much on our guard before we give the slightest encouragement to any schemes of reform that have been hinted at up to the present time. When I speak of schemes of reform that have been hinted at up to the present time, let me say that that includes not only those for which the Noble Lords who support the party opposite, or Members of the party opposite, have been suggesting, but it applies equally and just as emphatically to any scheme of reform for which the present Government may in future days make themselves responsible. But we have been told very often in connection with this controversy, and in this Debate, that the Referendum or a reformed Second Chamber is absolutely essential to safeguard the interests of the people of this country.
  618
  What I cannot understand—and I think the party opposite ought to make a choice—is this: how they should be so persistent in putting before the House that the only concern they have is to ascertain the will of the people—for that is really the intent of the Amendment now before the House—they profess that their only concern is to be in a position to ascertain the will of the people—yet they are trying to find out some scheme of reform which will stand between the expression of the will of the people as declared at election times—as expressed through the elected representatives in this House! I want them to choose whether they are going to have the will of the people as expressed through the elected representatives, or the will of the people expressed by some fantastic scheme of Referendum? After all, one satisfactory point has emerged from the Debate. It is this: We on these benches have been declaring all along against the position of the House of Lords. We have the satisfaction of knowing that at least right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—and especially right hon. Gentlemen—are convinced that the present system has completely broken down. I would like to know if that position is challenged?
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman appeals to me. I do not think anybody has used language that justifies his phrase that we accept his definition that "the existing state of things has completely broken down."
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I am rather glad that the right hon. Gentleman has interposed, because I am going to try to give my justification for the position I take up. Dealing with this question of the Referendum the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as recently as 25th June, 1907, speaking at the Constitutional Club, made the following statement:—
  "Other people have suggested the Referendum. Now I do not say that the Referendum is not, in the absence of some other and better plan, one to which this country might conceivably be driven; but it is certainly alien to our traditions. However in conformity with the theory of popular representation it may be, it is not easy to carry out—"
  I hope hon. Members opposite will remember those are the words of their own Leader—
  "and I should certainly not myself advocate it until I was convinced of the total failure of the existing system."
  I hope my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) will consider that I did not stretch the point too far when I said that they are now

  619
  going in for reform and the Referendum because in the words of their own Leader they must be convinced
  "of the total failure of the existing system."
  Therefore I say we are delighted that at least on this point there is agreement between them and ourselves—[An HON. MEMBER: "Their Leader"]—between their Leader and ourselves. One more point. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make a point against those of us who are sup porting the Parliament Bill, and especially against the Government and the Nation alist party. The point was this: That they had deflected the course that they would have taken under other circumstances merely to obtain that which they had both set their hearts upon. Very well. I am not going to analyse that position. I only want to base this contention upon it: If that be so, what, I want to ask, would the country think of the Government who accepted the repeated invitation which has been given from the other side to the Government—not to us; we have been left out—that because there is now common agreement as to the necessity of reform—
  Mr. LONG: Hear, hear.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Yes; I am glad that my right hon. Friend accepts that—that they have deflected from the position that they went to the country, with the Nationalists and ourselves, upon last December; that they have to treat with contempt the verdict of the country, to throw over entirely the doctrine of the mandate, to deflect from their course in order that they may walk in agreement with those who bitterly opposed them at the election. We have got back to the old story that we learnt in our schooldays. The Opposition have been saying to the Government: "We are agreed; why cannot we walk together?" "When two are agreed, why do they not continue their journey together?" This is their position:—
  "Will you walk into my parlour.
  Said the spider to the fly? "
  That is the position. They talk of the morality of the Government and of the Nationalist party in deflecting from the course of action that they have in view, yet they would invite the Government, who have received a special mandate from the country, to leave us to that extent and go with them in trying to find some scheme of reform and settlement of the functions
  620
  and powers of the House of Lords! I do not think for a single moment that the Government will listen to the suggestion. All I have to say is, that if they do they will not only forfeit any support that we on these benches have to give, but, in my opinion, if they do anything to pass such a Bill into law they will forfeit the confidence of the country.
  Mr. MOORE: The Government are threatened in every direction. They are told by supporters below the Gangway on this side of the House—not inside the House, but outside, that they must "toe the line." Other hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House say that if the Government—in which they express such supreme con fidence—venture to surrender the smallest portion of the principle of this Bill, for which a direct mandate is claimed, they will have to face the consequences and they will lose the support of a prominent section of the coalition. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I was particularly struck by one remark which he made in which he claimed that the country wanted "the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." We all know where that cry first came from. I would ask Members who are aware of what is going on in the country to cast their minds back from this day to that, and make the comparison for themselves of the different circumstances. That was a cry which the people of this country in every town, village, and hamlet, the artisan of the town and the labourer of the country, raised in 1832 when the great franchise reform demanded by the people was pending. That was a cry which met you everywhere. If you read the history of those times you will see that mass meeting after mass meeting was held, and the country was ablaze with excitement. The watchword was: "The whole Bill and nothing but the Bill." One would really think, from the voices of sound and fury and confidence that one hears in this House that the country at the present time was in the same condition as in 1832. Does anyone who has any knowledge of the country at the present time, with this great constitutional revolution pending, suggest for a moment that the country is on fire?
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: What about lining the last ditch?
  Mr. MOORE: I am perfectly satisfied when the time does come for lining the ditches we will not see hon. Members oppo-

  621
  site there. Compare the position of 1832 with what the feeling of the country is at the present time. There is a constitutional revolution pending—it is admitted by its sponsors—in the four corners of this Bill. I think it is most extravagant language. I do not think that it is a healthy sign of the times, but fact it is that outside party politicians the general public seem perfectly apathetic as to what both sides are doing in this House of Commons. Hon. Members opposite get up and shout: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." They will keep up the cry for the space of three hours. But the country is going about its own business. A great many hon. Gentleman in this Debate have stated that in their opinion half the country does not understand the Parliament Bill, and the other half does not care about it. I do not believe that the ordinary man outside the party politicians in any part of the country would lose a moment's sleep if he were to be told to-night that the Bill had gone through, or had been rejected. Hon. Members have got up and said that the country is dying for the Bill; is on fire for the Bill as it was in 1832, and that every man is shouting and asseverating that "We must have the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill." That is an expression which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made use of. I have a friend who has been recently at the election in Lincolnshire. The experience of my friend was that he found the Radical candidate rubbing in the old Radical superstition about the danger of old age pensions—a thing which ought to have been exploded long ago—he was rubbing in the risk of dear food; and, on the other hand, the Unionists were rubbing in, and quite properly rubbing in, the dangers of Home Rule, and there was a very keen conflict. The Parliament Bill was argued neither on one side nor the other, but I have no doubt that if a follower of the Government came back or was returned he would join in the shout that he was elected upon the Parliament Bill. There was no enthusiasm for the Bill because the people did not really understand it, or if they did they were apathetic, and there is no general enthusiasm in any part of the country for the objects which the Bill is intended to bring about. I know you will get no more enthusiastic supporters of the policy of Home Rule than Nationalist Members below the Gangway, but will anyone tell me that there is general enthusiasm on the part of the Liberal Benches opposite upon Home Rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Then
  622
  you do not show it in your constituency. I took part in a great many elections in this country, and I generally found Members of the Liberal party singularly silent about Home Rule, unless when addressing audiences in which there was a sprinkling of Irish people. Hon. Members opposite may be very glad to have Home Rule got rid of, because it would rid them of difficulties which confront them in their constituencies. But I certainly defy any solid body of Liberals opposite to say they are enthusiastic for Home Rule. It is looked upon as a great experiment, accompanied by a good deal of danger, and I say that none of them are prepared to defend it whole-heartedly.
  This Bill is welcomed by the Labour party, because they think it will give them a chance of reversing the Osborne Judgment. I do not know whether my countrymen in this House are concerned much about the Osborne Judgment. [HON. MEMBRES: "We are."] I never heard much about it in Ireland. I heard a good deal of talk about the Whisky Tax, more unquestionably than about the Osborne Judgment, but I understand the Nationalist Members are prepared to assist the Labour party in return for the Labour party assisting them, but that is nothing more or less than ordinary log-rolling. I should not describe my countrymen as wild with enthusiasm for the Osborne Judgment, and I am sure there are a great many Liberals of whom the same might be said. The Welsh Members are wildly enthusiastic for disestablishment of the Welsh Church, which will give them their hearts' desire.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The same as the Ulster Members were up to 1870.
  Mr. MOORE: Yes, but if Ulster and Wales were united up to 1870, I am sorry that Wales has abandoned Ulster by trying to force Home Rule upon her.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The Ulster Members pledged themselves to help Wales towards disestablishment, in return for disestablishment given to Ulster by the assistance of Wales.
  Mr. MOORE: Yes, and in return, the Welsh Members vote for putting Home Rule upon us. I appeal to the hon. Member, unless his interruptions are pertinent, to allow me to proceed. The hon. Member has a good deal of interest in the disestablishment of the Welsh Church, but

  623
  I do not know whether that is so widely or enthusiastically shared by English Liberals, many of whom are members of the English Church, and I do not know whether Nationalist Members are very much interested. The matter is one which interests non-Catholics, and does not appeal to Nationalist Members. There are various objects for which the Parliament Bill does appeal to each section, and I take leave to say that just as there is little general enthusiasm in any part of the country for the Parliament Bill outside the professional politician, so there is very little enthusiasm for any one of the objects which each section hopes to gather through the Parliament Bill. When I heard the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken say that when he came into the House eight years ago, and subsequently that the one thing dear to him and his party were measures of economic reform, I began to wonder how far with his eyes open he was playing a game which would absolutely delay measures of social reform.
  The Government has thrown down the gauntlet of constitutional revolution. You are not going to settle that in one session. When the heather does take fire, when the people do get interested, and realise what the great issues are, you are going to have business, trade, social progress and reform in this country, at a standstill for the next three years, while we are probing to its very depths this great question of constitutional reform—the reform of this House and the composition of the other. In the meantime, social reform is postponed by the Government. Next year we are going to have Home Rule, we are told. That is an interesting question for hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway. Does that help social reform in England? I have not heard any answer from hon. Members who represent the Liberal party. I think the ordinary English artisan would consider he is being fed with an empty spoon if the year's work of social reform of the Government is to be represented by Home Rule for Ireland. The next year—1913—is to be spent in the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, so far as a definite pledge could be given. Is that social reform for the English working man? It will take the whole of the Session, and the English working man is represented here by a party which pledged itself to give him social and economic reform, but whose whole action is to keep the Government in power while dealing with these questions, and to postpone real
  624
  social reform for four, five, or six years hence, with a General Election in the meantime.
  After the experience which the country has had during the last five years the people are perfectly sick of this House spending its time upon legislation. What the people want much more is that the House should look better after admistrative affairs. You can take three days here in Committee over a minor Bill; hon. Members can speak as often as they like in Committee, and on other days—on one of the miserable twenty-three days allotted for Supply—£10,000,000 or £20,000,000, or £30,000,000, which is to be spent for the good of the country or the people, is voted without any discussion. I know perfectly well that a feeling is growing that the House of Commons would be much better engaged in attending to administration, in seeing how money is spent, and how the Government of the country is carried on, than as they are at present wasting the time of the nation on legislation, some of which is as useless as it is contentious. Really you should have in this House, as the Jews had, a Sabbath every seven years—a legislative Sabbath—when the House would content itself with the ordinary humdrum business and put its affairs in order. Such a course would be welcomed by the country. The Parliament Bill does not touch that, social reform is postponed in the way I have said. Is it any wonder that the country should not be enthusiastic for the Parliament Bill. The sponsors to the Bill have recognised that there is a good deal of danger of legislation which is not really approved of by the people, being rushed through when you deprive the House of Lords of the power of referring it to the country. That has been conceded again and again, but whenever it is conceded it is accompanied by the announcement that there are safeguards. The only safeguards suggested is the check of debate in this House before a Bill is passed, and second, the check of debate in the country if a Bill is for the second time passed before it automatically becomes law. Are these really practical checks? If the check of debate in this House had been proposed, say twenty years ago, I think it would have been a very good one, because then debates in this House were uncontrolled. The rules were not invented under which we work and labour to-day. Any Member could discuss any subject or part of a Bill practically as long as he liked. There was free debate, but the framers of this Bill,

  625
  unconsciously or deliberately, have lost sight of these things. Under what conditions are we to debate matters now? Day after day and Session after Session we see the Government getting more greedy and grasping of the ordinary Members' time.
  8.0 P.M.
  One of the first thing this Government did, after 1906, was to reverse the Standing Orders. One result of that was, that now, unless the contrary is moved, every Bill for its Committee stage must go upstairs. What is the effect of sending it upstairs? Debates in this House would be of very little use and would have no effect but for the fact that they are published. The proceedings of Committees upstairs are practically never published, and that means that a Bill is sent upstairs, if the Minister in charge wishes to avoid public criticism, and nothing more is heard of it until the Report stage in this House. We had an instance of that when a Bill for endowing and establishing a Roman Catholic University in Ireland was sent to a Committee upstairs. If it were debated in this House, the proceedings would have been printed and published, and would have shown how utterly hollow was the claim that the University set up was an undenominational one. The Chief Secretary took care that the Bill went upstairs, and we had thirteen days of it there, with only cursory reports appearing. That was a case in which public debate in this House should have acted as a safeguard and check upon the passage of that Bill for any one who had pledged himself as many hon. Gentlemen opposite had done, to oppose denominational education or to endow it by the State That Bill was burked, its passage was cloaked and concealed upstairs; so we see what the value of the check of debate would be. In these days you have the guillotine doubly sharpened and the gag working with a double snap. We now have a system which has been called the "kangaroo" system, and day by day opportunities for the discussion of popular measures are being taken from the House. Debate is no longer possible as an efficient check upon legislation. This Bill will also prevent the check in the country being efficient, because you can only have that check when the public are fully informed through the Press of what has happened in the House of Commons. The present system is a very illusory check to prevent measures being smuggled through. With regard to the suggested composition of the Second
  626
  Chamber, that is a point which has been dealt with by many speakers, and I only wish to refer to what the Minister for Education (Mr. Runciman) said about it. The right hon. Gentleman said the Crown had the Prerogative of creating Peers, but the Peers were hereditary, and that it would be an interference with the Royal Prerogative if you abolished the hereditary representation to the fullest extent from the Second Chamber. That being the pronouncement of a Minister, it seems that there will be some hereditary element left when the time comes for the Government to formulate their schemes of reform. I should have thought that, moving with the times and popular feeling—which has been inflamed very unfairly in some directions—there would have been a more popular move in the direction of having an entirely elected Second Chamber, but that would at once have been attacked by hon. Members opposite as being an attempt to set up a stronger House than the House of Commons itself. If on these benches we had agreed to support a popularly elected Second Chamber we should at once have been told that we were only trying to make the Upper House stronger. Some hon. Members have said that the Second Chamber ought to be elected on the same franchise as the Members of this House. If so, what is the good of a Second Chamber? Surely you could appoint a Committee of this House to do the work of revising, delaying, and checking our proceedings? Would any hon. Member of this House be willing to serve on such a committee? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, I would."] If the hon. Member opposite did serve on such a committee he would find his powers truncated, because he would only have the powers which the Parliament Bill confers upon him, and, after being selected, at the end of three Sessions he might find the Bill which he had condemned or rejected passed over his head. With the exception of the hon. Member opposite I am sure that very few Members of this House would be content to serve on such a Committee.
  The Minister for Education dealt with the scheme promulgated from the House of Lords and in particular with Lord Curzon's scheme. I do quarrel with the way that scheme was presented to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. In my opinion any question of altering the Constitution ought not to be treated as a party question. This is a national question affecting the whole position of ourselves and those who are to come after us.

  627
  Lord Curzon proposed that the Second Chamber should consist of certain peers and leaders in the State, and certain distinguished men in the military, judicial, legal, and medical services who have made their way to the top of their respective professions. He also suggested that there ought to some of the men who have distinguished themselves in the municipal world, who conduct the fortunes of our great thriving centres of industry. If Ministers would look at this question from a national point of view I would listen with pleasure to their arguments. I think it might be shown that it would be for the good of the nation and those who are coming after us that the men who had attained such positions as I have mentioned should be called in to be Members of a Second Chamber. The Minister for Education seemed to forget that this was a national question, and he ignored the fact that this class of men with experience, and perhaps with some stake in the country, would be administering national affairs for the country's good. In the narrowest and most pitiable way the right hon. Gentleman got up, and not from the point of view of the Ministry and the King, but as a Liberal politician said, "I have been through these men's names head by head, and we will not have them, not because it is good for the Empire or the State, but because I find you would only get such a proportion of Liberals amongst them." Upon a national question like this I think it is regrettable that proposals of that sort are dealt with on the narrowest party basis by Ministers who, on a question like this, ought to forget party, and see that the State is stirred instead of their own miserable party interests. Arguments of that kind will surely bring punishment on the heads of those who use them. Once the country recognises that the proposals put forward by the Unionist party are to be condemned practically without discussion. I am sure it will work disastrously to the Liberal party.
  I have heard the Prime Minister often deservedly complimented on his dexterity and his great lucidity and eloquence, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that after selecting Home Rule as the first subject to be dealt with after the passing of this Bill, he is a master of cynicism. Practically the Government are saying: "We will make Home Rule the law of the land without consulting the people." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Of all the measures in the world the Prime Minister
  628
  has the audacity to take Home Rule as a fit subject for treatment under his party system. If ever there has been a Bill rejected by the people, it is the Home Rule Bill. In 1886, those who threw out Home Rule were returned triumphantly. It was passed here in 1893, and thrown out by the Lords, and at the General Election of 1895 the action of the House of Lords was again absolutely justified. From 1895 until the year 1912—although you have had six years of Radical Government in the meantime—the Liberal party have never ventured to bring full Home Rule before the House and yet that subject, after a triumphant career of rejection at every stage in this House, in the Lords, and in the country, is selected by the Prime Minister to go through while the Constitution remains imperfect after you have abolished the revising power of the House of Lords. I say that is a triumph of cynicism. We are told that circumstances have greatly changed in Ireland. I think they have. One factor has become very important as distinguished from 1895, when Home Rule was before the country, and that is the financial situation which has very much altered. The credit of this country has been advanced to the extent of £100,000,000 since 1895. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who got it?"] We think we ought to repay it. The tenants of Ireland have borrowed £100,000,000 from hon. Members opposite as representing the electors of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe £40,000,000 have been advanced under the Act of 1903. Then you had the Land Act of 1895, and there has been various loans and grants from the Board of Works. Hon. Members may take it from me that £100,000,000 of British money is now owing to the United Kingdom in respect of advances made to Ireland within the last twenty-five years. We were always very much obliged to the British Exchequer.
  The position now is that of debtor and creditor, and the British taxpayer will have to be consulted on this matter. That is a new element and it is a question of which the details are most important. And yet there is not a single hon. Member opposite who can say that he has even a glimmering of what the Government intend to do with regard to the financial details of Home Rule. The fact that you have made this country into a creditor of ours would of itself justify the reference of Home Rule to the British taxpayers. Nevertheless the British taxpayer, as represented by the British elector, is the one man under this Bill who will not have a

  629
  voice in the matter. I believe those chickens will come home to roost. It is not so much the needs or the wants of Ireland the Prime Minister is considering, as how to keep peacefully, faithfully, and loyally attached to the Government some seventy-six of my fellow countrymen who represent Ireland in this House. Those are the exigencies of the Liberal party. But anyone who knows Ireland knows that land purchase has been the greatest success. Everyone knows that where you have purchase you have peace and prosperity and everyone equally knows that as soon as you seek to disturb that condition by altering the security of the British Government on the faith of which the money was borrowed you are killing that peace and bringing turmoil into the country. Did you ever think what the condition in Ireland would be under your Parliament Bill in two years after its passage into law? Matters would be unsettled and no one would be able to tell what was going to happen. No one would know whether there would be an election before the two years were up which would arrest the disaster, or whether, on the other hand, we were to be doomed to suffer. Can you imagine anything that would affect the prosperity of the country more than that everything vital should be at stake, hung up for two years under the Parliament Bill? Hon. Members below the gangway laugh, but they are not profoundly interested in the trade and industries of Ireland. They are in our part of the country. Anyone who goes to Ireland knows that that is so.
  What is going to happen to the country during these two years? [HON. MEMBERS: "War."] There is the first threat we have had yet. Hon. Members say there will be war. It is quite possible there may be. We have been threatened again and again by hon. Members, or rather by their friends in the country, with aggression in Ireland—and I make no secret about it—we Ulster Protestants are going to defend ourselves. [Laughter.] I think that matter is not a comedy, but a tragedy. It is a tragedy when you see men driven to make up their minds that the only way they can protect their liberty and religion is by resort to weapons of defence. I know very well what a great many of my countrymen will say to the government of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and they will be perfectly right. The hon. Member for Waterford has again and again said, in Ireland, that his public policy was to
  630
  make the Government of England in Ireland "dangerous, difficult, and impossible." He has said that again and again in various places in the country. I have taken the oath of allegiance to the King, but I will never take it to the hon. Member for Waterford, and there are a million Irish Protestants who will say the same, and hon. Members below the Gangway know it. I do not want to be led into this. I can only assure the House I am speaking with the utmost sincerity. I am not speaking my own views only, but also the views of the people who have sent me to this House again and again with enormous majorities—of people who are just as good workmen but less politicians than some of the hon. Gentlemen who have interrupted me. I know I am expressing their views, and I say it is an intolerable thing that under the Parliament Bill there should be the possibility of such an event in a part of the United Kingdom happening while you tie and hang us up for two years before we know whether we are to be blotted out or not. I will support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) with all my heart, and I will do every thing I can as an ordinary Member of the rank and file of this House to represent those who sent me here—the working men in Ulster, the loyal Protestant working men, to kill that Bill in every way.
  Mr. ALBION H. RICHARDSON: As a new Member of this House I ask for its forbearance during the short time that I purpose to address it. I ask for it perhaps with a little less diffidence than would otherwise be the case, because I believe the constituency I represent has been represented during the last few years by Members who, without dispraise or criticism, I may say were among the silent category of Members—at any rate, ever since the junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) sat for that constituency. I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the interesting illustration which that constituency affords upon the question of the mandate which the country has given for the present Parliament Bill. Peckham is not situated in Ireland, it is situated within ten miles of this House, and in the year 1908, at a memorable bye-election it returned a Tory Member to this House by a majority of 2,449 votes. Within eighteen months of that time, at the General Election in January, 1910, it reduced that majority

  631
  to the nominal one of eighty-three, and at the last election it wiped it out. What possible reason or motive can hon. Members suggest actuated 2,400 people in March, 1908, to give the Government notice to quit, and eighteen months afterwards, in January, 1910, not only to withdraw that notice, but to express their emphatic desire to renew their lease of power? What was the motive? Had it anything to do, do you think, with the House of Lords? What other new item had been added to the Government programme since March, 1908, but the Budget, and in connection with it the Veto proposals of the present Government? It was that which changed 2,400 votes, not in an Irish, but a London constituency, and I say it is idle for hon. Members to protest that the country has not given a mandate when you have typical London constituencies turning over that enormous number of votes directly they found a Government for the first time in its history had put this question of the Veto of the Lords in the very forefront of its programme.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke on the First Reading, practically admitted that there was a majority in this House in favour of the Parliament Bill, but he said, nevertheless, you ought not to pass it into law because the majority who would vote for it were not actuated by the same motive to see the measure passed. Let me put this question to him. If and when he is returned to office as the Leader of the Tariff Reform party, and when he takes his poll of the people, does he intend to ask them not only are you in favour of Tariff Reform, but why are you in favour of it, and will he undertake not to proceed with that measure unless he has a majority who all want it for the same reason? If he does give that undertaking, I think the Tariff Reform League may send for the shutters or put itself in the hands of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) with a view to reconstruction. There were several powerful phrases in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman urging that this should be a year of peace and goodwill, because it is the Coronation year. The right hon. Gentleman's views as to what should take place in a Coronation year seem to have strangely altered since the last Coronation year, when he was in office. He then had been returned to office with a mandate to put an end to that useless and guilty war which his party had brought about in
  632
  South Africa. But, having got into office, in defiance of all his election pledges, he passed the Education Act which disturbed the whole settlement embodied in the Act of 1870, and outraged the consciences of the Nonconformists of this country. He considered that a perfectly fair thing to do in the Coronation year. Unless there are to be two standards and two tests set up—one for the party he leads, and one for that to which I belong, why is it perfectly proper for the Tory party in a Coronation year to pass into law an Act which outrages the feelings of the majority of the people, while it is an almost disloyal act if it happens that a Liberal Government in a Coronation year carries into law such a Bill as this which they were returned to pass, and for which they have the mandate of the people. When we speak of the Coronation year, and when this year is referred to, it will be as a Coronation year in more senses than one. It is a year that will witness the Coronation of a King to whom is given, in the fullest measure, the respect and affection of all his people. But it is a year also which will witness the coronation of the people's rights—the rights of free men to make the laws under which they live.
  I do not think that the matter is carried very much further when we are challenged by speaker after speaker with the question, "Why do you not join us in attempting to agree upon a compromise in this matter or upon a scheme which will satisfy both you and us." The answer surely is clear. The wisest men of the Opposition met the wisest men of the Government in a prolonged Conference, and if a settlement had been possible that Conference would have come to one. They admitted, after the matter had been thrashed out through many weary months, that it was impossible to arrive at any scheme which would satisfy both the Tory and the Liberal party. Under these circumstances it is interesting—indeed, it is necessary—to ask what new suggestions since the Conference have been made which are calculated to satisfy the progressive forces in this country. We have not heard a single suggestion. We know what Lord Rosebery's scheme is, and we know what Lord Lansdowne's scheme is; and if the "Morning Post" is to be trusted we know what the scheme of the present Opposition is. I find this passage in the "Morning Post" dealing with a meeting held upstairs the other day, and attended by 200 Members of the party opposite. The Editor of the "Morning Post" takes upon

  633
  himself the responsibility for saying that Sir Arthur Acland - Hood, the Chief Unionist Whip, declared that the heads of the party "will have nothing to do with the idea of a Second Chamber which breaks all continuity with the hereditary element." May I say at once that we on these Benches will have nothing to do with a Second Chamber which does not break that continuity. The two policies are thus clearly, plainly, and explicitly stated. Where is there room for compromise? I think the gulf is too wide for that, but if there is any proposal let it be made to-night before the Second Reading of this Bill. I suspect that what hon. Members opposite want is not reform, but delay, so that for another term of years the House of Lords may remain as at present constituted, with all its powers intact, able to set at defiance the will of the people, and to continue to mutilate and to render barren legislation passed in this House by the Liberal Government.
  It is not from a mere spirit of mischief that these well-considered proposals are now offered to this House. They are not put forward in the spirit of the boy who flung a brick through a plate-glass window in order to see something smash. We want to deal with the Veto because we want to get on with our work. We have great measures of social reform long overdue, which we know the House of Lords, as at present constituted, will never accept. There is one other point I desire to deal with: it is the suggestion that this Bill means Single-Chamber Government. That is as unsound as any criticism of this Bill could possibly be. Let me appeal to moderate men on the Benches opposite, and ask them whether they consider that a Bill does constitute Single-Chamber Government which requires any measure to be passed three times through three Sessions of this House before it becomes law, and before the Second Chamber is compelled to accept it. No one who knows the position in which political parties are placed when they are getting near a General Election and are about to render an account of their stewardship to the electors who sent them to the House of Commons can suppose for a moment that a Bill having been twice passed in this House, after all the discussion in the Press which must ensue, that such a Bill could be passed again a third time unless there was strong popular opinion behind it. If the Government insisted on passing such a measure with the country against it they would know
  634
  full well that in so doing they would be committing political suicide. This verdict ought not to stand; that is the last argument against the Bill, because it has been procured by class passion and because a good deal of angry feeling at the elections was shown against the House of Lords.
  Are hon. Members surprised that there was a good deal of class passion shown at the last election, when this great issue was before the country, when they remember that amongst the millions of people who compose the democracy of these islands there is no class, there is scarcely indeed a single man who has not, in times not very remote, suffered through the intolerable persecution of the House of Lords. The Roman Catholic might well have remembered—it was indeed his duty to remember—that it was the House of Lords that on three occasions threw out Bills which gave him the rights of an English citizen. The Jew might well remember that seven times the House of Lords rejected Bills which were designed to remove the cruel disabilities under which he had for centuries lain. The Nonconformist no doubt remembered that it was the House of Lords that for forty years excluded him from the English universities and forbade his marriage except by a priest of the Anglican Church. The working man did not forget that it was the House of Lords that deprived him for more than three generations of the blessings of elementary education, and which denied him, as long as it dared, every measure of social reform and amelioration. That is why the democracy of England welcomed this contest. That is why they have rejoiced, as they have seldom rejoiced before, in the result of an electoral encounter, and why they regard this measure, as indeed the historian will write of it, as the second great charter of their liberties. I do not know how long it may be my lot and privilege to sit in this assembly, but this I know, that no vote that I shall ever give shall I give with greater satisfaction than the one which I shall record to-night in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. SANDERSON: The hon. Members sitting on this side of the House felt some sense of gratification when the hon. Member who has just sat down seemed to view with some doubt how his constituency will regard the vote which he intends to give to-night, for, from his concluding remarks, he seemed to have some misgiving as to how long he would remain a Member of this House. In regard to the spirit of his

  635
  other remarks one would almost think that he had never found time to read this Bill, because part at all events of his argument was directed towards showing that this Parliament Bill was not intended to set up Single-Chamber Government. I thought that argument had been abandoned on that side of the House a good time ago, because I have heard a good many speeches made from below the Gangway there in favour of this Bill, because it set up Single-Chamber Government. I am really surprised, therefore, at this time of day, to find any hon. Member on that side of the House trying to convince us that this Parliament Bill does not set up Single-Chamber Government. But, however hon. Members on that side of the House may begin their argument, they always end up in the same way. It is always with abuse of the other House. I have listened to many speeches made by hon. Members on that side of the House, especially some that were made last night. We heard of the tyranny of the House of Lords, the audacity of the House of Lords, and we had many instances given. It would be quite impossible for me to follow hon. Members on the other side of the House through all these instances. I just want to take two. I heard an hon. Member last night, who represented a Scottish constituency, and he was pointing out the audacity of the House of Lords in rejecting the Scottish Small Landholders Bill. I do not know whether hon. Members have looked at the provisions of that Bill, and I do not intend to take them all through it, but I think I am justified in saying that it was a measure which was intended to apply the provisions of the Crofters Act to the whole of Scotland—not only to the Highlands, but also to the Lowlands, where there is a highly specialised and extremely successful system of farming going on.
  It was condemned by one very eminent statesman, who pointed out in his forcible manner that it would be just as reasonable to apply Crofterisation to the Lowlands of Scotland as it would be if the Minister for War to come down to the House of Commons and propose to arm the Territorial Force with bows and arrows. It was pointed out that that Bill was condemned by every responsible authority throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, the real fact being that the House of Lords refused to pass an ill-considered and badly drafted Bill which had been forced through the House of Commons, and thus
  636
  save the agricultural industry, and yet, in the House of Commons, hon. Members get up and talk about the tyranny and audacity of the House of Lords. Then the other question which is constantly being referred to is one which cannot be too frequently mentioned on this side of the House. Hon. Members talk of the audacity of the House of Lords in refusing to pass the Budget. But I would ask, is not the House of Lords still a part of our Constitution? Some of us think it will remain a considerable time longer part of our Constitution, although hon. Members opposite do not agree with that view. Will anybody dispute that the House of Lords had a perfect right to throw out a Budget if they thought fit? Nobody can possibly dispute that nowadays, even if it were an ordinary Budget. No constitutional lawyer can dispute that, even if it had been an ordinary Finance Bill they had the right, but such a Budget as we had for 1909–10, which, as it was said by hon. Members opposite over and over again, was the commencement of a social and political revolution, why should not one Chamber, which was still part and parcel of the constitution of our country, exercise its undoubted prerogative if it thought it right to throw it out. Where was its audacity? Let me go me step further, having thrown it out, has it not been shown over and over again that that House more clearly interpreted the wishes of the people of this country than this House did?
  We were told, I think it was by the Prime Minister, that the party on this side of the House persuaded the House of Lords to throw out this Bill, and in so doing committed political suicide. The result of that political suicide was that right hon. Gentlemen opposite lost 120 seats, and can anybody doubt now, if an honest, straightforward vote had been given at the beginning of last year upon the Budget, that there would have been a majority against it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did the Lords pass it?"] I will answer that question in a moment. If the Irish Nationalists had voted in 1910 in the same way as they have voted in 1909, namely, against the Second Beading of the Budget, and it was the same Budget, there would have been a considerable majority against it in this House. But, of course, the position had changed. In 1910 the one matter of absorbing interest with my Friends below the Gangway is Home Rule, and they said "We are not going to vote for the Budget until we get an

  637
  assurance that Home Rule will be brought in, and the one thing we must have before Home Rule is brought in is the abolition of the Veto of the House of Lords." That is the reason why the Budget was passed through the House of Commons in 1910, whereas if a perfectly straight and honest vote had been given about it the Budget would never have passed through the House. Therefore I maintain that not only was the Second Chamber perfectly within its rights, as part of the Constitution of the Realm, to reject it when they thought it right in he interests of the people of the country, but their action was backed by the people of the country. An Hon. Member asked me why the House of Lords passed it. Because it was passed through this House of Commons twice. They cannot take account of the log-rolling that takes place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] It would not be within their province to do so.
  I was saying that, however the arguments of hon. Members opposite may begin, they always end in the same way—in abuse of the House of Lords—and they generally end, when the House of Lords does not agree with a particular Member's view on the matter which is nearest to his heart, by saying it is "audacious, tyrannical, and unconstitutional." Who are the tyrants at present? Hon. Members opposite who want to take away the only safeguard we have against measures which have not really been submitted to the people of the country being passed into law. Hon. Members opposite are the tyrants, if there are any, who are going to vote for the Second Reading of a Bill which, at all events as regards one section of the House, has only one object in view, and that is to pass a Home Rule Bill for Ireland. Was it not Mr. Gladstone who said it would be dangerous for the Liberal party to undertake a measure of Home Rule if they were in a position dependent on the Irish vote? Does anyone dispute that the Radical party are totally dependent on the Irish Nationalist party? If the Nationalists made up their minds to vote against the Government on any question they would be out in a day. The Government are not only proposing to do that which Mr. Gladstone said would be dangerous, and which the Radical party ought not to do, but they are going a step further. In order to carry out their will they are embarking upon an attack upon the Constitution of this country in order to force that Bill through against the wishes of the people. It is said by hon. Members
  638
  opposite that Home Rule has been before the country. I deny that; but supposing it has, how does that help them? You may talk about Home Rule in the abstract. People may have different ideas of what Home Rule means.
  You may get votes in favour of Home Rule as long as you describe it in a sufficiently nebulous way, and so long as you tell them it means a certain amount of local self-government, and impress upon them over and over again that it does not mean separation, especially if you get such an important person as the Prime Minister saying, "whatever our measure of Home Rule may be, on no account shall it mean separation." Under those circumstances you may get people to vote for Home Rule, but when they realise that if you are going in for setting up a separate Parliament for Ireland and giving them an executive solely responsible to that separate Parliament, and that means nothing more or less than separation, you will not get the people in this country to vote for Home Rule, and until the people see what the particular measure of Home Rule really is you cannot say that Home Rule has really-been before the people of the country. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to utter his sonorous platitudes, which may-seem anything or nothing, just as he likes or as his supporters like. It is a very different matter indeed when you get the actual provision setting up a separate Parliament in Ireland with an executive responsible to it. That means nothing more or less than separation. I entirely endorse what was said by an hon. Member last night, that it ought not to be considered a party measure. Unfortunately, as far as I can make out, hon. Members opposite regard it entirely from the party point of view. It is hopeless, in my opinion, to expect anything like a settlement which will be lasting unless you can put forward a scheme which will be adopted by the very large majority of reasonable and moderate men in this country. We are not passing a Local Government Bill. This is not a matter of the parish pump; it is a matter which may affect the fortunes of the country for generations to come. It is idle for hon. Members opposite to try and force through a Bill strongly opposed by a minority, which is very little less in point of numbers than the majority. There are certain essentials of a settlement in this case, and unless they are recognised there is no hope of anything like a lasting or peaceful settlement. The Prime Minister

  639
  has a great opportunity. He has an opportunity of showing that he will put country before party. He has got an opportunity of showing that he is an independent-minded man, and that he is not going to be regarded, and is not going to act, as the slave of his dictators. If he will do that, and if he will even now show that he is inclined to meet the wishes of moderate men throughout the country, his name will go down to history as a man who put his country before party, and endeavoured to make a lasting settlement. But if he does not—if he is determined to force this Bill through in its present form—he will go down to history as a man who did not hesitate to attack the British Constitution, which has lasted for so many years, to dislocate the machinery of Government, to put party interests before the interests of the country, and to receive the condemnation of his successors.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. FRANCE: I do not propose to follow in detail the speech of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Sanderson). I notice with interest that he has repeated the argument which was put with such force by the Leader of the Opposition that the House of Lords have done perfectly right in everything during the last four or five years, and that they have acted in the interest and in accordance with the wishes of the country. That remark leads one naturally to inquire again as to the reasons that actuate the party opposite in asking a reform of the House of Lords. I ask the House where is the position of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division? He has in effect said, "Although the House of Lords have not been unfair or one-sided, although they have acted with strict impartiality in the interests of the nation, interpreting most delicately their most secret desires, yet is it possible to defend the existing disparity of party representation in the House of Lords. If it is said that it is not, what change is required in this respect." I am putting these words in the mouth of the hon. and learned Member, but I think they are a fair paraphrase of what he said. I wonder what made the hon. and learned Member write his letter to the "Times." Was it the effect of that great risk he ran of shipwreck in the summer? Was it the effect of the suden shock which made him think that there really must be something wrong with the House of Lords, or was it that at that moment he believed there was a crisis in the fortunes of his party,
  640
  because at the same time he said that the change which was to take place must not be one which will produce identical results under a less assailable form. I do not intend to refer to the change proposed. I wish to remind the House of the attempt which was made once before to confirm one party in the other Chamber. In 1719 an attempt was made to stamp a Whig majority in that place. It has been spoken of as a mischievous proposal, which was defeated by the sturdy commonsense of Sir Robert Walpole, who, in his career, never perhaps performed a greater service to the country. The prevention of that coming into law prevented the prerogative of the Crown from being interfered with—the prerogative which may be used in the case of a deadlock between the two Houses We on this side of the House resist the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) because the country has chosen this definite Bill instead of the kaleidoscopic programme of the party opposite. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) described what he called the hand stretched across the House. It seems to me that it is stretched across the House to try to pull us into the difficulties which beset hon. Gentlemen opposite—their difficulties in regard to a reconstructed Second Chamber. I think it would indeed be foolish for those on this side of the House to depart from the task entrusted to them in order to take part in the difficulties which at the present time engage the attention of hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs the other day asked whether a Tariff Reformer looked a bigger fool than he was, or something to that effect. I think it would be uncomplimentary to hon. Members on this side of the House to expect them to accept an invitation to mix themselves up with the troubles of hon. Members on the other side in regard to the form of the Second Chamber at the present moment. I wish to say a word as to the possible service which an ideal Second Chamber may render in regard to legislation which is carried through this House. I give as a concrete illustration a case in which revision, discussion, and some reasonable delay would have been of real advantage to the legislation. I refer to the Miners Eight Hours Bill. That Bill, conceived in a humane spirit and having in the main a humane effect, has been proved in practice to have certain defects and disadvantages which, if the

  641
  Bill had been reviewed in an impartial and fair spirit by the Second Chamber, would, I believe, have been foreseen, and some of them would have been removed. Instead of doing that, the Second Chamber tried, as I think they have too often tried, to snatch some advantage for the rights of property without sacrificing the interests of party. They had, if I may say so, one eye on the money-box and the other eye on the ballot-box, and the result is that there has been friction in the working of the measure, which might have been avoided if the House of Lords had made it a more workable measure by removing some of the defects which have rendered it not altogether acceptable even to those in whose interest it was conceived.
  I wish to make another point which, I think, has not been put in this Debate. What are the dangers for which safeguards are required in respect of the legislation which is passed through this House. They do not touch finance, for it is agreed that the power of controlling finance is to be in the hands of this House. Therefore, taxation is in the hands of this House. If hon. Gentlemen fear at some future day that there may be high Income Tax or Death Duties, they will know that these are matters over which this House will have entire control. This House will have entire control over questions of war and peace, over Foreign and Colonial matters, and over the size of armaments, which is a matter affecting the safety of the Empire. What are the dangers we are constantly told would beset this country if the House of Lords, or a Second Chamber of great strength, is not to exercise its powers? It appears to me that the greatest dangers affecting the country do not lie in that direction at all. They lie in lack of education, in clerical control of education, on the lines of intemperance, and economic and social evils, which have as their base the question of the land, and the way in which it is held and withheld from public use.
  What has been the record of the House of Lords on these three matters? Acting as I believe in the interests of property and privilege, and not in the interests of the State, they so tried to amend the Education Bill as to keep still that clerical control which I believe to be a paralysing control throughout the world in matters of education. They threw out the Licensing Bill, so as to protect the interests of property which were specially represented in the other House, and they threw out the Budget, or referred it to the country
  642
  if you like, as we all know principally because of the land clauses in the Budget. There is no secret made about these things. If these are the main questions that have been discussed and decided by the House of Lords in that way, what is the party opposite so much afraid of? Despite all the talk we hear, and despite the eloquent speeches they make in this House about trusting the people, I do not really believe that the party opposite do trust the people. I do not wish to say that in any offensive spirit. When I came into this House I did not expect always to speak conventional phrases, but to speak honestly and from the heart. The party opposite represent certain people in this country. We all know them. The class of the average Conservative who does not really trust the people. We were asked the other day to remember the Gladstonian tradition. The Gladstonian tradition in this matter is "Trust the people," qualified by prudence. Toryism is "Distrust the people," qualified by fear. That is as true to-day as when it was first said.
  I am not exaggerating in the least when I say that the party opposite really do not trust the people because all through one's experience of life, when one hears the average Conservative, one finds that he speaks as if he feared the people, as if there was danger of the people being over-educated, and as if the extension of the franchise had been an evil. That attitude of mind is not consistent with the appeal often made in perorations to trust the people, and the desire expressed to see the people's will obeyed. If you did really trust the people, why this barrier against what you call the possible unreasoning demand of the people for hasty legislation? Those of the party opposite in the country have repeatedly thanked God for the House of Lords because they believe that the House of Lords stands against unreasonable demands on the part of the people. There has been no safeguard in the House of Lords, because they have blindly, sometimes selfishly, put the interests of party and property as against national interest, and the national progress that all democracies are bound to make. A Noble Lord at Chelmsford the other night attempted to defend the action of the House of Lords by taking credit for the fact that they had passed certain measures of the Liberal Government. But if one analyses those measures one sees there is not much credit to be taken even in that regard. The Old Age Pensions Act was passed by them, with some protest, but at

  643
  a time when they were not asked to pay for old age pensions or contribute a share towards them. The test came when they were asked to pay their fair share for old age pensions, and then they threw out the Budget. They passed the Miners Eight Hours Act, it is true, but when it came to the taxation of mining royalties in the Budget they threw out the Budget. They passed the Small Holdings Act, it is true. There was a prospect under that Act of handsome prices being received for land, but when the Budget was introduced, which was to make it possible for the first time for local authorities to obtain land at reasonable prices by making it possible for land to come on the market, they threw out the Budget; so the plea that the House of Lords passed certain measures only proves my contention.
  They passed those measures in the interests of party, and as not affecting much their own interests or property. But when ft came to such measures as attacked the interests of property they tried to hinder them from passing into law. Although I would like to see a Second Chamber with powers of revision for the reasons which I just given it is not because I, speaking for myself, have any fear of the democracy. The democracy, to my mind, are only dangerous in two ways. They may be dangerous when they are crushed by temporary power, by forces united against them to deprive them of their liberty or rights of justice or equality of opportunity. They may, on the other hand, be dangerous if they sink into the quagmire of self-indulgence. The Government realise both these dangers. The Government, I believe, have honestly set their hand to the task of social reform, removing grievances, increasing opportunities, tackling unemployment, tackling the question of overcrowding in houses and overcrowding in towns, and substituting the natural magnetism of the land for the artificial attractions of the town, by passing such measures as make it possible for the natural attraction of the land properly to operate. It is because I believe that they are anxious to extend the principle of self-government, which in the history of the world has always been proved to be the best cure for self-indulgence, and because the Government are doing these things it is right to support them in the measure which makes it possible for them to pass such measures into law and prevent the present House of Lords, or a
  644
  future House, stronger than the present House of Lords, from standing in the way of those much-needed reforms.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I hope that the House will extend to me that general indulgence which, according to immemorial tradition, it always extends to a new Member who ventures to address it for the first time. I hope that on this occasion it will extend to me a more generous and more ready indulgence than usual, because, in common with a number of new Members, I find myself confronted with a most unpleasant dilemma. I have no desire to intervene in this Debate, but I feel that non-intervention might be misinterpreted by those to whom we all owe our places in this Chamber, and might be attributed to a political futility and a political impotence which would be unjust to their traditions and to mine. On the other hand, the subject of this Debate has been the material of an acute political controversy in the constituencies ranging over some months. It has also been the subject of discussion and examination in minute detail in this Chamber on more than one occasion. I do not think that the most seasoned Parliamentarian and the most impenitent of rhetoricians will attempt to adorn the subject under discussion with any new illustration or to inform the Debate with any new argument. I have noticed during the course of debates that hon. Members opposite have relied upon what they have termed the mandate which they have received from the country. We have seen in the past history of this country great constitutional reforms carried, but they have been carried in moments of popular indignation and by statesmen of resolute and determined temper. On the present occasion I look in vain either for the popular indignation or for determination. It strikes me that the revolution which we are passing through at the present moment is a very chilly business. I do not suppose that in the history of this country there has ever been an election which was more languid, more tranquil, more indolent, in fact a more bald election than the one to which the Prime Minister owes the renewal of his majority. I am the last to call in question either the size or the solidarity of that majority, and I am equally the last to question the right of the Prime Minister to use it in any direction he may please. When I am told that the Prime Minister has got at his back the will of the English people, that he has got the moral

  645
  force of the great democracy at his back, the concentrated power and the gathering impetus of the people, determined to abolish the sullen Veto of the tyrannical House of Lords, then I look around in vain for those symptoms of political interest, not to say those manifestations of popular indignation, which have marked the progress of great reforms and advance of great causes in all ages and all countries. I sometimes think that those hon. Members who believe that the English people set any store at all on the mechanism of government are labouring under a profound delusion. These questions of procedure, these subtleties of constitutional reform, this adjustment of electoral machinery, which are of so much interest in this House, leave the man in the street comparatively cold. The country judges by results; they lay more stress upon what Members opposite call remedial legislation than they do on the particular form of machinery by which that legislation is carried into effect.
  The victory on which hon. Members prided themselves last December can hardly be ascribed to any feeling of popular anger on the part of the people of England. It can hardly be ascribed to any very fervent wish on their part to live under a more logical, under a less anomalous, under a more ideal form of Government than they do at present. During the course of a long and an eventful history, the English people have assumed many different roles, and worshipped at many different shrines, but they have never yet shown any peculiar regard for pure theory; still less have they shown any regard for the doctrinaires by which these theories have been advanced. There is probably no people in the world more human or actuated by more human motives than the English people, and I venture to think that at the last election we saw an expression of gratitude, and of a profound gratitude, for the old age pensions which they had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was coupled with the desire for another helping from the same dish. If hon. Members opposite agree to that view of the last general election, they can hardly claim it as a mandate for a great constitutional reform. I will go a step further. If Members opposite are to retain the confidence of the people, surely it behoves them to abandon these barren and sterile discussions and to direct their attention to the solution of those great problems which the hon. Member opposite has grouped under the name of
  646
  Economic and Social Reform, and to direct their attention to the solution of those problems. I have been a Member of this House for more than a year now. I came to this House interested in a particular class of questions; but, during the whole time I have sat here I have never had an opportunity of speaking upon or of discussing anyone of those questions. I am beginning to think that on the part of some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite there has been a great breach of trust. They talk to us in this House about Social Reform.
  There never was a time in English history more opportune or more favourable to the passage of Social Reform than the present. There never was a time in which those who hold extreme views on Social Reforms were in a better position to try the most drastic, I might even say, the most perilous experiments in this direction. What is the situation to-day? We have a Treasury Bench which all parties will admit to be amenable to gentle and continuous pressure. We have a Second Chamber in the House of Lords, which at the present moment would be extremely chary of throwing out any well-considered scheme. Hon. Members may laugh, but they will not deny my proposition. The fact remains that at the present moment we were never in a better position to advance the cause of social reform than we are to-day. What do I see? I see that week after week, and month after month, we have these barren discussions about the machinery of government. I do not think that any hon. Members below the Gangway can contend for a moment that a reform of the Constitution is the most pressing problem demanding our attention. A man would have to be singularly guileless and simple in nature to suppose that questions of Poor Law reform, Insurance Against Invalidity, and all that varied assortment of schemes which are grouped together under the name of social and economic reform, would not, but for the pressure and the tyranny of faction, this very evening be receiving our consideration. Social reform is at a standstill in order that the Prime Minister may keep his majority together. Let me pass for one moment to the case which has been advanced against the House of Lords.
  I was struck, and I feel that many hon Members share my surprise, as to the weakness of the official indictment advanced against the House of Lords. I listened with interest to that full-blooded

  647
  denunciation which was flung down by the Minister of Education last night. For good or for ill, the House of Lords, as a national institution, has existed for centuries. In framing this indictment the Minister for Education has not thought it necessary to travel outside the last two decades. All the actions, whether they were actions for good or ill on the part of the House of Lords, during the centuries which go to make up its history, are wholly ignored. The indictment rests upon the fact that during the last two decades the House of Lords has prevented hon. Members opposite from giving satisfaction to the demands of factions that were mutually irreconcilable. I could not help also being struck by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned no single instance in which a great reform wanted by the people of this country had been permanently obstructed by the House of Lords. It is easy enough to talk about the will of the people, it is easy enough to colour the country with pictorial posters on the subject of the Peers v. The People, but it is quite another matter to prove that the House of Lords has ever once thwarted or obstructed the will of the people when it could be expressed. Another significant feature in last night's Debate was the sedulous care which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite omitted to mention those cases in which the rejection of measures by the House of Lords received subsequent ratification on the part of the country. There is no doubt that the House of Lords has at more or less frequent intervals in its career deferred great reforms, but let me point out that this power of delay and of deferring reforms is one of the precise powers with which you still propose to entrust the House of Lords. I notice that hon. Members opposite profess that this power of delay ensures that steady and continuous march of progress in this country, that it is to this power of delay on the part of the Second Chamber that we owe the fact that in this country our history has been happily free from violent oscillations and those fierce reactions which have characterised the progress of social reform in other countries. Yet because the House of Lords has exercised this function of revision and delay they are to-day arraigned and placed upon their trial.
  I notice that in the second count of the indictment hon. Members dilate upon the anomalies connected with the hereditary
  648
  principle. They complain of the partisan character of the House of Lords, that the present Chamber does not include a sufficient number of Gentlemen in political agreement or in personal friendship with themselves. I sometimes think that that is the sum and substance, the head and front of their offending. What remedy do right hon. Gentlemen opposite propose for this state of affairs? The remedy they propose does not deal either with the anomalies of the hereditary principle or with the partisan character of the House of Lords. It simply deprives this country of those checks and safeguards which every democratic community in the world has considered it desirable to incorporate in its constitution. Let me admit for one moment the existence of those anomalies; let me admit that the partisan character of the existing House of Lords; let me admit the principle counts of the indictment advanced by hon. Members opposite. Does any hon. Member pretend that it would not be possible to devise a solution on the lines of bi-cameral government which would be acceptable to the great mass of the democracy of this country, for, after all, that is the question which we are debating to-night. We on this side do not stand up to defend the House of Lords as it exists to-day. We are fighting the battle of bi-cameral Government as against Single-Chamber Government. If there is one section of this House which is frank, which is candid, which is honest on this question, it is that section of the House which sits below the Gangway on the opposite side, because they at least are frank enough to say that they do not wish this country governed on the bi-cameral system, while they are perfectly sincere advocates of a system of Single-Chamber Government. Let me note that, holding those views, they are fully satisfied and content to accept the proposal of the present Veto Bill.
  There were two paths lay open before the Prime Minister when he addressed himself to the solution of this question. In the first place there was the path which he has chosen, and which one of his colleagues has described in a now hackneyed phrase as leading to "death, disaster, and damnation." The Prime Minister has left it to us, on this side of the House, to prove to the country that it is possible to frame a scheme to devise a Second Chamber which shall not only be armed with ample and effective power, but which shall also enjoy the confidence and the respect of the country at large. I notice

  649
  when they come to discuss this question of the House of Lords hon. Members opposite confine themselves to asking certain questions and to making a good deal of play with the various schemes that are associated with the names of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Curzon. I do not propose to follow them in their criticism of those schemes, but I would point out that neither Lord Lansdowne nor Lord Curzon, nor hon. Members on this side have got any monopoly or exclusive right to put forward schemes for the reform and re-constitution of the House of Lords, and if hon. Members opposite are not satisfied with the schemes suggested by Lord Lansdowne and Lord Curzon it is equally open to them to put forward a scheme of their own by which an effective Second Chamber shall be preserved in the Constitution of this country. I suppose that everyone in this House will agree that any reform of the Second Chamber must in the first place be bold in character, simple and obvious. I think everyone will agree further that it must fulfil two primary considerations. In the first place, it should be constituted on such a basis that it will not only command the confidence and the approval of the generations that inhabit this country at the present moment, but that it may have some reasonable prospect of enjoying the confidence and the support of the generation who come after us. If I may except hon. Members belong the Gangway opposite, I take it that the vast majority in every quarter of the House will agree that it should be armed with powers ample and effective, powers almost as great and as far-ranging as the powers enjoyed by the House I am now addressing. I do not approach this question with any view of saving the flotsam and jetsam of the wreckage of the House of Lords. I am not out on salvage bent. My vision and attention are focussed on the future. I wish to see a House constituted or reconstituted with ample powers, resting secure upon the solid bed-rock of popular representation. The Home Secretary told us the other day that it was one of the principal functions of the Conservative party to promote Conservative legislation. I venture to think that a bold, simple, and obvious solution of this question, such as I have indicated, is a truly Conservative policy for this party to adopt. It is because I have the utmost confidence and belief in the validity of the hereditary principle that I am willing to forego that principle as a qualification for Parliamen-
  650
  tary power. I would ask the House to remember that the hereditary principle rests upon a scientific basis. [Laughter.] I do not know whether hon. Members opposite challenge the proposition that heredity today is one of the great principles on which modern science works. I reiterate my statement that the hereditary principle rests upon a scientific basis: it does not depend upon legislative sanction. I am confident that those men who command the respect and confidence of the country in the House of Lords to-day will continue to command that respect and confidence, and to play a great and prominent part in the legislation and administration of this country under whatever system may be devised by the craft and ingenuity of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In conclusion, I should like to thank the House for the patience and consideration with which they have listened to my inadequate presentation of the case.
  Mr. HAWORTH: I think the whole House will agree that the Noble Lord who has just sat down has no need to claim special indulgence from the House. We on this side, at any rate, have listened with a large measure of agreement to several of the statements he has made. Like some other Members on that side, he has absolutely thrown over the hereditary principle, and he has also made the statement, with which we are in profound agreement, that the House of Lords will be exceedingly cautious to-day before they throw out any real measure of social reform. But I think that possibly the Noble Lord would have fallen under the rebuke of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), who, replying to the Minister for Education last night, complained that he had not said much about the Parliament Bill. The Minister for Education was distinctly replying to a speech of the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Edinburgh, who had spoken of the alternatives proposed by his party; my right hon. Friend examined, and I think pretty well blew to the winds those alternatives as possible alternatives that we might accept. I do not think that hon. Members opposite who have wandered a little from the Parliament Bill are altogether to blame. The right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), in moving the Amendment, dwelt for some time upon what he called the mandate. He referred to the various Amendments in connection with the King's Speech, declaring that His Majesty's Government had not a mandate for one Amendment and

  651
  another Amendment; and I think he said they had not a mandate even for this Parliament Bill. One was tempted to ask if they had not a mandate for any of those special measures, what had they a mandate for? Was it a purely negative mandate? Far be it from me to suggest it, but one was almost encouraged to suggest that the people of this country said, "Let the heavens fall, but save, oh save us, from a Tory Administration!"
  In the course of this Debate two charges have been put forward with regard to the Parliament Bill. One is that we have not any mandate for it. I do not intend to go into that further than to say this: There have been many general expressions of opinion. I must apologise for intruding a personal element, but, after all, an ounce of personal experience is worth a ton of generalities. It so happens that in Manchester, a division of which I have the honour to represent, at the beginning of the election we had a large Free Trade Hall meeting, representative of all the constituencies, at which the Home Secretary was the chief speaker. As we were being specially attacked by Mr. Bonar Law on Free Trade grounds, the right hon. Gentleman of necessity spoke on Free Trade. The only other subject was that of the Parliament Bill. I had the honour to follow the right hon. Gentleman, and I tried to expound exactly what the Parliament Bill was, and what it was not. A day or two afterwards some Members of my own committee came to me and said: "We want you, if you will, to put into pamphlet form, as concisely as you can, your speech on the Parliament Bill." That was done, the pamphlet was circulated broadcast, and I do not think the result in Manchester was altogether unsatisfactory from our point of view. It has been said again and again that what this Bill proposes is Single-Chamber Government. That statement has been reiterated with very little argument—mere assertion. It was a favourite topic on Conservative platforms during the election. How can they say that it means Single-Chamber Government in view of the Preamble of the Bill? They sometimes come down with more or less vehemence upon the honesty of the Government. I do not think it is altogether a convincing argument when the Conservative party have come to rely upon doubting the honour of their opponents for their chief argument against the Bill.
  If the House will pardon me for again being personal, let me say that I had a
  652
  certain small section of my Constituents who were, to use the old phrase, in favour of "ending the House of Lords." I opposed that personally. I am here as a staunch supporter of a Second Chamber. I believe that there is nothing whatever approaching Single-Chamber Government in the Parliament Bill. But I do say that it is absolutely impossible to arrive at the condition when you can construct a Second Chamber which shall be fair in its dealings between the two parties until you have curtailed the absolute Veto of the House of Lords. People used to say: "Who will bell the cat?" If we ask the House of Lords to reform itself it is very much like asking the cat to bell herself—a most costly proceeding, and one not likely to be very faithfully carried out. We must curtail the absolute Veto of the House of Lords before we can hope to set up a Second Chamber—which we want in perfect sincerity, and which shall work with perfect fairness between the two parties. The other charge brought against us at the present time is that, after all, we are only a composite majority. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon: "Surely there is no harm in those co-operating together who from time to time think alike." I seemed to detect a somewhat wistful look on the benches opposite when he made that remark. But if we are a composite majority is not that rather an indication that from various points of view and from various districts in the United Kingdom there is a united demand for this Parliament Bill, even though that demand be not a new demand, but put forward after the accumulation of long years of feeling. I, for one, naturally rejoice that we have from many quarters, and if you like for various reasons, a solid demand by the people of the United Kingdom for this Parliament Bill. Surely hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are inclined to twit us with being a part of a composite majority, if they think and feel what they say, should, after this Bill has been passed, as I believe passed it will be, rejoice more than we that this composite majority will fall to pieces. Even so, we for our part, are quite willing to take the risks. We feel that the one thing we must have, and must have now, is a possibility of fair play for the Liberal measures which we have been interested in for a good many years. When we are now confronted with these numerous efforts at reconciliation, of settlement by consent, of further conference, or agree-

  653
  ment, we feel that though we perhaps do not altogether approve of—what shall I call it?—the ultra-evangelical language of Lord Milner, we did at any rate appreciate the fighting spirit which brought this particular issue into the immediate realm of practical politics. So when Lord Milner urged upon the peers successfully to throw out the Budget and have no fear of the consequences he appealed to a sportsmanlike spirit. They took his advice against better advice, and they displayed a fighting spirit which we appreciate. Now what do we see? Not that fighting spirit, but a cringing spirit of asking for compromise! The Lords staked their all on a certain stake, and, having lost, they are pursuing the unsportsmanlike course of quibbling and disputing about the stakes. We never expected that from any body of Englishmen. I trust that they will recover themselves, and will go back to that sporting spirit. We have here and there had resistance and defiance breathed. Let that spirit be breathed, and we, on behalf of our party, and, we believe, the vast majority of this country, are prepared to meet resistance with resistance.
  Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House began his speech by a very kindly and pleasant reference to the speech of my Noble Friend behind me, the Member for Bath (Lord Alexander Thynne) I would like to associate myself with the expression to which he gave utteranace as to the impression produced on his mind by that speech. My Noble Friend is a fellow-countryman of mine, and I can only say that I hope his speech here to-day is, as I believe it to be, only the commencement of a distinguished career in this House. I regret I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman in the remainder of his remarks. He told us that he was a strong supporter of a Second Chamber; that he is here to give effect to his views by his speech and by his vote. He told us that he had found salvation in the Preamble of the Bill. I congratulate him upon possession of an easy conscience, and also upon the fact that he is evidently able to look forward and hope with greater persistence than it is given most mortals to do. The whole of his assurance for the future is centred in the Preamble. As to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the House of Lords, I do not know whether in the speech which he tells us he made in the country in which be was defending the two-Chamber principle—and in which evidently he was adopting a course which was not familiar
  654
  to his audience—because they asked him to print his speech for circulation—he found it necessary to salt it with something a little more suitable to the views of his constituents; and whether his peroration to-night is not a reproduction of another part of the same speech, or a different speech! At all events, may I respectfully suggest that, as he thought it desirable to have the original speech printed and circulated, he should adopt the same course with regard to the speech he has just made; because I venture to say, whether he ad-dresses Radical audiences or Unionist audiences, he will find throughout the country very little acceptance of his view for the first time propounded, in these Debates, that whatever faults may be attributed to the House of Lords there is included among them want of sportsmanship and straightforward dealing and unwillingness to face their responsibilities. I have been a regular attendant during these Debates, and I have heard most of the speeches, and now that we are approaching the conclusion I ask myself this question—and it applies to the speeches we heard in the Front Bench opposite, as well as to the benches behind it. What on earth would right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have done if it had not been for the speeches and action of the Opposition? It is usual upon occasions of this kind, when the Government propound a great policy, that they should defend their policy and make good their case; and when the Government produces some great measure of legislation it is usual for their supporters to get up and give reasons as to why they support it, and why they believe it is going to effect the purpose which it proposes to effect. Nobody who has listened to this Debate will disagree with me when I say that the great bulk of the speeches opposite have been addressed not to the defence of this measure, or to proving that it is going to do what they want it to do, to facilitate the passage of legislation which they think the country approves, but they have fallen back upon a resource which is not usual. They have attacked the policy of their opponents, and instead of defending their own case, they have turned upon us and said: "Why are you so meagre in the production of your programme? What is your programme? Fill in your details. Why do you produce a programme only upon general lines?"
  I have come to learn for the first time in these Debates that it is the duty of the

  655
  Opposition to produce in detail every part of the policy which, if they were in office, they would be prepared to introduce if they had the responsibility of passing it through Parliament. Every speaker on the other side of the House almost addressed himself to the mandate. I share, as I need hardly say I do, in every other respect, the views expressed by my leader with regard to the mandate. I have never during the many years I have been in this House attached very great importance to what is called the mandate. The learned Attorney - General last night devoted almost the whole of his speech to proving that the Government had a mandate for a particular thing. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said nothing about this Bill; he did not tell us how this Bill was going to do what he wants, mainly to get his legislation passed, but he said he was going to defend it and that he had a mandate to defend it. The most powerful and the most eloquent argument upon this subject came from the learned Attorney-General. He said that during his election he had been most unfairly attacked by the Unionist party and that certain leaflets had been circulated by the Irish Unionist Alliance; and he made a very dignified complaint that they were circulated without any communication with him.
  10.0 P.M.
  I am not responsible for the publication of these leaflets, but I have been in the course of a long Parliamentary career attacked by the other side and by their leaflets, and, curious to relate, I cannot remember a single instance in which my opponents did me the honour to send me a copy beforehand of the leaflets they were about to issue. I am bound to say I should have much less respect for their brain or ingenuity if I thought they were likely to do so. Therefore I was rather puzzled when I heard this indignant complaint by the Attorney-General, because, being a stupid layman, I have necessarily the utmost respect for distinguished members of the legal profession who are supposed to gain their position by the use of their brains. But now as to this indignation of the learned Attorney-General, what do I find was put forward, I daresay also without communication with him, in a paper that supports his views—the "Reading Standard." On 3rd December that paper issued a magnificent bill. Every page of it was filled either by a picture of the Attorney-General or a most wonderful statement of the policy of the party of
  656
  which he is a distinguished member. The House will remember that the Attorney-General's statement last night dealt with the attitude of Gentlemen on the Opposition side as one demanding reform—the maintenance of a Second Chamber and so on was put upon one side—and he indignantly denied that the general attitude taken up had been to descry the House of Lords because of its peculiar constitution. The bill contained this interesting paragraph:—
  "Every Conservative and Unionist candidate supports the Peers against the people. The battle is the battle of the people, the Peers."
  I think it is very hard of hon. Gentlemen opposite to circulate these statements, because they seem entirely to ignore that there are some Peers whom they claim as their colleagues and friends and supporters.
  "The battle is a battle of the people, against privilege, of work against wealth, of the millions of toilers against 600 Peers."
  I suppose the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman are involved in this battle
  "Who claim to rule the people."
  Why? Not because their powers are too great or that their powers are so great that they ought to be curtailed, but because they are
  "The sons of their fathers."
  Gentlemen opposite claim that the fight in the country during the last election was not really based upon the fact that the House of Lords is a hereditary Chamber. That was the foundation of their attack t—that was the grievance which they represented to the people; that was the case which they put from platform after platform in placard after placard, in leaflet after leaflet, and to the removal of that grievance and the redress of that evil they are not moving one inch. The Prime Minister, in the speech he delivered earlier in the evening, was very indignant at the charge that the case for this Bill was unfairly put before the country, and he told us that he and others had made great speeches in the country, in which they put the Parliament Bill before the electors. I am what is called an old Parliamentary hand so far as years go, and I am not going to decry ordinary Parliamentary methods. I have no hesitation, however, in stating that meetings, and the speeches made by the great leaders, are not altogether the methods by which elections are won. Elections are won principally by those who visit the houses and the cottages, and I would like to know if

  657
  there is an hon. Member opposite prepared to say that the canvassers who went into the cottages and the houses talked about the Parliament Bill? Did they take a copy of that Bill with them?
  The hon. Member for South Manchester (Mr. Haworth) apologised to the House for giving his own personal experience. Sometimes we are bound to rely more or less upon our own experience. I suppose during the last election I went to as many different parts of the country as any hon. Member of this House. If it be true that the canvassers for hon. Gentlemen opposite and their workers went from house to house with a copy of this Bill in their hands and explained that it meant a curtailment of the power of the House of Lords, may I ask if at the same time they explained that this Bill means leaving the son of his father sitting in the House of Lords. Did they tell the electors the great central principle of the Bill which is now being put forward. If they did I can only say that my own experience goes to show that they failed to make any impression. Is it not a fact common to all of us that when we go to help a friend in his constituency we are generally told by him or by those who are working for him what is the precise method of attack adopted by the other side which is the most dangerous, and we are asked to meet it. If hon. Gentlemen are right when they say that every canvasser went to every cottage with a copy of this Bill in his pocket—[HON. MEMBERS: "No "]—well at any rate a certain number of them—is it not a very remarkable thing, and I do not think my experience differs from that of any other hon. Member that when we went into those places we were told that it was not the arguments against the peers that was influencing the election, but the argument that "your bread is going to cost you more. "
  The Prime Minister indignantly repudiated the Motion that this Bill was being put before the country for the first time now, and he said it had been before the country for two if not three elections. If that statement is true, what becomes of all the speeches of the learned Lord Advocate upon old age pensions in which he explained in speech after speech that if the Unionist party were returned the money for old age pensions would not be forthcoming. He did not say that the peers would be dealt with or the Parliament Bill passed, or that the power of the people would be made paramount. The hon. Member who has just sat down told
  658
  us that he found comfort and consolation in the Preamble of this Bill. The Prime Minister and others have claimed that their party is a united party with a powerful majority, as solid as that which stood behind the previous Prime Minister. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Haworth) found comfort in the Preamble, but the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) found in the Preamble what I believe the Foreign Secretary described as "Death and damnation." The Preamble spells for the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken comfort and security, whilst to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway it spells precisely the reverse. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I desire to call his attention to the fact that earlier in the Debate this evening the Prime Minister made a very significant statement. He was challenged upon the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill, and he said:—
  "You say we cannot pass both of them. Wait. If" time permits, if this Parliament lasts long enough we shall probably pass both of them."
  That is a very significant announcement. What do we know? We know that the Government have already mortgaged a large portion of its time for the passing of Home Rule. If to that you are going to add a controversial Education Bill—and it certainly will be controversial—and a Licensing Bill, then what becomes of the hon. Gentleman opposite who has so much-confidence in the Preamble. For five-years at least the time of the Government is pledged already, and yet the hon. Member is so wonderfully confident that he is prepared to vote for this Bill because it has a Preamble, and he believes that that Preamble will ultimately be given effect to. In this further remark I am going to make, I mean no disrespect when I say that from my previous experience of this Government, from all that I have learned from carefully watching them in this and' the preceding Parliament, as well as the Parliament before I have no confidence in their promises. The hon. Member may, for aught I know, represent a large body of opinion—I know the strength of the opinion represented by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and it is possible that the hon. Member for South Manchester represents a larger number—but if it comes to a choice between the two I have no doubt on which side the Government will ultimately come down. For my part I do not attach the smallest importance to the Preamble which gives comfort to those who are called Whigs, or to those who say they believe in a Second Chamber. It will

  659
  no doubt endure just long enough to enable them comfortably, with due respect to their consciences, to remain in their places, and in due course when the order comes it will disappear. For my part I firmly believe that this Bill means Single-Chamber Government, and, if I had any doubt about it, my opinion is confirmed by the speech by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me. What did he say. He said:—
  "We have to curtail the powers of the Peers. I believe the right tiling to do is first of all to decide upon the powers and then create the body."
  I am bound to say that those I have heard discuss this question have always said the first thing to do is to constitute your body and then decide what powers to give it. The hon. Member opposite evidently thinks the other way is the best. He and some other hon. Gentlemen, particularly the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, have asked what our views are about the hereditary principle. The Prime Minister has said, of course, with absolute truth, that this question of the reform of the Constitution of the House of Lords is a very difficult and technical one, and one which will take an immense time to deal with in detail. I am bound to say that when the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, speaking with authority as the representative of his party, challenged us as to our views, and rallied us about our differences. I was amazed. He heard the speech of the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Runciman) yesterday, and he heard the speech of the Prime Minister to-day. What had those two right hon. Gentlemen to say upon this very question of the hereditary principle? The President of the Board of Education said distinctly yesterday that the party to which he belonged would resist the abolition of the hereditary principle. Why? Because its abolition would make the second House far too strong in comparison with this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no use for hon. Gentlemen to shake their heads. The speech is perfectly clearly reported, and so far as I know, no suggestion is made that the words were not intended to bear the meaning they evidently do bear, and all those who heard them have a perfectly clear recollection on the subject. Whereas to-day we have had it from the Prime Minister that any Second Chamber must be thoroughly democratic. We have had hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, challenging us as to what our views are upon the hereditary prin-
  660
  ciple. Before the hon. Gentleman challenges us, who are his opponents, and rallies us about our views, the least he can do is to give his aid and counsel to his own colleagues and friends, and ask them to be agreed upon this question.
  The time at our disposal is very limited. I am bound to say that I think the Government have treated us in this respect very much worse than we have ever been treated before. When a previous Liberal Government brought in a Home Rule measure I think we had eight days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twelve."]—twelve days for the Second Reading. We have had four days only for a Debate on what is, after all, the biggest question that can possibly be raised in this House, but I should not dream for one moment of taking advantage of the accident that I happen to be speaking now to drive the Member of the Government who is going to reply into a corner by taking the time at his disposal to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am not going to stop now, I am only saying by way of protest, and I am entitled to make that protest, that it is quite impossible to cover adequately the ground which many Members would like to cover, and I think, having regard to the fact that we have no time in this Session in which we can raise any of those questions which are directly or indirectly affected by this Bill, it is very unfair we have not been given a longer time. The Government and the party opposite set out in this Debate to prove two main propositions—one, that the House of Lords had failed to do its duty to the country, and the other that this Bill would produce a state of things which would remove this grievance. They have failed altogether to prove the first proposition, and they have not tried to prove the second. I have been here for more than thirty years, and they have been very eventful years. When I hear hon. Members deliberately declare that the legislation which this House has passed has been ineffective, and that the House of Lords has obstructed all real reform, and when I remember that during those thirty years the franchise of this country has been radically altered, that the land laws have been amended, and that measures affecting local government and a whole host of other matters, apart from measures affecting Ireland, have been passed, I ask myself what is the meaning of this statement that the House of Lords has been obstructive? The Prime Minister told us to-night that this was not a new case. He told us that from 1906 till 1909 this case

  661
  had been going on. That statement is absolutely true. One of the explanations of some of their failures is that for some reasons of their own they deliberately brought about a conflict with the House of Lords, when they could have, if they liked, secured useful legislation of their own draughtsmanship. But they would not have it. A right hon. Member asks what about the Scottish Landholders' Bill. It is an unfortunate interruption, for I will venture to say there is no Bill which ultimately fell in the House of Lords which so abundantly proves the case I have stated. I am not going to give my own opinion or quote that of my hon. Friends; but I will remind the House that when the fate of that Bill was trembling in the balance several hon. Members challenged the Government about it. The Member for Galloway—
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: There is no Member for Galloway.
  Mr. LONG: I mean the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. In the last Parliament he asked the Secretary for Scotland if the responsiblity for the rejection of this Bill did not rest with the House of Lords. He also asked whether there was not very great distress in the Highlands, and whether the Bill brought in was not one impossible to pass. This Bill did not go to the House of Lords, and on its Third Beading in the Commons the hon. Member for Orkney said he did not want the Bill thrown out, and he certainly trusted that, although the Chamber was not allowed to voice any compromise, wiser counsels would prevail in another place. The matter did not end there. Subsequently a statement was made in the House of Lords by Lord Crewe, on behalf of the Government. In this House the Member for Sutherland had asked who authorised Lord Crewe to state that those entitled to speak for the northern counties concurred in the withdrawal of the Crofters' portion of the Bill, and the Prime Minister replied that although Lord Crewe did not make that statement with any authority from him the statement was quite correct, as he had received assurances from all sides that while the Crofter counties' representatives were anxious to obtain these benefits, they were willing to submit to what was considered the best policy and the best tactics. Then you come here and claim to be acting upon great constitutional principles, and to have the cause of your country at heart, and the Prime Minister waxes very furious
  662
  at the Leader of the Opposition because he makes a statement which gave offence to the Prime Minister and his followers. Are we not entitled to say, to put it mildly, that there is a want of sincerity in your action? You charge the House of Lords with having rejected measure after measure, and yet you know perfectly well that two of them—I am not going to say another word about them—were Bills that you could not pass, even though the Prime Minister said you had an overwhelming majority over all parties. On the strength of that majority you tried to tyranmse over this House and over the country. What happened? You brought in these two measures to which reference has been made—the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill—you made them applicable only to England and Wales, and the first time you gave the people of England and Wales the opportunity they, by a majority, decide against them. I think I have said enough to justify the proposition I started by making. You have not made your case, you cannot make it, you have not sought to prove that this Bill will do what you want, namely, enable well-considered legislation dealing with the country's wants to be passed. Every speech that has been made—no matter from what part of that side of the House—shows that the object which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have in their mind and in their heart has to do with that which their party wants, and not with that which their country wants. The Prime Minister taunted us earlier in the evening by saying, "You will see who wins when we get into the Lobby." We shall see, and I for one am not so foolish as to doubt who will win to-night in this the first great engagement of this great contest, but there are victories which are dearer than defeat, and I venture to say that this Government had an opportunity which has seldom offered itself to any Government, which probably they will never have again, and have chosen deliberately to pass it by. They have preferred to secure what they regard as a triumph for their party to doing that which would have provided a firm and satisfactory settlement of this constitutional question, and which would have conduced to the benefit of their country. They may win, but their victory will be a dear one, and, won as it will have been won, will be short-lived.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): We especially on this side of the House have listened with the

  663
  greatest interest to the forcible speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long), for at last, for the first time in this long Debate, we have listened to a speech from an out-and-out defender of the House of Lords. "Why the Bill?" says the right hon. Gentleman. "The Lords have not obstructed. Where is your grievance? They have passed all good legislation." The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the very Amendment in support of which he was speaking which offers to the House a root and branch reform of the House of Lords itself.
  Mr. LONG: I must protest. If I had had a quarter of an hour longer I intended and desired to put the views that we hold with regard to the general question. Because I shortened my remarks to suit the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman he has no right to challenge me.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I appreciate most deeply the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in being good enough to give me so long a portion of the time of the House, and I should be the last to criticise him for having left out any item in the speech that he intended to address to us, seeing that he did so in order to give me a longer time. But the argument is patent and plain. If there is no grievance against the House of Lords, and that surely was the main burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, why this policy of self-reform? I wish I could give way at this moment to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith), who in incisive language, would very speedily convince the right hon. Gentleman how necessary, and, indeed, essential, it is on broad grounds of policy to remedy the grievance of the Liberal party and to allow us, in his own terms, as good or as bad a chance of passing our Bills through the Second Chamber as the Unionist party now enjoy. I think we on this side have a right to be somewhat sceptical of these schemes for self-reformation when those who themselves are prepared to adopt a scheme of reform declare in the next breath that they have always led a blameless life and that there is no case for reform at all.
  The second point of the right hon. Gentleman was that this Bill was not before the elecorate at the recent General Election. A strange doctrine! Surely by every method of political advocacy this Bill was brought home to every elector. Every speaker from
  664
  the Prime Minister downwards, even to street corner orators, stated it prominently. The very provisions of this Bill were circulated to every house, on millions and millions of leaflets. I do not say it was the only measure discussed at the election, I do not say it was the only important measure discussed at the election; but I say never since 1832 has any Bill been so prominently and conspicuously laid before the electors. What has been the result? The Prime Minister finds himself here supported on this Bill by a majority in the House of Commons greater than any that ever supported the measures of Gladstone or Disraeli, and, with rare exceptions, the greatest majority in the House of Commons in modern times. True, the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) and the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), made a point which seems apparently to appeal to the academic mind, that if we had had proportional representation on the lines and according to the calculations made by the Royal Commission on electoral systems our majority at this moment would not be 124, but in January of last year 54, and now 38. But the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord did not show all the candour that is expected from scientific men. They have neglected to tell us that the same Royal Commission proceeding on the same method of calculation, declared that the majority of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1900 would have been at the exiguous figure of two, and in 1895 would have been of precisely the same magnitude.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: We did not propose to alter the Constitution.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Noble Lord and his friends were not very much disturbed in mind at the discrepancy between their actual and their theoretical majority. The right hon. Gentleman and those who sit by him have laid before the House all through these Debates two propositions. The first proposition is that measures of great constitutional change should not be passed into law unless they are specifically referred to the people and have the assent of the people. The second proposition is that this measure of great constitutional change which has been specifically referred to the people, nevertheless should not pass into law. Well, the lot of progressive legislation is very hard if constitutional reforms which have not the assent of the electorate are not to pass through the House of Lords, and if constitutional reforms which have the assent of

  665
  the electorate are not to pass even through the House of Commons. They go further and say, "You boast of your great majority, but after all it is a composite majority, which has no moral validity." It is said that we are mere playthings in the hands of independent groups, and that, therefore, the Government are compelled by the pressure of exigencies to take the course which we have taken. [Cheers.] I rejoice that I have expressed the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in a manner which is acceptable to them, and yet these are the days in which we are told that Parliament suffers above all things from Cabinet autocracy. We are both playthings and despots. I leave to the House the obvious contradiction. Surely it is an astounding doctrine that if one homogeneous party which is under the control of Government whips were to pass a Bill through the House of Commons, that is legitimate and right, but if three bodies wholly independent of one another freely and voluntarily combine to support a particular measure, then we are told that that is an illegitimate, immoral, unconstitutional, and flagrant violation of Parliamentary usage. There is no period in our Parliamentary history when it has been held that, if independent Members of the House of Commons support Government proposals, those proposals are for that reason less worthy of approval. The Constitution knows nothing of party. There is the King, there is the House of Lords, and there is the House of Commons, and it is among the many new constitutional doctrines which are born in such prolific numbers under the pressure of necessity that the House of Commons must do nothing unless its majority consists wholly of one party subject to that very control which on other occasions is so freely condemned.
  Mark the consequences of this doctrine on the representation of Ireland. It is another instance of the bitter antagonism which so often and so constantly has been shown by the Unionist party to the Irish representatives or to the Nationalist representatives. Eight hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say to the Nationalist representatives, "We rule you out, we will not count your votes in discussions of the Imperial Parliament. You shall not have a Parliament of your own, and we will not count you as Members of ours." This, forsooth, is the doctrine of Unionists for the representatives of Ireland, which is as much an integral part of the United King-
  666
  dom as Devonshire, or Cornwall, or Warwickshire, or Lancashire.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Has anybody used that argument.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Why do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite protest against our passing this Bill through the House of Commons on the ground that it is the work of a coalition majority? I will go further, if I have not fairly interpreted the argument which I am endeavouring to meet. As I understand, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Not merely do you combine with the representatives from Ireland to pass this Bill, but it is an immoral combination in itself, because the hon. and learned Member for Waterford comes forward as a sort of diabolus ex machiva, steps on to the stage to rule events, to try to turn the situation as he desires, and your quarrel with the House of Lords is not the outcome of Liberal policy, but is the result of a servile, humiliating dependence upon the necessity of securing Irish support. Now I have succeeded in interpreting the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that be so what becomes of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition himself, who, on the First Reading of this Bill, says, speaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:—
  "In the first place the party which he now leads and of which he was an important member came into power in 1906 determined to pick a quarrel with the House of Lords. It is a commonplace of history. It will be denied by no one who really throws his memory back to those days."
  In 1906, when, according to this doctrine, we came into power determined to pick this quarrel, there was no dependence upon the Irish vote. The American dollars and the Canadian dollars had never been heard of, and surely the Leader of the Opposition has given an answer to his own party by declaring that this quarrel originated in 1906. We did not come into power in 1906 determined to pick a quarrel with the House of Lords. It is no desire of ours that we should be obliged to spend the time of Parliament in this great constitutional struggle. I believe I know the sentiments that animate my hon. Friends behind me and those around me. Those of us who came into Parliament in 1906 came with an earnest desire to deal not primarily with constitutional, but with social questions, with the land question, the licensing question, the labour question, and with a desire to establish principles of religious equality in our educational

  667
  system. Had we been allowed to proceed with these, with our work, had the House of Lords shown, as they used to do in earlier days, the strength which knows when to yield, this constitutional struggle would never have come upon us. The quarrels that have arisen since then have taught us, by bitter experience, that it is impossible to proceed with the measures that we have primarily at heart unless we deal with this question.
  I come back for a moment to this accusation, that by this measure we make these proposals merely in order to secure our support. Let it be observed that not one of the effective stages in this quarrel between the two Houses has arisen out of an Irish question. When, long ago, the proposals that are the chief provisions of this Bill were made by John Bright, it was not on an Irish question; it followed the rejection by the House of Lords of the Franchise Bill of 1884. When this House passed, in 1907, the Resolutions on which this Bill is founded, these Resolutions followed the rejection by the House of Lords of the Education Bill for England and Wales, the One Man One Vote Bill, which was common to the whole country. When in 1908 my right hon. Friend said that this question must be for the Liberal party the dominating issue, that followed the rejection by the House of Lords of the Licensing Bill. In 1909, when my right hon. Friend declared at the Albert Hall that never again would a Liberal Government be responsible for the administration of the country unless this issue was settled once for all, that followed, not an Irish dispute, but the rejection by the House of Lords of the Budget of 1909. For my part, I am a Home Ruler, and always have been. Every day I live, and watch events in this House and outside the House, the more convinced I am, and I think my hon. Friends share this opinion, of the necessity of securing a national settlement with Ireland. But I do declare, and no one will deny it, that if the Irish question had never existed, if the fields and mountains of Ireland had never risen above the sea, if Parnell, O'Connell, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) had never been here, if Home Rule had not been a living issue, British Liberalism now, for the sake of all that it holds dear, would be compelled at this moment to come to grips with the House of Lords. Why do we produce this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman asked? Let me
  668
  ask, if I respectfully may, hon. Members opposite to put themselves in our place in imagination, and, if they will do so, to assume that we are in earnest, to assume that we really do desire to carry our Education Bill, our Licensing Bill, our Plural Voting Bill, and Scottish Land Bill, our land reform, and all those measures—to assume that we do desire to carry them, believing them to be for the benefit of the nation and useful progress of our people When we see, year after year, these measures thwarted, what would they have us do? I think they rate too low our sincerity, our energy, our courage, if they think we are in need of any pressure from any quarter to deal with this barrier that stands in our way. This argument was advanced against us: If you are not immoral in making your proposals now, in combination with hon. Members from Ireland and the Labour party, your immorality is only postponed by a year. It will display itself within twelve months from now when you lay before this House, after passing the Veto Bill, the proposals for Home Rule. It may be that you are entitled to combine for the purposes of this Bill, but you are not entitled to pass this Bill, and then, without consulting the electors, introduce Home Rule proposals. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, if we do so we shall be committing a fraud on the electors that a helpless nation will suddenly wake up to find, like a bolt from the blue, a Home Rule Bill, which they never anticipated would be passed into law under the provisions of the Veto Measure. Contradiction is given to that by the most specific, distinct, and emphatic speeches made before each of the last two elections by the Prime Minister himself. My own experience, I am sure, is that of all hon. Members on this side. Again and again during my own contest I was questioned whether I was in favour of Home Rule, and I answered I was. Again and again I was asked whether, after the Veto Bill passed into law in this Parliament, the Government intended to introduce a Home Rule Bill and pass it into law under its provisions, and I answered that we did. That was the answer given throughout the country by candidates on our side. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members opposite apparently know our own speeches better than we know them ourselves. Do they know their own speeches and messages? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of

  669
  the Opposition sent messages to support Members of his party throughout the constituencies, mostly, as such messages always do, containing the same sentiment. Here is one sent to the Conservative candidate for the Barnstaple Division:—
  "The avowed intention of the Government is in substance to abolish the Second Chamber, and then without any reference to the electors, to grant a sweeping measure of Home Rule."
  The right hon. Gentleman gives too little credit to the weight of his own words.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: made an observation which was inaudable to the Official Reporter. [Interruption.]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), who gave us an interesting speech yesterday, put the same principle into the crisper form so familiar to us, when he declared, at a meeting in the North of England:—
  "Every vote given in support of the Government at this election is a vote given in support of Home Rule."
  I hold in my hand an interesting document:—
  "Special report adopted by the Ulster Unionist Council at its annual meeting."
  This is the passage to which I wish to draw the attention of the House:—
  "There was a large increase in Unionist majorities in Ulster contests at the election of January, 1910, owing to the impetus imparted to Unionist efforts by Mr. Asquith's Home Rule pledge, given in his famous Albert Hall speech a few weeks before."
  It is somewhat hard that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have won votes on the strength of a declaration should afterwards deny that that declaration was made. Fraud on the electors—fraud on the electors there would be if we were to accept the invitation of hon. Members opposite, and were now to abandon this Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that our attack was on the hereditary principle. Why do we not proceed with our reform now? [OPPOSITION cheers.] I am glad to be so successful again in interpreting the right hon. Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition says that there is common agreement as to the necessity for a reform of the other House. Quite true. But there
  is no common agreement as to the character of that reform. "Reform" is only a word—it may mean much, or it may mean little.
  Earl WINTERTON: What does it mean in your Preamble?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There were put down to the Address by hon. Members opposite, twenty-three Amendments, couched in similar terms, calling upon this House to pass a Bill to make the House of Lords fully representative and popular in character. Not one of the twenty-three Members moved the Amendment. Instead, we have the Amendment, which is now the question before the House, merely asking us to reform the composition of the House of Lords. During the whole of these four days' Debate, although we have had speeches—able speeches, of course—from almost all the Members on the Front Bench opposite, not one word has been spoken by a single one of them to tell us what the character of their reform is to be. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "What is yours?"] Surely it is a strange thing at this time of crisis, after two elections, when the Government of the day places before Parliament its chief measure, and when the Opposition of the day formally moves a reasoned Amendment presenting to the House an alternative, asking the House not to pass this Bill, but to pass another Bill, that we should have not one single syllable of explanation of what their plan is.
  I regret that other points on which I desired to reply to the right hon. Gentleman and others I cannot deal with now. The fact remains that the House of Commons is now called upon to give its assent or its dissent to this Bill. Again and again in recent years hon. Members opposite have appealed for aid to a power across the Lobby. We have appealed to a greater power outside these doors, and we ask the House now to pass this Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 366; Noes, 243.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Addison Dr. C.

  Alden, Percy

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Adamson, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Armitage, R.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Logan, John William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Field, William

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lundon, T.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  France, G. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacGhee, Richard

  Barton, William

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Maclean, Donald

  Beale, W. P.

  Gilhooly, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Gill, A. H.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Ginnell, L.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Kean, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Black, Arthur W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  M' Micking, Major Gilbert

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brace, William

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

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Brady, P. J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Brigg, Sir John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Martin, J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hackett, J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mathias, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, R.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. L.

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

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

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

  Molloy, M.

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harwood, George

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clough, William

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Muldoon, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Healy, Maurice

  Munro, R.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Neilson, Francis

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nugent, Sir Waiter Richard

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O' Doherty, Philip

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O' Donnell, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O' Dowd, John

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

  Johnson, W.

  Ogden, Fred

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O' Grady, James

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Delany, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O' Malley, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jowett, F. W.

  O' Shee, James John

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O' Sullivan, Timothy

  Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

  Keating, M.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Doris, W.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan Mid)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Elverston, H.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lansbury, George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Law, Hugh A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Falconer, J.

  Leach, Charles

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  672

  673

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Scanian, Thomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Waring, Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Sheeny, David

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Webb, H.

  Reddy, M.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Snowden, P.

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Richards, Thomas

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Summers, James Wooley

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Sutton, John E.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Toulmin, George

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Rowlands, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Yoxall, Sir James

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Verney, Sir Harry

  St. Maur, Harold

  Wadsworth, J.

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

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

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  NOES.

  Aitken William Max.

  Cave, George

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chambers, J.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Baird, J. L.

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Compton, Lord A

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Hills, J. W.

  Barnston, H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Croft, H. P.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Horner, A. L.

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Falle, B. G.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Bird, A.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Boyton, James

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Fleming, Valentine

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bull, Sir William James

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Larmor, Sir J

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

  Campion, W. R.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gordon, J.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Cassel, Felix

  Grant, J. A.

  Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Greene, W. R.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Gretton, John

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

  674

  675

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Swift, Rigby

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  M'Mordie, Robert

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Touche, George Alexander

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Walker, Cot. William Hall

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Moore, William

  Rothschild, Lionel D.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Royds, Edmund

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

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

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

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Winterton, Earl

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Nield, Herbert

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

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

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton))

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Lelcs., Melton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Spear, John Ward

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Stanier, Beville

  Younger, George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 365; Noes, 244.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES.

  [11.12 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brady, P. J.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Delany, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Adamson, William

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dillon, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Doris, W.

  Alden, Percy

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Armitage, R.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cawtey, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Elverston, H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Barnes, G. N.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Falconer, J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barton, W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Ferens, T. R.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Field, William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bentham, G. J.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  France, G. A.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Crean, Eugene

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cullinan, J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Boland, John Pius

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Gilhooly, James

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Boyle, D. (Maya, N.)

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Brace, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Kean, John

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M' Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robinson, Sydney

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

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gulland, John William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Martin, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hackett, J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowlands, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Mathias, Richard

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Harmsworth, R. L.

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

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Harvey, T. E (Leeds, W.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scanian, Thomas

  Harwood, George

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sheehy, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hayward, Evan

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs-, Clitheroe)

  Healy, Maurice

  Munro, R.

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Snowden, P.

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Neilson, Francis

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hinds, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O' Brien, Patrick (Kinkenny)

  Sutton, John E.

  Hudson, Walter

  O' Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O' Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O' Doherty, Philip

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O' Donnell, Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O' Dowd, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Johnson, W.

  Ogden, Fred

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O' Grady, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O' Malley, William

  Wadsworth, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

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

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O' Shee, James John

  Walters, John Tudor

  Joyce, Michael

  O' Sullivan, Timothy

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Keating, M.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wardle, George J.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Waring, Walter

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Webb, H.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S Moltor)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Lansbury, George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Ponsonby, Artnur A. W. H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Law, Hugh A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Leach, Charles

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Logan, John William

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lundon, T.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Reddy, M

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rendall, Atheistan

  M'Callum, John M.

  Richards, Thomas

  678

  679

  NOES.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gordon, J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bagot, Lieut. Colonel J.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baird, J. L.

  Grant, J. A.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Greene, W. R.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barlow, Montague (Saltord, South)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, H.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Hills, J. W.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Rothschild, Lionel D.

  Bird, A.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Royds, Edmund

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Boyton, J.

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Horner, A. L.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Spear, John Ward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanier, Beville

  Cassel, Felix

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cocke, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John R.

  Cautley, H. S

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cave, George

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

  Swift, Rigby

  Chambers, J.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Compton, Lord A. (Brentford)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  M' Calmont, Colonel James

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  M' Mordie, Robert James

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Croft, H. P.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dixon, C. H.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Winterton, Earl

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Eyres-Mensell, B. M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Falle, B. G.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fell, Arthur

  Moore, William

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hen. George

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

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

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Fleming, Valentine

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Younger, George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 368; Noes, 243.

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES.

  [11.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Delany, William

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Adamson, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Johnson, W.

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

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Doris, W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Alden, Percy

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

  Armitage, R.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Keating, M.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan Mid)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Elverston, H.

  Kelly, Edward

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barnes, G. N.

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Falconer, J.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barton, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lansbury, George

  Beale, W. P.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Field, William

  Law, Hugh A

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leach, Charles

  Bentham, G. J.

  France, G. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Furness, Stephen

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Logan, John William

  Black, Arthur W.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Boland, John Pius

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gilhooly, James

  Lundon, T.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brace, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Brady, P. J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacGhee, Richard

  Brigg, Sir John

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Maclean, Donald

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  M' Callum, John M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  M' Curdy, C. A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  M' Kean, John

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Mc Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hackett, J.

  M' Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M' Micking. Major Gilbert

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Martin, J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Clough, William

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harwood, George

  Mathias, Richard

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meagher, Michael

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, M.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Healy, Maurice

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cowan, W. H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Crean, Eugene

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cuillnan, J.

  Hinds, John

  Muldoon, John

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Munro, R.

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hudson, Walter

  Neilson, Francis

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Reddy, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Richards, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  O' Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O' Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O' Doherty, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O' Donnell, Thomas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  O' Dowd, John

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Ogden, Fred

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  O' Grady, James

  Robinson, Sydney

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampten)

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  O' Malley, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waring, Walter

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rowlands, James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O' Shee, James John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O' Sullivan, Timothy

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Watt, Henry A.

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Webb, H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Pearson, Wectman H. M.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. S.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Pickersglll, Edward Hare

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pollard, Sir George H

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N. W.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Summers, James Woolley

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sutton, John E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  NOES.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Burn, Col. C. R

  Falle, B. G.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Fell, Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Astor, Waldorf

  Campion, W. R.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Baird, J. L.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Fleming, Valentine

  Balcarres, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cautley, H. S.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Cave, George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Chambers, J.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Barnston, H.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gordon, J.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Grant, J. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Greene, W. R.

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Compton, Lord A.

  Gretton, John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hambre, Angus Valdemar

  Bird, A.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

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

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Croft, H. P.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Boyton, J.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Datziel, D. (Brixton)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Dixon, C. H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hickmann, Col. T. E.

  684

  685

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hills, J. W.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Moore, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanier, Beville

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Horner, A. L.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Starkey, John R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Newman, John R. P.

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Nield, Herbert

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Swift, Rigby

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

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

  Sykes, Alan John

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

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

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownles

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Rolleston, Sir, John

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Royds, Edmund

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  M'Mordie, Robert

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leios., Melton)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Younger, George

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bill read a second time.

  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next."
  Motion agreed to.
  And it being after half-past eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-two minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  Customs Statistical Office.
  Customs Statistical Office.
  Dublin College (Professors).
  Dublin College (Professors).
  Paper Mills (Early Closing, Saturday).
  Paper Mills (Early Closing, Saturday).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Development Fund (Black Country).
  Development Fund (Black Country).
  Mineral Rights Duty.
  Mineral Rights Duty.
  Licence Duties.
  Licence Duties.
  Notices for Assessment (Scotland).
  Notices for Assessment (Scotland).
  Land Valuation Inquiries.
  Land Valuation Inquiries.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Matriculated Students (Ireland).
  Matriculated Students (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenant, Millstreet.
  Evicted Tenant, Millstreet.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Towuland of Ballynonty, Thurles (Memorial).
  Towuland of Ballynonty, Thurles (Memorial).
  Miss Griffith's Estate, Roscrea, County Tipperary.
  Miss Griffith's Estate, Roscrea, County Tipperary.
  Tipperary (No. 2) Rural Council.
  Tipperary (No. 2) Rural Council.
  Castlebar District Lunatic Asylum.
  Castlebar District Lunatic Asylum.
  Labourers' Cottages (Fermoy District).
  Labourers' Cottages (Fermoy District).
  Garnish, Castletown Bere (Fishery Pier).
  Garnish, Castletown Bere (Fishery Pier).
  Lord Mountcashel's Estate, County Tipperary.
  Lord Mountcashel's Estate, County Tipperary.
  Royal Navy (Boy Artificers).
  Royal Navy (Boy Artificers).
  Armoured Ship Programme, 1910–11.
  Armoured Ship Programme, 1910–11.
  Messrs. Krupp's Works.
  Messrs. Krupp's Works.
  Naval Guns (Floating Cranes).
  Naval Guns (Floating Cranes).
  Battleship "Loudon."
  Battleship "Loudon."
  War Office and Admiralty.
  War Office and Admiralty.
  Royal Dockyards (Petitions).
  Royal Dockyards (Petitions).
  China Station.
  China Station.
  Special (Army) Reserve.
  Special (Army) Reserve.
  Barrow Hill Rifle Range, Dudley.
  Barrow Hill Rifle Range, Dudley.
  Territorial Force (Adjutants).
  Territorial Force (Adjutants).
  Horseshoes for Army Service.
  Horseshoes for Army Service.
  Reserve and Territorial Forces.
  Reserve and Territorial Forces.
  Meritorious Service Medal.
  Meritorious Service Medal.
  Indian Cigars and Cigarettes (Excise Duty)
  Indian Cigars and Cigarettes (Excise Duty)
  Returns of Outworkers in Linen Trade.
  Returns of Outworkers in Linen Trade.
  Young Prisoners.
  Young Prisoners.
  Trades Union Ballots.
  Trades Union Ballots.
  Small-pox.
  Small-pox.
  Coronation Expenditure, 1902.
  Coronation Expenditure, 1902.
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
  Adulteration of Food.
  Adulteration of Food.
  Out-Relief.
  Out-Relief.
  Sanitary Conditions in Belfast Trades.
  Sanitary Conditions in Belfast Trades.
  Accident to Cyclist, Lisburn, County Antrim.
  Accident to Cyclist, Lisburn, County Antrim.
  Commercial Salesrooms Telegrams.
  Commercial Salesrooms Telegrams.
  Adulteration of Flour.
  Adulteration of Flour.
  Public Trustee (Scotland).
  Public Trustee (Scotland).
  Public Trustee.
  Public Trustee.
  Scottish School Board Janitors.
  Scottish School Board Janitors.
  Footpath in Barra.
  Footpath in Barra.
  Murder of Mr. M'Garvey at Grozrugi.
  Murder of Mr. M'Garvey at Grozrugi.
  Helouan (Egypt) Development Company.
  Helouan (Egypt) Development Company.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:
Belfast Corporation.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways.
Brighton District Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
SAINT MARY PRESTWICH RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
SAINT MARY RADCLIFFE RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, (according to order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SAINT MARY PRESTWICH RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
  SAINT MARY RADCLIFFE RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a(according to order), and committed.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]

    ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    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.),

    M. Linlithgow,

    V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore)

    (Chairman),

    L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam),

    L. Monk Bretton,

    L. Weardale;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 21 st instant, 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.

LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
OYSTERMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SIDMOUTH GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL[H.L.]
CHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
THORNEY DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
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. Leven and Melville,

E. Hardwicke,

E. Verulam,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (Chairman),

L. Tennyson;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 21 st instant, 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.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903)
  AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Employment of Children Act (1903), and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by the Earl of Shaftesbury; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 15 th instant,. (No. 27.)
PARSONAGES BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read:3a on Monday next.

REFERENCE TO THE PEOPLE BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise, pursuant to notice, to present a Bill to provide for the taking of a poll of the Parliamentary electors of the United Kingdom with respect to certain Bills in Parliament and for other purposes connected therewith. I have given notice that I proposed to introduce this Bill because I thought that the proposals contained in it were of sufficient importance to justify me in explaining them to the House and the reasons which have induced me to present the Bill, and that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that I should do so now rather than wait for the Second Reading. I have every hope that the. Bill itself will be in the hands of members of the House to-morrow morning. I wish to make it perfectly distinct that I, and I alone, am responsible for the contents of this Bill. I hope that it will meet with a certain amount of favour, but think it due to noble Lords who might otherwise be supposed to be responsible for it to say that, whether it be good, bad, or indifferent, whether it receives the favour of your Lordships' House or not, at any rate at this stage I, and I alone, am responsible for the course that I am asking you to take.
This is not a new subject. In one form or another it has been before the country for a considerable number of years, and I am sanguine enough to think that the ideas that underlie it have been gaining in public favour, and that I do not put matters too high when I say that in my belief something on the lines of this proposal will be found to be the best solution of many of the undoubted difficulties in which we find ourselves. To carry a change of this kind, which, after all, is a considerable change, into law may not be
254
altogether an easy matter, but it will solve a great many difficulties, and will, perhaps, create fewer difficulties than any other proposal which has been suggested. With me it is no new matter. As your Lordships know, I put a Notice on the Paper of the House last May winch would have raised in an abstract form a discussion on this subject, but on account of melancholy events with which we are all familiar, it was never convenient to bring that Notice to the test of public discussion. Personally I greatly regret, and I do not think 1 am alone in regretting, that events over which most of us had no control prevented any adequate discussion, not only of this question but of other matters, before the Dissolution of Parliament was announced to your Lordships.
I am one of those who can say with truth that when we were told that a Conference on the Constitutional question was agreed upon we received that announcement with unfeigned rejoicing, and hoped that it would lead to a successful result, and I am perfectly certain that we never realised that two things were going to happen: first, that when that. Conference failed a Dissolution would be sprung upon us without any opportunity for discussion; and, secondly, that we should be kept in absolute ignorance of the points discussed in the Conference. I venture to say that those who claim the title, which I arrogate to myself, of being moderate and reasonable in these matters, have been prejudiced by the fact that we have not been told what were the subjects which finally made agreement insuperable. I do not go further into that at the moment, but I do feel very strongly on that point.
I have thought it important to show in actual form what is meant by the measure hitherto designated by the somewhat barbarous title of the Referendum. I propose to call it reference to the people, and the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a first time to-night will have for its short title "The Reference to the People Act." I want to show how, comparatively speaking, simple and easy the machinery can be made for carrying this measure into effect. I am satisfied that a great deal of the difficulty which is honestly felt in many quarters with regard to it arises from the fact that it is not thoroughly understood how comparatively speaking simple it would be in operation. I was told the other day that a gentleman, who was probably

255
more interested in agriculture than in politics, went to a meeting to hear about the Referendum, under the belief that it was a new kind of turnip that would take the prizes at local shows in the near future. There have been many exaggerated statements made as to the difficulties surrounding this measure—its complexity, the disturbance that would be introduced into public life, and, what is also an important matter, the cost, which has been put in some quarters at a very large figure.
I am quite aware that it is viewed with distrust in opposite quarters and from opposite points of view, and that some think it will be a very violent innovation in our public life, while others oppose it because they seem to fear that it will put obstacles and difficulties in the way of some of their pet schemes of reform. It is not altogether without precedent. This system is in operation in Switzerland and in some of the American States and in some of our Dominions across the sea. I do not press these analogies too far. I am quite aware that there are differences not only in the Constitutional form of the Governments of those countries as compared with our own, but in their customs and circumstances; but I am entitled to make this point, that wherever it has been tried it has been successful and that no one in any country in which it is now part of the Constitution proposes to abandon it. I agree, however, that the real question for us is to see whether it will be good for us and will suit the circumstances as they now exist in this country.
Let me turn aside for a moment to consider what is the theory of the Constitution under which we live. I think I am right in saying that that theory is that the will of the people shall prevail. If all cannot meet and discuss matters of public interest they are to do it through their chosen representatives. Many of your Lordships will remember the passage in Tacitus, who, when describing some of the characteristics of the Teutonic races, said in his short and simple way—
"On smaller things the chief men deliberate; on greater matters all the people."
That contains the very essence of the whole of our Constitutional theory. Our Constitution was never intended to deprive the people as a whole of real power in managing their own affairs, and all through our Constitutional history you find there has been a system of checks and balances
256
solely with the idea of securing that the people shall not be taken by surprise and have the real power taken away from them. We have three elements in our Constitution—the Crown, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons. At varying periods of our Constitution one or other of these has made aggression on the others, but in almost every case you find that two of the three have united together to keep the third in order. I need not elaborate that, because I do not think it is a statement that will be disputed.
The whole value in these days of our representative system is bound up with the fact that it ought to be a real and true reflex of the people whose business it is supposed to transact. I ask the question, Is it at this moment successful; is it improving? My Lords, I venture to say that he will be a bold man who will say that during the last quarter of a century our representative system has been growing in success. I venture to say it has not. Any one who studies the events of the last twenty years will see that from one cause or another the people have been losing power as compared with the Governments of the day and the Party managers who are responsible for choosing candidates for membership of the other House of Parliament. One result of the proposals I am about to explain will be that they would have the effect of restoring the reality of power to the people. In legislation the theory is that those who are elected as representatives are a sort of jury to hear expert discussion and then to decide. They are to be representatives in the true sense of the term and not delegates bound hand and foot to do, or not to do, certain things. Do the circumstances as they now exist correspond in any real degree with that theory?
I have no desire to be thought to be making an attack on the other branch of the Legislature. It was never my good fortune to be even eligible for membership of it. I was in the unfortunate position for seven years after I came of age of not being a member of this House and of not being eligible for the other House of Parliament, and perhaps if I had been I should not have been elected, but I have nothing but real admiration for the other House of Parliament at its best. But the point I want to press is, Does the House of Commons as it is now elected

257
really reflect beyond all doubt and possibility of doubt on all matters the current opinion of the day as it is found amongst the voters? We all give lip service to the doctrine that we want to make the people supreme, that we want to defer to their will. We all agree—this House has never disputed it—that the considered, the real, will of the people in all matters of legislation shall become law; but what is not certain, although sometimes the distinction is not sufficiently, in my opinion, borne in mind, is that what may happen to be the opinion of the majority of the House of Commons is not certain to be the real will of the constituencies.
If there is one doctrine which I dislike more than another it is the doctrine of "the mandate," and in this I know I shall have the support of the noble Viscount opposite, the President of the Council, because I have heard him speak eloquently on the same subject. Every one is apt to interpret the result of a General Election in the way that pleases him best. I am not saying it more of one Party in politics than the other, but we are both apt to think that when the side with which we agree is in a majority there is a mandate given, as it is called, upon practically everything which that Party is going to put before Parliament. In my humble opinion no General Election can be fought in that sense on a single issue. No General Election ever is so fought, and if you cast your mind back on the last three or four that have been held I think you will find that that is so. I will take, for the purpose of illustration, the election held in December of last year. It is part of the case of noble Lords opposite and of those who agree with them that that election was fought on the single issue of the Constitutional question and the Bill which was put before the country by the Government before the election. I am anxious to know how long that theory of the last General Election is going to last. The idea in some quarters is that if the Parliament Bill should become law, the Government, without any further appeal to the country, intends to pass a great variety of measures of very far-reaching consequences. But either the last election was fought on the Parliament Bill as the dominating issue or it was not. If it was it gives no mandate, so to speak, to the Government to pass all these other matters, whether it be Home Rule, Disestablishment, or any of the other things,
258
without a further appeal to the constituencies, whom, we all admit, are our common masters. The Government cannot have it both ways.
Let me put the matter a point further as to the representative character of the other House of Parliament. It is, and has been, elected for the last twenty-five years, speaking roughly, upon a system of single-member constituencies. Most of us recollect the arguments which were used at that time. Some of us, I think, myself included, were very sorry to see the breaking-up of the old historical divisions of the country. We thought, and I venture to say that experience has confirmed us, that a man would feel himself to be a bigger power, that he would have more sense of responsibility, if he were one of five or seven members for a large city or of six or eight members for a county or a division of a county, than if he had only the small and, comparatively speaking, sometimes petty interest of a particular division of a city or of a county to think of. But if I were to pursue that line of argument I should be trespassing in the domain of proportional representation.
It was urged twenty-five years ago as one of the main arguments for single-member constituencies that the inequalities which would appear in some places would be corrected by inequalities in another, and that, upon the whole, a proper representation of the country would be attained. At the best it was only a rough-and-ready method, but I venture to say that experience has falsified those prophecies and that the hopes of a successful result have not been fulfilled. But whether it is owing to single-member constituencies or to other causes, there can be no doubt whatever that, during these twenty-five years, the power of Party organisations has enormously increased. Personally, I think it is largely due to the fact that, in almost every constituency, there is only one member returned and that that member, as a candidate, is chosen by the Party organisations on each side. The Party organisation usually falls into the hands of the more extreme men, so that the result which is put before the great mass of the electors is a choice between a good Party man on each side—a Party man who, so to speak, toes the line to the satisfaction of the organisation; and the moderate, sensible, ordinary citizen is often confronted with what he regards as little else than a choice of evils at the poll because he does not altogether

259
agree with all the opinions of either of those between whom he has to choose.
The defects of our system do not stop even there. Our system has tended to place an altogether exaggerated measure of power in the hands of small minorities. When parties are more or less equally divided in a constituency the compact organisation of 100, 150, or 200 voters is a very important thing to one or other of the candidates. They are enthusiastic people, and they are organised in such a way that they can convey the impression to one side or the other that they and their votes can turn the election, and there is a great temptation in the heat of an election for a candidate to give pledges so as to secure those votes. And when he is returned he is apt, for the sake of pleasing these voters, to advance in some way or other the particular measure in which they are interested. Now if any considerable number of the members of the same Party find themselves in the same position, they band themselves together, and pressure is put by them on the Party Whips to give facilities to this particular item of legislation or even to place it in the Party programme. And when it gets there it becomes almost imposed on the Party as a whole, who do not like to revolt against their Party and feel that they have not an opportunity to give effect to their real opinions. So that it happens that perhaps a minority get a fictitious importance attached to the particular subject in which they are interested, because those who do not agree with it are deprived of the opportunity of opposing it, feeling that if they did so they would be charged with desertion of the Party and disloyalty to those with whom they honourably desire to act. There is also the pressure of the central funds, and the pressure which the organisation can put on an individual member, so to speak, to stand with the Party all along the line.
If I want to put the real argument for the proposal I am making I have to go to the admissions and even the arguments of those who are opposed to it. It is said by those who are anxious for some particular reform that there are many obstacles in their path—that the way of those who want reform is hard. United, they dislike a Second Chamber altogether, because a Second Chamber tends to be Conservative and as such is an obstacle, as they think, an undue obstacle in their path. Too often it becomes obvious that the idea of these
260
reformers is that the country is not so much to get what it likes, but is to take what these reformers think is good for it. There was a picturesque illustration given of this by one of the colleagues of noble Lords opposite—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He drew a picture of a band of gentlemen roped together climbing a mountain side. They were roped together in case they fell over the precipice, the inference being that unless they were roped together they would not reach the top. My contention is that they ought not to reach the top unless there is a majority separately for each one of the things which they are advocating. The point is put with singular candour by a recent writer on the question of this reference to the people. I hold in my hand a small book which is by a Miss Stoddart. The writer is a strong opponent of the proposal which I am suggesting to your Lordships, but the arguments on both sides are put by her with singular fairness. Here is a short sentence [p. 104] which is supposed by the writer to be conclusive against the proposal—
"When the people vote at an election they vote-for a number of reforms, both social and political; the man who cares for one may be quite indifferent to another. The keen educationist may have given no thought to licensing reform; the zealous advocate of old-age pensions may detest Home Rule. The orthodox Liberal is ready, no doubt, at all times to subscribe to the many items of a Newcastle programme, but elections are won by the mass of waverers, who decide on broad general principles for or against a Government, and whose main desire is for efficiency at home and abroad."
That is a large part of my case, that elections are won in this sort of way, and yet they are used for purposes which put separately to the people would not command a majority. That seems to me not an argument against the proposition I make, but an argument almost conclusive in its favour, because it restores to the people the power of voting an expression of opinion on the single issue and making sure that their will will be obeyed.
Then this proposal would separate to some extent the matters of administration and legislation. At present under our system they are bound to be put together. If the House of Commons rejects an important measure proposed by the Government the Government as a rule resigns, and therefore it may be said the House of Commons and the people whom they represent might prefer to accept a measure which they do not like rather than lose

261
a Government which they do like. I know it is said that no Government in this country would survive any one of its important measures being lost by a reference to the people. I do not see myself that it follows. I can easily understand some one, greatly impressed by the administration of the Home Office at the present day, by the sympathy extended to the Dartmoor shepherd, or perhaps the personal gallantry exhibited in the East-end of London, who would wish to keep the Government but do not want all their legislation. Now, this proposal would at any rate afford to the people the opportunity which they ought to have of distinguishing between those two things. At any rate, if fairly put to the country it would stop the sort of thing which Miss Stoddart describes, and which is sometimes described in even more picturesque language as "log-rolling," between the advocates of one reform and another.
It is a point in favour of this proposal that nowhere, wherever it has been adopted, do the people desire to get rid of it. A Swiss writer, M. Curti, says—
"The most absolute peace prevails over the whole country on voting day. The Referendum is therefore a very tranquil instrument for the arrangement of public affairs. A majestic calm is associated with it. … The minority cannot revolt against the decisions thus confirmed, Roma locuta est. The measures accepted by the Referendum, i.e., sanctioned by the majority of the people, have a greater vitality in the people's consciousness than the simple decrees of a representative council. The progress accomplished through the Referendum is an intellectual gain which can never ho withdrawn."
The editor of one of the chief Swiss papers writes—
"From my personal experience I can tell you that nobody in Switzerland would dream of giving up the Referendum. The man insane enough to make the proposal would be stoned. The Referendum is undeniably conservative in its working. It acts as a brake on the legislative machine, and prevents its going too quickly ahead or doing too many things at a time."
And Mr. Hobson, a distinguished member of the Party opposite, says—
"Critics of the Referendum fail to take account of one of the most valuable effects of thatrueasure—its reaction upon the nature of the Bills that are constructed. The temper and discretion of the House of Commons would dispose it to frame measures which the consultative Chamber would accept, and to adopt the amendments of a body that had no power to compel adoption."
And he goes on to point out that it would work in this way, that if there was a re
262
ference to the people in the case of the two Chambers disagreeing it would be important that a Bill should not be framed of such a violent nature as to lead to hostility or to a chance of its rejection at the time of the reference.
I desire before I sit down to explain in a few words the method by which I should like to see this proposal put in force. The Bill proposes that there shall be a reference to the people under two different sets of circumstances, hi the first place, in the case of a difference between the two Houses of Parliament. The words of the clause which deal with that are as follow—
"When any Bill for a public general Act of Parliament (in this Act referred to as a 'rejected Bill') is passed by the House of Commons and is sent up to the House of Lords before the 1st day of July in the Session in which it is so passed, but the House of Lords rejects such Bill or fails to pass such Bill within 40 days after it is so sent up to that House, or passes such Bill with any amendment to which the House of Commons will not, agree, such Bill shall be, on the demand of either House of Parliament, submitted to a poll of the Parliamentary electors of the United Kingdom."
I have thought whether it would be possible to frame a schedule of Bills, either Constitutional or other, which should of necessity in the case of difference of opinion between the two Houses be referred to the people. In some respects such a proposal would have advantages, but it would also have this crowning disadvantage, that it would necessitate the creation of some tribunal to decide whether or not any particular Bill came within the category. In our unwritten Constitution and in the circumstances in which we are placed the formation of such a tribunal will be one, I will not say of insuperable, but of very great difficulty. Clearly we cannot put the duty in the hands of the Government of the day. Equally obviously we cannot refer it to an outside authority of a purely legal nature. That would not be suitable, having regard to the position of Parliament in our Constitution. The suggestion has been made that there should be a certain number—a small number—of members of both Houses of Parliament, with a neutral chairman, appointed at the beginning of each session, and that this tribunal should decide whether or not the reference to the people should take place. But the difficulty of finding an impartial chairman of sufficient position and standing is very great. I do not go further into that matter at this moment.

263
I know it will be objected that this proposal will tend to too many references. But surely the discretion of either one House or another of Parliament may be trusted not to ask for a reference upon all sorts of frivolous and unimportant questions. There would still remain that part of our Constitution which implies the right and duty of conferences between the two Houses. Personally I think it is a great calamity that that has been abandoned so much as it has. I believe that if in the past there had been more of these conferences a good many Bills would have been saved which have been lost.
With regard to the provision allowing a majority of either House to ask for the machinery to be put in motion, obviously that does not afford a means of escape from the difficulties under which we are suffering. Noble Lords opposite, not without some reasonable ground, complain of what is described as the partisan majority of this House, and I frankly admit that if there is only to be a reference to the people when the Houses disagree, they would not have a fair and reasonable chance of getting the reference they might desire when a Conservative Government was in power and had more or less command of the majority in this House. I propose to get out of that difficulty by saying that a certain number of members of the House of Commons—I fix it at 200, but it does not matter to me whether it is 150 or 250—may also demand that the reference to the people may be put in motion. The essential point is that there ought to be a provision made to make sure that a Party minority of the House of Commons should have equal power to have a reference to the people should they see fit so to desire.
Again, the criticism may be made that the Liberal Party might be wanting to have a great many references when the Conservative Party was in power. I believe that difficulty would be best solved as we go along. The people of this country are not so foolish as not to see who is making a factious difficulty in working a matter of this kind. And even if there were at first one or two more references than were necessary, I believe it would be a valuable experience, and a great education, and I do not think it would tell badly on the working of our institutions as a whole. I have not com
264
mitted myself in any way in regard to the thorny question of a Reference in relation to fiscal matters. If there were to be a great reversal of the fiscal policy of this country, I should say myself it would be fair that the people should have an opportunity of pronouncing upon it on its merits. I see very great difficulty in the point made by noble Lords opposite that the finance of the year cannot be made the subject of such a reference with all its attendant delays. I think that the power of 200 members of the other House of Parliament, the House which is mainly concerned with finance, will be a sufficient guarantee that nothing arbitrary will be done behind the backs of the people.
So far as the machinery of the Bill goes I propose to apply all the provisions as to Parliamentary elections, such as writs notices, corrupt practices, and other subjects. One point, however, needs to he mentioned. I propose to say that the votes on the affirmative side shall be 2 per cent. more than on the negative—in other words, I do not propose that if you have millions of electors voting, that the odd man, so to speak, should carry the day. But 2 per cent. is an arbitrary figure, and it is not worth discussing at the moment whether the figure should be 1, 3, or 5 per cent. There are seven millions of voters on the roll at the present time. Five millions voted at each of the elections of last year; a great deal of the balance is made up by the fact that there were a great many uncontested seats whose voters would not be counted; but supposing that four millions were to vote under the reference in this Bill, a 2 per cent. majority would mean that there would be a majority of 40,000 in favour of the proposed measure. That does not seem to me to be an extravagant proposition. I suggest also that all the pollings should take place on one day. Other clauses provide for the abolition of what is known as plural voting in the poll of Parliamentary electors. In other words, no person shall vote in more than one constituency at one and the same poll. This provides not only for one man one vote, but also for what is known as one vote, one value. The poll of University electors shall also take place on one day. There would be none of those anomalies of a very large constituency returning a member whose voice and vote in the other House are overbalanced by three or four very small constituencies.

265
I will now glance at some of the objections winch have been taken to the proposal. It is said to be an appeal from knowledge to ignorance. I do not think we have any occasion to be too proud of whether or not our appeals at a General Election are or are not from knowledge to ignorance. I dare say that both Parties are guilty, but those among the colleagues of the speaker at Limehouse can hardly say that the appeal under this proposal would be more of an appeal from knowledge to ignorance than it is under the existing system. I am told also that the cost will be extravagant. According to the best information I can get the cost in Switzerland ranges from a Id. to 2.½d. a vote, while the average cost for the reference in Switzerland where there are 600,000 electors is about£10,000. But if the cost were 2d. a vote it would be only something like£40,000 or£50,000 for each reference. The advantages which could be gained from the proposal would be, in my opinion, cheaply bought at such an expenditure.
Another objection urged against this proposal is one which, if I thought it were true, would lead me to abandon it and say no more about it. It is alleged that this proposal would tend to destroy the House of Commons and its sense of responsibility, that it would even impinge on the majesty of Parliament and reduce both Houses of Parliament to the status of mere debating societies. If the House of Commons is now a debating society it is very often not allowed to debate. I believe that this proposal would have precisely the opposite effect. I believe that, so far from preventing, it would put a premium on much fuller discussion in both Houses of Parliament on important matters than you have now. I believe that it would operate against the closure and the guillotine, because I think it would lead to the efforts of those who sincerely believe in any of their proposals to convince instead of to coerce their opponents. So far from destroying our institutions, the proposal would tend to restore fidelity to our discussions and to Parliament. I believe also that it would increase the powers of the ordinary citizen and the amount of interest he will take in public affairs; and beyond all question it would give him a control over his own and his country's destiny which at the moment he does not possess. It would clear the way for wise and moderate Constitutional reform, because the changes that would be
266
made would have to rest on the solid foundation of the people's will, and only those changes would be made which would command the general sense of the nation as a whole. I beg to present the Bill and to ask that it should be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, in the first place. I have to thank my noble friend for his kindness in informing me beforehand of the contents of the Bill which he has presented to-day. In ordinary circumstances 1 should have merely said the fewest possible words on this occasion. but the circumstances are somewhat peculiar. My noble friend has told us that he has brought this Bill forward entirely on his own responsibility, and he has taken a course which is not very usual in this House—though I need not say that I take no exception to it—of discussing, not merely the Bill, but the whole subject at length on the First Reading. My noble friend said nothing about the Second Reading of his Bill, and I am inclined to suppose that he would regard it as being something of a. matter for the House as a whole to decide if and when the Bill should proceed to its further stages. In view of that uncertainty and in these circumstances I think it right, the subject being so important, to trouble your Lordships at greater length than I should in the ordinary circumstances of a First Reading, and I can only promise that if the Bill goes on to its later stages I will not trouble your Lordships by repeating anything that I may say to-day.
My noble friend said that this was an important measure. It is, indeed, in my opinion a measure of the very greatest and most far-reaching importance. It seems to me and I think to a number of other people that it involves a more abrupt departure, a wider deflection, from the Constitutional path on which we have marched in this country for the last 600 years, than almost any other measure which could be proposed. It is a far wider departure from the established practice of this country than is the Parliament Bill—I almost apologise for making that comparison. I say far more than that. I say it is a far more abrupt departure from the Constitutional practice

267
of this country than would he a Bill, which no one proposes, for the establishment of a Single Chamber. How can I support what noble Lords opposite consider that rather bold statement? All through, this measure is an attack upon the representative system under which we have lived so long, and, indeed, the noble Lord devoted a considerable part of his speech—the whole of the earlier part—to a long, searching, and acute analysis of the defects of our representative system. I am far from saying that the results of that system are or ever have been absolutely perfect, but it is not sufficient to show that the present system is not a perfect one in order to induce either House of Parliament, or the country, to accept this tremendous change. There is nobody in this House whom I conceive to be more different both in character and opinions from Jean Jacques Rousseau than is my noble friend Lord Balfour; and I certainly never supposed the day would come when I should see him standing at the Table eloquently addressing to your Lordships the views enunciated in the Control Social.
The noble Lord has said that he does not wish to press too strongly precedent. But at the same time he has used precedent to support his arguments to no little extent. He naturally devoted some attention to the most marked and familiar precedent of Switzerland. I have no doubt that in the main the system suits Switzerland, but I think my noble friend was beyond the mark when he said the Referendum had no opponents there. I have information showing that there are many critics in Switzerland who object to it for some of the reasons which the noble Lord enumerated and which are familiar to your Lordships. I may remind the House that when the Referendum in Switzerland first began to be applied to national affairs it was strongly opposed by many Swiss Statesmen on the ground that the representative system might be and was equally democratic and not open to the disadvantage of the popular poll. But can we draw any useful analogy from Switzerland so far as this country is concerned? The noble Lord went back to the description by the Roman historian of the habits of the early Germans, and it is quite true that from that day to this all down the centuries the habit of government of the descendants of those Germans
268
of whom Tacitus wrote has been in effect government by show of hands. In every village community it has been the custom in Switzerland, and the custom still survives in some cantons, in small places in those cantons, of direct government by public meeting and by show of hands.
From the Fifteenth Century onwards the larger districts have been subject to these polls, and, as I have said, in the last century after years of gradual formation of the Swiss Confederation the principle was finally applied to national affairs. Even now polls are held in Switzerland in the smaller areas of government. In Berne between the years 1897 and 1903 thirty of these polls were taken on matters of varying importance, and the effect both on municipal and Parliamentary life in Switzerland has been what you would expect—that you have a form undoubtedly of popular government, democratic government in which those men who are here expected to exercise, whether on a small or a large scale, whether in parish council, county council, or in Parliament, the varying virtues of statesmanship, are there far more analogous to our Civil servants and our permanent officials who act in the different areas of our municipal life. Here everything is different. Here we have gone on from time to time giving more self-government to localities, county councils, parish councils, and so on, and even in quite recent years we have adhered to the representative system because that is the system which has become ingrained in our public life. We have been proud of the progress of Parliament to greater liberty during the 600 years of the formal existence of the House of Commons. I repeat that we work on entirely different lines, and to attempt now to step on to the path which a country like Switzerland has followed for as many years is as immense a Constitutional change as your Lordships could possibly be asked to accept.
The noble Lord has said that there are other instances of a poll of the electors in Australia. It is true that in Australia, where there is a written Constitution, arrangements are made by which amendments of the Constitution have in certain circumstances been subjected to a popular poll. That may or may not be the necessary concomitant of a written Constitution, but it is not in itself an argument for the

269
general application of the Referendum as proposed in this Bill. Australia, however, offers one instance—the only instance in the world of the possible application of the Referendum to a deadlock between the two Houses—and that is in Queensland, where an Act was passed in 1907 authorising a referendum in certain circumstances in the case of a deadlock between the two Houses, but it has never yet so far been applied, and therefore the noble Lord cannot get much comfort from that with regard to the practical effect of the system in dealing with a deadlock between the two Houses. Other polls have been taken in Australia. Two were taken in different States on the subject of religious instruction in schools. The issue was presented in a very simple form, and I quite admit—and I make a present of the fact to the noble Lord—that, although the results in the two States were different, the operation of the Referendum in those instances was not unsatisfactory.
Then you come to the United States. The Government of the United States itself knows nothing of the Referendum, but in many of the States, for the purpose of altering the State Constitution, the. Referendum is used. But there is a curious fact attaching to its use. When it is used for the purpose of Constitutional amendment it is used at the same time for the election of a Governor and the other State officials, and the curious result follows that comparatively so little interest is often taken in the amendment of the Constitution that although the voting takes place at the same time as the election of Governor, the poll on the Constitutional question is often remarkably smaller than that in the election of the State officials. That, I think, is not very encouraging to those who suppose that it will be possible to bring people to the poll with all the ceremony of a General Election for the purpose of the Referendum.
But there are other instances in the United States. The State of Oregon is now governed almost entirely by the Referendum and by its sequel—it is, perhaps, the inevitable sequel in the long run—what is known as the Initiative. In Oregon 80 per cent. of the voters can introduce and pass legislation on any subject, or an amendment of the Constitution, over the heads of their Legislature. When a Referendum is taken in Oregon on a Bill a copy of the Bill is deirculate to every elector, and attached
270
to the Bill are the rival arguments of the two parties for and against the measure, these, however, being supplied at the expense—the expense of the printing and paper—by the members of the respective parties. Is any analogy to be drawn for this country from the proceedings of the State of Oregon? It cannot be disputed that the institution of such a system can only be based on a profound distrust of the Legislature by the community in which it exists, and although the noble Lord in moderate terms criticised the composition, constitution, and actions of the other House, he certainly would not, I am sure, use such a phrase as profound distrust of the Legislature in speaking of the House of. Commons.
I said just now that the Initiative was likely to be, the inevitable sequel of the establishment of the Referendum. In Switzerland the Initiative—that is to say the demand for the introduction of a particular measure, with, of course, the possibility of passing it after it has been discussed by the popular vote—is applicable, I think, only to alterations in the Constitution; but there is a strong body of opinion in Switzerland, increasing, I am told, which is anxious to apply this principle of the Initiative to legislation of all kinds. And when you come to think of it it is not unnatural. My noble friend provides for two cases. He provides for the case when one House wants something done and the other does not want it done. The people may want it done, and he asks the people to decide. The other case is where both Houses want something done and the people may not want it, and he again asks the country to decide. But there is another case, for which he does not provide but for which in the long run if he starts on this course he will he asked to provide, in which neither House wants a thing done but the people may want it done, or a considerable number of electors think they do, and they are determined that Parliament shall undertake the consideration of it; and when you have reached that point you start on a downward career, and your representative system will have gone by the board altogether.
Speaking still on the conditions of the Referendum, I think it can hardly be disputed that there are two conditions which, if it is to be exercised at all, must

271
be fulfilled. One is that the issue should be a simple and direct one, so far as a political issue can be simple and direct, and the other, to which I would call the noble Lord's particular attention because he did not touch on this difficulty, is that the subject to be voted on should be one which in some considerable degree affects those who vote upon it. How many measures are there of the ordinary kind which come before Parliament which could be submitted to the country in the form of a simple issue? Take for example our Bills of 1906—the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill; in what form does the noble Lord think that those Bills would have been presented to the country? His Bill, I understand, provides that they would have been presented in the form in which they came up from the House of Commons. Your Lordships remember the Education Bill of 1906, and some of you may remember generally the form in which it came from the other House. Here we were prepared to accept a considerable number of Amendments, and after we had made concessions the form in which you would have supposed the matter would have been submitted to the country would be the remaining points of difference, but those remaining points of difference, as your Lordships will remember, were of an exceedingly complicated kind turning apparently on matters of small detail. But if the Bill were presented to the country in the form in which it came up from the House of Commons, your Lordships would have lost all the benefit of the concessions which we were prepared to make, and in the circumstances it is not quite clear to me why we should have offered to make those concessions. The Bill presumably would either have been thrown out or would have been amended by your Lordships, and then it would have gone to the country in the form in which it left the House of Commons. That does not seem to me from the point of noble Lords opposite an instance in which your wishes would have been carried out by the Referendum.
Then I come to the second difficulty, which to my mind in some respects goes deeper in a country like this. What would be the effect of submitting to the electors of the whole of the United Kingdom such a measure, for instance, as the Scottish Land Bill? When a measure of that kind is discussed in the other House the Members who sit for Scottish constituencies
272
and when it is discussed in this House noble Lords who come from Scotland give opinions which are listened to with respect and which in the one House or the other according to its complexion influence the decision that is arrived at. But take such a Bill as that—a Bill which your Lordships thought changed in a disastrous manner-the land system of one part of the United Kingdom. How are you going to interest the individual voter in Connemara or-Cornwall or the East-End of London on the details of a Scottish Land Bill? I will take another instance. Suppose a Bill were brought in—an unfair Bill l should call it—and passed through the House of Commons to divide up demesne land and untenanted land of noble Lords and of landlords generally among tenant-purchasers. I am bound to say I do not think that if a Bill of that kind were sent to the Referendum the interests of those who own land would get fair play.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In a case of that kind under the Parliament Bill a measure passed by the House of Commons would become law over the heads of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF CREWE: What the noble Lord says is perfectly true; but we are not discussing the Parliament Bill at the present moment. I am trying to show that the hopes which the noble Lord himself as a moderate man holds and the hopes which he desires your Lordships to entertain of the effect of the Referendum being always moderating in character are unfounded. I think there are certain questions, in a complex society like ours containing so many different classes and with such abrupt distinctions of rich and poor, on which the interests of owners of property and others would stand an infinitely worse chance of being fairly weighed than they would be by a deliberative Assembly—even by the House of Commons without a Second Chamber.
That brings me to two remarkable deductions from the Bill of the noble Lord. If all I have stated is well-founded, if it is impossible to take a popular poll all over the United Kingdom fairly on matters affecting only one part of the United Kingdom, it really looks as if the noble Lord were in disguise an apostle of the system of Home Rule all round. I do not think there is anything which brings home to thoughtful people the meaning of and the reason for what is

273
known as Home Rule all round than this proposition of applying the popular vote. The second deduction is the remarkable fact that the noble Lord abandons the system of plural voting. I do not know precisely why, and I am not sure that all the members of the Party opposite will thank him or the leaders of the Conservative Party for having so lightly thrown away the principle of plural voting in order to introduce this system of the Referendum.
There are two other points to which I should like to allude. One is the question of finance, over which the noble Lord skated rather lightly. As I understand, he treats all finance, even the Finance Bill of the year, as an ordinary Bill, and any financial measure or the financial clauses of any measure will be liable at the desire of your Lordships to be subjected to the Referendum. That seems to me an advance, in the way of encroachment, upon anything which your Lordships have so far suggested. It is true that your Lordships threw out the Budget on one occasion, but you implied that you did not wish that practice to become a habit. But if every financial measure is liable to he subjected to this popular vote, it seems to me a very short step, indeed scarcely a step at all, for your Lordships to claim the power of amending the Finance Bill or the financial clauses of any Bill; for surely the greater ought to include the less, and if your Lordships are to drive a measure to the country it seems to me logical that you should have the power to amend the Bill so as to express the form in which you wish it ultimately to become law.
Then there is the question of the 2 per cent. majority. Under the Bill the majority must be 2 per cent. greater than the minority, or the measure to which the Referendum is applied will not become law. Is the noble Lord prepared that a Bill of very far-reaching importance should become law by the popular vote of a very small proportion of the electors? That might easily happen. Take a case of this kind. Say that out of every million voters 200,000 voted against a Bill and 205,000 for. That would be a vote of 40½per cent., which is quite as much as you are likely to get in a great many cases. That would mean that a measure would be carried by the active support of only 20½per cent. of the electors. I should have thought that
274
noble Lords would have hesitated somewhat to have put important measures to that sort of hazard. because it is generally agreed that in taking the Referendum you act on the principle that you must be content with the votes of those who are willing to go to the poll, and that those who stay away must be taken as assenting to whatever decision is arrived at.
I ask another question. Why is it that a rejected Bill should be sent to the country at the instance of the rejecting House? When I saw that provision in the Bill I assumed that it could be only for the purpose of "rubbing in," so to speak. the unpopularity of the Government, and of giving, them a blow. Now the noble Lord says he sees no reason why the rejection of a Bill after a Referendum should damage the Government or be treated in any case as a reason for the resignation of the Government. If that be so, I confess I do not understand what the object can be of the provision which allows the rejecting House, after a Bill is lost, to demand a poll of the electorate concerning it.
Then, on the question of cost, the noble Lord has cited the Swiss figures, but if you are going to have an election on English lines—and the noble Lord has very wisely found it necessary to adopt all the surrounding proceedings of the Corrupt Practices Act—you will have to pay for it in English figures; and I think you will find that, quite apart from the official expenses, a Referendum on a subject of any importance must involve a great deal of the personal and private expense which is involved in a General Election. Noble Lords opposite have always asked that Home Rule should go to the Referendum. Is Home Rule going to the Referendum in the pastoral silence which the noble Lord tells us reigns all over Switzerland when a Referendum is taken? Are you going to take a Referendum in a spirit of complete silence on Home Rule in Belfast or Portadown? If the measure is at all a large one you will have to go through the greater part of the paraphernalia and the expense of a General Election; if it is of so little importance that you do not think it worth while to go to that trouble and expense then nobody will come to vote.
Where you have a written Constitution such as the Constitutions that some of our self-governing Dominions possess, I can conceive that the Referendum may not uselessly be included in it, and that it

275
should be applied to Constitutional change and amendment. The noble Lord, with great fairness and power, pointed out the extreme difficulty of limiting the Referendum in this country to Constitutional changes. He showed that it would be absurd to leave the initiative to the Government of the day and equally objectionable to place it in the hands of an outside tribunal. He has therefore abandoned the attempt at definition, and in doing so has, I fear, fallen over the precipice by including all subjects of every kind, financial as well as others.
My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the introduction of this Referendum plan must be regarded rather as an expedient, as a counter-stroke to the policy of the Government, than as a settled act of policy of the Party opposite. There were two remarkable letters by a great Constitutional authority, Sir William Anson, in The Times in the month of January. In the first of them Sir William Anson seemed to me to state that he had been driven into acceptance of this Referendum plan by the action of His Majesty's Government. In the second he dealt with the objections to the Referendum, and it is difficult to read that letter without seeing that those objections weighed very heavily in his mind.
The plan has been accepted, as I believe, without much examination by noble Lords opposite and their friends in an easy, lighthearted belief that the action of the Referendum in this country, if adopted, would be of a purely conservative kind. As to that nobody can say. I have attempted to give reasons why in my judgment and in some cases, such as where taxation is concerned, its operation might be of a kind most unpalatable, not merely to noble Lords opposite, but to all persons who entertain at all moderate views. I confess that it is an astonishing thing to me that noble Lords opposite and their friends should have thus, without consideration, engaged in a game in which so much is put to hazard, and should thus have struck at the very roots of our Constitutional life.
LORD TENNYSON: My Lords, let me say that in Australia the Referendum has proved on the whole a success. In the Convention called together to frame the Constitution in 1890 the Referendum was first mooted and then rejected. Seven years later, after a trial of the Referendum in South Australia, it was adopted unanimously. Under the Referendum the
276
Commonwealth Constitution was voted on by the people of Australia and adopted. The franchise for the Senate was put to the Referendum in 1906; and last year, on April 13, Referenda were held on the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States, and on the transfer of the State debts to the Commonwealth. Thus in ten years we have had three Commonwealth Referenda. There have also been States Referenda. There was one in New South Wales in 1903 on the reduction of the members of the House of Assembly. There have been Referenda, too, as to whether there should be religious instruction in schools, and perhaps your Lordships would wish that I should give you a. sample of the ballot paper. I hold a copy of one in my hand from Queensland on this subject. The question submitted was—
"Are you in favour of introducing the following system into State schools—namely:—
''The State schoolmaster, in school hours, teaches selected Bible lessons from a reading book provided for the purpose, but is not allowed to give sectarian teaching.
"Any minister of religion is entitled, in school hours, to give the children of his own denomination an hour's religious instruction on such day or days as the school committee can arrange for.
"Any parent is entitled to withdraw his child from all religious teaching if he chooses to do so."
This Bill was carried by a large majority, about 50 per cent. of the electorate voting.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Was that in Queensland?
LORD TENNYSON: Yes. I know that some of your Lordships think that the Referendum would diminish the authority of the representatives of the people. That is not the case. It enlarges their responsibility. It makes them responsible, not merely to the Party caucus, as they are in this country, but to the people at large. It also has another good result. It renders Ministers more open to reason, and more open to compromise. This is partly owing to the uncertainty of the Referendum, and partly owing to the fear of the cost, though the cost in Australia does not seem to be excessive. The cost of a Referendum, in that huge Continent of large distances, difficult communication, and high salaries, taken together with a General Election, is£6,500, and taken apart front a General Election the cost is computed to be£40,000. I earnestly desire, more especially if the Lords' Veto is abolished, that some sort of Referendum should be tried here, for

277
it isolates any subject on which the decision of the people is desired, and prevents friction and bars violent Constitutional change. Therefore, my Lords, I am certainly in favour of my noble friend's Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I desire to say a few words on behalf of the Front Opposition Bench in the, absence of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is unfortunately confined to his house by a slight cold. The noble Lord whose Bill we are asked to read a first time to-day has explained to your Lordships that he alone is responsible for its details. That is so. I myself have not even had the advantage which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has had of seeing the Bill. Nevertheless I thank my noble friend, on behalf of my side of the House, for having brought the subject forward; for, whether we can agree to all the details of the Bill or not, it, is greatly to the public good that this question should now be launched on the threshold of Parliamentary discussion, and that for the first time in the history of the British Parliament we should discuss the application to our Constitution of an instrument which I thoroughly believe is destined to have a permanent place in it. I can, of course, express no opinion on the details of the measure, but I do most cordially agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that every one of the details can be adjusted. They should be, and will be, discussed, not only in the Houses of Parliament, but on the platform and in the Press; but on the threshold of our discussion. I register my complete agreement with my noble friend that there is nothing here that cannot be adjusted in detail.
I do not propose to copy the noble Earl the Leader of the House in that close examination which he has given to the Bill, but 1 desire to examine some of his observations. Unless I misunderstood him, the noble Earl seemed to regard this proposal for the application of the Referendum to our Constitutional difficulties as a, much more revolutionary proposal than any contained in the Parliament Bill, and, with the perfect gravity which so adorns him, he added that it would be far more revolutionary than any proposal for the establishment of single-Chamber government if anybody were ever to make such a proposal. Let us examine that. It is, in his view, a comparatively moderate
278
proposal to abolish altogether the effective influence on legislation of a Second Chamber. It is a comparatively moderate proposal to enable the House of Commons. of its own will and without the consent of any other legislative body, within two years to effect any change in the laws or the Constitution. It is a comparatively moderate proposal to deprive the electors of the certainty they now enjoy, that no great or sudden change can be made in the Constitution without their being consulted. All those are comparatively moderate proposals. But the moment we say, "Submit one single question of gravity to the electors unentangled with half a dozen other questions and unconnected with a General Election," we are told by the noble Earl that that is a drastic, revolutionary, and immoral proposal.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not think I said immoral.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot go into the ethics of the case as to whether revolutions are moral or immoral. It must depend a good deal on the motives of those who make them, and the manner in which they are carried out. But, at any rate, the noble Earl will not contradict me when I say that the extraordinarily violent and radical character of the proposal shocks his innermost conservative sense.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am content to put that contrast before the people of this country. It will be put in far more eloquent language than I can command and from a thousand platforms—which is really the conservative policy, which is the revolutionary policy. It seems to me that a more apt illustration of one of the parables of Scripture we have seldom had in the history of our Parliamentary struggles. The Government strain at the gnat of submitting an isolated issue instead of a complicated one to the people, and they swallow without the slightest hesitation the camel of single-Chamber government.
The noble Earl discussed the working of this system in the United States of America and in Switzerland. I think that we shall derive great profit from a careful study of the way in which the Referendum is worked in those two countries. But I quite agree with him

279
that perhaps its working there is not the illustration most applicable to our peculiar conditions. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Tennyson drew pointed attention to the success of this system in Australia, because the noble Earl opposite evidently felt the difficulty of that example. He could not say that what happened in Australia was wholly inapplicable to our conditions, and therefore he a little slurred over the illustration. Remember that not one single amendment can be made in the Constitution of Australia without a reference to the people. It is not a question of an occasional reference. The Constitution cannot be amended, even when both Houses are agreed, unless the majority of the electors in a majority of the States confirm it. It is quite true that that is the only permanent application of the system yet in vogue in Australia, but it has been used, and used with great success, as the noble Earl himself told us, in Victoria and Queensland to settle the difficult question of religious education.
I can give from my own experience an interesting illustration of the working of the Referendum. When the South African National Convention had agreed upon their Constitution three of the Colonies expressed their adhesion to the plan by Parliamentary action, but in Natal there was a public demand for a Referendum, and the Parliament of Natal passed an Act putting to all the electors on one day the one question, "Are you, or are you not, in favour of Natal joining the Union of South Africa under the Constitution as published in the Gazette," of such and such a date. There was, I believe, a record poll, and every single constituency in Natal voted "Aye," and adhesion was affirmed by a great majority. This was the most complete affirmation possible by the people of Natal of their readiness to join the Union of South Africa under the Constitution which had just been made. I ask, Is there anything revolutionary in that? Is there anything undemocratic in that? Is there in that anything not consistent with the spirit of our Constitution that the will of the people shall in the last resort prevail? And if a measure of that kind can be worked in Natal and Australia, why cannot it work in the United Kingdom? Are the people of the United Kingdom less instructed in politics? Are they less patriotic or less intelligent? There is
280
not a member on the Government side who will say that there is any such distinction. I say, therefore, that although this proposal is new so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it is not new so far as the British Empire is concerned.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I might explain. What I said was that it was new in its use for the removal of deadlocks between the two Houses of Parliament.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will come to that in a moment. We do not believe that the expense would be prohibitive, and it does seem to us surprising that the same Government which is about to propose a large salary for members of the House of Commons should grudge the expenditure of money necessary to enable the electors of the country to have the final say in what may concern the vital elements of the Constitution. We do not agree that questions cannot be put in a simple and clear-cut form. We agree that they must be so put, but do not agree that they cannot be so put. Then the noble Earl uttered a Cassandra-like warning to those who sit on this side. "Beware," he said, "how owners of property may be treated under the Referendum." "Are you quite sure," he asked. "that the Referendum will always work in the way which your Party would prefer?" No, my Lords, we are not sure that it would so work. We have no idea in our mind, in proposing this, of a scheme which will work only and exclusively to our advantage. We are prepared to take the risks with the advantages. We adopt the scheme because we believe it is the fairest and the safest. It is quite true that under the Referendum a Bill which some Conservatives might think unfair to owners of property might be passed. Well, but so it might be passed under your system. Under the plan we propose it could not be approved by the people until it had been approved by the House of Commons. Therefore, instead of the Referendum being an additional danger in the case of such legislation, it is in the nature of an appeal and an additional safeguard. There is nothing that could happen under the Referendum that could not much more easily and probably happen under the system which would be set up by the Parliament Bill.
I agree with what Lord Tennyson said on the subject of responsibility in the House of Commons. I do not believe

281
that the Referendum would impair that sense of responsibility. Are we not—I say this without personal reference to my noble friend opposite—are we not apt to use cant phrases a good deal in this connection from both sides? Do we not know that to-day a member of the House of Commons is not as free a voter in the House as he was twenty-five years ago? Do we not know that the Party machine has established a grip over members on both sides which was not the case when my noble friend Lord Eversley, for instance, first entered the House of Commons? Is it possible for a man on either side of polities to remain in the House of Commons if he opposes his Party on some great vital question? We know that it is not. Therefore I maintain that, so far from impairing the sense of responsibility of Members of Parliament, the tendency of the Referendum would rather be, as Lord Tennyson said, to revive it, especially as it would deal a fatal blow at that system of log-rolling which has been imported from across the Atlantic, and which seems so likely vitally to affect the actions of the other House of Parliament.
The noble Earl said lie suspected that the adoption of the Referendum on our part was simply a counter stroke to the policy of the Government and not a contribution of set policy, and he expressed surprise at the easy and light-hearted way in which the Conservative Party had adopted it. I can say for myself that the criticism falls wide of the mark, for in the comparative seclusion from the stormy sea of home politics in South Africa I have studied this question so far as I was able for several years past. I admit that the Resolutions passed in this House were somewhat suddenly brought forward. But why? Was it our fault? Were we masters of the course of business and of the conduct of the Government last year? Was not the whole of last year taken away from us by the curious concurrence of circumstances? The whole of last year, when we would have been discussing this question and formulating our policy, was taken away. When the King died and the Conference of the two Parties was held, was there one single man on this side who ever dreamt that he had parted then with his last opportunity of discussing these questions in the House of Lords? Was there one single man on the other side of the House off the Govern
282
ment Bench—I question very much whether I might not include the Government Bench—who dreamt at that moment of going into Conference that a Dissolution would ensue the moment the Conference broke down, if break down it did? Therefore I say that the taunt, courteously put as it was by the noble Earl, is undeserved, because the apparent haste and suddenness of our action was forced upon us by events over which the Government, and not we, had control.
I have already said that I do not express any opinion on the details of a Bill I have not seen. How the Referendum is to be adjusted, how it is to be applied, how the question is to be put, what the authority shall be to invoke it, are all matters of great importance and fair questions for consideration and adjustment. We believe absolutely that they can be adjusted, and adjusted so as to settle the Constitutional difficulty which we admit exists. We agree that the Constitution is deficient in machinery for settling differences between the two Houses and preventing the existence of deadlocks. The Government have their plan. They call it the Parliament Bill. We call it, and we shall be here, in our place, prepared to prove that it is, single-Chamber tyranny. They tell us that under the Referendum we may be running risks. Yes, we may; but in the grave issues which lie before us we would far sooner take the risks from the hands of our fellow countrymen in whom we believe than from a temporary majority in the House of Commons which may utterly misrepresent the feelings of the nation. We take that deliberately and finally as part of our plan and as our choice—the Referendum to the electorate rather than the House of Commons and its temporary majority. It is our permanent contribution, and from it we shall not recede.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I will not say anything about the Parliament Bill because we are now upon the First Reading of a perfectly different Bill; and if the Parliament Bill is a bad measure that is no reason for accepting another bad one. I gather from the noble Earl that he and his friends approve the general principle of the Referendum. I am not quite sure whether they approve the general principles of this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have not seen the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite admit that the Opposition are not bound in a great Constitutional crisis like this to propound their alternative policy. I think the doctrine was laid down by Sir Robert Peel that the physician is not required to prescribe until he is called in. It is not, perhaps, a doctrine of a very lofty character, but I do not complain of it. But if you do keep on dangling before the country and the two Houses of Parliament one lofty and noble alternative and then another, far better than anything which the poor Government has ever thought of—if you do choose to propound an alternative policy or a series of alternative policies for yourselves—pray do us the favour of making it intelligible to the ordinary human being. It is not sufficient to say that the Referendum is a splendid thing and capable of adjustment. We all understand what that means. It means that the noble Earl and his friends when they come into office will then put themselves to the task of recommending some proposals. But, in the meantime, if you are going to put forward alternatives at all and claim the credit of being able to say that something which is admittedly necessary you can propose better than we can, pray tell us what it is. I shall not say anything about the adoption of the Referendum in Australia or Switzerland or elsewhere, because that has been dealt with by my- noble friend the Leader of the House. But the noble Earl who has just sat down introduced a new illustration, and referred to the case of Natal. I think I am right in saying that the voters in Natal number about 7,000, or thereabouts.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is quite a small figure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And I think I am also right in saying that the plebiscite which was taken in Natal was taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament passed by the Natal Legislature. Well, that could be done now in this country without this Bill. If both Houses of Parliament agreed, a Referendum could be taken in this country on any point; at all events, it is unnecessary to bring in this Bill for the purpose of enabling to be done here what was done in Natal.
I am inclined to form a picture of what the Referendum is, because it is so little known in this country that, as Lord Balfour told us, some of the electors supposed it to be a new species of turnip. Let
284
us see how it works. We should have to set up all the machinery of an election, with returning officers and so forth, all over the country. If the Bill was one of importance we should have public meetings and literature on the walls and all the paraphernalia of a General Election without the candidates. There would be all the expenses incurred except those of the candidates. Who is to pay for all that? I suppose there might be conflicts between interests that arc wealthy and interests that are poor. Apart from the merits of the particular case, what an advantage the rich interest would have against the poor one.
The noble Lord estimated the expenses of the Referendum at, I think,£40,000 or£50,000. He has never had the advantage of paying returning officers' expenses. Some of us here have. I remember on one occasion in a one-member constituency the election officer's expenses were£330. It was not a very large constituency; about 9,000 in all polled. If you apply that, yon will find that£1,000 would only take von over three constituencies, and there are 670 constituencies throughout the country. The Referendum would cost about a quarter of a million for returning officers' expenses alone at that rate, though I quite agree there are a good many constituencies in which a great deal less would be charged. Suppose it is an unimportant Bill or one that does not interest the whole of the United Kingdom; and here again I will take the illustration of the Scottish Small Landholders Bill. Who cares about that in England? Who knows about it? Or take Welsh Disestablishment. Who knows about that in England or Ireland? Does anybody imagine that the voters in England or Ireland would go to the poll about a thing of that kind? If they did, they would go uninstructed. The probability is they would not vote at all except upon important measures and grave occasions.
Then how often would they be invited to vote? The Bill, as I understand—I have not seen it—says that if the House of Lords refuses to pass a Bill sent up from the House of Commons, then the House of Commons can claim the Referendum. That would have happened at least five or six times in the four years between 1906 and 1910. When a Conservative Government was in power no such conflict would arise and that part of the provision would become a dead letter. That is manifestly unfair. But if the House of Commons refuses to pass a Bill

285
which the House of Lords has sent down, I do not know whether it is contemplated that the House of Lords may ask for an appeal.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then comes the further proposal that 200 members, or a more suitable number, could ask for a Referendum, as I understand, in the event of the House of Lords and the House of Commons both agreeing upon the Bill.
LORD RALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Hear hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That seems a very strong thing, though I agree that it is a mitigation as far as the Liberal Party is concerned. But what is most likely to follow? What has always tended, I think, to follow in such cases is that an initiative is given—not merely a power of appeal—against both Houses of Parliament, an initiative and an opportunity for individuals—the 200 members if you like—to claim that the two Houses of Parliament having refused to pass a Bill they shall be able to go over the heads of the two Houses of Parliament and ask the country to approve the Bill. His whole argument rests on a foundation leading to that; and, therefore, this experience shows that those who once begin to touch this thing find that they cannot stop short. What would be the result of that? It is not only that they are crude proposals; but supposing that the Liberals are in power, proposals might be made over the heads of the two Houses to tax certain imports or manufactures, to separate one kind of tax from another, or even to tax land; and their popularity might tempt a good many people to vote for them. Supposing a proposal were made that everybody should pay 50 per cent. of his income over£5,000 a year. No doubt a great part of the population would disregard it, but there would be a considerable temptation to a great number of people to support it. The noble Earl, however, is ready to take risks. He refers to the risks we are supposed to expose the country to in our Bill, which is not yet before us, but he cheerfully takes risks of the kind I have ventured to suggest.
There are two deep rooted objections, in my opinion, to the proposals of this Bill and to the principle of the Referendum, or to any Constitutional change which shall enable the Referendum to be had
286
recourse to otherwise than it can be at the present moment. This country needs, and I think generally possesses, stability of government. There is need, if you can get it, of Ministers who should be men of independence and of character, of some degree of moral courage. What would be the position of Ministers when a Bill is carried or rejected over their heads that may strike right athwart the whole policy they are endeavouring to. pursue?—because the noble Lord does not limit the scope of Bills which may be so referred. They must resign, surely, and a General Election will probably ensue; and then the other side conic in to be exposed to the same fusillade on the part of the 200 Members who might be entitled not only to protest against refusal, but to initiate Bills themselves.
The temptation to the famous 200 Members would be irresistible. They would endeavour to turn out the Government, to discredit it, to expose it to rebuff or humiliation, even if the Ministers were not independent-minded enough to resign. The noble Earl knows both Parties in the House of Commons, and he knows that whenever Members think that a favourable opportunity arises they are not averse from taking advantage of any chance to. damage a Government whose general policy they disapprove. We should have these Referendums—I suppose I ought to, say Referenda, though I disapprove of the dog Latin introduced in this controversy—these references to the people as often as an opportunity arose. There will be always 200 gentlemen who will be prepared to sacrifice themselves by demanding that the reference shall take place. There would be gusts of passion or of dissatisfaction, say, against a Government which was not popular in respect of its Navy Estimates; and then an opportunity would be taken to discredit them.
The Referendum would also be fatal to representative government. The political genius of the English people was the first to discover, and after great difficulty to develop, the real basis of liberty and of self-government in this country—a system which has been copied all over the world. Every Referendum is an attack on the representative system. That method which was discovered by the Englishman centuries ago was found out, as indicated by Tacitus in the "Germania," through the

287
chief men deliberating on smaller things while all the people deliberated on the greater matters. But the principle would not work in a great population. It is all very well in the small tribes, but in this country representative institutions mean that the people who have not the time to look into every detail of this or of that Bill should choose men who are honourable, whose judgment may be trusted, and with whose opinions they are in harmony. They are sent to Parliament for the purpose of discussing these matters. I do not say that the system at the present time is working altogether satisfactorily. The position in the House of Commons is one of such congestion that it is almost impossible to do business satisfactorily there; but I say that this method of proceeding, not by direct election, but by representatives is the earliest characteristic of our Constitution. It does ensure the criticism of a Bill and it enables amendments to be considered; it allows postponement for reflection. I wonder how much of that would be present under the Referendum.
The noble Earl spoke with considerable warmth of the defects existing in the present constitution of Parliament. All the difficulties are due to the congestion of business in the House of Commons, and are due to the fact that there is much more to do than there is time in which to do it, and if by some scheme of devolution, such as I hope we may see introduced, the House of Commons has more time and more leisure to attend to its business I am perfectly certain these complaints will disappear. What is to be substituted? The people are busy; they have abundant common sense in this country, but no time for detail. They have no opportunity of following arguments, such as we have in Parliament, and they have still less opportunity of considering points and counter points appropriate to the Committee stage of a Bill. You would not have a deliberate and considered opinion of the constituencies. You would have their opinion in big things, on big measures; it would naturally be hasty, it would be naturally crude; yet this is the proposal which is made for the purpose of adjusting the relations between the two Houses. The only result of its use would be as an engine of obstruction. There would be constant references. It would not give you a judgment on the simple issue, such as the noble Earl says it ought to do.
288
As I understand it the Bill is to be referred, and I think it is the only way in which you can work your Referendum to refer the Bill as a whole. The whole of the Finance Bill, the Education Bill, and the Licensing Bill would thus be referred; and I speak in no sense with disrespect of the electors, whom I sincerely respect, and whose opinion I am always prepared to accept, when I say that it is a false piece of flattery to pretend that in considering a big measure of this kind, without the opportunity of investigating and discussing its provisions, they are as competent to settle the controversy as the House of Commons and this House under our ordinary forms. I will not express surprise. I have long lost the faculty of being surprised at political matters. I am content to await the next development. My own opinion is that the Referendum will shortly cease to be the popular idol of the noble Earl and his friends, and then, no doubt, we shall have some other proposal, perhaps not so surprising, but, at all events, I hope a little more definite and intelligible.
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.—(No. 26.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House asked me my intentions with regard to the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not propose to name a day now, but will wait a little and endeavour through the ordinary channels of conversation to ascertain what day would best suit the general convenience of the House. I should like to take the Second Reading discussion within a reasonable period, but I will not fix a date without consulting fully with noble Lords on both Front Benches. As to the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Selborue, that he had not seen a copy of the Bill, I should like to explain that I sent a copy to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who is unfortunately prevented from being present to-day. I only mention that to prevent its being thought that I supplied a copy of the Bill only to the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
ALICE COURTNAY CLARKE—Petition for redress of grievances; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.