Sitting of 22 May 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [Lords].
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill [Lords].
Star Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords]
Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with), Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions
2
for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Milford Docks Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Harrogate Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed.
Lloyd's Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Bristol Tramways Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Saint Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill, [Lords] (by Order),
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second reading deferred till Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Donaghadee," presented by Mr. TENNANT; supported by Mr. Sydney Buxton; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Royal Navy (Programme, 1910–11).
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate sum in connection with the 1910–11 programme to be expended after 31st March, 1912, when the present year's provision comes to an end?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The amount is £3,683,711.

  Torpedo Tubes.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the total number of 18-inch torpedo tubes fitted in all classes of vessels in the Royal Navy considered to be possessed of war value; and how many torpedoes there are in existence for this size tube, excluding practice projectiles?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not in the public interest to give the numbers asked for, but the authorised number is complete.

  Steam Trawlers (Royal Navy).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the suggested proposals to incorporate a certain number of steam trawlers or drifters has broken down; if so, what is the reason; and will the Admiralty, in view of
  4
  the interests involved, endeavour to meet the objections put forward?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

  Coronation.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether it is proposed to issue an official guide to the Naval Review for the use of the Members of both Houses of Parliament?
  Mr. McKENNA: A chart and list of ships will be issued for the use of visitors in the ships taken up by the Admiralty.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if stands are being erected for the Coronation for members of the Civil Service; if so, on what plan the seats will be allotted; and what steps will be taken to secure that only members of the Civil Service occupy these seats?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The seats are allotted in proportion to the number of applications received from each Department. It is left to the heads of the various Departments to secure that the tickets for the seats are properly allotted to the members of their respective Departments, and it is impossible for the First Commissioner to interfere with the discretion of the heads of the various Departments.
  Mr. JOWETT: Are the stands being erected at the public expense, and if so, are they to be charged for?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No, Sir, they are not erected at the public expense. A charge is made which will cover the cost of the erection of the stand.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked whether private persons, corporations, or local authorities would be allowed to hoist the Royal Standard on the day of His Majesty's coronation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative.

  Declaration of London.
  Captain FABERasked (1) whether the naval Lords of the Admiralty now approve of the ratification of the Declaration of London; and (2) whether the naval Lords were, or were not, given a voice in the matter of the Hague Conference before Sir Edward Fry consented to the Declaration of London?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be contrary to practice to refer to the action of individual members of the Board in matters upon which the Board has come to a conclusion. I would point out, however, that Sir Edward Fry was not concerned with the Declaration of London of 1909, but only with the Hague Conference of 1907.
  Mr. LEE: Is it the case that the Board, as a Board, have come to a definite conclusion with regard to the Declaration of London?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; certainly, the Board have come to a conclusion.
  Mr. LEE: Has the fully constituted Board, as distinguished from the technical Board, composed of the First Lord of the Admiralty and one other member?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no distinction between the full Board and the technical Board. All questions do not necessarily go before the full Board at all times, but documents and matters of detail, when a member of the Board wishes, go before the whole Board. All papers, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are ordinarily dealt with under the Minute laid down by the First Lord of the Admiralty and by the Naval Lord concerned in the particular branch of business.
  Mr. LEE: That means that it is not dealt with at a full Board meeting?
  Mr. McKENNA: From memory I could not say.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask whether the full Board do approve of the Declaration of London?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Board have approved of the Declaration of London.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Not the full Board?
  Mr. McKENNA: We do not distinguish. If the hon. Gentleman by "full Board" means whether every member of the Board has agreed, it would be contrary to the public interest to state what the opinion of individual members of the Board may be, and I do not know what they may be, but the members of the Board, as a Board, have agreed.

  Naval Signalman's Punishment.
  Mr. NEWTONasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is now in a position to state the result of his full inquiry regarding the punishment by warrant, at
  6
  Parkeston, of leading signalman Thomas Black; whether the punishment then inflicted was after due trial as laid down in the regulations; whether Black's request to be allowed to lay his case before the commodore was refused; what has been the position of Thomas Black in the service during the progress of the inquiry; and what further steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: After full investigation the Admiralty have directed the punishment awarded to be cancelled, as the original cause of the offence was not substantiated. His good conduct badge and the rating of leading signalman, which he previously held, have been restored to Black, and he has been drafted to another ship.
  Mr. NEWTON: Has Black lost any money as the result of these proceedings and the long delay?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say that there was any long delay. During the period his case was being tried he was rated as signalman, and not as leading signalman, and no doubt he would lose a certain amount of money. I must add that when Black asked to have his case submitted to the common law he did so in a very disrespectful manner, and his request at that time, in consequence of his disrespect, was refused, and properly refused.
  Mr. CROOKS: Is not this man to have compensation? Surely if a man is not found guilty he is entitled to some compensation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid that everybody who is wrongly charged suffers some loss.
  Mr. CROOKS: Not if he is an officer. He gets compensation.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty's attention has been called to an advertisement in the "Dunfermline Courier" of 9th May, for navvies at Mithall Dock, Fife, wages 5½d; and whether this rate, recognised as a fair minimum by the best employers in the district, will be enforced upon the contractors for the ammunition stores at Crombie?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to trace any such advertisement in a paper called the "Dunfermline Courier." I have, how-

  7
  ever, seen an advertisement in the "Dundee Advertiser" stating that men are required at Methil, but its terms do not agree with the suggestion contained in the hon. Member's question as regards the minimum rate of pay.
  Mr. J. WARD: Does the advertisement say that the wages for navvies are 5½d. an hour?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; the advertisement is for navvies at wages ranging from 5d. to 5½d. The minimum wage is 5d.
  Mr. J. WARD: Am I to understand that under the Fair-Wages Clause the lower rate is that which has been decided upon by the Board of Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have not a flat rate of 5d. either. It is not a lower rate than that mentioned in the advertisement referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The advertisement to which I refer puts the wages at from 5d. to 5½d., and I understand that is the rate which at the present time is being paid by the contractors at Rosyth.
  Mr. J. WARD: May I show the right hon. Gentleman presently my advertisement? There is no such thing as 5d. That is a pure piece of imagination.
  Mr. McKENNA: And I shall be very glad to show my hon. Friend the advertisement in the "Dundee Advertiser."

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the number of men employed upon the works at Rosyth on the day and night shifts separately on. 16th May, stating how many of the men working in the day shift worked through the night shift also?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures asked for are as follows:—

  Number of men working on day shift on 16th May, 1911

  1,159

  Number of men working on night shift

  673

  Number of men working in the day shift and through night shift also

  17

  Gourock Torpedo Factory.
  Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he is aware that the current rates of wages for young journeymen and the current rates for overtime are not being paid at the Gourock Torpedo Factory; and if he will give instructions
  8
  for compliance in future with the fair-wages conditions?
  Mr. McKENNA: All men who are fully qualified mechanics are paid full rates. A limited number of young men qualifying for the special work of the torpedo factory are paid lower rates according to their ability. It has already been approved that the current rates for overtime shall be paid to the men of the torpedo factory for all time worked beyond fifty-four hours per week.
  Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these young men are paid full rate by other firms in the district, and is there any valid reason why the Government should not pay a similar rate?
  .Mr. McKENNA: I have inquired, and I understand the facts are not so. These young men who are being taught are not paid any where the full rate of wages. The moment they qualify they are paid the full rates.

  Carpenters (Royal Navy).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether there is any shortage of carpenters, Royal Navy; and, if so, whence this shortage arises and what steps he intends to take to meet it?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no shortage of carpenters in the Royal Navy.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is it not the fact that at the present time acting carpenters are filling positions which should be filled by carpenters?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a state of things which existed some little while ago. Additional carpenters have been employed and there is no shortage of carpenters.

  Turkish Navy (Construction).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he has any information as to contracts having been entered into for the construction of capital ships for Turkey in this country; and, if so, whether he can give any particulars of the type of ship to be built, when they are to be commenced, and when completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: Contracts have been provisionally entered into for the construction of two capital ships for Turkey in this country. I am unable to give any particulars of these ships, or to state when they are to be commenced or completed.

  Devonport Dockyard.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked if the Government can hold out any hope of finding employment for the 606 men discharged from the Devonport Dockyard during the month of April; and, with a view to prevent injury to the working classes in the towns of Plymouth, Devon-port, and Stonehouse, if they will take steps to prevent in the future the discharge in one month of such a large number of workers?
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question. I should like your ruling, Sir, as to whether it is in order for one hon. Member to ask questions in regard to another hon. Member's constituency?
  Mr. CROOKS: Might we have the number of Conservatives who have asked questions about Woolwich?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no such rule.
  Mr. McKENNA: The men in question were entered for temporary duty on specific jobs on the completion of which their services were dispensed with. Whenever circumstances permit arrangements are made for discharges of workmen to be carried out gradually. It cannot be said at present when the services of these men will again be required.

  Telegraph Facilities (Reenard, Valentia Harbour).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the need of a telegraph office at Reenard, Valentia Harbour; and whether, in view of the fact that. this is an important fish-curing centre and is the terminus of the railway, he will take steps to provide a telegraph office during the present fishing season?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am making inquiries on the subject, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

  Penny Postage (France).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether any further progress has been made with the negotiations for the establishment of penny postage between this country and France?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.

  Telephone Service
  Mr. REMNANTasked if it is the intention to allow the members of the National Telephone Company's staff to count their service in that company as service with the State on the transfer of the undertaking?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In accordance with the undertaking given in the Memorandum read in this House on the 9th August, 1905, by the then Postmaster-General, persons who were in the National Telephone Company's employment on the 1st January, 1910, will be entitled to count the last two years of service with the company as service under the Crown.
  Mr. REMNANT: When the right hon. Gentleman brings the matter forward for transfer will there be a full opportunity for discussing it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. The question is dealt with in the Telephone Transfer Bill, which I hope to introduce shortly after Whitsuntide.
  Mr. REMNANT: Shall we have full opportunity of discussing it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand so.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked who is responsible for the administration of the telephone service in London aid Westminster; and whether the Government has assumed control of what was known as the national service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Telephone exchange service in London and Westminster is provided both by the National Telephone Company and by the Post Office. Under the agreement made in 1905 the company's exchanges are to be purchased by the Post Office at the end of this year.

  Sorting Staff, General Post Office.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Postmaster-General if he will say what proportion of the vacancies on the sorting staff of the General Post Office it is proposed in future to allot to boy messengers; and what proportion of the vacancies on the sorting staff has for the last five years been allotted to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Broadly speaking, two-thirds of the vacancies for male sorters will in future be allotted for competition among boy messengers and

  11
  one-third for competition among postmen and porters. The postmen and porter classes are now recruited half from ex-soldiers and ex-sailors, and though no proportion of sorter vacancies is allotted to these men they have equal chances with the postmen and porters otherwise recruited of obtaining the appointments as sorters not reserved for boy messengers.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not reconsider that decision as to one-half to boy messengers and one-half to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not a question of one-half for ex-soldiers or ex-sailors. It would be a question of one-half for the postmen and porters who may or may not be ex-soldiers or ex-sailors. That decision has been arrived at after very careful consideration, and I see no reason for altering it.

  Bournemouth Postal Service.
  Mr. CROFTasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Bournemouth post office is a second-class office; and whether, having regard to the growth of the population of Bournemouth, he can now see his way to make it a first-class office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that Bournemouth is placed in Class II. The units of work are considerably below the point which would justify transfer to Class I.
  Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the staff have to go extreme distances to get any house at all at a reasonable rent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost of living generally in the Bournemouth post-office service is somewhat above the normal, but even when that is taken into account the office is not nearly qualified yet to go into Class I. The units of work will have to be increased by 50 per cent. before it can be placed in the higher class, even when allowance is made for cost of living.
  Mr. CROFTasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that the town of Winton has only a sub-office; and whether, having regard to the fact that the postmen of Winton live under practically the same
  12
  conditions, with the same cost of living and rents, as the postmen of Bournemouth, he can see his way to make the Winton office a branch office instead of a sub-office; and (2), whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is no assistant inspector of postmen at West-bourne; and whether, having regard to the staff of postmen at that office, he will consider the appointment of a head postman to supervise the work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will have enquiry made into these matters, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Case of Sara Ann Meekins (Dublin).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Sara Ann Meekins, who was arrested on 29th January last by a police-constable in Dublin on a charge gravely affecting her character; whether he is aware that the constable produced at the police court a number of constables and a few women of disreputable character to support the charge; that the accused submitted to a medical examination which completely refuted the charge, which was dismissed; that the girl charges that there was a conspiracy to injure her and to substantiate this foul accusation against her; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): My attention has been called to the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It would not be desirable that I should discuss the facts in any detail. Police witnesses were examined in support of the charge, and likewise some women, but it is right to point out that the latter were examined, as I am informed, in consequence of a challenge by the solicitor for the defence to produce these women in court. The girl did submit to a medical examination, and, I am informed, the magistrate dismissed the charge because of the doubts raised in his mind by the medical evidence. I myself have carefully examined the depositions in the case, and have come to the conclusion that the police action was bonâ fide, and that there is no ground for the suggestion of a conspiracy.
  Mr. MULDOON:May I ask, seeing that this girl has no money with which to fight the right hon. Gentleman's police, what remedy she has under this foul charge that has been made against her
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I do not think myself it is a case where there is a remedy in question. It is a case in which the police bonâ fide brought a charge which the magistrate dismissed. The action of the police was bonâ fide.
  Mr. MULDOON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the medical evidence was in itself a complete refutation of the charge, and therefore the only thing left is that six or seven policemen must have entered into a conspiracy to commit perjury in the case; and does he think under those circumstances the matter can be left where it now is?

  Customs Watchers.
  Mr. EDWARD STRAUSSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Customs Watchers are among the worst paid of Civil servants; and, seeing that these men receive only 24s. per week for carrying out important duties, will he deal with the matter as he has repeatedly promised to do during the last two and a-half years?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I regret that I cannot undertake to deal with this question pending the issue of the Report of the Committee on the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: When are we likely to have the Report issued?
  Mr. EDWARD STRAUSSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet arrived at any decision as to the increase of the rate of overtime paid to Customs Watchers in reference to which matter he gave a promise to a deputation on 1st December, 1908, that it should have his earnest consideration; and if he is aware that overtime is worked for the convenience of firms importing goods, and that in practice the overtime is paid by those firms, and that this act of justice to a useful body of public servants could be carried out practically without cost to the Treasury?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe on the 25th April, 1910.

  Land Tax and Income Tax Commissioners.
  Mr. EDWARD STRAUSSasked what was the status of Land Tax and Income Tax Commissioners appointed in 1909, but who have as yet never been summoned to
  14
  act, and whether these Commissioners so appointed cannot be summoned to act until all the Commissioners previously appointed have either died or resigned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No Act appointing Land Tax Commissioners has been passed since 1906. There is nothing to preclude persons who have since that date become ex officio Land Tax Commissioners from acting as such. Income Tax Commissioners are selected from among the Land Tax Commissioners under the provisions of Sections 4 to 8 of the Income Tax Act, 1842. Their numbers are limited, and fresh appointments can only be made as vacancies occur.

  Customs and Excise Departments (Amalgamation).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when the committee on the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments was appointed, and when it is expected to submit its report?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Committee was appointed on 30th March, 1909. I regret that I am still unable to fix a date for the presentation of the report to the Treasury, but the report is now in a forward state.
  Captain O'NEILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the reply of the Financial Secretary in the House of Commons on 24th March, 1896, and the statement of the Board of Customs in their minute of 1902, to the effect that officers already in the collector line, although they have no exclusive right, have the priority of claims for the higher posts in the collectorate, steps will be taken in fixing the new classification for the amalgamated Customs and Excise service to ensure that this priority of claim shall not be injuriously affected, and that any of the junior collectors who may be considered qualified for promotion but who cannot be at once absorbed in the new collectorate may be allowed to retain their title and be absorbed in the new classes of collectors as vacancies occur?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 11th instant.
  Captain O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the matter dealt with in this question and in the question to which he has referred will be brought to the notice of and amply

  15
  considered by the Amalgamation Committee, over which I believe the right hon. Gentleman presides?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say from recollection whether we have had the matter before us, but I think we have. If so, it will be dealt with in the Report.

  Census (England and Wales).
  Mr. BYLESasked the President of the Local Government Board if he could say approximately how soon the first broad results of the Census for England and Wales would be made public; and if he would consider the inadvisability of withholding them until details and analyses were ready?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Some population figures will, it is expected, be ready for publication by the end of the present week. There is no question of withholding them until details and analyses are ready.

  Central (Unemployed) Body for London (Women's Workrooms).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he was aware that the Central (Unemployed) Body for London had decided to close the women's workrooms during the summer months in consequence of the fact that the Local Government Board declined to grant the £250 needed to keep the rooms open; if he was aware that this was the first year these rooms had been closed since they were opened some years ago; and that, at the present moment, there were 376 women eligible for work in addition to 103 at work, all of whom would be thrown out of employment if the rooms were closed; and if, under these circumstances, he would reconsider his decision in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand that, on the recommendation of the Women's Work Committee, the workrooms referred to will be closed during the month of June. The money voted by Parliament for the purposes of the Unemployed Workmen Act was for the services of the financial year ended 31st March last, and I am not now in a position to make any further payment.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has there been any difficulty in disposing of the product of the workrooms?
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member is probably aware that there has been consider-
  16
  able difficulty in disposing of the product of the workrooms. £26,000 has been expended, and the sales have realised £8,000, only.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that in previous years the right hon. Gentleman has made a grant for the purposes of the women's workrooms out of the current year in which the money was used; and is there any reason why the same should not be done this year?
  Mr. BURNS: I have given £750 of the last instalment of £1,000 asked for. It was never intended that the work should be permanently continuous. The Committee itself states that it is disadvantageous to the women themselves that they should be induced to look upon the relief work as continuous work throughout the year.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Central (Unemployed) Body gave a very different answer to a member of that Body? The reply to a question as to what were the reasons for closing the workroom was to this effect: firstly, that it was in response to the wishes of the Local Government Board; that the Board did not think that the Parliamentary grant could be properly applied to the maintenance of the workrooms throughout the whole of the summer months; and, secondly, because the grant of £750 made such action necessary. The Committee would have been able to scrape through on the balance of £250 if it had been granted by the Board.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member must read on. Here is the letter addressed to me, signed by the Secretary of the Central (Unemployed) Body:—
  The Committee also think that the fact of closing the workrooms will to some extent throw the women on their own resources and have the advantage of testing those really desirous of obtaining outside employment as a result of the facilities afforded by the workroom system."
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the quotation I made is from the answer given to a member of the Central (Unemployed) Body, and that that letter was written after the answer of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BURNS: I think the hon. Member and myself ought not to rely on intermediaries. It is sufficient that we should read the correspondence official between the Secretary and the Local Government Board.

  King Edward VII. Memorial.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he would make it a condition to the granting of Crown land, either in Hyde Park or elsewhere, for a site for the memorial to King Edward VII., that the plans or the designs of the proposed memorial shall be selected after open competition, and that the greatest possible portion of the work shall be British; and that upon the committee of selection the Government or the House of Commons shall be represented?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): This memorial was initiated as th4 London memorial to his late Majesty, and His Majesty's Government have made no contribution to it. The subscribers have elected a committee, of which the Lord Mayor is chairman, to make recommendations with regard to the site and the form of the memorial. It would be difficult for His Majesty's Government to interfere with the work of the committee unless or until the committee bring forward some proposal which may affect the property of the Crown or of His Majesty's Government.

  Local Government Board Inquiries.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was aware that, in September, 1910, the Local Government Board sent an inspector to Horsham to view a property designated as suitable for the erection of scattered homes, who reported favourably upon this property, and that, as a result of representations by the Horsham Chamber of Trade and other local bodies adversely to the report, an inquiry was held in March last to hear the objectors at which the same inspector who had originally reported favourably upon the project presided; would he say if this was the usual practice of the Local Government Board; and, if so, whether the regulations would be so altered as to obviate this state of affairs and provide that in future the same individual who made the original report should not subsequently hold an inquiry into his own finding?
  Mr. BURNS: In November last the Guardians of the Horsham Union, wishing, in accordance with the practice now generally followed, to remove children from the workhouse, Consulted my inspector as to the suitability of two houses in Horsham for the accommodation of the children. The inspector visited the houses, and they appeared to him gene-
  18
  rally suitable for the purpose. Subsequently some of the owners and occupiers of premises near the two houses wrote to the Board, protesting against the proposal of the guardians, mainly on the ground that their property would be depreciated by the use of these houses for the accommodation of Poor Law children. The Horsham Chamber of Trade also protested against the proposal. On receiving these objections I instructed the inspector to confer with the objectors. The inspector was in no sense called upon to inquire into his own finding. He was merely instructed to discuss with the opponents their objections to a scheme which was otherwise a desirable one.
  Mr. CROOKS: Who is the Horsham Chamber of Trade?
  Mr. BURNS: In this case it is inclined to usurp the functions of the board of guardians.

  Film Shops (Danger of Fire).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President Of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to the dangerous fire which occurred recently in a film shop, near Charing Cross; and whether any steps would be taken to prevent such shops being placed on the ground floor beneath rooms where people sleep or are employed in large numbers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will communicate with the London County Council in this matter. The Home Office has more than once suggested that it would be desirable that the council should obtain power to deal with this danger; and I have no doubt the council will consider the question of applying to Parliament for the necessary amendment of the London Building Acts.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can anything be done meanwhile to prevent such fires? I understand that the flames went across the road in a very few seconds.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Every precaution possible will be taken, but further legisla7 tion is necessary.

  Vaccination (Poor Law Children).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention had been called to a letter sent by the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the Camberwell Board of Guardians, in which it was stated that unless the board of guardians consented to the vaccination of children under its control, but now residing in schools under the charge of the Metro-

  19
  politan Asylums Board, such children would not be retained in the schools; and whether he proposed to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I learn that the Metropolitan Asylum managers have been in communication with the Camberwell Board of Guardians with regard to the vaccination of certain children chargeable to Camberwell who were in special institutions for children under the managers, and whose vaccination was recommended to the managers by their medical advisers. The managers appear to have requested the guardians to obtain the consent of the parents of the children to the vaccination taking place. After some correspondence the guardians have, I am informed, agreed to ascertain the wishes of the parents in the matter.

  Peewit and Lapwing Eggs (Exportation).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the value to farmers of the peewit or lapwing in reducing the number of snails, wireworms, beetles, aphides, and the larwe of various insects destructive of roots, cereal crops, and pasture, and of the large and increasing exportation from this country to the United States of the eggs of these birds, he would encourage all the county councils to follow the example of the Gloucester-shire County Council in issuing an order for the protection of this rapidly decreasing bird and its eggs throughout the year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The President of the Local Government Board has asked me to reply to this question. I have recently received a numerously signed petition representing that a large trade is done in the exportation of lapwings to the United States, and I am consulting the Board of Agriculture in the matter. I have not received any similar representations as to the exportation of the eggs of the lapwing. Inquiries instituted by the Board of Agriculture in 1909 as to the alleged diminution in the numbers of the lapwing in this country did not show any very marked decrease, and in some districts an increase was reported. It rests with the respective county councils to apply to me for an Order protecting the bird and its eggs if they consider that such an Order is called for in their area. Orders for this purpose have been made in several counties, and any application will receive careful and sympathetic consideration.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not the fact that within the last few years this trade in peewit and lapwing eggs has immensely increased?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the publicity given to the subject by the question and answer will lead county councils to apply the Order. The power rests with them.

  Poultry-Raising Industry (Depredations of Foxes).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, if he was aware of the growing extent to which the poultry-raising industry in this country way handicapped owing to the depredations of foxes; and whether the Board proposed to introduce legislation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): I have no information which would indicate that the depredations of foxes are increasing. No complaints have been received by the Board.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that in the cases where the owners succeed in getting compensation the compensation is only adding insult to injury?

  Swine Fever (Quarantine).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the loss and inconvenience caused to traders and the public by the present regulation, he would advise a reduction of the quarantine imposed, as to store pigs intended for export, from twenty-eight to fourteen days?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir; I cannot do so, having regard to the report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: How, may I ask, is it possible any longer to justify the twenty-eight days' period of quarantine, in view of the finding by the Departmental. Committee as to the lack of knowledge on the part of the experts as to the latency of the disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not admit that that is a proper construction to put on the Report.

  Egg and Poultry Industry.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the rapidly growing importance of the egg and poultry industry, as evidenced by the papers and discussions at the recent United Kingdom Poultry Conference

  21
  at Dublin, and of the decreased importation of those products from Italy, Siberia, and other foreign countries, the Board has applied or supported an application to the Development Commissioners for a grant out of the Development Fund towards the creation of a national poultry institute for the conduct of research and experiment in relation to the above industry; and, if so, what has been the result of such application?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Investigations bearing on the poultry industry have been provided for in the Board's general scheme for aiding research which is now under the consideration of the Development Commissioners. The Development Commissioners have approved the payment by the Board of an interim grant to the University of Cambridge in aid of breeding investigations conducted on poultry.

  Coast Erosion Committee (Final Report).
  Mr. NEWTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he can say when the final Report of the Coast Erosion Committee will be presented?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I understand that the final Report of the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion and Afforestation will be submitted to his Majesty in the course of a few days. It will then be presented to Parliament without delay.

  Threatened Strike of Seamen.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the impending trouble in the shipping industry and to the letter addressed to the secretary of the International Shipping Federation by the International Committee of Seafarers' Unions; and whether, in view of the present situation, it is in contemplation to take some action with a view of bringing the parties together?
  Mr. BUXTON: My attention has been drawn to statements which have been made from time to time indicating the possibility of a strike of seamen taking place; and I have seen a copy of the letter to which my hon. Friend refers. I fear that I cannot usefully take any further action at the present time.

  British Ship "Earl of Dunmore" (Naval Court).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state who
  22
  made the application to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, on behalf of the master of the British ship "Earl of Dunmore," for a remission of a portion of the fines imposed by the naval court for having wilfully and wrongfully left behind at Calete Caloso four seamen from the same vessel; and under what section of the Merchant Shipping Act the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have power to refund any fines imposed by a naval court properly constituted in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act?
  Mr. BUXTON: I understand that the application to the Treasury was made by the general manager of the Shipping Federation, Limited, on behalf of the owners of the vessel. I am not aware of any section in the Merchant Shipping Act empowering the Treasury to refund fines imposed by a naval court, but I understand that the Treasury acted under their general powers in consenting on the recommendation of the Board of Trade to the repayment in this case of a sum which had not reached the Exchequer.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is. it not the case that under Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1903, an appeal can only be made to the courts for the remission of a fine?
  Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman give me notice of that question? With regard to this case I shall be very glad to look further into it.

  Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway.
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the President of the Board of Trade if any progress has been made with the negotiations for the future working of the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway; and if he will endeavour to prevent the line being closed for traffic at the conclusion of the present agreement?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Company inform me there is at present an arrangement to carry on the working of the line until 31st July next, but that no arrangement has been made to continue the working beyond that date. The company also point out that since the railway was opened for traffic it has cost several of the shareholders practically £1,000 per annum to meet the loss on working and maintenance, and that these shareholders are not now in a position to contribute towards this loss. It is, therefore, feared that unless assistance is received to meet the loss

  23
  in future, it will not be possible to continue the working of the line after the date named above. The Board of Trade can take no steps to prevent the closing of the line for traffic, and it would seem to be for those interested locally to see whether some arrangement cannot be come to for the continuance of the working.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local committee in charge of this matter has already raised a considerable sum, £1,000, I think, from the local small holders and others, and that this has exhausted their present resources; that they have also exhausted their resources of negotiation because the negotiations are between unwilling buyers and unwilling sellers; and, whether he is aware or not, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to use a little friendly negotiation, and perhaps secure a little assistance from the Development Fund to carry on the railway?
  Mr. BUXTON: I shall be very glad to do all I can in a friendly way, but as I have pointed out, I have no powers in the matter. I shall be very sorry indeed if the negotiations break down. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will communicate anything further to me.

  Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society, Limited.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of facts recently disclosed in the Law Courts relating to the affairs of the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society, Limited, he will reconsider the question of taking the necessary steps to secure a compulsory winding-up and a public investigation into the affairs of that company?
  Mr. BUXTON: Before this question was put down the matter referred to was receiving my careful consideration. As at present advised, I doubt whether the position is altered by the evidence given in the recent proceedings. As I have repeatedly stated, the statute provides that the Court shall not make a winding-up order on the petition of the Official Receiver unless it is staisfied that the voluntary winding-up cannot be continued with due regard to the interests of the creditors or contributories. I have, however, given instructions that a further case to advise should be laid before the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Chief Justice has expressed the opinion that there is a strong case for searching investigation into the affairs of this company? Is he also aware that with regard to the affairs of a company of which I happened to be chairman, and which accidentally went into liquidation, there was not this reticence on the part of the authorities to investigate matters?
  Mr. BUXTON: There has been no reticence on the part of the Board of Trade. So far as the specific case is concerned, I took the advice of the Law Officers some time ago, and it was against our taking any action. I have asked them again to give me further advice in consequence of what occurred the other day in the Law Courts.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I shall put the question down again.

  Greenock Labour Exchange (Recruiting in the Western Highlands).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. James Graham, of the Greenock Labour Exchange, has been in the West Highlands securing the service of young Highlanders for local shipyards; whether, in the course of his tour he visited Tobermory, Tiree, Islay, Jura, and other places; by whose authority he undertook the recruiting; and under what Subsection of the Labour Exchanges Act is he authorised to spend money for such a purpose?
  Mr. BUXTON: There are at present no branch offices of Labour Exchanges in the West Highlands, and, consequently, an officer of the Greenock Labour Exchange has visited various places in this district with a view to registering applicants desirous of obtaining employment in connection with vacancies which have been notified. The travelling expenses of officers engaged on official duty form a normal part of the expenditure authorised under the Labour Exchanges Act.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for those yards for which these men were obtained, other men were being dismissed every week?
  Mr. BUXTON: No; I have not heard that. I understand that there was a great demand for men at the Labour Exchange, and in view of this the Exchange sent an officer into the West Highlands.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Did the Labour Exchange at Greenock communicate with other Labour Exchanges to see if they had a surplus of labour there?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no doubt they did.

  His Majesty's Trade Commissioners (Reports).
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a condition of the appointment of the trade commissioners for the Dominions that they shall submit a report on the trade of their areas at the end of each year; whether such reports have been received relating to South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand for the year 1909; and, if so, what is the date when they were received and when will they be published?
  Mr. BUXTON: A collection of reports by His Majesty's Trade Commissioners in the Self-Governing Dominions, covering the period from the dates of their appointment to the end of 1910, will be published within the next day or two. Instructions have been given for annual reports to be furnished in future.

  Motor Cars (Hyde Park).
  Mr. MARTINasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, (1) whether the First Commissioner would change the regulations as to Hyde Park so as to exclude private motor-cars from those roads on which taxi-cabs are not 'allowed, and thus give the same access to the parks o people of moderate means as to the rich; (2) whether, in view of the number of Colonials who will be in London in connection with the Coronation, the First Commissioner would consider the advisability of abolishing distinctions in the regulations concerning Hyde Park, so as to put our Colonial visitors on the same terms as to Hyde Park as rich men able to keep their own motor-cars; and (3) whether, in view of the danger to pedestrians and horse-drawn conveyances caused by large and heavy private motor-cars with high horse-power in Hyde Park, the First Commissioner would consider the advisability of restricting private motorcars to the same roads on which taxi-cabs are now allowed to travel?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The First Commissioner is not prepared to exclude private motor cars from any roads in Hyde
  26
  Park to which they are admitted at present. He will be prepared to make any temporary changes in the admission of motors to the park which may be recommended by the police authorities to secure the safety of the public. The reply to the third question is in the negative.

  Luncheons and Dinners (House of Commons).
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the right hon. Member for the Epping Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committeee, whether, in view of the changed conditions which must necessarily follow the payment of Members of this House, he will, as Chairman, recommend to the Kitchen Committee that the time has now come when it is desirable to place the present inadequate charges for the is. luncheons and dinners upon a more businesslike footing; and whether, as these so-called 1s. luncheons and dinners actually cost the Committee from 1s. 3d. to is. 4d., he will recommend that the future payment for a luncheon or dinner of this value shall be ls. 3d., so that the Committee may not only be in a sound position to cater on a basis of the highest standard for all, but that they may be thus empowered to remove any grounds of legitimate complaint against either the food itself or its preparation and cooking?
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I am not at all prepared to admit that the hon. Gentleman's figures as to the so-called shilling luncheon and dinners are correct. When the changed conditions alluded to by the hon. Member become law I will endeavour to find out whether Members of the House desire to spend an increased portion of their income in food. I am afraid the Kitchen Committee will never be able to remove all cause for complaint from the food itself, or its preparation, whatever be the price charged.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Government that it would be more in the spirit of the payment of Members to provide them with free lunches in order to render their services —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."]
  Mr. KILBRIDE: In order to improve the decoration of the tables in the dining-room will the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee secure the return of the Dublin Crown Jewels?
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, I have to say that any representations that bring money into my pocket will be gladly made to His Majesty's Government.

  Prison Chaplaincies (Scotland).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Lord Advocate whether the chaplaincies of His Majesty's prisons in Scotland can be held by clergymen of any denomination; and whether, if clergymen of the non-established churches are not legally eligible for these positions, he is prepared to remove the disability?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The statutory requirement is that to each prison there must be appointed a chaplain being a minister or licentiate of the Church of Scotland. Where, however, the number of prisoners belonging to some church or religious persuasion differing from the Church of Scotland is so great as to require the ministrations of a minister of their own church or persuasion, there is power to appoint and pay such a minister, and this provision is carried out in practice. There is no present intention to legislate in the matter.

  Emigration from Scotland.
  Captain GILMOURasked when emigration statistics analogous to those published in Command Paper No. 5607 with respect to Ireland will be published for Scotland?
  Mr. BUXTON: The question of obtaining and publishing additional particulars with regard to emigrants is at present under consideration, but I cannot at present name a date for the purpose.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has not the time now arrived when it would be convenient to publish a Paper giving the emigration statistics both for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all in one?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir.

  Public Trustee Act.
  Captain WARINGasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the generally expressed desire that the Public Trustee Act should be so widened as to enable beneficiaries to compel their trustees to resign in favour of the Public Trustee, he can see his way to introduce legislation embodying such a proposal?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): This matter is under consideration, but in any event it is not proposed to introduce legislation during the present Session.

  Newcomen Foundation School.
  Mr. EDWARD STRAUSSasked the President of the Board of Education when the Board propose to sanction the scheme prepared by the governors of Newcomen's Foundation, Southwark, which was sanctioned by the London County Council so long ago as July, 1910; and, if, in view of the fact that only a small proportion of the income of the foundation will be derived from grants from the Board of Education, the former decision of the Board to do nothing until after the settling of the new regulations for technical schools will be revised?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Board are now prepared to consider the question of framing a scheme for this foundation following the lines of the proposals of the governors, and I hope that it may be possible to deal with the matter before very long. A deputation from the governors is being invited to discuss the proposals with officers of the Board at an early date. I must not be taken to accept, without reserve, the assumptions underlying the second part of the question.

  Income Tax on Mortgage.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is customary amongst a certain class of solicitors and moneylenders in South Wales to compel mortgagees to pay Income Tax on their mortgage, and to threaten to foreclose the bond unless they do so; and what steps he proposes taking to put an end to this practice?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I assume the word mortgagee is a misprint. I beg. to refer the hon. Member to Section 103 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and to Section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, which provide for the payment of tax by the mortgagee through the instrumentality of a deduction of the amount by the mortgagor from the interest which he pays.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The misprint was due to my bad handwriting.

  Unearned Income Rate.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether, in spite. of Subsection 7 (3) of Section 19 of the

  29
  Finance Act, 1907, which defines earned income as including any income from any property which is attached to or forms part of the emoluments of any office or employment of profit held by the individual, clergymen are still charged at the unearned income rate of 1s. 2d. in the £ upon their rectories and manses, although the enjoyment of the house is part of their earned income; and whether he can see his way to remedy this grievance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Where a clergyman's total income from all sources, estimated according to the several rules and directions of the Income Tax Acts, does not exceed £2,000, and a claim for relief in respect of earned income is made in due time, the tax on the rectory or manse is charged at the rate of 9d. in the £, if the value of the house is part of such income.

  Payment of Members.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will approach the railway companies with a view to finding out whether all Members could obtain free passes over the railways of Great Britain and Ireland by the sacrifice of £100 out of their £400 salary; and, if so, whether he will consider making this change in the provision proposed in the Budget for Members?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government do not at the present time intend to introduce legislation providing for free passes over the railways for Members of Parliament.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do not railway directors get free passes over all the railways of the country?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I believe so, but that is quite a different matter.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the Railway Clearing House or in any other way whether he can secure this without legislation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like, first of all, to know whether that is the wish of the House of Commons before making any inquiry.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Australia and other countries like that the first thing done is to supply free passes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know, but there is this essential difference: In Australia the railways are State railways, and the same thing applies in Germany. In France they have passes over the State railways, but they form a very small proportion of the whole.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that though Canada only possesses one State railway, free passes are granted to legislators on all the railways of Canada?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman knows Canada very well, and he knows that the conditions of the railways in Canada are very different from those in this country. In Canada great grants of land have been made to the railways by the State, and I can understand the State in that case have some kind of call it would not have in this country.
  Mr. PETO: Is there any material difference between sacrificing part of the profits that would otherwise accrue to, the State through State railways and paying a part of the Revenue of the country for free passes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no difference at all. If Members of Parliament prefer to take their payment partly in the form of railway passes, it is rather a matter for themselves. The railway companies would be only too glad, I am sure.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the right hon. Gentleman leaves it to the House, may I ask him, if we desire to have our salaries doubled, will he agree to it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After all, the responsibility for the control of finance, as I have tried to impress upon the House, is entirely in the hands of the House, and if Members wish to take that responsibility it is theirs, and not mine.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Arising out of that answer—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must defer the rest of this discussion until the Motion for the payment of Members.
  Mr. FELLasked if, as no attendance at the House of Commons will be necessary, the only qualification for Members to draw their £400 a year will be the taking of the oath and the signing of the roll at the beginning of each Parliament; and if, after doing that, the Member will receive his salary each year until the end of that Parliament unless he resigns his seat or dies?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on this subject last Thursday.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any application to extend the payment of Members to Members of the House of Lords, and, if so, will he consider the advisability of doing so on the condition that these gentlemen go away quietly and propose to lead better lives in the future?
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether, before the Estimate for the payment of Members is passed, it is the intention of the Government to repeal that portion of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707, which provides that any person having a new place of profit under the Crown is incapable of being elected, or sitting, or voting in the House of Commons, in order to protect Members from liability to the penalty of £500 provided by the Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The statute referred to applies only to places or offices which are in the gift of the Crown, and can have no application to a seat in the House of Commons.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it was held by a Select Committee in 1839, that the fact that an office was created by Parliament, and not by Royal authority, did not withdraw the office from the operation of the statute?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The seat of a Member of this House is not created by Act of Parliament.

  Tobacco Duty (Effect on Small Manufacturers).
  Mr. LAWSONasked whether the increase of the Tobacco Duty imposed two years ago has adversely affected the smaller manufacturers of the United Kingdom as against the Imperial Tobacco Company?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE:I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to pronounce upon this point.

  National Insurance Bill.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether domestic servants will be entitled, in return for their contributions under the National Insurance Bill, to receive any weekly payments during sickness or disablement so long as they are provided by their employer with board and lodging; and
  32
  whether, in order to entitle domestic servants to receive weekly payments during sickness or disablement, it would be necessary for their employer to refuse to provide them with board and lodging?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Colne Valley division on Thursday.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked what rate of contribution will be required from apprentices and articled pupils under twenty-one who are paid nominal wages under the National Insurance scheme?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Employed contributors under the age of twenty-one will pay, in the case of males 4d., in the case of females 3d. per week, whatever their rate of wages may be.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will these special arrangements be made for apprentices?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only special arrangement that could be made would be to involve a heavier charge upon the employer, and I do not think it would be fair to do that in the case of boys under twenty-one years of age. Another suggestion is you could put the burden on the State, but it would be hardly fair that a State burden should be put upon the fund for young people when we want all the money to insure old people.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether it will be possible for an association not now established on a friendly society basis to qualify for recognition as an approved society under the National Insurance Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, Sir; if it registers itself under any Act of Parliament.
  Mr. STEWARTasked if any assurances have been given on behalf of the Government that, in the financial adjustment in connection with the framing of a Home Rule Bill, the State contribution towards the cost of national insurance will be treated as an Imperial charge, and that Ireland shall not be made specifically re. sponsible for any part of that contribution?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No such assurance has been given. I may remind the hon. Member, however, that in Germany the insurance scheme is under the control of the Empire, not of the separate States
  Major HENDERSONasked how the contributions to the National Insurance scheme were to be paid by female domestic servants who lose their situations, having regard to the fact that in many cases employment is lost owing to the servant leaving her employment to attend a sick relative, and in many such cases her accumulated savings would be required to assist the sick relative?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An employed contributer may miss during unemployment a proportion of contributions not exceeding on an average 6 per cent. without suffering any loss, reduction, or suspension of benefits. If he or she has missed on an average more than 6 per cent. of the contributions, but not more than 25 per cent., a reduction or postponement of sickness benefit will be incurred, in accordance with Schedule 5. Benefits will only be suspended if the arrears exceed 25 per cent. Moreover, a domestic servant in the position described, if her arrears exceeded one or both of these limits, could pay them up at any time within the same or the next calendar year.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked if, under the National Insurance Bill, the man who has subscribed all the years from the age of 16 to 65 without being sick any of the time is to receive no benefit at all?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Bill provides for an insurance against sickness, and the benefit is naturally not payable in the case of a person who has the good fortune to remain in good health.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTER: Would it not be possible to make some addition to the old age pensions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is part of the object of the scheme, and I think if the hon. Gentleman refers he will find it is one of the additional benefits provided for.
  Mr. CASSELasked whether it will be possible for existing industrial assurance companies and societies to become approved societies under the National Insurance Bill, provided that they keep separate accounts in respect of all State insurances; and, if not, what are the reasons for excluding such companies and societies?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Associations of the character described can be recognised as approved societies if they conform to the conditions prescribed by Clauses 18 to 23 of the Bill, including the require-
  34
  ments that they shall not be worked for profit, and that funds raised and administered under the Bill shall be controlled by their members.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every company must try and make a profit?
  Mr. BARNESasked if the member of a superannuation fund, as provided for in Clause 19 of the National Insurance Bill, will have the same liberty of choice as the member of the trade union or friendly society as to receiving his sick benefit, either through such superannuation fund or, alternatively, through a friendly society or trade union of which he may be a member?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative.

  CONTRIBUTIONS DURING UNEMPLOYMENT
  Mr. BARNESasked if by Section 3 of Clause 4 of the National Insurance Bill it is contemplated that an unemployed person may pay only the employé contribution, or that he should pay the whole amount that would fall to be paid in respect to him by employer and employed if he were employed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An employed contributor wishing to pay contributions during a period of unemployment in order to avoid falling into arrear would have to pay the whole amount that if he were employed would fall to be paid in respect of him by his employer and himself.

  DEBATES AND DEPUTATIONS.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked whether, in view of the fact that even with all the assistance available for the framing of a Government Bill two years at least were occupied in the preparation of the National Insurance Bill, he will postpone the Second Reading for a sufficient time to give Members of this House a reasonable opportunity of investigating and considering the effect of its provisions before they have to be discussed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am of opinion that the amount of discussion the II wise should devote to a Bill must necessarily be diminished if special care has been expended in preparing it, and I believe it to be in the public interest that the Second Reading should be proceeded with on the dates which have been announced to the House, so that the House may proceed to examine the details of the measure without exhausting its energies by unduly prolonging the Session.
  Mr. PEEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the actuarial statements as regards the first portion of the Bill have not been issued to the House of Commons?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Prime Minister promised that they would be circulated to-day.
  Mr. PEEL: But they are not here yet.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They will be here to-day. I have been making inquiries, and I find that the proof has been corrected and it has been passed in its final form. I hope it will he circulated in the course of the evening.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: May we assume it as settled that hon. Members will have an opportunity of discussing the matter in the Whole House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question which I would rather the hon. Member addressed to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received in conference any deputation representing those in employment of collecting societies; whether such deputation has proffered a request that the National Insurance Bill, as introduced, should be referred to a Select Committee, or that the Second Reading of the Bill should be postponed until all interests involved have been given time to place their views before the House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not received any such deputation since the Bill was introduced.
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will receive a deputation on this subject?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I believe they have applied, and certainly I am prepared to receive deputations from them or any one else equally interested.
  Mr. BOOTH: Was the request sent to the right hon. Gentleman in writing?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question put to me was whether I had received a deputation. I have not, but I believe I am going to receive a deputation later on.
  Mr. BOOTH: Has the specific request mentioned in the question been made in writing?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I could not tell.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: If he receives this deputation I hope he will bear in mind that these collecting societies and companies waste from 6d. to 9d. in the ls. of the money they receive from the poor.
  Mr. BOOTHasked if a friendly society can become an approved society under the National Insurance Bill if it keeps for specific purposes its reserves and funeral funds, but distributes annually in cash the money saved and subscribed for that object?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him last Wednesday.
  Mr. BOOTHasked if the right hon. Gentleman had received a deputation from the medical profession asking for better treatment under the National Insurance Bill; and whether he contemplates acceding to their request for payment according to the number of visits paid; and, if so, what additional safeguards he proposes to introduce to prevent the dangers of malingering?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have received deputations of members of the medical profession on this subject both before and since the provisions of the Bill were made public. I propose making a statement. on the position of doctors under the scheme during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that a meeting of the Medical Association has been fixed for 31st May, and would it not be possible to wait till then before we vote upon the Second Reading?
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal College of Surgeons at Edinburgh have passed a resolution asking whether the consideration of the measure cannot be further postponed.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to those two questions I think it will be a great advantage to those gentlemen when they meet on 31st May that there should have been a further discussion in this House on those points. I am sure that they are under a complete misapprehension as to the position of doctors under the scheme. I think they will discover that their position will be enormously improved, and therefore I think it will be a great advantage to them that there should be another discussion in the House before they meet.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right lion. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not only the doctors, but all the friendly societies, who are interested, and it is impossible for them to have their meetings before the date fixed for the Second Reading discussion, or for us to be informed of the decisions and opinions expressed at those meetings if the Government adhere to the present date. In order that the House may discuss the matter with full knowledge and come to a sounder decision, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking the Second Reading on a later day?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sure the House will be very reluctant to fix any date that would imperil the passage of the Bill, or that would unduly prolong the length of the Session. Really, I think if the right hon. Gentleman has followed the subject as closely as I am bound to do he will have discovered that all the criticisms directed against the scheme are criticisms of detail, and invariably hon. Members have prefaced their remarks by saying that they are in favour of the object and principle of the Bill. That is all the Second Reading affirms. It does not go beyond that, and I think it would be of enormous advantage to all those friendly societies, insurance societies, and doctors for us to have a full discussion extending over two days in the House of Commons in order to enlighten them upon points which they are really not clear about. It would be an advantage that we should have that discussion before rather than after the meetings referred to.

  DEATH PAYMENTS.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Home Secretary whether a scheme under Clause 55 of the National Insurance Bill might provide for the payment of benefit upon death; and whether it is intended that a scheme containing such provision should be confirmed by the registrar? This question is intended for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom I have communicated. Perhaps he will be good enough to answer.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid it would be quite impossible to include provision for death in our scheme, because there has been a definite pledge, so far as some of the insurance companies are concerned, that we will not interfere with that branch of insurance.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the last General Election the Home Secretary pledged himself that one of the principal provisions of this Bill would be death benefits and provision for widows and orphans?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is this provision for widows; those who have been contributors to the scheme before marriage can on widowhood receive full benefits, not death benefits. They can receive the same sickness benefits, although in the meantime they have not contributed at all, and the pledge of the Home Secretary has been fulfilled to that extent.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does that apply to all widows or only to widows who go back to work?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It applies to all widows who have been contributors before marriage.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Only if they go back to work?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh no, they can become voluntary contributors if they like.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: What about the orphans?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course provision for widows will naturally include provision for orphans.
  Mr. PETO: Even if the widow were dead?
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the reach of the provisions of the National Insurance Bill, and to the interest as well as the alleged misapprehensions which it has excited in the country, and also to the fact that it is really two Bills rolled into one, he will afford better opportunities to the very large number of unofficial Members who desire to speak upon it by giving a third day to the Debate on the Second Reading?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be better able to answer the question when I see how the Debate proceeds.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May we take it it is settled that the Bill wilt be considered in Committee of the whole House, so that every Member may have an opportunity of discussing it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of this question at all. Still my impression is that the Bill ought to be considered in this House.

  Assessments (Ireland)
  Mr. MULDOONasked if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that for over a year past every tax of every kind levied and assessed in Ireland has been put down to the credit of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, seeing there were a number of taxes which were payable in Ireland before that Act became law, whether he will consider the advisability of setting out the authority of the statute under which every tax is claimed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware that there has been a disposition in some quarters—not confined to Ireland— to ascribe every tax, burden, and evil, to the direct or indirect operation of the Finance Act of 1909-10. As regards the second part of the question, I am considering the desirability of some such step as the hon. and learned Member suggests.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can now state the number of assessments for Income Tax under Schedule A received from Ireland in respect of the present year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am unable at present to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.

  Birth Rate.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of children born during the past ten years to all married males and married females certified as insane or feeble-minded and now resident in homes or asylums of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland (separately); and the latest date to which this Return was compiled?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Under the existing law no persons can be certified as feeble-minded. That is a matter with which I hope to deal in the Bill I propose to introduce on this subject. As regards persons certified to be insane, I find there are no returns of the number of their children, and I am advised that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain statistics of any value, and that the cost of collection would he very great. Statements made by the patients themselves would necessarily be unreliable; and each case would have to be made the subject of inquiry and correspondence.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Is he aware of the decadent tendency of the nation
  40
  due to the diminishing birth-rate in regard to the children born of healthy, honest and industrious parents, and the increasing birth-rate in the case of feeble-minded parents?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is really not a supplementary question. The hon. Member has got it all written out.
  Mr. HOUSTON: May I communicate with the right hon. Gentleman on this point?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much in agreement with the hon. Member.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States of America some of the States have already introduced legislation adopting the scientific methods of Dr. Rentoul of Liverpool, and in connection with this subject will he kindly look into these matters?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot discuss this question at Question time.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining statistics as to the number of children born to unmarried feeble-minded women, and as to the number of children born to parents who have been imprisoned for a longer period than fourteen days, or to parents who are or have been certified at any time as feeble-minded?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There are at present no complete or trustworthy statistics as to the number of children born to mentally defective parents, but some statistics which the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded obtained will be found in their published Report and Appendices. The Bill which is being prepared to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission will, I hope, enable proper statistics to be obtained in the future. It would not be possible to obtain statistics as to the number of children born to parents who have been imprisoned for a longer period than fourteen days.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information?

  Inebriates.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state the number of inebriates at present (or from his latest Returns, and the dates thereof) resident in homes, reformatories, or other establishments provided for their accommoda-

  41
  tion in England and Wales, in Scotland, and in Ireland separately; and the number of children, of ten years of age and under, whose fathers or mothers have been certified as inebriates?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: From inquiries that have been made it appears that in England and Wales the number of persons now detained in inebriate reformatories and in licensed retreats for inebriates is 1.297. According to the statements made by these persons, they have 447 living children of ten years of age and under. In Scotland there are 78 persons in institutions of this nature, but the number of children is not stated. In Ireland the number of persons detained is 118, and the number of children of these persons, of ten years and under, is 57. I have no information respecting persons in homes which are not licensed, nor as to the number of children of inebriates in general. No persons are "certified" as inebriates.
  Mr. HOUSTON: In view of the very serious nature of this question will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It would mean an amendment of the law.

  Factory and Workshops Acts (Draft Orders).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to giving Members an adequate opportunity of learning of the existence of draft orders issued by the Home Office under the Factory and Workshops Acts, before they are signed by him, he will arrange that in the future a copy of such draft orders shall be made available either in the Library or in the Vote Office?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be happy to arrange for copies of these draft orders to be placed in the Library.

  Manufacture of Artificial Silk Fibre (Night Labour).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether an effective opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the Order permitting male young persons engaged in the manufacture of artificial silk fibre to be employed at night before the Order is finally confirmed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated in reply to the questions on the subject last week,
  42
  the Order has already been made, and, in pursuance of Section 126 of the Factory Act, has been laid before Parliament. I understand that no special facilities are required for a discussion on the Order, as such a discussion is regarded as exempted business under Standing Order 1.

  International Penitentiary Congress (Washington).
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, in his recent Report on the proceedings of the International Penitentiary Congress held at Washington last year, that it is held by the authorities of the best American prisons that the diet must be ample if there is to be mental quickening and reformation; whether he is aware that short-time prisoners in English prisons are always hungry; that prisoners are often discharged in low condition and thus peculiarly obnoxious to the temptation of drink; and whether he will again cause the question of diet in English prisons to be reconsidered?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The English prison dietary was the subject of the most minute inquiry in 1898, and the main principle kept in view was that the prison diet was not to be regarded as an instrument of punishment. The new dietary was introduced in 1901 at a cost of nearly £40,000 a year, and its general effect is detailed in the report of the medical inspector, pages 41–43, Annual Report, 1901–2. The statement that short-time prisoners in English prisons are always hungry is unfounded. The improvements in the diets of 1901 were made specifically to prevent this and were in reversal of the old principle that for short sentences the diet should be used as an instrument of punishment. I have no reason to believe that prisoners are discharged in such a low condition as to induce a craving for drink. In the opinion of the Commissioners, in which I concur, there is no case for an increase of the English prison diet.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the effect that the statement that short-time prisoners are always hungry is unfounded, may I ask the Home Secretary if he will be good enough to confer with his right hon. colleague the President of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The experiences of my right lion. Friend, I think, were antecedent to the reform which, I think, was undertaken in 1901.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the Report of the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland on the proceedings of the International Penitentary Congress held at Washington last year, in which attention is drawn to the fact that in the best American prisons meals are usually served in a common dining hall, and that American authorities attach great importance to this practice, and the opinion is expressed by the author of the Report that the subject deserves careful attention; and whether he will consider the question with a, view to the tentative introduction of the practice in English prisons?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen the Report in question, and also that of the chairman of the Prison Commission for England, who visited a large number of American prisons; and I find no reasons for thinking that American authorities attach great moral importance to the practice of common meals in ordinary prisons. In the case of younger prisoners subject to specifically reformatory treatment, the taking of meals in common is a good and wholesome practice to be used as a privilege, and carried out under close and rigorous supervision; and it is so used in Borstal institutions in this country. But for prisoners generally meals in common, so far from having any moral value, would be a fruitful source of corruption and demoralisation; and I may add that they would not be acceptable to prisoners, who usually dislike being forced into close association with other prisoners of various classes and character. This was specially notable at State Inebriate Reformatories, where the practice of common meals was tried and had to be abandoned because it was so much disliked by the inmates.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the Report by the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland on the Proceedings of the International Penitentiary Congress, held at Washington last year, in which it is stated that, according to the best American prison practice, much more frequent letters to prisoners from relations are allowed than with us, and that an American governor expressed the opinion that our system is absolutely cruel in this re-
  44
  spect; and if he will consider whether the time has come for the amelioration of the practice in English prisons in this regard?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The periods to be allowed for letters and visits to prisoners have been the subject of repeated and careful consideration. The question of letters was considered by the Committee of 1894, and their only recommendation was that a larger discretion should be allowed to Visiting Committees in applying the regulations. Since the Committee reported, the facilities for letters have been considerably extended by the Prison Rules of 1898, which are now in force. The experience of the Prison Commissioners goes to show that the present system is fair, reasonable, and humane, and I do not think that any further relaxation is desirable.

  Heath Fires.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary whether his notice has been drawn to the increase in the number of heath fires in the neighbourhood of Midhurst, Sussex, and elsewhere, and the resultant damage to property and danger to life; and whether he is prepared to take special measures to assist the local police in controlling the situation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Chief Constable that the heath fires in the neighbourhood of Midhurst this season have not been more extensive than the average in former years, and that there has been no danger to property other than the commons themselves. The police have made, and continue to make, every effort to prevent these fires and to discover the persons causing them, and I do not think that I could intervene to any good purpose.

  Financial Relations Committee (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the chairman of the committee investigating Ireland's financial relations for the benefit of the Cabinet was one of those responsible for the defective financial arrangements of the Irish Land Act of 1903, which broke down in the working of that Act, or for the findings of the Treasury Committee appointed to investigate the causes of that breakdown, which findings in turn had to be abandoned by the Government as unsustainable?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information as to the names of the officials

  45
  who were concerned in framing the financial provisions of the Irish Land Act of 1903.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if Sir Henry Primrose was in the public service at that date?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No doubt he was.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover and the present Member for Cork are not mainly responsible for the failure of these provisions?
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether Sir Henry Primrose is now in receipt of public money either as salary or as pension?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Henry Primrose was a most distinguished public servant, and was for many years Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and, to the best of my knowledge—and it is certainly my hope, he is receiving a pension for those services.

  Appointment of Magistrates.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether certain trades and labour councils are asking for some representation of the workers upon the advisory committees set up to consider appointments to the magisterial bench; and whether he will ask the Lord Chancellor to obtain such representation on the county as well as on the borough advisory committees?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the Lord Chancellor has already asked some representatives of labour to join advisory committees for counties as well as boroughs, and will continue to do so where such representation seems desirable.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: May I ask the Prime Minister why that question falls within his province to answer and why a question I put down about the magistrates was answered by the Home Secretary?
  The PRIME MINISTER:I do not know what the Noble Lord's question was, but I believe it was a question relating to the Home Office.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: It was a question about the appointment of magistrates.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that is a question for the Home Office.

  Road Board.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked upon what Vote in the Estimates, or on what other occasion, the House will have an opportunity of discussing the work and policy of the Road Board?
  The PRIME MINISTER: An occasion for discussing the work and policy of the Road Board will arise on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide recess.

  Members of Parliament and Civil Service Appointments.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister if the Registrar-General declines to sanction the appointment of members of boards of guardians as registrars of births and deaths, unless such persons have ceased to be members for twelve months; and whether, in view of the fact that nearly all local authorities agree with the Registrar-General, and themselves prohibit their members either from applying for or accepting paid positions in their service, he will reconsider his decision and ask the House of Commons to adopt such regulations as will ensure its members leading the way in establishing and maintaining the purity of public life by declining to apply for or receive Civil Service appointments whilst Members of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I see no sufficient reason for reconsidering this matter.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask why there should be a less high standard of social service in the House of Commons than outside?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter of opinion, and, as I have already pointed out, I do not see any analogy between the two cases.

  Corrupt Practices at Elections.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether His Majesty's Government are considering some amendment to the Corrupt Practices Act by which organised charity will no longer be legally distinguishable from organised bribery?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This matter has not yet come under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL.
Mr. MORRELL: May I rise to a point of Order in reference to the private business of to-day? I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you were under the impression when the Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill was called no objection was taken to it, and that in consequence you ruled that when it is taken on Report it must be taken as an unopposed Bill. I very respectfully want to point out that not only had I notice of Motion on the Paper, asking that the Bill should be recommitted, but that I came down specially to this House to object to the Bill. I rose in my place to object to it as soon as I could, and a good many of my hon. Friends here heard me object, and immediately after I objected they, too, objected. I would, therefore, ask very respectfully whether as, in my judgment, the fault, if it is a fault, was in your not hearing my objection, you will reverse the ruling and allow us to have a Debate on this Bill when it is taken on Report.
Mr. DICKINSON: May I say I also was hero for the purpose of objecting formally to this measure, and when my hon. Friend raised his objection I understood that that objection had been accepted by you, for this reason, that you did not proceed, as usual, to take the voice of the House as a matter of form You did not put the question, "The Ayes have it" or "The Noes have it." I therefore assumed that you had accepted the objection.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Members, if I may say so, are in error in this matter. There was no question put at all. What happened was this: When the Clerk called out "Consideration of Bills Ordered to lie on the Table"—"Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill"—I said, as I was bound to do, "Ordered to be read the third time." After I had said that, the hon. Member, who, I think, was engaged in conversation at the moment that this was taking place, said, "I object." I remarked sotto voce to the Clerk, "The hon. Member is too late." That is all that occurred. The hon. Member was out of time in raising his objection. If he had raised the objection when the Motion was called and before I said "Ordered to be read the third time," then, of course, he would have been in order.
Mr. MORRELL: I did raise the objection the moment the Clerk had spoken, and before you had said "Ordered to be read the third time." I have no sort of
48
doubt in my own mind that that is so. I was sitting in my place for the purpose, and, as soon as the Clerk had finished speaking I rose in my place and said, "I object." I was rather surprised you went on to say "Bill ordered to be read the third time." I would therefore ask whether you can see fit to take my word in this matter that I did say: "I object," and that, as I said before, if there was any error, the error was that you failed to hear my word.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am very sorry I cannot take the hon. Member's word. Of course, if I had the slightest doubt I should be very glad to do so; but I have my own recollection which is perfectly distinct as to what occurred. In my mind there is not the slightest doubt about the matter.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will you allow me, as one who witnessed the incident, and whose recollection is absolutely clear, that when the Clerk read out the Order the hon. Member was engaged in conversation, and it was not until after you had put the question that he objected.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I say, very respectfully, as one of the hon. Members who was here and who were waiting for this question to be put in order to object, that the hon. Member did object at the proper time, and that I, for one, was surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Burnley that his objection was not allowed.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am very sorry, but the hon. Members did not object in time. I can assure them that they are wrong, and if they will consult any gentleman in the Gallery (where the Parliamentary agents were seated) they will be assured by them that they are in error. But their position is not worsened in any way. The Bill will come up for Third Reading, and, if they wish, they can then move that it be recommitted, or, if they wish simply to discuss it, they can put down a notice of objection and will be able to discuss it on the motion for the Third Reading. I may repeat I should be very glad to accept their recollection if it were not that in this instance I am perfectly certain as to what occurred.
Mr. MORRELL: I do not wish to continue this matter, but I want to have one point certain. I want it to be quite clear that when the Bill comes up for the Third Reading, and I object, I shall not be

49
objecting to the whole Bill, but only to the portion of it which I wish to see recommitted.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put down a Motion. He is not a novice in the House. He knows he can put a Motion down that the Bill be recommitted in respect of a particular Clause.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS (PUBLIC CHARGES)—QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to get your ruling on a point which occurred in the Debate of Friday last. I am not going to raise this point on a particular Bill, but I want to get your ruling on a general question which is of importance to the Department with which I am connected. You on Friday last ruled that in the case of a Bill which in the previous Session has been blocked on the Motion for Second Reading, but no exception at that time had been taken on the ground that its contents infringed the Prerogative of the Crown to recommend a charge on the public, this House was precluded from subsequently taking exception to it on that ground. What I wish to ask is this, what is the proper time in the proceeding of this House at which such exception should be taken by the Department? Is it on the first occasion the Order is read? Also, in view of the Parliamentary practice which is laid down by Sir Erskine May, at page 559, in the eleventh edition of his hook, is it within the competence of the Chair to put a Motion for the Second Reading of a Bill which deals mainly or wholly with the creation of a public charge without a previous financial resolution of this House? I In asking this, I hope it will be clearly understood that the question has relation to any future measures that may come before the House, and in no way challenges the ruling already given in regard to a particular Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In my judgment the proper time to take exception to a Bill is when the Order is read. Of course, if a Bill has not been printed and circulated at that moment, it is impossible for objection then to be taken, and for general convenience it should be taken on the first reasonable opportunity. That is all I can say. When the Department or hon. Mem-
50
bers who object have seen the contents of the Bill, that is the time when objection should be taken. With regard to the second question put by the right hon. Gentleman it is no doubt the duty of the Chair to watch very closely Bills which are brought into this House and are circulated and stand for Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I had to apologise for not having made myself master of the contents of this Bill. I will only say there are fifty-seven Bills on the Orders for to-day. It is really impossible for me to read them all or to master the contents of them all. I have to throw myself on the indulgence of the House. I look to the Departments concerned for assistance, and I shall always be glad to receive any indication from them of their view as to whether the contents of a Bill are or are not in order, and on that I wilt exercise my own judgment.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether, to lighten the task of the Department and at the same time to facilitate the task of the Chair, it would be possible that in such cases it should be open to the Department to give notice of objection to the Order on this particular ground to the particular Member concerned, so that, as the Amendment appears on the Order Paper, there will be such notice visible to the Chair and to the House that objection is taken by the Department on the ground that the Bill imposes a public charge.
Mr. SPEAKER: That would be a novel practice, and I would not like at the moment to commit myself to it. The usual practice is this: The Department, as soon as the Bill is circulated, if it is in any doubt, calls the attention of the authorities of the House, including myself, to it. I then come to the best decision I can upon it, and if my decision is adverse to the Bill, I am then in a positon to inform the promoters, and if the Bill should stand as first Order on a particular day, the promoters are not disappointed if they find that it is my duty to rule that the Bill is out of order. I think it is rather hard on the promoters that they should bring their Friends down here to support a Bill and then find suddenly at the last moment that objection is taken to it, and the Chair has to rule that it cannot be proceeded with. Although technically that line of procedure is perfectly proper, I repeat it is rather hard on the promoters that it should be so.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask whether that would involve the presentation of resolutions on a Bill which involves the expenditure of public money before the Second Reading?
Mr. SPEAKER: A private Member cannot present such a resolution. It must be presented by a Member of the Government. With regard to Government Bills which impose a charge, the Government are, of course, fully aware of that fact and can take their own measures for setting up Committee and getting the resolutions through.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What I want to know is, does it necessarily involve a Committee before the Second Reading?
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Who is the authority who decides whether or not a Bill shall be printed? I had a Bill, an order to print which was refused, but I found that a very similar Bill before the House last Friday had been printed. I want to know who is the authority which has power to stop the printing of a Bill?
Mr. SPEAKER: The authority, I suppose, is myself. I am aided, of course, by very expert gentlemen in different Departments of the House of Commons, but still I am responsible. I do not recall the Bill the hon. Member refers to. I should doubt if it was identically the same as the one moved last Friday, as lie suggests, as I think the promoters of the Bill were careful to insert a Clause which would pass muster, and the hon. Member did not put that particular Clause in his Bill. With regard to the answer I gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, of course if a Bill is entirely a Money Bill simply for the purpose of imposing a charge upon the people, then a preliminary Resolution is absolutely necessary, and a Bill of that kind, brought in by a private Member, cannot be proceeded with without it
Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I ask a further question, Sir, with your indulgence? It is laid down that it is not possible for the Chair to put to the House a Bill which imposes a charge upon the public unless an authorisation has been received by a Resolution passed in Committee of the Whole House. You, Sir, on Friday last ruled that if the point had escaped your notice at the earlier part of the proceedings of the House you would be precluded from thus ruling the Bill out of order. In the page of Sir Erskine May, to which I
52
ventured to refer you very respectfully, it is there laid down that it is not within the competence of the Chair to put such a Bill to the House. Therefore, Sir, I direct your attention to the fact that if the practice as laid down by Sir Erskine May is to be followed it is impossible for the Chair not to withdraw the Bill from the cognizance of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: Per incuriam a wrong question may be put, and if this should occur the best thing to do is to take steps to retrieve your error. I will take the best steps I can to retrieve my error by setting to work to read all the Bills likely to come on.
Mr. BOOTH: What is to happen in the case of private Members? Supposing we leave it to the Departments and they prove not to be careful watchdogs, is it open for a private Member to ask you the question? Bills are often not printed, and last Friday in the Vote Office I found twenty Bills which had not been. Supposing an hon. Member discovers a point of this sort is he at liberty to assist you, Sir?
Mr. SPEAKER: I shall be very glad indeed to receive assistance.
Mr. LEIF JONES: You said, Sir, that promoters might be disappointed if they came down with their friends at the last moment and found it impossible to proceed with a Bill, and that would no doubt be unfortunate; but may I ask whether, if a valid objection is raised even at the last moment, you would rule the Bill out of order? Otherwise hon. Members might be deprived of their legitimate right to object to a Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: If objection is raised, even at the last moment, I am bound, of course, to rule that a Bill shall not be proceeded with. All I was saying was that the usual practice has been to call the attention of the Speaker sometime before in order that Members who come down shall not be disappointed. I think that is a very reasonable practice.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask you, Sir, in particular to say whether in the case of a Government Bill such as the Insurance Bill it is necessary that there should be a Resolution before the Second Reading stage. I understand in reference to that Bill a Resolution will be required before we come to the Committee stage—either before we enter upon the Committee stage or upon certain Clauses

53
during the Committee stage, but what I wanted to make quite certain of was whether you rule that in the case of such a Bill objection should be taken before the Second Reading?
Mr. SPEAKER: Not before the Second Reading, but before the Clause is entered upon.

ASYLUM OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT, PENSIONS, AND SUPER- ANNUATION) BILL.
Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Asylum Officers (Employment, Pensions, and Superannuation) Bill do consist of Eighteen Members:
That Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Black, Mr. Brocklehurst, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Charles Craig, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Higham, Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Stanier, Mr. Wardle, and Viscount Wolmer be Members of the said Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
That Three be the quorum.—[Master of Elibank.]

WAYS AND MEANS.— [16th May.]— REPORT.

  FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS.—TEA.
  Resolution reported, "That the Customs Duty charged on tea until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and eleven, shall be charged as from that date until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twelve, that is to say:—
  Tea, the pound … fivepence"—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Resolution read a second time.
  Mr. WHELER: I beg to move after the word "pound" ["Tea, the pound"] to insert the words, "if grown within the British Empire fourpence; if grown without the British Empire."
  My Amendment is a very simple one, and its object is to further the great idea of Imperial Preference by giving to tea grown in our Colonies the benefit of a penny less in the pound by way of tax. It will also bring about a decrease in the price of tea, because a considerable por-
  54
  tion of the tea imported into this country comes from the Colonies. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there will be a reduction to the consumer if not of a penny at least of a substantial kind. The Tea Duty presses very unevenly upon the people of this country, because the same duty is levied upon inferior and low-priced tea—namely, fivepence—as is levied upon the more expensive descriptions. Tea varies in price from 8d. to 5s. in the pound, but a uniform duty is imposed upon all classes of consumers alike, and the man who consumes cheap tea is paying a far higher duty in proportion than the man who buys the higher priced article. Therefore, on the face of it, the duty seems to me to be a very unfair and unjust one, and one which one would like to see alleviated and lightened as soon as possible. We find that last year we received from foreign countries something like thirty-three million pounds of tea, whereas from the British Empire something like two hundred and fifty million pounds came in. If a penny were taken off this latter quantity there would undoubtedly be a considerable reduction in price to the consumers in this country. I am quite aware that I shall be probably met by the statement from the Government that they are not in a position to accept this proposal upon the ground of expense, but there are two replies to that. plea: one is that the tea duty is just as injurious as it was last year, and therefore I am entitled to bring this question forward again, and to try to get something done to remove this injustice; and the second is that only last week we had a most optimistic speech from the Chancellor of Exchequer on the subject of the revenue.
  He said the prospect of an advance in trade was excellent, and that the index of the trade barometer was "set fair." Further on he stated he was reckoning on a "sunny year," and all these expressions make me think that it is time that something should be done to relieve the community as a whole from one of the most heavy food taxes which it has to pay. We also know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to make certain concessions with regard to the Cocoa Duties, which I think have been brought about more by party and political considerations than any present need to-day with regard to the trade. I do not think the reduction will have any effect upon the price or benefit the

  55
  workers in that trade, who are the best housed, the best fed, and the best looked after of any workers in any trade in the country. On these grounds, and as we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is so prosperous that he can give the Members of this House a quarter of a million of money, I think it is a fitting time that the community should be relieved from the burden of this tax. That is my reason for moving this Amendment this afternoon. I know we shall be met with the statement that the money cannot be found, but even if the Chancellor cannot accept the actual proposal which I put forward on the ground of its simplicity there might be other ways in which the tax on tea might be modified or graduated so that the person who buys the cheaper tea shall not have to pay the same tax as the person who buys the higher-priced article.
  My object in moving this Amendment is because I think that this tax does hit the working community very hardly, as tea is an essential in every household. That is one of my reasons for moving this Amendment, but there is another and a very important one, and that is that it would encourage the principle of Imperial Preference. I think at a time like this, when we know there is about to begin a new Imperial Conference between representatives from our various Dominions in all parts of the world who are assembled here, if the Government can see their way to meet us in this small matter of Colonial Preference it would be a very gracious act and a very beneficial one, which would show that we all desire closer commercial union between every part of our Empire. Those are the two reasons why I venture to move the Amendment this afternoon, and I would appeal very frankly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to consider this question, and see if something cannot be done. I do not want to bring forward the questions which we heard so much about at election times, but at the same time we know that there has been and will be much said about food taxes. At the last election we heard as much of the question as ever, and here the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity of lightening one of our food taxes.
  Mr. BARNSTON: I desire very briefly to second the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved, and I do so for the same reasons which he has brought forward.
  56
  One is that I think the whole duty on tea as it stands at present is too high, and the other is that I want to establish, even if only in a small way, the principle of Colonial Preference. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, and as this House well knows, the great bulk of the tea which comes in and is consumed in this country, is sent from our own Colonies, and I do not think anyone will suggest that if you take a. penny off Colonial tea and leave the duty as it is in regard to tea which comes from other countries, a benefit will not be given to the consumer, and that the price of tea will not be reduced. To my mind it would really be absurd to suggest that unless at the same time you prove that the area of production cannot be extended and that there is no competition amongst producers, both factors of which, of course, are absent in this particular case. It is quite true that, I think, in 1906, the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that taking a penny off tea would not be any advantage to the consumer, and I believe the very next year, or at any rate within two years, he himself took a penny off tea. I presume, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman waited and saw and discovered the error which he had previously made. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite realises how very many great objections there are to the tea tax. Tea, as we all know, is a very necessary food of the poor, and a food which we want to encourage the poor to use and, as a matter of fact, the poor to-day spend much more on their tea in proportion to the rich, because the tax is on weight and not ad valorem. I think most people will admit that a great deal more tea is consumed in the cottages of the poor in proportion than in the houses of the rich, and the tax can be of no benefit to anyone, even indirectly, in this country, because we do not produce any tea at home.
  I suppose the objections to the tea tax will almost be admitted by hon. Members opposite. I will not refer to election addresses because some hon. Members think that what they leave out is more important than what they put in; but at the last election we had stuck on every gate post: "Tax the luxuries of the rich, and not the necessities of the poor. Do you want cheap food? Then vote for So-and-So, and hands off the people's food." We do not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take his hands off the whole of the people's food, because we know that is

  57
  impossible, but we ask him to take the tax off one item of the people's food which is very necessary for the poor. We also believe that if you take the tax off tea which comes from the Colonies you will increase the idea of Colonial Preference. I know the application of the idea in this Amendment is very limited in extent, because it can only apply to India and Ceylon, but I believe, even as regards India and Ceylon, we shall find that reductions could be made in their tariffs with advantage if the Governments concerned thought they would get some advantage from us. Whenever we speak of Colonial Preference we are told by hon. Members opposite that we cannot have it because it will increase the cost of the people's food. The argument may be sound or unsound, but the inevitable effect of the Preference which we suggest by this Amendment must be that it will not increase but decrease the cost of the people's food. By taking a penny off the tea which comes from our Colonies you will be taking a penny off tea which is consumed by the working classes. We have in our country a certain proportion—I believe only a small proportion—of China tea, but everyone knows that it is consumed practically only by well-to-do people. It might possibly be argued that, China tea being what I may call a luxury, the people who buy it would possibly still continue to buy it, but if they do not the only result would be that we should take more tea from India and less from China. Surely by doing that you would be increasing a great industry in India, by increasing a great industry in India you would be increasing the purchasing power of India, and by increasing the purchasing power of India you would be increasing the volume of manufactures which they take from us, and indirectly increasing employment and wages for working people here. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance, at any rate as regards the rate of the Tea Tax, and that he will bear in mind this question which so affects the working classes.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): This is a very hardy annual. In fact, I am not sure I was not the first to move it by way rather of testing the sincerity of the views expressed on the other side of the House then with regard to Colonial Preference. I moved it and secured a seconder from my own side, but could not get anyone to go into the Lobby with me, though there were about 200 Colonial Preferentialists in the
  58
  House. The reason, no doubt, was that they could not at the moment afford to get rid of the duty. The hon. Members who have moved the Amendment have raised two separate and distinct questions. One is that the duty is too high at present. That I am not prepared to challenge, but if I could afford to take off some part of the duty this is by no means the form in which I should start doing it. I will tell the House the reason why. If you are going to begin Imperial Preference I do not think this at any rate is the best place to start it. It is assumed that all the tea that comes from China is a luxury. As a matter of fact some of the cheapest tea comes from China at present. Of course, there is a trade with a very special class of China tea, but that is a very limited part of the amount. The vast majority of the teas which come from China are exceedingly cheap teas, and you cannot put a higher duty on China tea without interfering with the teas of the poorest people in this country. I have another reason. I am now dealing purely with the preference part of the argument. If you give a preference to India in this respect, what can India do in return? The idea is that you should give a preference and have an arrangement with India? India at present takes about four-fifths of her imported goods from us. On the other hand, we by no means are her best customers. The United States of America is an extraordinarily good customer, and the increase in the trade between the United States and India is enormous year by year.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are you talking of all trades or of tea only?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Purely of tea. I do not really know what the figures are with regard to other commodities. If you had an arrangement of this kind between this country and India, involving, of course, mutual preference, it must be an arrangement which would be detrimental to the United States. What is proposed is that we, who at present enjoy something like four-fifths, I believe, of the trade of India in imported manufactured goods, should, by means of an arrangement of this kind, compel India to discriminate against some of her very best customers. That is an arrangement which would be exceedingly hard to force upon the population of India. Let us look at it from the point of view of China. The tea we take from China is a very small proportion of the total tea that is imported into this country. We get 18,000,000 pounds of tea

  59
  from China and from our British possessions 233,000,000 pounds. That is a very small proportion, and to discriminate against, China in a matter where there are only 18,000,000 pounds involved would take away a proportion of the revenue which I could not afford, and would, in addition, discriminate against China in a matter vital to her trade, she being also one of our best customers. A good deal of our trade with China passes through Hong Kong. China buys more of our goods than she buys from any other country in the world. Speaking from memory, I think China buys more of our goods than of the goods of any three European countries put together. Is it really fair, is it good business, that you should discriminate heavily against one of the very best customers we have in the whole world? China and the Argentine are the two countries where we are easily first, where on the whole we have maintained our lead and where we are increasing our business year by year, and therefore I think it is an exceedingly bad thing for business, when we are doing such admirable trade with China, that, purely in order to carry out what is called a principle which in itself would be very unfair to the very country concerned, we should also quarrel with one of our very best customers in the world. If I were an advocate of Imperial Preference I certainly would not begin with tea. Tea would be a very bad business to begin with at any rate. I am now arguing from the standpoint of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and I am certain that if he 'were a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Tariff Reform Administration, and if he began to carry out the principles which he has advocated with such fervour in this House, and I am sure with greater fervour on many platforms in the country, in his own constituency and in others, and evidently with very great effect in his own, he would not begin with tea. It is full of all sorts of difficulties and complications. It involves hitting your best customer and inflicting injury upon the very great British possession which we are supposed to prefer. I shall certainly oppose this Amendment.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly said that this Amendment is becoming an annual one. It is likely to be an annual Amendment until it finds itself placed upon the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman says he himself was the first to
  60
  move, and that he did not at that time get any support from us who sat on the Government Benches. That is quite true. Rightly or wrongly, in introducing to the notice of our countrymen a great new principle, we thought it was not fair to pledge the House of Commons to the change without any reference to the country, and we had undertaken until we had consulted the country that we would make no change in our fiscal system. We are now free to advocate and support in this House on every possible occasion that change in the fiscal system. The right hon. Gentleman said the subject introduced by my two hon. Friends, in very interesting and able speeches, was, after all, a small thing in itself, and not the point at which you ought to begin Imperial Preference, even if it were within the contemplation of the Government to start that system at once. I frankly admit that I am mainly interested in the Amendment of my hon. Friend as being one more opportunity for putting forward our views in favour of a common Imperial commercial policy, and of the principle of mutual preference for British productions throughout all parts of the British Empire. If the Tea Duty were the first and last means by which we could promote that policy, I think the policy would have comparatively small reasons to support it, and that it would have, even if adopted, a small yield. But that is only part of a very much bigger policy, which I cannot discuss on this occasion. Whenever we put the Tea Duty forward, it must be understood that, whether we are alluding to and arguing the larger question or not, with us it is not the whole policy, but only one portion of a greater and more extensive policy. But even if you take the Tea Duty on its merits, is it open to the objection which the right hon. Gentleman brings against it? He says he cannot afford to give up the present revenue; he cannot afford to empty his pocket unless somebody will fill it up by some other means. We will undertake to fill it up for him if lie will swallow a. little more of our prescription.
  The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that the acceptance of the Amendment would be injurious alike to India and Great Britain. Take the case of India first. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we should be compelling India to discriminate against her best customer, and in a later passage he said, we should be discriminating against our best customer.

  61
  That is a doctrine which is the peculiar possession of the Government of the day, and it finds no place in the mind of any other civilised Government. The idea that to treat your own people in a better way than we treat strangers is to discriminate in an unjustifiable manner in favour of your own people and against other countries is an idea which is repudiated by every other Government in the world. We are the best customer of America. Do they consider that they are discriminating against us when they give better terms to their oversea Dependencies than they give to us? Does that prevent them from bargaining against us with the island of Cuba? Nothing of the sort. Everywhere else throughout the civilised world the affairs of an Empire within the bounds of the Empire are recognised as the affairs of that Empire alone with which foreign Empires have nothing to do. It is only we who are to be told that, because the seas separate or unite the different parts of our Empire, we should treat the different parts as if they were no nearer and dearer to us than foreign nations, for fear of offending our foreign competitors. I think that is a wrong doctrine. It is a Separatist doctrine, and I wish the Government, whatever policy they adopt, would drop that line of argument and get that preposterous theory out of their minds at once. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of India a little more closely. He speaks as the defender of India. On whose behalf does he speak, and who has briefed him? Does he think that if he were to consult the non-official members of the new Council, there would be a majority for the fiscal system this Government has imposed, and which all governments have imposed on the Indian people? No, the fiscal system of India at the present time is imposed from home. The right hon. Gentleman said that if he offered Preference in return for mutual Preference we should be compelling them to do something against their interests. I would rather take the opinion of India than his. I say that we are compelling them to do something at present which they do not wish, and the Viceroy and others are beginning to warn us that native opinion is making itself more clearly heard on the fiscal system of India. I do not say that you can divorce the fiscal system of India from all control from home. As long as our present system of governing India continues the home Government must have a voice in those matters, but I have yet to learn
  62
  that if you adopt the principles of Tariff Reform in regard to the Tea Duty and other matters you could not give larger fiscal freedom than India now enjoys not only without injury to Imperial trade but with great advantage to it.
  Why should not India have that preference? The right hon. Gentleman says that America takes a large proportion of India's annual output of tea. We are not now the only purchaser of India's commodities. We have been her first and most important customer. I would ask the House to look at the interesting despatch sent by Lord Curzon's Government. Hon. Members will find from this document that never was a country more favourably situated to defy retaliation than British India is at the present time. Her exports are in the main exports of raw materials, and they must continue to be so for many years. She is exporting what other countries desire to have. She gets to a large extent free entry for her goods. It is not out of gratitude to her for receiving their goods, but because foreign nations must have those raw materials. I say that although a preference on the Tea Duty is only a small part of a great policy, standing by itself it would be a useful step in the right direction. It would he received in India as a recognition of our interest in her prosperity and welfare, of the common ties which bind us together, and of a desire to help and promote her prosperity. Though I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that you cannot say China tea is all rich men's tea, and that all India tea is poor men's tea, I must say that a. great deal of China tea is the very poorest and worst in the market, and is not very good value for the money spent on it. I think it is used in blending and in making down the quality of India and Ceylon tea. In any case, even if you cannot differentiate between costly tea and cheap tea under the names of China tea and India tea, the distinctions do not coincide. I venture to observe that that is a distinction there is no attempt to make at present. Therefore, you are not introducing a new anomaly, but only continuing an existing one. I would remind the House that it is a great mistake to suppose that poor people always drink cheap tea. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland often informed me when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer that the poor people in their country drink very good tea. They are accustomed to pay wonderfully high

  63
  figures for the tea they drink. I remember the right hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. T. Lough), who knows a good deal about the tea trade, often favoured us with his observations on the subject when we were in office. He stated that cheap teas were not bought by poor people, but by rich people to give to their servants. I do not know how much truth there is in that statement. I hope there is not much truth in it. But it is a mistake to suppose that by any graduation of the duties you would necessarily be taxing higher the richer people and letting off the poorer. These are subsidiary questions. On the principle which my Friends have raised, although we cannot carry the matter further than a Division on such an occasion as this, I shall vote with them if they go to a Division in order to pledge myself to the principle the Amendment represents.
  Mr. HOLT: I do not mean to follow the argument of the right hon Gentleman opposite. I wish to say a word or two, first of all, as regards China. I think the House must not forget that our trade relations with China arose out of the policy forced upon that empire by war. We forced on the Chinese Free Trade, and our whole moral position is that if we trade with China we cannot treat them in a different manner from what we compelled them to trade with us. I think China is entitled to better treatment from us than any other country. We are particularly bound to be scrupulous in all our dealings with China because of the past history of our dealings with that country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that it is a country in which we hope in future to do a very large trade. There is another country from which we receive a very small quantity of tea, namely, Japan. I would suggest that the adoption of this Amendment would be a breach of the commercial treaty recently concluded between this country and Japan. My recollection is that under that treaty we have pledged ourselves to treat Japanese goods in the same way as those from any other quarter of the globe, including India. This would be an infraction of the terms of that treaty—I think I am right in saying so. Is it right that we should proceed to discriminate against some of the articles which come from that country?
  5.0 P.M.
  I think the House may take it for granted that we shall never succeed in keeping that
  64
  treaty if we discriminate against Japanese tea. Tea comes from Java, which is a Dutch possession, in connection with which we get substantially Free Trade. It is also one of the countries which are very prosperous, where trade is increasing very much, and where again if we allow free opportunity of trade with us, we have every reason to hope that their Government will continue to give a similar opportunity to us. We have a very good opening for our goods in their market. Why should we proceed by this particular proposal to discriminate against this Dutch possession? It seems to me an extraordinarily foolish proposition from a business point of view. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, the whole thing is absolutely trifling in itself. The British possessions have already got the vast bulk of our trade in this respect. They have hardly any reasonable prospect of benefiting their trade with us by the adoption of this proposal, which necessarily involves hostilities to three of our best customers. You could not have a better illustration than this proposal of the incompatibility between the arguments for Colonial Preference and the arguments put forward in favour of a fighting tariff to induce other countries to treat you well, because this very first proposal of Colonial Preference aims at three of the Powers that have treated us better than many of the others.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I admit in supporting this Resolution that we are not dealing with what is intrinsically a very important business, but we who support it are supporting it, not because of its intrinsic importance or unimportance, but because we wish to see introduced into our tariff the principle of preference. If we had any other method of introducing that principle in these discussions, we would adopt that method. As there is not, at this stage, at any rate, of the financial discussions of the year, the Tea Duty is the one opportunity which presents itself. But, apart from that, I would like to deal with one argument of the last hon. Member (Mr. Holt) who spoke. He referred to the treaty which has recently been made between this country and Japan, and thinks that the establishment of such a Preference as this with a penny discrimination against Japan would be a breach of that Treaty. But the real point we have to look at is what would have been the position of this country when that tariff was being negotiated if we had had an opportunity

  65
  of dealing with Japan upon the basis of preference and discrimination with regard to Tea Duty. I may remind the hon. Member that a year ago when the general tariff of Japan was established which rendered necessary the Treaty recently made, Count Kamura used these words: "As Great Britain is pursuing a Free Trade policy there is no room for a convention with that country." With extraordinary ingenuity the Government has managed to make a convention with Japan, by setting up a bogey, if I may say so, to be knocked down, by dealing in discriminations which we have not established. As I understand that is practically what it comes to. Surely the hon. Member is misinterpreting altogether the policy which we advocate from this side of the House when he sees an incompatibility between imperial preference and giving a favoured treatment to those foreign countries which treat us favourably. Surely the hon. Member is aware that there are three stages in a tariff. You wish to deal both with nations within the Empire and nations without the Empire. You have a general tariff; then you have an intermediate tariff, which you give to nations which treat you well, and then you have a preferential tariff still lower, which you give to countries within the Empire. Had there been any question of Japan dealing with us on that basis for the purpose of negotiating a treaty, then I submit the course would have been open to us to still further reduce our tariff with regard to tea from India, leaving Japan a substantial preference if she would give us a preference in return.
  Mr. HOLT: Preference against whom?
  Mr. MACKINDER: The position would be practically this. If we had once established the principle of granting a preference on tea, which is our object in moving this Motion, it would have been open to us to have charged a 3d. duty on Indian tea, a 4d. duty on Japanese tea, in return for a preference for our goods going into Japan, and a 5d. duty against other countries not granting us such preference. You could not ask for a more significant utterance than that given within the last few weeks by Lord Minto, who recently returned from the Viceroyalty of India. It has already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). He refers in the first instance to Canada, and mentions that Canada has created manufactures and
  66
  become strong by artificial aid given to her own industries. Of course India, he says, is not in the same position as Canada. Then he proceeds to argue that if they want to create great industries in India he does not see how they can do so without something like tariffs. That is to say, he in that speech foreshadows what he believes is coming in the East, not only in India, namely, tariff systems set up with a protective object, exactly as tariffs have been set up in Canada. Now I submit that in dealing with China and India, and the contentment of our own fellow-subjects, with our allies Japan, this very article of tea is an important article in regard to which to establish the principle of Preference, because it is inevitable that you will have a demand from India for protective duties with regard to industries, and you will desire, in the interests of Lancashire and of other parts of this country, that basis. You are dealing now with the new Councils on which native opinion will find greater expression than it has hitherto received, and you will have to deal with these authorities far more as authorities with their basis in India and not simply in the Indian office in this country, and in dealing with those you will give satisfaction and contentment in India in proportion as you shall, in return for any advantage given to you when they are establishing a protective tariff, give advantages to them.
  I submit therefore that it will be of the greatest advantage to us that we shall have established the principle of preference in regard to this very article of tea, which is one of the most important of exports of Eastern countries, for the purpose of negotiating, as we presently shall have to negotiate, in regard to Indian tariff and Indian industries. I am aware, as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now has pointed out, that for a long time to come the greater part of Indian exports will have to be raw materials. But the purpose for which other countries within the Empire have established tariffs is in order to build up, in their infancy, industries, and the object for which tariffs will be established in India, as is inevitable, will be to start, in their infancy, industries, and therefore they will leave untouched the fact that the greater part of the exports from India will be in raw materials. That export will be perfectly safe because other industrial countries must buy the raw materials. So long as India exports raw materials she has nothing to

  67
  fear if she puts on a duty against other countries for the purpose of protecting her industries. If she seeks, as I believe she will have to seek, and as I believe Lord Minto, a high authority, has expressed it recently, to protect her infant industries, then we shall be in the position that in the interests of our own industries here we shall have to negotiate with the Indian Government, and when we establish here the principle of Preference in regard to tea, we indicate the lines on which we will act in our negotiations which will give the greatest satisfaction to India. We shall have accepted that principle because it will be of the highest advantage that we are prepared to break down our Chinese wall, as it has been described, in our theories of economics, and to go into a business negotiation with India.
  But in regard to China I do not think that anyone can fail to see what is happening every day almost at the present time. We are very near the time when we are likely to have to meet a similar demand on the part of Chinese industrial organisations. We have at the present moment enormous undertakings in China in the way of railways and the beginnings of industrial concerns. It is inevitable as the Chinese Government finds itself in competition with the other countries of the East that there will he a demand, as the demand has already come in India, for Protection. When that arrives then I submit that we, with our tariff and the principle of Preference established in that tariff, will be in a position to negotiate with China exactly as we might have negotiated with Japan. As it is, we have negotiated with Japan fundamentally because we have a fleet of warships to help Japan, which makes us valuable allies, and because the quid pro quo which Japan received from us is not in the way of trade but is in the way of taxes paid in this country to maintain our fleet; but I submit that as it has been said just now we have imposed upon China certain trade privileges for our own advantage by force, so it is in regard to Japan. We have been able to make that treaty because we have a great fleet, for which the taxpayer of this country pays, and this is the quid pro quo for Japan not having imposed upon us the disadvantages under a new tariff with which we were for the first time threatened.
  I submit in regard to tea, which is the one thing that we can discuss in this
  68
  Debate, that here you have an Oriental export which must come into negotiations, whether with Japan or China or India, or with Holland in the future—and there are tariff questions even in Holland. We shall then have established a principle, which is all you are asked for in this Debate, and it will be possible for us then by the judicious favour of our friends within the Empire, and also by the favour of our friends without the Empire, to bargain, and arrive at results of the greatest value to the industries of this country, which are manufacturing for export. That seems to me to be the real gist of the matter in this Debate. What we want to do is to establish a principle; but it is a principle which is of the greatest importance, and it is of the greatest importance to signify it as soon as possible to other countries, because, as things stand, we have got fair notice from Japan, through Count Kamura, that as commercial persons we are not worth negotiating with. We cannot hope to negotiate with any other country when we have not the same basis as we had in the case of Japan. I believe it is claimed that we did negotiate with Roumania and arrive at a treaty with them, but in most other cases we have not been successful in making treaties, except with Japan, and in the case of that country the quid pro quo which we are really giving is an alliance based on the Fleet.
  We impose on India at the present time a policy of Free Trade. I venture to think it will be impossible in the long run to impose that policy upon India when we do not impose it upon the other portions of the Empire, which have not at all the same significance, from the point of view of population, in the Empire, as India itself. Every change in the Government of India which has been made—and I believe that the time had come for making certain changes—has been in the direction of giving broader and wider play to the voice of India itself. There are hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House who ask that we should give freer play to the native voice in the Government of India. One thing is quite certain—that in proportion as you do give freer play, so you will be giving scope to a process which you can only counter on this side by a system of preferences established here. The difference between us is this: It seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite look hardly beyond their noses; they look at things as they stand to-day. We on this side look

  69
  forward ten, possibly twenty years; we see that it is essential in these days to build for the future, and it is because of that difference between them and us that we want to make an investment for Tariff Reform—in the nature of an investment for the future, and we do not wish to be consuming the whole products of to-day's prosperity. It is for that reason that we wish to indicate what is possible, and to tell India, as well as the remainder of the world, that we are going to adopt a principle which will make us a practical business nation, ready to bargain and do business, not merely with nations within the Empire, but with nations outside it.
  Mr. TOULMIN: I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that we on this side of the House are unable to see further than our noses. We are willing to take the Free Trade returns up to the present to show how Free Trade has increased and is building up our prosperity. The system which is advocated by hon. Members opposite is one of great complexity. It is to put threepence against India, fourpence against Japan, and five-pence against China. But supposing you had an article more complicated than tea to deal with, many varieties of taxation would have to be calculated for at our ports. It appears, therefore—I can only go into the general argument; this is not a general Tariff Reform debate-that at least the tariff bargaining of other nations has not produced better terms for them with foreign nations than for us, but they have produced tariff wars which have brought to them great evils from which we have been free. As to this particular Motion to discriminate the duty upon tea, it appears to be directed especially against the trade of Lancashire, because those countries from which tea conies are special customers of Lancashire—both India and China, as well as Java. Take the case of India. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) says that Indian opinion is against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I do not believe that the policy which is advocated on the present occasion would make India more content; that is, that we should give a preference to Indian tea in return for a preference given by them to our manufactures. Nay, more, I think it would increase discontent in India, because at the present moment there is a certain amount of equality which can be logically defended; but if we were to in-
  70
  sist upon India giving us a preference that would still more make her desire that a preference should be given to her own manufactures against us, and not a preference given to us against foreign manufactures. It is not against foreign manufactures that India would wish a preference, but against us, who, by our cotton trade, are the great competitors of the cotton trade of India.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that India would be enabled to stimulate her own productions against the competition of others; but seeing that we export to India, or the Indians import from us, by far the largest proportion of manuture which they do import, if they are to have protection it would be protection against us, and thus the Motion immediately would raise that question in a concrete form. Therefore, the whole plan, the whole suggestion, is one which is absolutely unacceptable. We are to penalise Chinese tea, and the Indians are to penalise the manufactures of the United States. What is a more direct answer than that the United States should give a preference to Chinese tea in return for a preference to American cotton. You have there the circuit completed. Hon. Members opposite do not look beyond their own noses; they see one step, but they will not follow trade round the world. If they followed trade round the world they would generally find that this kind of plan first goes to the disadvantage of those who set it in motion, and particularly a nation situated as we are. I oppose this Motion most strongly, because I believe it will upset our present arrangements with India, and cause disturbances which must be disadvantageous to us.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member opposite said the proposition before the House would upset arrangements with India. Why should it do so? We are going to give a benefit to India. We are going to import her tea.
  Mr. TOULMIN: Is there to be no return? Is there not to be a preference given by India to our manufactures? was criticising the whole plan.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We have not yet come to that. The proposal is that we should allow India to export her tea to this country at a penny less than foreign countries, and, as far as I can see, I fail to understand how it would upset the arrangements in India. The hon. Gentleman also

  71
  said that tariff countries are not better off than we are, and that their arrangements with other countries were the same as ours. Are we no better off than they are? That is the whole point. They put a tariff upon goods that are going to their country, and are they in the same position to deal with other countries as we are who put nothing on? We ought to be in a better position, if there is anything in the hon. Member's argument, because we offer greater facilities to other countries.
  Mr. TOULMIN: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an example where other countries have got better terms as against us? There ought to be great lists of these countries which have, on account of their tariff, given better terms to our rivals than to us.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that there are instances of that character. I was not dealing with that; I was dealing with the hon. Gentleman's argument, which was that tariff countries are in no better position than we are. I say that they ought to be in a very much worse position, because we admit their goods for nothing, while they make a charge which is of benefit to them, and assist their own manufactures. The hon. Gentleman used the rather tu quoque argument that we could not see beyond our noses, but I repeat that the hon. Gentleman's speech proves that he and his friends cannot see beyond their noses. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) said that we should offend China. Hon. Members opposite seem to fear that if we put on a duty every other country in the world would come clown upon us and say, "What do you mean by this?" and that we should then go down on our knees and be obliged to surrender. That is not the experience of the world, of nations, or of individuals. If a man stands up, whether in this House or in any other place, he will do better for himself, but if he takes it lying down he generally gets the worst of it. The hon. Member for Hexham says we have with China substantially Free Trade conditions. I am not quite certain exactly what the conditions are, but I believe there is a low revenue duty on everything imported into China. I do not understand how hon. Members opposite can call that substantially Free Trade. It marks a great advance on their side if they do, and we are very glad that they have made it, because it may be useful later on in other matters;
  72
  but again I say, if this is right, irrespective of whether China would or would not be offended—and I admit it might have that effect—we ought not to be discouraged from putting it into operation. But China might say, "We do not want this done; we will make a bargain with you; we will reduce some of our tariffs if you will promise not to put this on."
  The power to bargain is a very great thing, in my experience, whether in individual or international affairs. The hon. Member for Hexham talked about Japan. If this proposition caused irritation in any way to that Power or interfered with the Treaty we have with Japan, surely that could be remedied, and there is no reason why it should not be done if necessary. In regard to the Amendment, if we are prepared to make a concession to our Colonies and to our British Dominions, of which I am very strongly in favour, I think we ought to get something for it in return. Therefore, the proper way to move is for the Government to make terms with the Colonies and India, and say, "We are prepared to give you an advantage, and you must be prepared to give us an advantage in return." I do not think we should sacrifice somewhere about a million of revenue unless we are to receive some countervailing advantage. My right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Chaplin), who is a great authority on Tariff Reform, will perhaps deal with that question. I understand that my hon. Friend who has brought the subject forward has not put it as an actual cut-and-dried scheme, but as the precursor of that on which they wish to base their arguments, and I am thoroughly in accord with that. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in the House, because he told us that he himself, not so many years ago, moved a similar Amendment. I did not gather from him whether he denied it or not. I understand he did not deny it, and I think he said that he had a seconder, though apparently he did not go to a division because he could not get anybody to divide with him. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is in a position of responsibility, should have rounded on the ideas which were in his mind when he occupied the corner seat below the Gangway. I should have thought that having gone so far in those days of greater freedom and less responsibility he would have welcomed the suggestion contained in the Amendment, or would have given some assurance that he would do so when he rearranges his Budget next year. The Chancellor of the

  73
  Exchequer is not, I think, wholly against the principle, and therefore does not hold the views of his hon. supporter behind him. Perhaps, indeed, the hon. Gentleman behind agrees with me.
  Mr. TOULMINindicated dissent.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether my hon. Friends are going to a Division, but if they do I think I shall have to support them on the ground that I wish to emphasise the principle. I cannot support them on the ground that this is a proper way to bring forward the Amendment and the principle. I do not think it is.
  Mr. BIGLAND: Why not?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Because I think, first of all, we should have made a bargain with the Colonies that we were to get something. My experience is that, if you offer a man a sovereign and ask nothing in return, that he takes the sovereign; and if you ask afterwards for anything in return the man will tell you that you did not make any stipulation at the time you gave the sovereign, and that therefore he is not going to give you anything. I am afraid that if we were to pass a resolution of this sort without making some countervailing proposition the Colonies would say: "You offered us this proposal which was good from our point of view, we shall abide by it, but we shall not give you anything in return." This Amendment is not brought in in a very businesslike manner nor at an opportune moment; but the principle is good, and for that reason I shall support it. I presume the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy is going to reply. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer worked very much together in those days when they were below the Gangway. Very possibly he was the person who was the sole supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. If so perhaps he will also justify the reasons which have impelled him to change his opinion which he once so strongly held.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I should very much like to ask quite clearly whether the Government is still as violently against the full principle of Colonial Preference as it was when the Home Secretary talked about banging and barring and bolting the doors against it. I think it is quite material to know that, I think it very desirable that the Government should
  74
  tell us in view of the Imperial Conference that is about to be held. It is just as well that the Colonial Prime Ministers should be fully aware of the attitude of the Government, and as this Amendment directly raises the question of principle I should very much like a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy as to what precisely is the Government attitude upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt dallied with the subject when he moved his Amendment some years ago. I presume, at any rate, at that time that he did not intend to be taken very seriously as an ardent supporter of Colonial Preference, and that he chiefly moved his Amendment in order to hamper the then Government. I think, as in public estimate at any rate, this movement for Colonial Preference is certainly making way, and as there are more persons who fully see the desirability of accepting the Colonial offers which were made to us, for those offers have been most distinctly made, and as there are more people desirous that they should be accepted, then it becomes more than ever important to know what is the attitude of the Government upon the subject. I should also like to emphasise the peculiar diversity of view between certain supporters of the Government and Members of the Front Bench who will not support such an Amendment as this. The supporters of the Government who have spoken during this Debate have almost entirely criticised the Amendment from the point' of view of the fact that we shall be discriminating disadvantageously and unjustifiably against foreign nations. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to raise this argument, but it was carried much further by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Ministerial Benches.
  It does seem to me a very peculiar frame of mind why we are always to consider how far we shall discriminate against foreign nations, and not consider how far we can benefit our own Colonies. It is always taken from the point of view of what will foreign nations say? Why should we not take it from the point of view of what will our Colonies say? We know what our Colonies have said over and over again. We have had offers from Colonial Prime Ministers, on behalf of their Governments, that they are willing to give us Colonial Preference, and they give it to us without asking definitely for anything in return. At any rate, that

  75
  was the case in Canada. But they want it to establish a mutual understanding and mutual incentive to increase the production on both sides. If we gave this Colonial Preference on tea it may be possibly that we discriminate to some extent against China; but, on the other hand, we shall be encouraging the production of tea in India and Ceylon. To say that that is not a business proposition to discriminate against a foreign country because we shall be putting up tariffs against it, and lowering them as regards our own Colonies, seems to me quite unreasonable. It is a perfect business proposition to create a closer commercial union with our Colonies by increasing the production of a particular article in those Colonies. If foreign countries do not produce that article for our benefit, our Colonies will. And if by any terrible misfortune we were at war with a particular foreign country whom we had discriminated against we should be far less hampered from the very fact that we had discriminated against them, because we should have increased the production in our own possessions.
  There is nothing unbusinesslike about that. Tariff Reformers naturally repudiate the suggestion that their proposals are unbusinesslike. They believe that every bit as much trade will be created and maintained, only that there will be more production in our own Colonies, and the trade will be more between ourselves and other portions of the Empire, rather than with the foreign countries with which it is at present. From the point of view of unity with the Empire, from the point of view of possible foreign hostilities, surely that is a perfectly business proposition. If, by adopting this Amendment, we begin to establish the principle of Colonial Preference, I think we shall make a material step towards Imperial unity. I hope that the Government will clearly tell us whether they are entirely against that principle or not, and that, I think, will clear the air for the negotiations and discussions at the Imperial Conference.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I feel that the Amendment is of the greatest importance because of the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that he believed that if preference was given to India it might excite trouble with the United States. I am rather amazed at that, because I think he should have been acquainted with what transpired in the
  76
  United States and at Washington when the last Payne Tariff was discussed. If it is not within his knowledge, I may inform him that in Washington it was attempted to put a maximum tariff against Canada because she gave a preference to other countries more than she gave to the United States at that moment. The question was fought out in Washington, and it was distinctly understood that, so far as the United States was concerned, that any part of one Kingdom or one Empire giving a preference to products of another part of that same Empire should on no consideration be classed in the unfavourable degree of having a maximum tariff put against it. I feel that this discussion is exceptionally important, because, if we establish that one principle, recognised by America in Washington and clearly stated in the Payne tariff, then we establish one of the greatest principles, and one that knocks to pieces entirely the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that of so many of his Friends when they say that the preference which we intend to give within the Empire could by any country in the world, and at this hour of the day, be seized on as a reason why we should be put on the maximum tariffs scale, or on any scale of tariff which would be hurtful to the trade of this country. I think the hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) was wrong when he said that this was not an opportune time. I feel that it is a most opportune time to make this change.
  I believe the very fact that we give one penny in the £ preference on tea grown within the Empire will, when we come to speak with them on the question of Colonial preference, as it applies from them to us, have the very greatest weight. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Toulmin) seemed to have an extraordinary idea on this subject. He thought it would be bad for Lancashire. May I put this question to him. Suppose under the Colonial Preference, or Imperial Preference, that we may come to speak about, that the duty on Lancashire goods instead of being 4 per cent., as it is to-day on calico, was raised to 8 per cent., and that it remains at 4 per cent. for all countries that take the exports of India on the same terms as Great Britain takes them. Then you will have China and Japan friendly with India and they will take her goods because India takes theirs at a low tariff. You will have China and Japan and Batavia taking goods from India on a low basis and you will have mutual reciprocity one with the

  77
  other. But Germany will not, because Germany will not take the finished goods of India on the same terms as we do. The hon. Member for Bury must know perfectly well with regard to the spinning of jute that Germany would take the raw product, but not the manufactured article. India will now have something to bargain with, and she can say the preference we give will be to all the world that will take the products of India on the same terms as England does. That will be the means of bringing down the tariff walls against the finished product of India. Surely there must be some attempt made by us as the rulers and governors of India to establish equality of opportunity as between the workers of India and the workers of other countries who try to sell products in India. This will be the first step, and if we agree to this there will be a willingness in the minds of 300,000,000 of people when we propose that a preference shall also be given in India not only to Great Britain, but to every country in the world that will take the finished products of Indian workmen on the same terms as we do. I therefore most heartily support the Amendment that has been now proposed, and sincerely trust that the feeling expressed in this House this afternoon will go forth to the country that there is a great principle involved in this small penny which amounts no doubt to a million pounds sterling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked whether we would begin with tea. If we were in the position of the Government, it is the very thing we would begin with—for this reason, that it affects the thoughts of 300,000,000 people towards the Mother Country. There can be no argument more absolutely clear than that in regard to tea we ought to wipe the tax off altogether if the tea is grown within the Empire. There are plenty of other articles upon which we can raise the £5,000,000, while at the same time giving the opportunity to the Empire to send us those products. If there is anything whatever in Tariff Reform we would certainly begin by taking not merely £1,000,000, but £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 off tea grown within the Empire.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member who has just spoken said that there was a great principle involved in the Amendment. No truer statement could be made, and it is for that reason if my hon. Friends go to a division I shall certainly support them. I do not share the apprehensions expressed by my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) as to
  78
  what may happen adverse to our interests in consequence of what he thinks is the somewhat unbusinesslike method in which the proposal has been put forward. If we show a friendly disposition as regards India to-day, and are willing to act in what is clearly her interest, as we propose to do, when the time comes, as it will come, when this question is discussed generally and on broader lines than is possible on this Amendment, we shall have every opportunity of making favourable arrangements with India as regards ourselves. Neither do I see the smallest foundation for the fears expressed by hon. Members on this side as to the difficulties with regard to China, India, and the Mother country, with which we should be threatened if this Amendment were carried. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Toulmin) asked, "Why we should embark on a policy so hostile to the great system which we have pursued for so long in this country f Under our Free Trade system, our trade has been built up, and is being built in the most remarkable and satisfactory manner." On the other hand, however true that may be, we point to the fact that in spite of the increase under your boasted system of Free Trade—which, by the way, is not Free Trade, and nobody knows it better than the party opposite—we in this country suffer, in regard to that part of the population for whose interests we ought always to have an immense and most careful regard—and that is the answer to all your boasts about Free Trade—from a degree of unemployment which is absolutely unknown in any other civilised country in the world similiar to our own. That there are ups and downs in employment and unemployment nobody knows better than I do; but we have suffered more than any other country, and we are suffering still, though not so largely as we have in the immediate past, from un-unemployment. Unemployment in this country, however, is always accompanied by this special peculiarity, that when there is a change for the better that change always comes more slowly to this country than to others, and we are a longer time than other countries in reaping the benefit of that change.
  This is indeed a part of a very great policy, and if this were the occasion I should be only too glad of the opportunity of saying rather more than I have done as to why that policy of Colonial and Imperial Preference presents itself to me in the light it always does. There is the fact

  79
  of unemployment. I look round in every direction, and ask how are you going to remedy it? I see proposals made by the present Government, and I have seen proposals made by their predecessors. But the real way to deal with this question is by providing other remunerative employment, and I hope the Government will bear that in mind when their proposals come before us again, as I suppose they will before very long. An hon. Member opposite said something about Japan. Japan affords a very remarkable instance of the weakness of this country whenever negotiations are proceeding upon this question of Preference and trade relations with other countries. One of my hon. Friends pointed to the fact that when the Japanese Treaty was first concluded we were pointedly left out, on the ground, avowed by the Foreign Minister in Japan, that it was no use coming to us, because we had no power of negotiation. I wonder if the time will ever come when hon. Members opposite will learn that the want of all power of negotiation places us in an absolutely false position. There could be no better object-lesson than the treaty with Japan as it was first introduced. We were then placed in a position of the greatest difficulty and of the greatest harm in regard to some of the largest of our industries. It is perfectly true that, thanks to the efforts of the Foreign Minister, some mitigations have been made, and we have been placed in a better position than we were in at, first; but, after all, if hon. Members opposite think that we may take great satisfaction in the fact that the duties upon some of our goods are to be increased, even under the amended form of the treaty, by 150 per cent., I differ from them; I cannot see that we have anything to congratulate ourselves upon. I am afraid of trespassing beyond the limits which would be legitimate upon this occasion, although the subject is one which I have very deeply at heart; but I shall certainly give my warmest and most hearty support to my hon. Friends if they go to a Division.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): It is quite true, as was stated by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), that in former days, when I sat on the Opposition side of the House, I worked with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in endeavouring to secure reductions of the Tea Duty. I very well recollect advocating the reduction of
  80
  the duty on the ground that it would materially encourage the cultivation of tea planting in India and Ceylon, and would help our fellow-subjects in that quarter of the globe. To-day I am here to regret that the Government have not seen their way clear to provide a free breakfast table for the people. Many of us on this side have for many years advocated a free breakfast table that is to say, that there should be no taxes on the necessaries of life. I myself have from time to time stated that, of all the taxes imposed on the people, those on the necessaries of life are the most difficult to justify. I can only justify them from this box to-day on the ground that they are necessary to enable us to raise the Revenue required for the year. The Opposition have put forward this Amendment, some Members with a good deal of favour, others with a sort of half-hearted support, in the hope that by advocating a reduction of the duty on tea from India and Ceylon they may get in the thin end of the wedge towards establishing a Tariff Reform system in this country. Our great grumble at the attitude of the Unionist party on the platforms of the country has been that they have never come to close quarters with us in regard to the subjects upon which they would commence their operation of Tariff Reform. They may be fortunate or unfortunate in having selected tea as an illustration of the way in which Tariff Reform would work. I would like to trouble the House with a few figures to show how little benefit this country could possibly derive from the Amendment if it were carried into law. Many of the cheapest teas come from China, and there is a large section of the community who prefer China tea to those teas which come from India. It is certainly true that the poor do not necessarily buy the cheap China tea, but many of them do, and it would be a deplorable thing if we were to restrain the small amount of tea which comes from China. The following are the figures for the year 1910. Our imports from China were 18,974,000 pounds; from India and Ceylon together, 288,000,000 pounds; or, in money, £649,000 from China, and £9,940,000 from India and Ceylon.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Does that include the tax?
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: Without the tax. It must be obvious to any tariff reformer that if a preferential tax was imposed in

  81
  favour of India and Ceylon tea, it would probably make very little difference in the encouragement given to the India tea grower, for the reason I have already stated. But it would deprive the revenue at one swoop of a million of money. At the present time we cannot afford to reduce the Tea Duty by a 1d. in the pound. I wish we could. If we give the Preference which is proposed by the Opposition it would mean prejudicing the coming of £649,000 worth of tea from China and the Chinese would retaliate upon us. They import from us about £8,500,000 worth of manufactured goods. The total exports of this country to China is £12,800,000. The total trade between England and China, including Hong Kong, at the present time is £19,282,000. Therefore you are going to offend China if you carry out the proposals, and open the door to China to retaliate upon us, and very likely endanger to a very large extent what we send to that country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) alluded to one or two facts which he thought were accurate, but the accuracy of which facts, as he stated them, I dispute. He alluded to the question of unemployment. He thought it would be a good thing to establish Tariff Reform, to start with tea with a view to encouraging Tariff Reform, because, subsequently, it would tend to diminish unemployment.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I did not say that.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I gathered that.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I said it was all part of the great policy which we wanted to promote.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: That all parts of the Unionist party wanted the great policy of Tariff Reform. The right hon. Gentleman thought it would reduce unemployment.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That Preference would.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: Preference! Well, I am not going to dispute with the right hon. Gentleman whether Preference should be called Protection, or Retaliation, or by any other name. We on this side of the House remain exactly where we were in regard to this matter. We are Free Traders, and we recognise that the Opposition are Tariff Reformers. We dispute with them the point that Tariff Reform would reduce unemployment. I was looking at the Board of Trade figures
  82
  recently issued, and I believe I am correct in saying that at the present moment in this country, at the present period of the year, unemployment has never been less than now, so far as our statistics afford any comparison with those which have gone before.
  We admit we have no statistics in this country which compare very accurately with the statistics of foreign nations, but, so far as I am able to judge—and I have looked a good deal into these questions, I am satisfied in my own mind that in periods of depression in those countries which have adopted preference and protection the amount of distress and unemployment is very much greater than it has ever been in this country—very much greater in amount—and in periods of inflation we recover far more rapidly than do protected countries. My experience and my study is opposed to that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not think it is right that when two different views are taken on this subject that the one view ought to be stated in this House without that view being challenged from this side. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued the matter from a Tariff Reformer's standpoint, and he pointed out how ill they were to advise the commencement of their Tariff Reform system by a preference upon Indian tea. It means a million to the Revenue. It means that our Indian subjects will gain very little advantage. It will only bring about irritation on the part of the Chinese, and on the part of Japan, if such preference as suggested were given. Therefore, the Government are quite unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether it is still the policy of the Government to bang, bolt, and bar the door against our Colonial brethren?
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I have already said that the Government's attitude is exactly what it was. We have not changed. We are Free Traders. We object to either preference, protection, or retaliation.
  Mr. G. A. LLOYD: I rise to support in a very few words the Amendment of my hon. Friend in relation to the Tea Duty. I have not had the advantage of listening all through to this Debate, but I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He began his speech

  83
  by saying that this seems to be only a game, or words to that effect. I read in the Debates for last year that the right hon. Gentleman again considered it a game that had been going on for some time, and also one which he considered legitimate. It may be so to some Members of the House, and to the leaders of the Liberal party, but at any rate to Unionist reformers on this side of the House the reduction of the Tea Duty is not a game. It is part, and a deliberate part, of Tariff Reform policy. I, for one, resent our attitude in this matter being represented as a party game, or a hardy annual, or any of those terms which may be appropriate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own methods in this matter, but are utterly inappropriate to ours on this side of the House. As to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has just said, I think the most part of his argument was devoted to the fact that there was very little benefit to be derived in taking off this penny from tea. That, at any rate, is not the Prime Minister's view of the matter. The Prime Minister's view last year was entirely opposed to that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: The hon. Member was not present when I spoke at first. I said that I believed in the reduction of the Tea Duty, and personally I should like to see it abolished.
  Mr. G. A. LLOYD: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, I think he has mistaken the point. Many of us, perhaps most of us, believe in a reduction of the Tea Duty. But some doubt has been thrown upon the value of taking a penny off the duty, as suggested by this Amendment. At this time last year the matter was debated considerably, and a good deal of doubt was also thrown upon the value of the penny. I should like to read to the House what the Prime Minister said, showing that he thought that there was a very good deal of value in taking off a penny off the consumer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Last year "] The Prime Minister was quoted last year as to what he had said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:—
  "A reduction, however small—and the Committee will see that any reduction I propose must be small—in the Tea Duty has, as compared with other remissions of taxation, several distinct advantages of its own. In the first place tea being an article which does not undergo, as tobacco does after importation, more or less elaborate processes of manufacture and manipulation the lowering of the tax is not intercepted, but goes almost direct to the consumer. He gets the benefit
  84
  at once, or almost at once, either in a lower price or, what is often of greater importance, in an improved quality of the article."
  I think that disposes this year, as it did last year, of the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it is of very little value to take the very small sum of a penny off the Tea Duty. But, apart from that not being the Prime Minister's own opinion, it is certainly not the opinion of those whom this will benefit as well as the consumer, namely, the planters of tea in India, who would be very glad to see a preference given to Indian tea over China tea. I do not think anyone to-day would bring forward the argument in this House in favour of there being no value in a slight preference of Indian tea over China tea. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward the familiar and not very convincing argument of the danger of doing anything which might offend China. Really it seems very difficult for us to understand that argument. It has been applied to Germany, and to almost every other Continental Power that imposes large tariffs against us. If there is one country we ought not to be afraid of, it is China, which does not impose very large tariffs against us, and who, from her world-position, is not a very formidable foe at the present time. Why we should sacrifice our own trade because possibly China may not give us very good terms is quite inexplicable to me, and if the right hon. Gentleman had studied the question of Chinese railways, and the advantages that China now gives to England —I suppose because we let her tea in on equal terms with that of India—well, I do not think that he will think that these great benefits are of very much worth.
  Quite apart, however, from our point of view, quite apart from our great anxiety to see every kind of preferential principle established with regard to our Imperial trade, and quite apart from our genuine and real desire to see a duty which we consider very burdensome upon the consumer taken off, there is also the political attitude which we cannot ignore. All through the last election and the election before Liberal candidate after Liberal candidate went about the constituency collecting votes by the declaration that he was against this tax, and by giving all those who listened to him—almost all—I think a list of those who did not do it would be extremely short, and so reasonably could be ignored—almost all of these candidates collected votes by giving those who heard them to understand that at the

  85
  earliest opportunity they would vote for a reduction of the Tea Duty. No food taxes is what we were lead to think the Radical candidate believed in. We on this side do not consider it very honest that year after year we see hon. Gentlemen on the other side remaining in office and steadily voting for the maintenance of a high, extremely onerous, and irksome duty on people's food. If there was no other reason we should still urge, from the political point of view, the necessity, not to say honesty, for doing what you promised to many hundreds and thousands of people in this country you would do. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave us to understand that the Government could not afford to take this duty off. We feel bound to point out that this is not a year in which they ought to plead poverty. They cannot plead poverty after the Chancellor's Budget speech; they cannot plead poverty after voting themselves enormous salaries. They cannot plead poverty after creating armies of new officials who are going to cost the country in the aggregate a very great deal more than the abolition of this Tea Duty would cost. It may be very comfortable and convenient when you are making a Budget speech to say how brilliant has been your administration, how rosy are the prospects of trade, and then when they wish to retain a very burdensome duty for the Government to plead poverty. I do not think such tactics will satisfy a single elector in this country. For the third time a Liberal Government has promised cheap food and no food taxes, but still it steadily votes for the maintenance of this very high tea tax. Let me point out in a last hope of persuading hon. Gentlemen opposite to give some ear to our plea in this matter that the cost of living in this country has steadily gone up, and the cost of real wages has steadily gone down. Is not that a sufficient reason for taking off a tax which the right hon. Gentleman says he dislikes very much, and still likes sufficiently to maintain and defend. I do not know any stronger reason that could be given for asking hon. Gentlemen opposite to come into the same Lobby with us for the abolition of this duty. I earnestly hope this is the last time that a Liberal Government will sit upon the benches opposite to vote for the maintenance of a duty which is fiscally bad and burdensome to all classes of the community.
  Mr. LEACH: I am glad to find myself in complete agreement with hon. Gentlemen
  86
  sitting on the benches opposite in the desire to remove taxes on food, and so far as they are sincere in that desire I heartily join with them. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, we did promise at the earliest possible moment to remove taxes on food, and nothing has fallen from the hon. Gentleman in that respect with which everybody on this side cannot agree. We are only waiting for the opportunity to vote for the abolition of all duties, not only upon tea but on every article of food consumed by the people. I want to see these duties taken off, and it has always been my desire to agitate for a free breakfast table, and I hope when the moment comes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself able to make such proposals hon. Gentlemen opposite will support him. The history of the party opposite in regard to the Tea Duty is rather remarkable. When they were in power they had an opportunity if they wished to greatly reduce the Tea Duty. What did they do? When they came into office they found the Tea Duty at 5d., but they raised it to 8d.—[An HON. MEMBER: "That was for the war"]—and they left it at 6d. and it remained for the Liberal party when they came into power to reduce it to 5d., and at the very earliest opportunity we shall be only too glad to remove the whole of the 5d. and all other duties on the food of the people.
  The proposal which hon. Gentlemen opposite now make is very ill-timed. At the present moment it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to entertain the proposal they make. Millions are required for various purposes, and, after the appeals which have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it seems rather strange that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have seized this particular moment to propose a reduction of the Tea Duty, and if their Amendment should be pressed to a Division, I shall, although it may make me appear in a false position, vote against it. I shall not vote against a reduction of the Tea Duty but against their proposal to introduce what they call Fair Trade, or Tariff Reform legislation. I must say the moment is very inopportune, and I wonder why hon. Gentlemen should introduce it now.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Of all the perfunctory answers I ever heard the answer given by the Government this afternoon is the most perfunctory. Can anyone pretend for a moment that we are going to lose our trade with China if we give a pre-

  87
  ference of 20 per cent. in this small matter? And with regard to Java, Java is not a self-governing colony: it is a Crown colony and Java is affected by the Dutch tariff. At this very moment the Dutch Government are proposing an increase in their tariff, and it is exactly a proposal such as we are now discussing which is necessary to give a hint to the Dutch Government in order to bring about a proper understanding between that country and ourselves. With regard to Japan, if the interpretation of the hon. Member for Hexham be correct, we are debarred from giving any preference to our Colonies which Japan is not to share. Does the Japanese Treaty prevent our entertaining any proposal for Preference to the Colonies unless Japan, at any rate, gets, an equal advantage? If that is so, we have fallen back into the same mistake as in 1860 with regard to the Belgian Treaty, which had to be denounced when Canada wanted to entertain proposals of Preference with us. Why cannot the Government grant this? It is not really in essence against their principle. They are doing no harm to the consumer, which is their usual argument against Preference. On the contrary, it is in favour of the consumer. It is not going to bolster up any interest in this country, because we cannot grow tea in this country. Their reply to many of our proposals is, "You want to protect vested interests in this country." It will be time
  enough to advance that argument when anyone proves that we can grow tea in this country. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find himself able to meet the Colonies in this respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a free giver and a man of generosity, and I desire the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to tell him from me that it is what the Americans call "real sweet" of him to give me £400 a year, and if he can give that to Members of this House surely he might make this concession also. It would be easy to find the money by putting a tax solely upon the luxuries brought into this country. He would find it by taxing articles like motor-cars and grand pianos and the vintage of Perrier, and Jouet, and Paul Rouget. The Government refuse this concession not because it is impossible or difficult, but because they are bound to a hard and fast theory from which they cannot make up their minds to break away. If they cannot do so, they must be prepared to have unkind things said of them in the country, and it will be said of them that while endowing their own friends they refused to put a tax upon the imported luxuries of the rich, and they make the burden of their taxation fall upon the necessary beverages of the poor.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 212.

  Division No.243.]

  AYES.

  [6.25p.m.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worcr.)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chambers, James

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Aitken, William Max

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Balcarres, Lord

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Croft, Henry Page

  Horne, Wm. E (Surrey, Guildford)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalzlel, Davison (Brixton)

  Horner, Andrew Long

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. S. C.

  Hume-Williams. Wm Ellis

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hunter, Sir. Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bird, Alfred

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Boyton, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Campion, W. R.

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Cassel, Felix

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Cator, John

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Magnus, Sir Fillip

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Mills. Hon. Charles Thomas

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Quilter, W. E. C.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Roberts, (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Nield, Herbert

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Valentia, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Royds, Edmund

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pete, Basil Edward

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wheler and Mr. Barnston.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Swift, Rigby

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Furness, Stephen

  Millar, James Duncan

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Morgan, George Hay

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Muldoon, John

  Armitage, Robert

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Neilson, Francis

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hancock, John George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyclvll)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Harmsworth, R Leicester

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Beale, W. P.

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Boland, John Pius

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W, H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hinds, John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Price, Sir Robert J.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pringle, William M. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Carr-Gomm, H W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Johnsen, William

  Reddy, Michael

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Churchill, Rt. hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Roberts. Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Craig, Herbert. J (Tynemouth)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molten)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Leach, Charles

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lewis, John Herbért

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Logan, John William

  Shortt, Edward

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroel)

  Doris, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Snowden, Philip

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maclean, Donald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Summers, James Woolley

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  M'Kean, John

  Sutherland, John E.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M`Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Falconer, James

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Tennant, Harold John

  90

  91

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid.)

  Toulmin, George

  Webb, H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Wood, T. Mckinnon (Glasgow)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Wardle, George J.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Waring, Walter

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Resolution agreed to.

  INCOME Tax [17th May].—REPORT.
  Resolution reported, "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the 6th day of April, 1911, at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £, and that he same Super-tax be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the 6th day of April, 1910."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

  AMENDMENT OF LAW [17th May].—REPORT.
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise)." —[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hob-house.

  FINANCE BILL.
  "To grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue, to alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make other provisions for the financial arrangements of the year," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 220.]

COAL MINES [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Resolved, "That it is expedient to consider the authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any salaries and remuneration and other expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the law relating to Coal Mines and certain other mines."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Resolution to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday).

SHOPS [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any remuneration and expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to consolidate, amend, and extend the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904."—[Mr. Churchill.]
Resolution to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday).
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[The Master of Elibank.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty - three minutes before Seven o'clock.

  Army Pensions (Income Tax).
  Army Pensions (Income Tax).
  Public Trustee.
  Public Trustee.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Excise Officers.
  Excise Officers.
  Checking Free Exports.
  Checking Free Exports.
  Tobacco Cultivation.
  Tobacco Cultivation.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  AUXILIARY POSTMEN.
  AUXILIARY POSTMEN.
  TRANSFERRED BENEFITS.
  TRANSFERRED BENEFITS.
  COLLECTING SOCIETIES.
  COLLECTING SOCIETIES.
  ISOLATION FOR SMALL-POX.
  ISOLATION FOR SMALL-POX.
  MANUAL TRADES.
  MANUAL TRADES.
  SICK APPLICANTS.
  SICK APPLICANTS.
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
  Consols (Sale and Transfer).
  Consols (Sale and Transfer).
  Budget (Introduction).
  Budget (Introduction).
  Expenditure on Cottages.
  Expenditure on Cottages.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Bank of Ireland (College Green Premises).
  Bank of Ireland (College Green Premises).
  Board of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Board of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Franchise Act (Poor Rate Collectors, Dublin).
  Franchise Act (Poor Rate Collectors, Dublin).
  Drovers Attacked, County Kerry.
  Drovers Attacked, County Kerry.
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Lough Erne (Floods).
  Lough Erne (Floods).
  Agriculture and Horticulture (Ireland).
  Agriculture and Horticulture (Ireland).
  Art Galleries (Dublin) Bill.
  Art Galleries (Dublin) Bill.
  Irish Land Commission (Messengers' Uniform).
  Irish Land Commission (Messengers' Uniform).
  Royal Navy (Programme, 1909–10).
  Royal Navy (Programme, 1909–10).
  Fort Matilda Torpedo Factory.
  Fort Matilda Torpedo Factory.
  Coronation.
  Coronation.
  Westmeath County Council.
  Westmeath County Council.
  Ballot Act (Declaration of Secrecy, Ireland).
  Ballot Act (Declaration of Secrecy, Ireland).
  Yeomanry (Manual of Drill).
  Yeomanry (Manual of Drill).
  Valkyrie Monoplane.
  Valkyrie Monoplane.
  Derbyshire Yeomanry.
  Derbyshire Yeomanry.
  Educational Endowments (Report of Departmental Committee).
  Educational Endowments (Report of Departmental Committee).
  Trachoma (Metropolitan Asylums Board Schools).
  Trachoma (Metropolitan Asylums Board Schools).
  Artificial Silk Fibre Manufacture.
  Artificial Silk Fibre Manufacture.
  Unemployed Workmen Act.
  Unemployed Workmen Act.
  Military Detention Barracks.
  Military Detention Barracks.
  Military Medical Education (India).
  Military Medical Education (India).
  Port-of-Spain Magistrate (First Offenders' Ordinance).
  Port-of-Spain Magistrate (First Offenders' Ordinance).
  Trinidad.
  Trinidad.
  Ottoman Christian Subjects.
  Ottoman Christian Subjects.
  Kildare Fair.
  Kildare Fair.
  Port of London Authority.
  Port of London Authority.
  Options and Futures.
  Options and Futures.
  Money Order Office (Killeigh, King's County).
  Money Order Office (Killeigh, King's County).
  Rosyth Dockyard (Accommodation for Workmen).
  Rosyth Dockyard (Accommodation for Workmen).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had appointed (by Commission) the Earl of Donoughmore, Chairman of Committees, and the Chairman of Committees for the time being from time to time, to be Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, and further, had appointed any person who shall have been Chairman of Committees, as also the Earl of Halsbury, the Earl Waldegrave, the Lord Ribblesdale, the Lord Balfour, the Earl of Onslow, the Lord Loreburn, the Earl Beauchamp, the Lord Denman, the Lord Colebrooke, and the Earl of Granard, to be Speaker of the House, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor or the Chairman of Committees: The said Commission was read.
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 been complied with:

Education Board Provisional Orders (London). [H.L.]

Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3). [H.L.]

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Tramway Orders Confirmation. [H.L.]

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Land Drainage Provisional Order.

Derwent Fisheries Provisional Order.

National Gallery and St. James's Park. [H.L.]

And also the Certificates that the further
634
Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Chasetown Gas.

Widnes and Runcorn Bridge (Transfer).

Sligo Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MACCLESFIELD AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Petition of Messrs. Martin and Co., of 27, Abingdon Street, Westminster, Parliamentary Agents, praying for leave to present a Petition of the New Electricity Company of Macclesfield, Limited, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such Petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Petition.
WESTBURY ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
HEBBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  UPPER MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 88.)
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SLOUGH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS RECONSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the debate on this Bill has now proceeded over three days. It has been discussed, I believe, by every section of the House, and in the peculiar circumstances I think the noble Marquess may be very well satisfied with the reception which has been given to his Bill. I say in the peculiar circumstances because the Bill itself is one which is not calculated to arouse very great enthusiasm. The noble Marquess who introduced it will hardly have expected, I think, that his supporters should have risen one after another in their places and thanked him for asking them to surrender their traditional privileges and to give up their Constitutional rights in the future; but I am bound to say that it appears to me there has been a greater readiness to sacrifice personal considerations to the wider interests of an effective Second Chamber amongst the supporters of the noble Marquess than has been shown on the other side of the House. The support to this Bill, it is true, may have been grudging; it has been regretful support; but that fact is only further proof of the extent of the sacrifices demanded of your Lordships by this Bill and of the disinterested nature of the support which has been given to it.
There is another circumstance, I think, which tends to create a somewhat unreal atmosphere about this debate. As every one knows, the Constitutional difficulty which we are discussing is a double question, a two-fold question, and yet we are never able to discuss the Bill as a whole. It is always given to us for our consideration piecemeal; it has never been submitted as a whole to either House of Parliament; it has not even been submitted in its entirety to the country. We had, first of all, a few weeks ago, a very interesting debate upon the Reference to the People Bill of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That was only one feature of this difficulty. Now we are discussing the Bill of the noble Marquess, and to-morrow I believe we are to enter upon a discussion of a third Bill, that promoted by His Majesty's Government, which again deals with only one side of the question. But, my Lords, it was the case
636
of the Government that owing to the particular composition and constitution of this House, and in consequence of the action of this House in recent years, it was desirable to limit its powers for the future, and to accomplish that object the Government have drafted their Parliament Bill. But, in addition to curtailing the powers of this House as at present constituted, it is admittedly part of the Government's policy to reform the constitution of the House. It was on that policy as a whole that they went to the country, and for that policy as a whole that they were returned with a majority to Parliament. Yet since the General Election we have never had any indication of the policy of the Government on the second half of their proposals.
The Government told the country that it was desirable, first of all, to limit the powers of this House, and, in the second place, to proceed to a reconstitution of the Second Chamber. We know well enough what are their proposals with regard to the first part of their policy, but it is because of this unbroken silence with regard to the second part that this Bill has been introduced. That, I take it, is the justification of the introduction of this Bill, and even now, when the question of the reform of the constitution of this House is before your Lordships, when we are engaged in discussing this Bill—even now, though the debate has proceeded over three days, that silence on the part of the Government remains unbroken, and we are still without any indication of what is their policy with regard to the composition either of the House of Lords or of some alternative Second Chamber. The noble Viscount who leads the House said, on the first day of the discussion of this Bill, that in his opinion it was useless to discuss the composition of this House until we had determined what were to be its powers. I think that was what the noble Viscount said—that the settlement of the powers of this House must come before any consideration of its constitution. But surely, my Lords, that is an inversion of the natural order of events. Surely you cannot determine what ought to be the powers of any Assembly until you know how that Assembly is to be composed. Even now I do not think that any one is very clear what are the powers which the Government intend to give to their reformed Second Chamber if and when the Preamble of their Parliament Bill is carried out.

637
There have been since the General Election speeches made by members of the Government which have only increased our uncertainty upon this head, and I should like to ask the noble Viscount who leads the House a question, and if he could answer it I think it would tend very much to clear up the difficulty which is in our minds. Is it the intention of the Government, when their Parliament Bill has been carried into law, that it should apply in the future, not only to this House as at present constituted, but to any reformed Chamber which may take its place according to the Preamble of their Bill? That is a question upon the answer to which I think a great deal depends, and I hope that when we get another speech from the Government Bench later this evening we shall have a definite answer to that point—namely, supposing the Preamble of the Parliament Bill be carried out, whether, when the Government bring forward their scheme for reforming the constitution of this House they intend that that reformed House should never exercise anything more than the limited Veto which they are applying to the present House of Lords by the Parliament Bill. The noble Marquess who introduced this Bill made it perfectly clear that the House which his Bill would establish would be free to exercise, I will not say an absolute Veto, for the noble Marquess himself pointed out that that was not claimed even by your Lordships to-day, but free to exercise at any rate full legislative powers. It is only on that condition that this Bill can receive any consideration at all.
I imagine that if your Lordships were under the impression that the House which would be constituted under this Bill was never to exercise anything more than the limited Veto offered to us by the Government, there is not one of you who would vote for its Second Reading or give it any support at all. It is the intention, I think, of those who support this Bill to call into existence a House which in their opinion would be better fitted to exercise the same functions which are at present exercised by your Lordships' House—a House which would exercise those powers, we hope, with more impartiality and with greater authority, but nevertheless which would exercise the same powers, subject only to a provision for a Joint Sitting between the two Houses of Parliament in certain cases of difference, and a reference to the people in certain other cases of more important differences
638
between the two Houses. I think I am right in saying that it is the intention of all those who support the Bill which we are now discussing that, subject to those two limitations, the Second Chamber which this Bill would set up would be free to exercise full legislative powers in the future. From that point of view I do think that this Bill is worthy of consideration. I do not feel, any more than many other speakers who have taken part in the debate, that the Bill is perfect in all its details, but I hold that a Bill brought forward as this one is by the Opposition Leader must be regarded rather as a declaration of policy on the part of the Opposition than as a final legislative proposal, and it is as a declaration of policy that I welcome the introduction of this Bill and that I propose to consider it for a moment.
In many respects I cannot help feeling that the Bill is unnecessarily complicated in its details. Another defect seems to me to be that it does not proceed upon any very intelligible principle. For instance, it is difficult to understand upon what principle the term of twelve years has been fixed. Why is it that the members of the reformed House are to sit for twelve years any more than any other period? Why, again, is one section of this House to be composed of 100 members and another section of 120 members? There does not seem to be any very clear principle which has determined these particular figures. The machinery for electing the Lords of Parliament is somewhat complicated and difficult to understand, and even the schedule of qualifications at the end of the Bill is, I imagine, put forward rather more as a suggestion and as a basis than as any hard-and-fast rule which we have to accept. Into all these details it is not necessary to enter at this particular moment, but I cannot help feeling that when we come to a final solution of the problem of the constitution of our Second Chamber it will be desirable, if possible, to discover some rather more simple method than that which is proposed by this Bill.
In order to consider the Bill effectively it is necessary, I think, to understand what is the problem with which this Bill seeks to deal. Why is it that we are discussing the reform of this House at all at this moment? What is the complaint brought against your Lordships' House, and which has necessitated the introduction of this Bill? The complaint is not that this House is com

639
posed of Peers. We have the authority of the Lord Chancellor that that is not the complaint which is brought against your Lordships' House. In his speech on this Bill the other night the Lord Chancellor said—
"No one questions the great talent and distinction in this House, or its illustrious past. It is not the case that individual Peers are looked upon with dislike in the country; on the contrary, I believe they are popular and well liked all over the country."
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, though I cannot help noticing, in passing, that his language is very different from that which has been used so much lately by many of his colleagues. The real complaint against this House is contained in the next words of the noble and learned Lord's speech—
"The people of this country are naturally very tolerant of authority, very tractable, and do not care very much whether there are hereditary duties or not provided that they secure what they think is fair play."
That, my Lords, is the whole complaint that has been brought against this House in the past. We shall be commencing tomorrow a discussion upon the proposals of the Government, and we shall have an opportunity then of examining their proposals for establishing fair-play between the two Houses of Parliament.
But let us for a moment consider the Bill from that point of view. The real complaint against this House in the past has been this, that its numbers were too large for effective business; and, secondly, there was a complaint against the proportion in which the political views of your Lordships are distributed in this House. I should have thought that the remedy for those two evils was very obvious, and might have been provided by a somewhat more simple procedure than that which is laid down in this Bill. The obvious remedy for the first evil is to reduce the numbers of your Lordships' House. That is a remedy provided in the Bill, and upon that particular feature of it I think very little criticism has been made. The Bill of the noble Marquess proposes to reduce the membership of this House to about 350. I have heard very few criticisms of that figure, although there have been some suggestions from the other side of the House that even that number was too large. Whether it be too large or too small is a detail for Committee stage discussion. At any rate, this Bill does meet the first objection to the large numbers of
640
the House. The second object of this Bill is to equalise Party representation in this House, and all the criticism against the Bill has been directed to this second point, and it is just upon this second point—the machinery whereby the equalisation of Parties in this House is sought—that the Bill appears to me to be unnecessarily complicated, and I am even doubtful whether, with all its complications, the Bill would really achieve the desired result.
I would suggest that by a simpler method a real equalisation of Parties might be obtained. I would suggest that once you have decided what should be the number who should sit in this House, the leaders of the two political Parties of the day should, in the first instance, select an equal number of Lords of Parliament to be represented in the Second Chamber, and that subsequently all vacancies in the representation should be filled up on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day by the nomination of the Crown. If that were done, we could not hear any more of those phrases such as "loaded dice" and the other phrases which have come from the opposite side of the House and which are directed against this Bill. Such a procedure would be simple, and it would give an equal chance to both the great political Parties of the day at all times, not only of getting their Bills passed, but of getting their Bills rejected, because there are two features in this question, one of which is perpetually neglected by the Government. They tell us that they object not merely to the rejection of Liberal measures by your Lordships but to the passing of Conservative measures by your Lordships also, though that is a feature of the question for which they have never attempted to provide any remedy at all. It is obviously out of place to develop at this moment in any detail a scheme of that sort. I merely mention it in order to say that I should greatly prefer some simple machinery of that kind, either to that which is set up in this Bill, or, still more, to the purely elected body which is so often suggested in various quarters of the House. But in any case, whether this Bill be accepted in all its details or whether some other scheme be provided for establishing an effective Second Chamber, I do hope that it may be possible to provide that those who sit in the Second Chamber shall sit there for life and not for any limited period, because it is only by such a tenure you can secure that real

641
independence which is an essential characteristic, an essential feature, of any Second Chamber.
It is inevitable that a question so large so grave, and so difficult as the reform of the Constitution of this country should arouse differences of opinion and call forth many suggestions, but surely that is a reason for proceeding slowly and cautiously in the matter, surely that is a reason for trying to secure only the minimum of change which is necessary to meet admitted defects in our present Constitution. Whether this Bill be perfect in all its details or not, no one, I think, can deny that it marks a stage, and a very important stage, in the Constitutional development of this country, and the chief value to be attached to it in my mind is the indication which it gives of the spirit in which your Lordships are prepared to approach this question of reforming the Constitution. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack paid a well-deserved tribute the other night to the spirit which had been indicated in this Debate. All those who have spoken on this Bill, even those who have criticised it most severely, have admitted that it marks a great advance upon any-thing which has been suggested in the past. Your Lordships passed last year a number of Resolutions on the motion of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Rosebery). Those Resolutions were attacked at the time on the ground that they were vague and indefinite, and because of those criticisms I think your Lordships were bound, if you were in earnest in the matter, to fill in the details and give some indication of the lines on which you were proposing to proceed, and I regard this Bill as a frank and courageous attempt to fill in the details of those Resolutions and to put before the country a definite policy. I do not think it has been suggested that this Bill could settle the Constitutional question, but its introduction at this moment and its acceptance by your Lordships' House—I hope it will be accepted—will make the solution of that question easier in that day when a Government can be found to deal with the question as a whole; not in the interests either of individual privileges or of the political Party of the hour, but in the interests of the permanent needs of the country; and when that day comes the Government, approaching the question on those lines, will have, I think, to seek a solution, not by the force of a composite majority, but upon lines
642
which will secure the consent of all Parties in the State.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, I hope you will not be offended when I say that the Benches opposite remind me of a kaleidoscope. Looking through it during the First Reading of this Bill, and indeed at this moment, one sees a harmonious and beautiful picture; but as one turns it round during successive speeches little bits of glass seem to be falling about—brother upon brother, David upon Jonathan, may I say Willoughby de Broke upon Newton, Raglan upon Bedford—and this, as it seems to me, because all along the Conservative line there has been a general playing with the hereditary principle.
Look at some of the little bits of glass as they fall and make new pictures. Lord Bathurst protested with all his strength against the Bill. He had spoken to many noble Lords about the Bill, but had not met one who en bloc approved of it. Many noble Lords, he said, were going to vote for the Bill because they believed the noble Marquess to be a safe man to follow. Lord St. Levan said they realised that the people were not prepared to support the hereditary principle. Lord Lamington questioned whether the hereditary principle was as unpopular as it was the fashion to make out. He sometimes doubted whether there was any half-way house between the hereditary and the elective principle. The Earl of Wicklow was amazed that such proposals should be submitted by the noble Marquess. Lord Faber said most of them would prefer to leave the House of Lords in its present condition. Public opinion, so far as he could gather, was for better or worse, against the hereditary principle. He deplored the fact. The Duke of Bedford did not believe that the creation of such an Assembly would be possible save on a purely elective principle. Lord Raglan intended to vote against the Bill—a Conservative Agents' policy.
So much for these lesser lights. But what does Lord Newton say? He says that noble Lords opposite have burnt their boats. I cordially agree with him. You have burnt your House-boat, and now you are running up and down the bank trying to let riverside lodgings, varying the monotony with an occasional dive into the 'flames to

643
try and save your valuables—some antique, some modern, but mostly inherited from your fathers. But, lastly, we come to the most pathetic picture of all. In the middle of the House-boat, in solitary grandeur, sits my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke awaiting the end, painting pictures of what might have been, and feeding the flames chiefly with members of His Majesty's Government. My Lords, I must point the moral. With all possible respect to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, this Bill is moulded on the policy of Ananias. I do not allude to that gentleman's inability to give a correct version of the day's doings, but to his unfortunate habit of keeping a bit up his sleeve. This Bill, whether you look at its qualifications or whether you look at its proposed electorate, reeks of the hereditary principle. You have here a Bill professing to give effect to our pious Resolutions on the hereditary principle, professing to correct the unfairness between Parties, yet retaining the hereditary principle and retaining a permanent Conservative majority in your Lordships' House.
I cannot conclude without a word regarding the speech of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Rosebery). The outpourings of his stricken soul were as usual eloquent if unconvincing. There seemed to be going on in his mind a duel between the Peers' Bill and the Parliament Bill. His cry of anguish seemed to be—Fools to the right of me, knaves to the left of me, I'm one in six hundred. With his usual astuteness he recognised that the Peers' Bill was armed with blank and the Parliament Bill with ball, and, of course, he would vote against both of them. Who are the people, he says, who will accept the degrading position which is to be offered under the Parliament Bill in this ancient House? Who are the acolytes, the sycophants, persons who will consent to an abject and degraded existence under the Parliament Bill, and who will consent to fill the denuded Benches of this House? I have no quarrel with the noble Earl over his vain questionings. He may ask what questions he likes, but I would that he had kept his answer within the area of his stricken soul. He linked up the answer with followers of His Majesty's Government, and said he supposed that the Government had some of their followers ready to come to hand and do what would be required of them under the Parliament Bill.
644
Being a hearty supporter of the Parliament Bill believing it to be the only solution of the present difficulties and a freedom withal from the very abject and degraded existence of which the noble Earl speaks, I ask myself. What is this that he calls us? A sycophant is a flatterer. May I remind the noble Earl that with the flatterers—that is, near by—were busy mockers of an honest attempt to find a fair way for social reform from yonder to yonder—social reform pausing, it may be, for a while, to receive hospitality at your Lordships' hands, then passing forward. What, in the next place, is an acolyte? An acolyte is a subordinate officer in the Romish Church—one who slings incense. I say at once that I would rather sling incense over the Parliament Bill from the Back Benches of the Liberal Party than nonsense from any other part of your Lordships' House.
But, my Lords, enough. I do not wish to quarrel with the noble Earl. Indeed, I sympathise with him—poised on a Cross Bench thinking of one thing, and, as he told us, talking of another. When he called us acolytes did he not intend to call us aconites?—pretty little flowers that bloom in the backwoods. In a few days, when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gives the command, Ayes to the left by the Bar, we will strew the path with these little yellow flowers, and flowers that bloom in the spring will have something to do with the case of the Parliament Bill.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I should feel grateful to your Lordships if you would allow me a few minutes in which to state that, although I do not believe I am a reactionary, and while I consider that some changes might well be carried out in the composition of this House, I shall, if the House goes to a Division, vote against this Bill. I shall also endeavour to show your Lordships why I consider that it will be dangerous and most unwise for this House to give a Second Reading to this Bill and thus not only endorse the principles of the main propositions which the Bill contains, but agree to the many inferences which can legitimately be drawn from your action in giving it a Second Reading. I am not going into the merits, or the demerits, as I think them, of the particular proposals in this Bill. This is not the occasion for doing so, and after all, the merits or the demerits of the particular proposal is not the important point.

645
The important aspect of the question to-day is the effect and the consequences of your Lordships giving a Second Reading to this Bill. In my opinion, the certain and inevitable consequences will be ruinous to the good name and prestige of the existing House. I think it will be disastrous to the utility and to the authority of this House if your Lordships agree to the Second Reading of this Bill and to the principles which it contains. May I briefly put my case by asking and answering one or two questions? What is this House? Who are we who are members of it? What does this Bill propose to do to this House, and what will be the consequences of that action? First, what is this House to-day? I am not going into its ancient history, in which so many of the ancestors of your Lordships have played a conspicuous part. I mean, what is the practical position of this House to-day in the established Constitution of the country? It is one of the three Estates of the Realm. It is one of the two Houses of the Legislature. It is a component part of the established Constitution of this country. And who are we who are members of it? We are the trustees. It is in our hands that the powers to guide this House, to manage that trust, properly rest. We are not here of our own accord. Our powers here are not our private property. They are public property, and we are public trustees to protect and manage this great trust. Therefore I submit to your Lordships that while we hold that trust, and while it seems we are going to continue to hold it for some years, we should do nothing which would injure the good name or the authority of this House.
Then what does this Bill propose to do? In the first place, let me say that this Bill will do nothing—that is partly my objection to it—because it is not contemplated that it is going to become law. Opposed as I am to the Bill I might conceivably be argued into voting for it if I thought it was going to become law. It is not suggested by the noble Marquess that this Bill is to become law in the immediate future. Therefore the question is, What does this Bill say of this House? It says that six-sevenths of the existing House ought to be deprived of their trust—that 400 members of this House ought to be declared by Statute ineligible to hold such a trust, and that a few members, about 100, I believe, may perhaps he retained in order, as I see it said, to add an
646
element of weakness to the new House. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill, that is the verdict you will have passed on this House. That is the condemnation, the irrevocable condemnation, of the House that you will have put on record if you give this Bill a Second Reading. And what will be the consequence of doing that? The consequence will be that you will have utterly discredited this House and deprived it of its repute, its authority, and its utility, and in my opinion it will be well nigh impossible from this day forth for this House to do anything of importance where there is any opposition in the matter. That will be the consequence of giving a Second Reading to this Bill. Yet in the same breath I hear it said that the House which you will thus have condemned and defamed is to do a lot of extremely brave things to-morrow and the day after—it is to deal with the Veto Bill, with Home Rule, and with Welsh Disestablishment. Why, we will not be able to lift a little finger much less deal with any of these questions if we have thus condemned ourselves.
I do not believe that noble Lords in this House agree with that condemnation. I doubt whether any noble Lord, even the noble Marquess, agrees with that condemnation. But to those who do agree with it, and above all to those who do not, I say, Ought we to pass this condemnation on the House as long as we hold our trust? Is there any excuse for passing it unless the noble Marquess really foresees that he is going to hand over this trust to new trustees? If the noble Marquess can tell us that he foresees that position in the immediate future, then I think there might be a case possibly for this Bill, though I am against it on its merits. I submit to your Lordships that the only justification for agreeing to this Bill is that you contemplate and can foresee that it will become law. The noble Marquess when introducing this Bill may possibly have thought that it would be accepted by the Government and become the law of the land—it or some modification of it. I venture very respectfully to ask the noble Marquess whether his attitude towards this Bill has been in no way changed by the fact that the Government have refused to adopt it. Lord Curzon said he was greatly disappointed with the reception that the Bill had received from the Government—the unfriendly, I think he called it, and uncompromising attitude that the Government had adopted with

647
reference to it. I respectfully suggest to the noble Marquess, does that not affect at all his attitude towards this Bill? Inasmuch as he sees that it is not going to become law, inasmuch as he sees that this House will have to go on and fulfil most important duties, would it not be wiser and better now not to press this Bill further, but to drop it or let it be adjourned?
I am one of those who thought that this House made a mistake in accepting the Resolutions of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. I think the House got somewhat into a hole over having accepted them, but I see no good now in getting deep down into a pit, which I believe we will be doing if we give a Second Reading to this Bill. I believe that this House has suffered for the last fifteen months in repute and in authority owing to the fact that we have been living all this time with these ropes of Rosebery Resolutions round our necks. The noble Marquess thinks it is a consequence of having passed these Resolutions that he must now lead us to the scaffold. I would agree with the noble Marquess if the third stage was likely to come off, and if the hangman was to come forward from the Government side and remove the plank and hang us. I would agree then. But I strongly object to being condemned and defamed and exhibited to public gaze on the scaffold but left unhanged, and told into the bargain that one ought to be an extremely important and useful citizen and legislator during the next few years.
I constantly see it said that this House is dead. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches announced to the country some mouths ago that this House was dead. I see this Bill referred to as a death-blow. I hear our policy described as suicidal. What I object to is that it is none of these things. We are not dead, but we are going to be buried alive, and that is a very much worse fate both for ourselves and for the public weal. Give a dog a bad name, but, if you do, hang it. Don't tie a rope round its neck, don't tether it, don't revile it, and then when you have done that tell this noble hound that it is to run Home Rule to earth and tear it to pieces, and even to vomit the Veto Bill. For these reasons I venture to ask seriously and earnestly but respectfully as an insignificant member of your Lordships' House, Cannot the noble Marquess, inas-
648
much as the Government have adopted this attitude to the Bill, see his way not to press this matter any further? If he does press it, I shall feel bound to vote against the Second Reading, and I earnestly ask your Lordships to take a similar course, because if you give the Bill a Second Reading you will, I believe, be guilty of an action which will be fatal, not only to the future of this House, but to its present effectiveness as a House of the Legislature of this country.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I regret to find myself in opposition to the noble Marquess who has for so long led this side of the House and for whom personally I have the very sincerest affection and regard, but the matter is so serious a one that, loth as I am to do so, I feel I must rise to oppose him on this occasion. I may say that I agree with the speech of the noble Earl on the Cross Bench, Lord Rosebery. I was unfortunately unwell and not able to be here to hear his speech, but I have read it with great interest, and I thoroughly agree with him that this was not a Bill for any member on this side of this House to bring before the country. It is a Bill that could not possibly be passed into law unless it were introduced by a Government, and a strong Government, too, with a majority not only in this House, but in the other House as well. For that reason I sincerely regret that the noble Marquess has introduced this Bill. We have the Resolutions which were adopted by your Lordships and are known as the Rosebery Resolutions. We have also the further Resolutions which the noble Marquess himself introduced and which were adopted by your Lordships. I would like to ask the noble Marquess why he has gone so far beyond those Resolutions? This Bill is, I believe, the most revolutionary that has ever been introduced into your Lordships' House, either from this side or the other side of the House.
I have heard a great number of so-called Second Reading speeches, but in this debate, with the exception of the speech of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches and that of the noble Viscount who leads the House, the Bill itself has not been criticised. I think it is only right that noble Lords who sit on this side of the House and those who sit on the back benches of the opposite side should realise

649
the position in which they are asked to place themselves. The first proposition in the Bill of the noble Marquess is that 100 Peers should be elected out of some 300 existing Peers with certain qualifications. That would leave some 370 of your Lordships not only without a qualification to be elected as a member of this House, but in a worse position than the meanest of the electors who return members to the House of Commons. Every noble Lord in this House has at the present moment an equal right to sit and vote in this House. Sheer ability, and possibly opportunity, has put certain noble Lords on the Front Benches. There are many of you who, if you had had the opportunity, might have been occupying an equally important position, but circumstances have been adverse. The result is that you remain "backwoodsmen," while the Front Benches are occupied by noble Lords who, I am sure, are well worthy of their position. But look at your own position. As I have said, 100 are to be elected out of 300 with a qualification; the remaining 350, or whatever it may be, have only the power to vote for the 100. You are therefore in a worse position than the 300 qualified Peers, because you cannot be elected as a member of this House by your brother Peers. You may be elected in either of the other two categories provided in the Bill, but you are so much the worse in respect to this House. You are, as I have said, in a far worse position than the meanest elector to the House of Commons, and for this reason. I am, of course, only alluding to the first category. You can only elect; you cannot be elected; whilst the meanest voter for a Member of Parliament can not only vote, but can, if he wishes, stand for a seat in the House of Commons. Therefore, if your Lordships accept this Bill you are putting yourselves in a worse position in regard to this category.
There is another point. No doubt on the first election noble Lords who sit on the Front Benches and those who are prominent in your Lordships' House will be elected. But what is to happen afterwards? In the course of four or five years one-third of that 100 will have to retire, and the Whips will send your Lordships—that is, the 350 plus the remaining 200 who are not elected—a notice to say that these gentlemen are very honourable gentlemen and very fitted to sit in the House of Lords, or whatever
650
you may call it, and they will trust that you will vote for them. But for how long will your Lordships continue to take an interest in voting for Peers knowing that you have no possible chance of being elected yourselves? Let me give your Lordships an example of what happens every Parliament. At every Parliament there are sixteen Scottish Peers elected to sit to represent Scotland, and there are, roughly speaking, 100 electors for the Scottish Peers to Parliament. How many of those vote? I have stood for election for something like twenty-five years, and I have never in the whole course of my life, to the best of my recollection, known more than forty-two votes given for any Peer at that election. Therefore your Lordships will see that not one-half take the interest which they ought to in the election of Scottish Peers. The noble Marquess himself is a representative of a very honourable and ancient Scottish family and has a vote for the Peers of Scotland. I have constantly written to him, in common with other Scottish Peers, asking him to do me the honour of giving me his vote and support, but he has never to my knowledge responded to that invitation. I do not think he has ever troubled himself to vote at the election of Scottish Peers. I do not wish to labour that point. I merely quote it as an example of how, if you have an election where your Lordships have no possibility of being elected, the whole thing will be apt to be turned into a caucus for the 100 who are in. That is what I believe will be the result—the 100 will be elected, and will prove to be an absolute caucus in the House of Lords. I would far sooner see the whole principle of heredity done away with. If we have lost the support of the country, which I do not for one moment believe—Scotland is the most Radical country in the whole of the world, and I do not believe that even Scotland is against the House of Lords one tittle—but if we have lost the support of the country, better let the whole thing go rather than simply retain 100 nominal members in this House. I think it would be the height of folly. It would be the ruin of the whole thing.
I come now to the second category of elections to your Lordships' House. There is a tentative suggestion that there should be certain electoral groups in various parts of the country, that these groups should be made into electoral colleges, and that the Members of Parliament in those groups should elect a certain number of members

651
of this House. All I say to that is that I do not agree that the members of the House of Commons are the best people to elect. If you give them this opportunity, you will find it very hard to get them to resign the position which you have given them. Therefore it is most important, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, that you should be absolutely certain about the effect of the working of this second category.
I pass to the Schedule. I hate this Schedule. I hate your qualifications. Why, I ask your Lordships, should a member who has been a week or a month or a year—there is no limit—who has been either a long or a short time in the House of Commons and then succeeds his father and becomes a qualified representative in this House—why should he have a better right to sit here than a distinguished soldier, or anybody like that? I have in my mind a distinguished soldier in this House who, I believe, has no qualifications under this Bill. He is one of the most distinguished soldiers who has ever served in the British Army. I do not know whether he is here to-day, but I trust he will forgive my mentioning his name—I refer to Lord Dunmore. He has gained the greatest prize that a soldier can win—the Victoria Cross. He has been through several campaigns with the greatest distinction. His father died, and he succeeded. Well, he has not the qualification under this Bill, although he is a major in his regiment, to sit in your Lordships' reformed House. Why should he not have? He is a leader of men, a proved man. Yet a man who has lived in the atmosphere of the House of Commons for a year or so is regarded as competent to be elected to your Lordships' reformed House in preference to one who has proved himself to be a great man and a great leader.
I would like to see how this matter of qualification is going to work out. If your Lordships will look at the Bill and the Schedule, you will see that the whole of the qualified persons are officials. There are one or two qualifications for soldiers and sailors—I do not propose to read them; your Lordships know them very well. There are Cabinet Ministers and—officials. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Under-Secretaries, Board of Trade Secretaries, and—officials; Lords Lieutenant, and officials; High Commissioners, and officials. Then we come to members of the
652
Privy Council, members of the House of Commons, and officials again. And so on. So that the whole of your qualified persons are officials, ex-members of the House of Commons, and a certain limited number of noble Lords who have obtained high military or naval distinction. What is going to happen when you come to elect them? You must bear in mind that less than one-third of your Lordships' House is to be elected by your Lordships, and two-thirds are to be elected from outside. In twenty or thirty years, how many of the noble Lords who presently sit on these Benches as officials will still sit, and who will be the officials who will take their places? One-third of the members of your Lordships' reformed House will be your elected nominees; two-thirds will be those elected from outside. Will it not follow that in twenty or thirty years' time your officials' qualifications will have disappeared? That will be the result of your electing under that category.
Finally, I say I do not like the Bill. I am stoutly opposed to it. But I will make a very strong appeal to the whole of the noble Lords who sit on this side of the House and behind the Front Bench. I know that there are many of them who are anxious to vote against the Bill. I appeal to them most strongly not to do so. I think that at this moment it would be a great mistake that we should show dissensions—if there are dissensions—between ourselves and our leaders. I appeal to noble Lords on this side not to vote against the Bill, but I also appeal in the strongest way that I can to the noble Marquess, if we let the Second Reading of this Bill go through, not to continue to press it.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I have listened to the speeches which have been delivered during this debate with deep interest, but with some misgivings and also with some feelings of regret. I should like, quite briefly, to tell your Lordships my views with regard to this measure and my attitude towards it, because I feel that if a Division is taken to-night I shall be unable to go into the Lobby to support the noble Marquess. Every one will recognise the enormous labours involved and the hours of discussion which must have taken place in order to produce a piece of constructive legislation like the Bill which is before your Lordships' House. It is, therefore, in no spirit of captious and idle

653
criticism that I venture to say that I disagree with the proposals contained in this measure. I profoundly believe that these proposals can never ultimately solve the problem which now confronts us. I trust that no noble Lord on this side of the House will think that my action is in any way disloyal to the noble Marquess, for, after all, I am bound to him by ties of kinship, of friendship, and also of gratitude; but I feel that on this occasion we have to consider not the interest of our power, but the capital of our power, and it is not to the noble Marquess himself not to our Party in general but to ourselves and ourselves alone that we have to justify the action which we take in regard to this measure.
It is now some eighteen months or two years since Lord Rosebery brought in his Resolutions. At that time I ventured to protest against those Resolutions. I numbly suggested to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that if once the hereditary principle was abandoned, if once that principle was thrown over board, there was no alternative but to go to the other recognised principle, the principle of election; and I venture to say that the events which have occurred since those Resolutions were brought into this House have strengthened me in the opinion which I held at that time, and I see nothing whatsoever to in any way shake my confidence in the views I then held. We then came to the Resolutions of the noble Marquess in November, 1910. I felt that those Resolutions were brought forward to mitigate the abuse and contumely which had been poured on the hereditary principle by the Party opposite. I subscribed to those Resolutions. I supported them. It was the eve of the General Election, and it was the duty of every Peer in this House to support the Party to which he belonged and the House of which he was a member. But I frankly say this, that having had some little experience of the last General Election I do not think that the British public displayed any great enthusiasm for the Resolutions of the noble Marquess. They were somewhat complicated in character; they were rather long and difficult to explain; there was a certain amount of prejudice, largely created by the Party of noble Lords opposite, with the idea that your Lordships desired to absorb the Prerogative of the Crown. On the other hand, there were many who profoundly distrusted the proposal of the noble Mar-
654
quess that we should give up on behalf of this House the old control which we claimed to possess over financial measures.
I believe that our countrymen dislike a coalition, and equally they do not like a Chamber which is called a composite Chamber. The only question, in my humble opinion, which we have to decide to-night is this—How will the electors view these proposals of the noble Marquess? In what light will they regard them? We know that noble Lords opposite have given us no support. We know that the noble Viscount opposite has not in any way shown a desire or wish to co-operate with the noble Marquess in the views which the noble Marquess put forward. We have, therefore, to realise what will be the view of our countrymen with regard to these proposals, knowing full well that the proposals are going to receive every criticism and a good deal of abuse and contumely poured upon them by representatives of noble Lords opposite when they go on to the platforms of England. The first question which the British public will ask is this. Is this proposed composition of the House of Lords a good one, and, if it is, is it likely to work in practice? My fear is that the British public will say that they do not think the composition proposed is a good one, and that the House so composed will not work in practice.
Let me take, for example, the first section of Peers—the Lords who are to be elected by their fellow Peers. It is obviously felt by the noble Marquess and those who work with him that election by Peers who are themselves excluded can hardly commend itself to popular support. Hence qualification is added. How do these provisions affect one another? The need of qualification emphasises the inadequacy of the electorate, while the need of the electorate weakens the effect of the qualification. I very much fear, if I or any other noble Lord went before a popular audience and tried to explain to them the basis upon which the hereditary Peers were to preserve seats in this House, that within a very short space of time the reply which would come to me from that audience would be this, "Your proposals are mutually destructive." I turn to the second category of Peers, those who are to be elected by members of Parliament. To my mind it is perfectly clear that those Lords elected by three or five Members of Parliament, as the case may be, will come here and assert that they

655
sit in virtue, not only of the electorate which has returned them, but also in virtue of the 100,000 or 200,000 or quarter of a million, as the case may be, of electors who return the Members of Parliament to the other House. In virtue of that they would consider that they had a far superior claim to that of the elected hereditary Peers. They will be arrogant and aggressive in their attitude towards those of us who happen to be elected qualified Lords. But that is not all. At the end of the six years, when a General Election takes place, those Members of Parliament who have returned Lords to this House may themselves be rejected by their own constituencies; so the result will be that during the first six years of their tenure they may represent and have behind them a powerful electorate, but in the last six years of their tenure of power they may represent nothing else but the ghosts of a deceased electorate. To begin with, they will be arrogant, overbearing, and aggressive; towards the end of their tenure they will become the servant of their former servant.
Lastly, take the third section, the Lords who are to be nominated by the Prime Minister—I desire to use the phrase employed by the noble Marquess—"in regard to the strength of Parties in this House." That means that these Lords of Parliament nominated by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister will be absolutely at the beck and call and under the control of the Prime Minister himself. They will not be independent. They will be his servants. I very much think that the British public looking at this section of the Lords of Parliament will say, "This section are nothing but the jackals of the Prime Minister, and they do not sit in the House of Lords in virtue of any authority from us."
So much for the various sections of Lords who are to sit in this House. But what about the House as a whole? How will these sections generally work together? I do not think that the British public like a composite House, a House composed of members who will not derive their authority one and all from the same source. Let us bear in mind the fact that the British public have had the experience of the last two or three years; they have seen the struggle which has taken place between this House of Parliament and the other House, between the elected Chamber and the hereditary Chamber, and they will view the proposal
656
to form a composite House, in which the elective clement and the hereditary element are combined, as merely an attempt to perpetuate within the four walls of this House the struggle which has brought us to the present crisis.
One word on the subject of divorcing legislative power and legislative authority from social position. As I understand, under this Bill it is determined that elected Lords shall in no way be considered qualified for an hereditary Peerage. After all, what is the most precious tradition that this House embodies and preserves? Surely it is the association of social position with public duty. The other night Lord Curzon dwelt on this theme with some eloquence, and I think it is even admitted by noble Lords opposite that one of the distinguishing features of our caste is the sense of public duty and the obligations we have towards either county or public affairs. But once you divorce these two factors you create a body of ennobled individuals with possibly no public or Parliamentary duties to perform. The danger is that they may sink into a mere social caste, slightly parasitic in character, which can but be regarded as a menace to the State. We have not far to look for an example of this. We have only to look to neighbouring countries to see what I venture to foretell being absolutely carried out. Once it is confirmed by this House that social position and legislative or Parliamentary power shall be divorced one from the other, I cannot possibly see how you can prevent the concomitant from following, and you can no longer claim that primogeniture is based upon any sound principle.
I have a profound conviction that any scheme for the reorganisation of this House must be short and simple, and one which the humblest and most unintelligent elector can easily understand. Your Lordships will notice that the Parliament Bill, bad, contemptible, and odious as it is, has one great merit. It costs a penny. The Bill of the noble Marquess costs twopence. The price of the one indicates shortness and simplicity; that of the other suggests that it is more prolix. Your Lordships may think that to-night I have looked too much to the consideration of what position the British public will take with regard to our action; but, after all, it is we, and we alone, who have to fight on the platforms of

657
England any reorganisation proposals laid before us. Of this I feel sure, that the electorate will never give their sanction to the election of a new body the composition of which they do not clearly understand and two-thirds of whose members will not be directly responsible to the people themselves, and to a scheme which as a whole is not in harmony with modern democratic thought.
If the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will get up and say that he will co-operate with the noble Marquess and make his proposals into a Bill which will satisfy both great Parties in the State, and will ensure to this House the full and proper legislative powers which any Second Chamber is entitled to have, then I would at once resume my seat and hold my peace. But, having listened to this debate with great care, I have seen no indication either on the part of the noble Viscount or of any noble Lord who sits in the Cabinet with him, that they will give the slightest co-operation, the slightest help whatsoever, to the noble Marquess in his endeavours. Indeed the Liberals and the Radical Press have done nothing since Lord Lansdowne produced his proposals but pour contempt and ridicule and contumely upon them. Therefore I sincerely trust that the noble Marquess will appeal right over the heads of noble Lords opposite to the British public themselves. But if that appeal is to be made with success I feel confident that success can only be achieved by proclaiming our support to the principle of a uniform House, in which the Peers of Great Britain shall form the panel, and constructed on the single democratic principle of election.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I think it right, in the present state of affairs, to say that I, for one, am unable to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill brought in by the noble Marquess the Leader of our Party in this House, who, as we all know, has had a most difficult task before him in framing this Bill. I regret extremely the fact that I cannot give him my support, but the time has now come when it is one's duty to act regardless of Party and to think only of one's King and country. The Government, as every one knows, have sold themselves body and soul to the Nationalists and the Labour Party, and the former have exacted Home Rule and the consequent breaking up of the Union as their reward for keeping the Government in power. To carry Home Rule the Govern-
658
ment saw that they must first wreck our ancient Constitution of King, Peers, and Commons, as this House, they knew, would never betray the country and pass a Bill for Home Rule for Ireland, and so they have brought forward their Parliament Bill for that purpose.
But because such utterly unprincipled Party politicians as those who sit on the Treasury Bench have, by gross misrepresentation, raised a cry against this House amongst a certain section of the voters of this country I cannot see why our Party should become their accomplices, and by destroying this House desert the millions of loyal people in this country who have always looked up to it as at present constituted as the only safeguard they had against ill-considered legislation by the House of Commons and tyrannical and unjust measures of a Government such as the present. The late Lord Salisbury once said—
"Whatever happens, never give up the hereditary principle in this House,"
and I stick to his advice. The moment you introduce the elective principle you destroy the independence which has always been the best and greatest feature of this House. I hope, my Lords, we shall stand up for our ancient Constitution and for the huge majority of loyal people in this country, who, if we will only be true to ourselves and to them, will, I am sure, back its against those who for purely Party purposes are trying to destroy this House.
The country is tired of revolutionary projects and wishes to get to work on measures which safeguard the Empire and the United Kingdom, and give the working classes the chance of bettering themselves and remaining secure in their employment and the fruits of their labour. Why should we be a party to Constitutional changes which will destroy all security? The Government have no object in view, in the Constitional changes they contemplate, but plunder. If we make these changes easier by accepting this Bill, our action will be followed by further attacks on property of all kinds, which the man of small means will find will ruin him as well as those who are better off. I beg to thank you, my Lords, for the patient hearing you have given me, the more so as, of course, many on this side of the House disagree with me.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that those who have not

659
been long members of this House and support this Bill may lay themselves open to the criticism that the shortness of their service more easily persuades them to vote for a measure which curtails some of their privileges, and that the sacrifice on their part may not be so deeply felt as by those who have long upheld the traditions of this House. I do not think that would really be a fair argument, because, after all, it is the age of the traditions of this House and not the personal relationship to them which is valued by your Lordships. I am sure there is no member of your Lordships' House who will support this Bill with a light heart. Those of us who support it do so because we believe it to be one solution of a most difficult problem which will have to be solved by us on this side of the House, not by the means which we would judge to be best—namely, a joint agreement, which I still think the people of this country most desire. But if it cannot be done by that means, do noble Lords on the other side of the House really suppose that on the question of remodelling a part of the Constitution your Lordships' House is to have no say in the matter or take no part beyond giving a "Yea" or "Nay" to the Government's Veto Bill? That is to say, first they are to assent to the deprivation of their powers, and then they are to discus the character of a reformed House of Lords?
The only arrangement, if arrangement it can be called, which during this debate I have heard suggested from the other side, is that if and when the Veto Bill is passed this Bill might be tacked on for discussion, which means that your Lordships having had your powers taken away will then be allowed to discuss the new method in which they will have the privilege of enjoying this negation of duties. If the Government Bill were a complete Bill, a Bill dealing both with the relations of the two Houses and the reconstruction of this House, then it would not be necessary that a Bill of this character should be introduced. But the worst feature of the Government Bill is the hiatus which it leaves between the two parts of reconstruction, and it is this interval after your Lordships' House has been deprived of its powers and before it is remodelled which I believe contains the gravest consequences—consequences which I do not think are fully understood by the people of this country. I think that the best way of pointing out what the consequences are is not merely by calling attention
660
to them, but by showing how they may be met, and by showing that we on this side of the House have a constructive policy of our own.
Noble Lords on this side have been taunted by noble Lords opposite for not displaying any great enthusiasm for this measure, but is this an occasion for any display of enthusiasm? I am confident of this, that however conscious we may be of the need for reform noble Lords on both sides of the House deeply feel the gravity of the position and the change which will take place in the history of this House. But if on this side of the House we differ as to the provisions which may be contained in this Bill, I am confident that there is enthusiasm for the principle which underlies the Bill—the principle of two-Chamber government as compared with the principle of one-Chamber government which we contend underlies the Government Bill. Personally I am in favour of the scheme under this Bill which, while abolishing the hereditary principle pure and simple, does not provide for a purely elective Chamber; because I think that in a Chamber whose functions are those of delay and revision and whose duty it is to obtain the passage of Bills which the people desire and to prevent the passing of those which they do not desire, it is well that some members should be independent of popular constituencies.
If, putting aside the exigencies of Party politics, a reform of this House is desired in the interests of the country at large, I believe that some measure such as this is needed, as I have said, as a declaration of policy. But if, on the other hand, it is desired merely to meet a momentary situation in which the House of Lords is an inconvenience and the Government desire to abolish it, then at least may we not ask that our death may be a dignified one, that we should be killed outright instead of being starved to death and having our vital powers paralysed? I support this Bill because I believe that the people of the country desire a reform of the House of Lords, not for any transitory or political purposes, but because they wish this House to continue efficiently and satisfactorily to perform the functions of a Second Chamber, and continue to be what the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, described it the other night—not in a speech which he made on this Bill, but in words which he let slip on the Second Reading of the Allotments Bill—"one of the fairest tribunals in the world."
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I take exception to the short title of this Bill. It is an Exclusion Bill. It contains the suggestion that 400 Peers should be excluded from this House, and that 120, I think, should remain. How the operation of this exclusion is to be carried out does not appear; it is not explained, it cannot be explained. By excluding 400 Peers from this House you are taking away their birthright, and that of their children and their children's children. You exclude, without knowing it, the very men whom it would be most desirable to retain. I allude to the elder members of your Lordships' House who have retired from public life, and whose counsel is the most valuable and the most sought after.
It seems to me that the whole debate is very unreal because, as I understand the present state of affairs, there is no possibility of this Bill ever becoming law. If it is passed by this House and sent to another place, what possible chance is there of the House of Commons passing it into law? The wastepaper basket of the House of Commons is a very ample one, the amplest probably in Europe. Many things go there, and to that receptacle this Bill will find its way. One remedy which has been spoken of outside this House—I have not heard it mentioned during this debate—is the creation of life Peers. That seems to me a point that should have received a great deal of attention. For my own part, I do not think there is any remedy whatever in this Bill for getting over the present difficulty and embarrassment in the political world. I cannot see that it would go far, or indeed any way, towards a solution. A far greater and far more drastic solution is required for the difficulty in which the political world in England finds itself to-day.
We want a solution far more important and enduring than anything which this Bill suggests. I cannot see why the four nations of which the United Kingdom is composed should not have their own Legislative Assemblies and the Imperial Parliament remain intact, the hereditary principle being preserved in its fulness and the elective principle being applied in the formation of the House of Commons. In that way you would secure perpetual Joint Sittings and a perpetual Referendum, because each country in the United Kingdom could express itself in its own Parliament, and its conclusions would come to the
662
Imperial Parliament. I cannot see why you should not deal with the four nations in the United Kingdom in the same way that you deal with the Colonies, and that they should, if necessary, make an appeal to the Imperial Parliament in the last resort, just as the Colonial Governments have a right now to appeal to the Privy Council. The Privy Council has a right to alter and check any of their conclusions, but it never does so, and never interferes. The whole system, therefore, has worked in harmony and for the good of the Empire.
We are told that an Act of Parliament can do anything. That is a common saying. But there is one thing that an Act of Parliament cannot do, and that is convert a Scotsman into an Englishman, a Welshman into an Englishman, or an Irishman into an Englishman. The four nations in this Kingdom remain with their differences in religion and politics, and as separate as they were in the beginning. Now we are confronted with a new phenomenon—namely, a Welsh nationality, which has become more and more accentuated. As for Ireland, the case is too self-evident to dwell upon, I am quite aware that these suggestions are not, perhaps, within the sphere of practical politics, but I mention them because I believe most firmly that the present deadlock and embarrassment in political life have shown that the differences between the two Houses of Parliament cannot be dealt with by a Bill of this kind, but require far more drastic and far deeper remedies.
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: My Lords, I trust I may be pardoned for intervening for a few moments on this subject. I do not stand here as one who holds a brief for any political organisation, and I think I may say for myself that I have always kept as far aloof as I could from Party aspects of questions. I hold it to be the duty of all who take part in the work of any Legislative Assembly to endeavour as far as possible to keep a dispassionate mind in the consideration of all questions submitted to them, and as I have endeavoured to do that I feel a great sympathy when I look at one side of the House and at the other. I have a great sympathy with those who feel that the composition of this House, from the hereditary quality of those who sit in it, does need some change and does not quite meet the conditions of to-day. On the other hand, I have a deep sympathy with those on the other side of the House who find

663
themselves face to face with a condition of things on which the curtain, whatever the play may be, has not yet been raised. In some cases it is necessary to perform an operation, and in order to do that it is necessary to make use of chloroform. I can sympathise with those on the Opposition side of the House in this matter for I take it their position seems to be this, that they must submit to an operation one way or the other, but the suggestion which is made on the Government side of the House is that they should first be chloroformed without having any definite knowledge of the operation which is to ensue. That seems to be a very difficult position for the poor patient who has to undergo the operation. But I trust that, whatever be the result in the future, this House will not be put into a "hobble skirt." There is every reason for demanding freedom of action, whatever may be the condition in which this House is left. It would be a miserable thing that any legislative enactment should leave this House a mere shadow and a sham. That is not a position to which any Legislative Assembly ought to be reduced.
But having this sympathy with both sides, I feel it my duty to ask myself one or two questions. What is the object in view? What is the purpose of a Second Chamber? As I understand, the object of a Second Chamber is that it may act as a kind of check and revising Chamber upon the actions and legislation of the other House. If I understand that idea rightly, a Second Chamber is to act in the same way as does a brake upon the wheel of a vehicle; and I put it to those who are considering this matter whether it is not absolutely essential, if that idea of a Second Chamber is to be carried out, that the power of applying the brake shall at least be a real one. There are times in which the brake is not needed, such as when the vehicle is going uphill; but when the vehicle is likely to be going downhill there is every reason for having the brake effective. If you take the view that the House of Lords represents the power of a brake it is very desirable that that power should be real.
But the House of Lords ought to be a great deal more than a mere Chamber of Veto. I cannot help feeling that a great deal of misunderstanding has arisen respecting the word Veto. I think it is an unfortunate thing that the word has been imported into the controversy at all. The House of Lords ought to be in my judgment,
664
and I believe was intended to be, something, more than a mere Chamber of Veto. I understand that it was meant to be a Chamber in which certain classes of legislation should be undertaken with that deliberate consideration which is probably impossible in another place. In modern conditions the development of affairs in the House of Commons has, I imagine, reached such a stage that it is almost impossible for due and adequate consideration to be given to large and important measures, while private measures are crowded out altogether. There is a large quantity of legislation which might very fairly be undertaken in a Second Chamber. If I may use the expression, it ought to be an incubating Chamber for such classes of legislation as require the consideration of wise and experienced men. That legislation might then be transmitted to another place with the authority, not of mere heredity, but the authority of investigation arising from the fact that it had been considered by those well capable of considering it, and who had large experience and knowledge to bring to bear on these matters. With that view in one's mind it seems to me that the only thing that needs to be aimed at is how to secure in a Second Chamber—I am speaking as it were purely in the abstract for the moment—an adequate supply of men fitted for the purpose. Surely the supply of fitting members must come from those who have capacity and every opportunity of giving their best leisurely thoughts to public matters. I have often felt the deepest pity for members in another place who have to deliberate matters dominated by partisan considerations which their own personal judgment does not wholly ratify. That seems a very unfortunate position. But if the House of Lords fulfilled, as I believe it ought, its great function of devising legislation and giving it that leisurely consideration which many of these questions deserve and demand, then I think you would have a House of Lords which would immediately command the respect of the country and carry with it its own native authority.
A great deal has been said about Party in this matter. If I may venture to put forward one thought respecting the Party aspect, I would earnestly ask that the thought of Party may be put very far from our minds. I cannot think that we are dealing justly by the question if we import Party considerations into our thoughts in

665
this matter. What is wanted is not an Assembly in which there is a mechanical balance of Parties, not an Assembly in which there is a predominance of one Party, but an Assembly of straightforward, intelligent, earnest, well-equipped men who can give impartial consideration to any measure which may be submitted to them. When people talk about trying to make an Upper Chamber which shall be constructed on a basis of equalising the Parties of the moment, I would implore them to remember that Party in this country, from the Constitutional point of view, has very little meaning. Parties may rise and fall and disappear. As I understand the position, if I may speak frankly, I think that the real meaning of our present difficulties lies in this fact, that the two great Parties of which we hear so much do not really exist. That is to say, neither Party is in the same position with relation to the other which was the case thirty years ago. Party nomenclature happens to deal with the conditions and circumstances and topics of the hour. There was a time when Whig was ranged against Tory, when Conservative was ranged against Liberal; but in my judgment the Liberal Party is dead, and in my judgment the Conservative Party is dead. A new set of Parties and of conditions has arisen. The whole thought of the country is slowly and quietly reorganising itself, and the camps of Party in the future will not go along the lines of division which they followed formerly and which is given a fictitious importance to-day.
We are passing through a time of transition, when the Parties of the future, if I think rightly, are going to be the Party of the Empire or the Party—shall I say?—of Socialism. At such a time it is wise that we should take into consideration the measures to be adopted in order to secure Imperial well-being. I want your Lordships to take a larger view, and to remember that we are not simply to-day this little United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; we are the British Empire, and if you are to really and adequately make the Legislature of this country what it ought to be it must take on what I cannot help calling an Imperial flavour. There ought to be representatives in this House and elsewhere of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the seas. It seems to me that unless we are prepared to make ready for the day when the Empire as a whole will need to stand together, we may be overtaken by a crisis in which, because we have not sufficiently
666
cemented together and consolidated the bonds of Empire, we shall be weighed in the balance and found wanting. That is my reason for saying that I want a larger view, and men who represent the great and various forces of the Empire ought to be found a place in the Legislature.
On the question of the hereditary principle, I confess I cannot agree with the noble Duke opposite, who would prefer to surrender every vestige of the hereditary principle and accept the elective principle than adopt a measure of practical reform. I cannot see it in that light. What is it that is understood, or was originally understood, by the hereditary principle, and why was it that our ancestors took upon themselves to consecrate the hereditary principle by the formation of this House? They meant this, that the men who had gathered experience, the men who had served their country and proved themselves fitting, should take place and power in this great Assembly. Who will deny that in the past the Barons had more knowledge and information than the men who could be gathered by the populace? The idea was that the House of Lords should represent in the best and noblest sense the aristocracy of the country. We are living in an age in which if anything has been taught to us by the discoveries of recent years it is the fact that there is a natural selective force at work and that men come by inheritance and training into the possession of special aptitudes in this way. There are men who are born lawyers and born physicians, and there are men who are, born statesmen. The wisdom of the past must have desired to include in its Legislature men who, by virtue of the fact that their ancestors had served the State, had, so to speak, inherited a kind of instinct for government. It would be a great mistake to sweep away at one stroke the whole of the hereditary principle in the formation of the Second Chamber. The Bill before the House does not propose to set aside that principle, but to provide that the hereditary Peers of England shall select a certain proportion of their number to represent them in the Second Chamber, just as the Peers of Scotland and Ireland now do. That seems to me quite in harmony with precedent; it preserves the principle that you are selecting from the men who by tradition and instinct have a certain aptitude for government, and are likely to be among the best and fittest to serve. It is choosing the fittest, and I want that principle of choosing the fittest to be extended

667
to include men from all parts of the Empire who have proved their fitness for these high responsibilities.
I desire to see in this Chamber the fittest men from the whole Empire—men who have served the Empire, men who know and understand what Colonial life means, men who have seen the world from a broader point of view than can be the case with many who are elected to the other House. We want men with larger views, and for that reason we should enlarge our thoughts and seek to form a really strong, loyal, well-equipped Second Chamber, composed of the wisest and most experienced men of the Empire. The age in which we are living is instinct with great changes, which are going on over the surface of the world. We stand at a time when the population of this country is threatened with decline, when the Colonies are reaching an adult age, and this is the time when we ought to husband our resources. We ought to gather the strength of the Empire, to consolidate, federate, and unify it, for if we do not, believe me, we shall in the future be full of deep and poignant and unavailing regrets that we had not seized the hour and united the Empire; for unity means strength and that concord which brings in its train prosperity and happiness. While there is much in the measure of the noble Marquess which I would consider inadequate, as your Lordships will understand from what I have said, still if the measure is put before us in this sense, Are you prepared to vote for a policy which will rectify some of the obsolete conditions of this House? I welcome it as containing a sound principle, without endorsing in the least degree its details, because whatever step we may take must be in the direction of reforming this House, but in my judgment it should be such a reformation as will enlarge its scope by opening its arms to receive from all quarters of His Majesty's Dominions those who have served, and are, therefore, fitted to govern.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am not sure that the last night of a debate like this is the one on which to go into the motives which induced the noble Marquess to bring forward this Bill, but those motives must have been of a very cogent character, or he would not have laid his cards on the Table before an adversary not likely to forego any advantage to be derived therefrom. I think that more acknowledgment might have been expressed from this side of
668
the House of the labour and care which must have been spent by the noble Marquess and those who have worked with him in the preparation of the Bill which we are now discussing. Having said so much, I hope I shall be acquitted of anything in the nature of ingratitude if I venture to make one or two criticisms on the nature of the proposals which we are considering.
Something was said by the noble Viscount opposite on the question of the proposed numbers of the new House, and I must say it appears to me that the Bill is somewhat contradictory in that respect. In introducing it the noble Marquess spoke of the present numbers of the House as being unwieldly, yet the number he proposes in this Bill is actually greater than the average working strength of the House. A Return was furnished to us last year showing the number of Peers who in three recent years did not attend the House at all, or had attended less than ten times. Noble Lords whose attendances were limited in that way certainly could not be accused of putting any difficulties in the way of the working of the machine, but if those numbers are deducted from the total strength of the House the result shows a figure somewhat less than the 350 proposed by the noble Marquess. At the same time I think the suggestion made by the noble Viscount that 100 or so might be sufficient goes altogether too far in the other direction, for, unless some very great changes were made, that would leave a number altogether inadequate for the transaction of the Private Bill business of the House. A considerable proportion of that 100, as members of the Ministry or as leading members of His Majesty's Opposition, would be precluded from taking part in Private Bill business, and the number remaining after they were deducted from only 100 would, I believe, be quite insufficient for the purpose.
But the question of numbers is a very important one if we may look forward with hope to an arrangement of Joint Sessions being adopted as a means of removing deadlocks between the two Houses. It is necessary, if we can be guided at all by Colonial analogy, that the numbers of this House should not exceed half of the House of Commons, and that consideration becomes all the more important in view of the proposals for a large portion of this House being recruited from the hereditary Peers. Notwithstanding the eloquence of

669
the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken, I must say I think Clause 4 (Election of Lords of Parliament by Peers) is the weak point in the Bill. I believe that the best, men on both sides would be likely to find their way back here under almost any conceivable system which might be adopted for recruiting the House in the future. I should look with apprehension to the introduction of a separate class in the future Second Chamber which might lead to the Division lists, whenever an important Bill was passed or rejected, being scrutinised very narrowly as they would be from that point of view. I have noticed, though it is only a small thing, that on our county council and county education committee there is a certain jealousy manifested sometimes with regard to the votes of aldermen who are not direct representatives of the ratepayers, and of the votes of co-opted members of the education committee for the same reason. Of course, in such a small matter a grumble or two satisfies everybody, but it would be very different if the Division lists of a Second. Chamber were scrutinised and complaints made outside, as it is exceedingly likely they would be made, that this or that measure had been passed or rejected solely by the votes of hereditary Peers who owed their presence within these walls to the votes of their brother Peers. It seems to me that that arrangement would detract very much from the authority of this House, and would also weaken seriously the permanence and stability which it is all important to obtain in any reconstruction of it.
It makes little difference to me personally what conclusions may be arrived at. As I differ from one Party on the question of Home Rule and from the other on the question of Tariff Reform, it is most unlikely that either of them will in the future have any need for my humble services. But I gladly recognise this Bill as a great step forward towards a solution of this most thorny question, the solution of which has been delayed all too long. For my part, I think that nothing but evil can come of prolonged delay, and whatever personal sacrifice may be involved I would leave nothing undone to further the settlement of the question.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, we are now on the fourth day of this debate, and it is possible to estimate the tendency of the discussion. The tone, if I may say so,
670
has been throughout one of sombre acquiescence, punctuated every now and again by cries of pain. That, my Lords, is not to be wondered at when you consider the magnitude of the proposals involved in this Bill and the greatness of the changes which it seeks to make. It is, indeed, a demonstration to us, if demonstration were in the least needed, how large is the task upon which we are invited to enter, and how much time it must take to complete it thoroughly.
The debate this afternoon has not varied much in character from that of the preceding days, but there is one point on which, I think, it has been distinguished. To-day it has been apparent that noble Lords, reflecting upon the propositions in this Bill, have come to take up points which were, perhaps, not apparent in the earlier parts of the discussion. For instance, this afternoon we had a thoughtful speech, if I may say so, from Lord Lytton, who laid stress upon this, that the mode of selecting the new Lords of Parliament was not to him, on reflection, a satisfactory one, and that he would prefer another method, I think a method of nomination partly joint and partly on the responsibility of the Government of the day. The Duke of Marlborough made a speech in which he was not at all opposed to great changes, as great changes must come about, but he indicated his preference for a method of election directly by the electors. Then we had other varieties of opinion. The right rev. Prelate said many things with which, I think, we shall all agree, and among them was a desire to see the Empire and Imperial interests considered, so far as possible, in fashioning the composition of the new Chamber. Then we had the speech to which we have just listened, in which the noble Earl, speaking with great detachment but great care, as he always speaks, indicated that in point of numbers difficulties must ensue if the Bill were left as it stands. All these things make it a little difficult to discover what is the principle on which we are voting on the Second Reading.
I shall come presently to my difficulties arising out of the Bill itself, but I am speaking now of the consensus of voices, so far as consensus there has been. There have been some speeches in which there was no consensus. There was the Duke of Somerset, who said, not only to-day but also in the letter which he addressed to TheTimes newspaper, much the same thing of the Unionist leaders as the Unionist leaders say of the Government, and we have

671
had other very strong speeches. The speech of Lord Bathurst was another illustration of the same thing, but, in the main, I think there has been a disposition on the part of the vast majority of your Lordships to agree that a step forward must be made, and if that be the principle of this Bill, then it is possible to define the attitude of the Government towards it. We agree that the time has come when a great step forward must be made. It may not be in the form of the provisions of this Bill, but we take it that there is an increasing agreement that we are entering upon a new stage in the evolution of our Constitution. Not all of your Lordships hold that view. Lord Willoughby de Broke spoke of the swing of the pendulum, and seemed to indicate that he thought we might come back to a state of things in which all these agitations would be at an end. I have always thought that the metaphor of the swing of the pendulum was a very misleading one. The meditations of Newton under the apple tree, added to those of Galileo in the Church of Pisa, brought about the conclusion that the swing of the pendulum is powerfully influenced by the force of gravitation, and the force of gravitation is very great at the present time. We are not likely to go back to the state of things which was easily possible in the past, but which for some years past has been more and more disappearing. I agree with Lord Rosebery that the time has gone by for hoping that there will be any arrest in the tendency which is everywhere manifest, and I am sure your Lordships would do well to dismiss any idea of that from your minds. The change has come to stay, and now we have to deal with a condition of things in which, not only as regards the powers of this House, but possibly also as regards its composition, great changes will have to be made.
We are not at this moment discussing the question of powers, but the question of powers is inseparable from this. I remember well those days in 1895 when my noble friend Lord Rosebery took up the question of restricting the Veto of this House, and gave an impetus to that question which is still felt. But the question of how this is to be dealt with is a question which cannot be disposed of by such discussions as we have had upon this Bill, nor is it enough to seek agreement in congenial topics such as the sinfulness of this Government. Even if we were guilty of all the things that have been said of us it would not account for this Bill,
672
nor would it justify it. In the course of this debate I have listened to some noble Lords who said that this Bill was all the fault of the Government because it had been so weak; it was in the clutches of those who wielded the machinery; and I have heard other noble Lords say that it was the fault of the Government because the Government was a small and tyrannical oligarchy which has usurped the powers of the House of Commons and deprived the electors and their representatives of any initiative. Either of these things may be true, but they cannot both be true, and the awkward thing is that in neither view can this Bill be justified. What does the Bill propose to do? What is its root-principle? It is to take the nomination of members of the future Second Chamber and put them, in very large measure, to the extent of two-thirds at any rate, into the hands of those who manipulate the Party machine. I can only say that if that be so, then our latter condition would be worse than our former.
While I think the Bill is open to these criticisms, there are deep reasons why it has been brought forward. The noble Marquess opposite spoke with the moderation which he always shows, and with, I think, a deep appreciation of the situation. In the speech which he made a week ago he spoke of the vast difficulties which confront both Parties. I agree. Those difficulties confront both Parties. He said that the Bill was not a substitute for the Parliament Bill, but only a complement to another Bill which would deal with powers. Again, I am in agreement with him. Then he said—and his words were significant—that he did not claim an absolute Veto, but that he recognised that the House of Commons must remain dominant. That he said in agreement with Mr. Balfour, and I think the meaning of that and the root-principle on which that rests to be this—that on the House of Commons, whatever the future of this House, the Executive of the country must depend; that it must be to the House of Commons that Ministers will be responsible; and that by the House of Commons finance will be voted. You cannot serve two masters, and therefore Ministers must primarily be responsible to that House, and can never be responsible to this House, for, if they were, they would be serving two masters and the machinery of the Constitution would break down. I feel that the noble Marquess, though, of course, by dominance he does not mean and did not intend to convey that this House should

673
have no power of control over the proposals of the other House—I feel that the noble Marquess has gone a good way, and I feel myself in agreement with him on general principles.
But then I come to other voices and other arguments which seem not to agree with those of the noble Marquess. In the discussions on this Bill there seem to me to have been two tendencies of thought. There is that which I have just described, and then there was the tone of argument of Lord Curzon. I do not think Lord Curzon takes the same view of the importance of the restriction of powers that I gather the noble Marquess takes. He spoke on Friday at the Portman Rooms of the Parliament Bill as au "ugly smudge" which might have to be obliterated. I know that is a view in which be will not find himself alone, but it is a view which will require very careful consideration in order that we may see the length to which it goes. And then there is the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. He wants to go, I think, even further. He wants to protect the electors of this country against their own representatives and against themselves, and to put a check by means of the Referendum upon the proceedings of Ministers. There you have other tendencies, other lines which may or may not fit into this Bill, and one asks why this Bill has been brought forward when there are views, as I think in spirit, so divergent as the propositions which I have cited from the noble Marquess and the propositions which I have just cited from Lord Curzon and Lord Selborne. Lord Selborne indeed has said that Lord Curzon and the noble Marquess are quite at one in their views, and that the speeches made by Lord Curzon on the Parliament. Bill in no way indicate a difference of opinion.
I agree that in words there is no difference. You have agreed upon words in this Bill, but agreement upon words is not everything. There was a time in the history of the Reformation when the 31argrave succeeded in getting the two great theological schools of the Reformation—the German school, led by Luther, and the theologians of the Geneva school under Zwingle—to come together, and they actually reduced their views to a document, in which they agreed in words. Then they came with their supporters to the meeting-place to agree on the document, and the supporters refused to shake hands with each other, and the agreement broke down. How are those who hold the views of the Duke of Somerset
674
to shake hands with those who support Lord Curzon and Lord Selborne? How are the two schools really to be brought together? I feel that, if ever we get into Committee on this Bill, we shall have some startling surprises as to the unanimity which one might gather the words indicated among those who joined in framing the Bill. But even the Bill excites in my mind great sympathy with the draftsman. I think I have enough knowledge of these things to see that the draftsman has had a very difficult time. Something had to be produced bringing the divergent tendencies together, and his business was not an easy one. The result is he has produced a Bill which I am bound to say I think satisfies some of those who will vote for the Second Reading much better than it satisfies others. The noble Marquess is not the true parent of this Bill. Lord Curzon and Lord Selborne are the real rejoicing parents, and, while the noble Marquess figures in the rôle of godfather and is ready to take the vows, still one cannot but recognise that the lines of the Bill are not the lines of thought on which he naturally would have proceeded.
Why is it this Bill has been brought forward at all if there is such a divergence of view? It has been brought forward because it could not but be brought forward, because there has been a breakdown, and something had to be put together which would cover the difficulties of the breakdown. I know there are those who say that it was quite unnecessary, who say that your Lordships have acted as you have done ill the exercise of duty, and that you have given the most conscientious consideration to every question that has come before you. I think nobody can be a member of your Lordships' House without knowing that things here are scrutinised with a very great sense of responsibility and with a great desire to do right; but it is often just the most conscientious who are in the most difficulty. All passive resisters are conscientious, and after all it is the people who are most conscientious in resisting who, in the end, get themselves into the greatest difficulties. The researches of historians during the last 250 years have resulted in this—that Charles the First was a most conscientious man, who sought to do nothing but his duty. But he mistook the temper of his countrymen, and I cannot help recalling two instances, at all events, in which your Lordships mistook the temper of your countrymen.

675
One was the Education Bill of 1902. That was a great effort to inaugurate a new educational system. I was one of those who never was anything but its supporter. I refused to vote against it, because I saw how much good there was in a proposal to transfer educational powers from the School Boards to larger local bodies. But there was a blot on it. It had provisions which excited strong feelings of hostility in the minds of a very important class. The Nonconformists may have taken a narrow view or a right view of these things, but the view they took was entitled to more understanding and sympathy than it then received. Accordingly it was inevitable that when 1906 came and their Party was in the ascendant they should ask for redress. But it proved to be impossible to get redress from your Lordships' House. You were unsympathetic, and you paved the way for much of the agitation, if you like to call it so, which has led to the present situation, and the reality of which you are recognising by the introduction of this somewhat belated Bill. The rejection of the Budget was another case, because that was accompanied by something like a challenge to the position of the House of Commons on the great Constitutional principle that the Executive Government of the day can only be responsible to one House, and that that cannot be any other House than the House of Commons. We are reaping the fruits of these things now.
I know the extraordinary difficulty of introducing written amendments into an unwritten Constitution. But we have had to do it before now. It was done over the Bill of Rights, and it had to be done over the Mutiny Act. It has been done several times, always as the result of great agitation, and it has never been done without causing great difficulty. To-day we are proposing to do what this nation has had to do in the course of its history before, to introduce written amendments into an unwritten Constitution—always, I think, a mischievous process, and one which should be avoided whenever possible. Your Lordships are now proposing written amendments of a sweeping kind, and you cannot help yourselves because the things of which I have spoken have been done, perhaps inconsiderately. They have been done, and their consequences are there and cannot otherwise be got rid of. Then how do we stand in this matter? I think that if in the past the House of Lords had watched more
676
closely the real nature of the political evolution which was going on and the transition to democracy, it might easily have so conducted its business that the questions with which we are now dealing would never have arisen; and I for one should have rejoiced, because I do not think you could have got more easily a debating, revising, delaying, and considering Chamber than you have got at the present time. But that is past. New views of the Constitution have grown up, or at any rate the views your Lordships now entertain are not any longer in harmony with the spirit of the time.
Lord Curzon asked, What is the policy of the Government. He said, "You have not produced one." He said of myself that I had spoken in the other House of our policy being a single policy. I did speak of it as a single policy. It is a single policy, but it is a policy extending so far, because of the magnitude of the things of which I have been speaking, because of that vastness of area which I have been trying to illustrate to your Lordships, that it cannot be accomplished at a single stroke; you must take it step by step and stage by stage. We have a large problem in front of us in connection with this House—a problem in the settlement of which I most earnestly desire that there may be a possibility of co-operation between the two great political Parties. But before you can have that, before you can produce the sense of confidence without which it is not possible, it will be necessary that there should be some possibility of the House of Commons negotiating on some kind of footing of equality with your Lordships' House. Your Lordships are responsible to no constituents; you have no General Elections to face. It is different with the House of Commons, and no Government can get its business through in the limited time which is allotted to it, a time which is only extended if the sense of the country is very much roused, unless some kind of equality of position between the two Houses is established. At times your Lordships have been considerate and forbearing with many Bills, but I am thinking of the many measures that your Lordships have not been considerate and forbearing with, and the claim at the present time is that the two Houses should be placed by the Parliament Bill, the discussion of which will open to-morrow, on something more like an equal footing. That is the first and indispensable

677
stage before we can get a step forward with the kind of propositions which underlie the Bill at present before this House.
We shall see to-morrow whether the Parliament Bill is as revolutionary a measure as it is represented to be. It proposes to shorten the duration of the House of Commons to four effective years, because the fifth is excluded for reasons of finance. For the first two of these years it is in your Lordships' power to paralyse and delay legislation. Only during the first three of those years does the legislation of the House of Commons pass despite the opposition of your Lordships. But for the last two of these years the House of Commons mill have no power to pass Bills to which the Second Chamber objects. I am not sure that that, is a very extravagant position, and, speaking for myself, I think it is a position which will presently become intolerable unless the Second Chamber Meets the First in a much more genial spirit than has been the case of late. That is why with the necessity before our minds of getting this first stage accomplished of negotiation between the two Houses made possible on a footing of equality, we wish to proceed on that basis with the policy foreshadowed in the Preamble of the Parliament Bill.
The Preamble of our Bill has been the subject of a good deal of discussion, but very little reference has been made to what the Prime Minister has laid down as the policy of himself and his Party in regard to the Preamble. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill in the other House, speaking again at Manchester about a fortnight ago, and speaking a third time on the Third Reading of the Parliament Bill my right hon. friend defined his policy. He said that the Parliament Bill was not a final measure, that something must come beyond it, for the reasons of which I have spoken, and that the Second Chamber therefore which the Preamble foreshadowed must be a small Second Chamber on a nonhereditary basis, not co-ordinate in powers, and, finally, not predominantly partisan. He spoke of the Parliament Bill as a preliminary stage towards the accomplishment of the policy of reform by which such a Second Chamber might become an accomplished fact. Speaking for myself I look upon the Parliament Bill only as a steppingstone, as something that cannot be a per-
678
manent resting place but must carry you beyond. After all, even if there were not these reasons, what alternative have we but to couple all such propositions as the Bill before the House now involves with the propositions of the Parliament Bill? On the Parliament Bill there has been as true a Referendum as the noble Earl opposite could wish to see. The propositions of that Bill, not only in general terms but in specific terms, were submitted to the country at the General Election; line for line they were made the predominant feature at the last election.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Without any discussion.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I do not know why the noble Earl says without discussion. I fought through that election, and can assure him that very little else was discussed at the bulk of the meetings which took place. Now, my Lords, I wish in the light of these difficulties, to say a few words, and they shall be very few, about the Reconstitution Bill itself. Of course, the Bill before your Lordships does not touch powers. The first observation I have to make about it is that it seems to me to be so framed as to exclude a good many Peers who would be of great value to this House. I observe that among the positions in the Schedule which qualify for membership of the Second Chamber are to be found service as mayor, Lord Lieutenant, and chairman of a county council. There is one service that is not included. Perhaps I speak with the affection of a blood relation, but I am sure I do not know why there is no mention of the important office of chairman of a county association. I can only say that I have had cause to know how admirable has been the work that has been done by some of your Lordships as chairmen of these associations, and how you have laboured hard to bring people together for a common cause without distinction of Party. I should have thought that was a very good preparation for membership of this House, yet these noble Lords, some of whom I know and can count among my friends, are excluded from the Schedule of the Bill.
But I pass that by, and I come to the majority which the Bill proposes to give to the Unionist Party in this House. As I estimate it, that majority would be at least

679
forty. I have worked it out in several ways and that is what it comes to. I grant that at an abnormal time when there is an enormous Liberal majority in the other House we might get a bare majority in this House, but that is a thing that does not very often happen; and when you are seeking to bring about conditions of equality between the two great Parties, I venture to submit to your Lordships that a permanent normal Unionist majority of 40 is not a right thing to handicap the relations of the two Houses with. Many Governments have done a great deal of work with majorities in the House of Commons of 30 and 40, and that sort of majority would be swamped by your Lordships' House if there were Joint Sittings and your Lordships had a majority of 40. That is one of the reasons why, if you are to have Joint Sittings, you must have a comparatively small House here. I agree with the observations made by the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, as to having the House large enough to provide the necessary strength for Committees. But you must not have large majorities one way or the other; otherwise you preclude Joint Sittings as a mode of the solution of difficulties between the two Houses. Discussing this question last year the Prime Minister said that Joint Sittings was by no means a method of dealing with difficulties which he excluded, only the House must be small for that purpose.
The Bill proposes 120 elective Peers. They are to be elected by electoral colleges, and the electoral districts are to return from three to twelve Lords of Parliament for each district. That means, if they elect three, there would be forty electoral districts, and if they elect twelve, ten electoral districts. The mean between these is twenty. That signifies that Scotland and Ireland will have two or three electoral districts each, Wales will possibly have one to itself, and England will have fourteen. The working out, therefore, becomes very difficult when you get that preponderance. I do not say it could have been avoided; I only say it is very difficult. A noble Lord opposite spoke of the local representation this would give, and the possibility of minorities being represented. I have a very different picture. In a county like Lancashire, where there is a very remarkable division of opinion and you find a Tariff Reformer and a Labour Member sitting side by side, or in the case of London, where
680
again you find an extraordinary mixing up of views and people of extreme views on both sides sitting for adjacent constituencies, how are you going to get harmony in the electoral colleges? How will you get them to put their minds into a common pot and to find a representative who will be a common denominator of that district? I can conceive no worse mode of choosing representatives than that of taking members of Parliament of most opposing tendencies of mind and shaking them together in this fashion, without any reason for supposing that they will apply their minds to a common duty. What I do think is that they will resolve their difficulties by consulting their own caucuses. As for the category of Lords of Parliament to be nominated by the Government of the day, that business will pass to the Party Whips; and this Bill, which is to deliver the country from all this kind of thing, will mean that you will hand over the composition of the Second Chamber to the machine in a way that has never been the case with the House of Commons.
To sum up my difficulties, the Bill seems to me to exclude a great many Peers whose presence would have been of great value because in their tone and temper they provide just the kind of element we want. In the second place, the Bill hands over more than one-third of the House, it seems to me, to the caucus, and another third to the Whips. I cannot help thinking how infinitely preferable it would have been if the noble Marquess had put his proposition in the form in which the Duke of Marlborough wanted it—an elective Second Chamber. I do not for a moment believe that in these elections, with immense constituencies of 350,000 to 375,000 people, there would be the canvassing and speeches which Lord Curzon anticipated, for the simple reason that the thing would be impossible. It seems to me, if the noble Marquess had shaped his Bill so, he would have had a choice of a plan under which the constituencies would have been so vast and incapable of being controlled by a machine that only the most eminent men would have been elected, and a condition of things brought about which would result as nearly as possible in the pure election of representatives of the people. Nor do I think there would have been any danger of such a House becoming co-ordinate, for the simple reason that the Executive always must depend on the other Chamber Which has the control of finance.

681
But, my Lords, after all, this Bill is only a first attempt. It is rather the spirit than the letter of it to which I look, and speaking for myself, I am grateful to the noble Marquess opposite for the tone and temper he introduced into the discussion and for the way in which he showed that he realised that we had reached a situation in which somehow we should have to work out these things, and possibly with the joint co-operation of the two great Parties in the State. The difficulties are not only in this Chamber. My noble friend Lord Courtney of Penwith spoke of the change which had taken place in the House of Commons, and said that the private Member no longer had a chance. That is perfectly true, and I will tell your Lordships from my own experience why it is. The Government is forced to take the whole time of the House of Commons. There is such a congestion of business that it is not possible to leave any time over to the private Member. As it is, we sit in months of the year in which our forefathers rarely sat; we sit for hours which surpass the hours sat in olden times; and, even so, we cannot get through our business. We are loaded up with it. Devolution is an imperative necessity. You may call it, if you like, Home Rule; and there will be Home Rule for Wales, Ireland, and Scotland in the sense that we shall have, from force of necessity, to devolve upon them the handling of a good deal of their local business. That is the only way in which you can relieve the House of Commons, and that is why the state of things is such as Lord Courtney describes. But while the settlement of these things does not brook delay, it is no desire of ours, either in the Parliament Bill or in the attitude we take on this Bill, to be what the newspapers call "top dog" in this matter, but rather to secure to the Liberal Party something like a fair chalice in the negotiations and discussions in this House.
Lord Selborne has another way—the way of the Referendum. But I cannot think that even that would help the provisions of this measure. After all, what is the proposal of the Referendum? It is to send questions direct to the electors, not to send to the electors the choice of representatives. Yet the noble Earl most inconsistently is supporting this Bill which sends the composition of this House, not to the electors, but to the very representatives whom we will not entrust with the handling of the actual business. But what happens
682
when you send the details of business to the electors? What would happen if we had referred the question of spending ten millions on the Navy to the electors? That is a question which has had to be decided in recent months. What would have happened if that had been put direct, without explanation, without discussion, without that delicate consideration which is given in a representative Assembly but which you cannot give on public platforms without causing mischief? Such a question as that shows where the breakdown occurs in these things.
Long ago Themistocles, wishing to increase the Navy of Athens, persuaded the people with great difficulty to give up the division, to which they were accustomed, of the proceeds of the silver mines of Laurium, and to devote the money to the building of the fleet which afterwards won Salamis. He could do that because he had a few people in the compass of small cities, but what chance would any Government of this country have of persuading people in the country upon a mere question of amount—very terrifying and frightening to them at the first blush—and of persuading them to accept reasons and a policy which can only be made plain by debate and discussion? You cannot send a Bill to the electors and say, "Give your votes 'Aye' or 'No' upon this Bill." There is only one way of dealing with it, and that is for Members of Parliament to go down to the constituencies and explain to the electors what the Bill means, give their views in detail upon the minute provisions of the Bill, and get the decision of the electors. I never know quite what the Referendum means. If it means sending down great big complicated questions like Tariff Reform to be dealt with by a single "Aye" or "No" all I can say is that it is most unjust to Tariff Reform. If it means sending down a complicated Bill—well, I have had a good deal of experience of the attitude of electors generally with regard to complicated Bills. I sat for over a quarter of a century in the House of Commons, went through many General Elections and I know the process. You cannot get the electors to put forth their minds unless you have a great process of education and discussion. It is only in so far as you ask them to appoint representatives and not to decide specific questions that you can get them to vote. Unless there was something like a General Election on the occasion of each Bill you referred, you would not get

683
50 per cent. of your voters to come up. We had an illustration of a Referendum over the Parliament Bill. Lord Selborne complains that other questions were discussed. Yes, and so they would be whenever you had a Referendum about any Bill. People would always consider what was its bearing on the political fortunes of the Party to which they belonged. The noble Earl seems to me to have taken as his real leader, not the noble Marquess opposite, but a thinker who wrote a great deal about Constitutions—Rousseau—who held that the people were never free except at the time of a General Election, when every man in the crowd was giving his vote. Rousseau hated representative institutions. He distrusted them as much as the noble Earl does. That is a bad way of deciding these things. It is not by the unorganised crowd; it is by organised opinion by the pros and cons being fully brought before the minds of those who are to decide. It is by organisation and representation by men who are picked because they have the confidence of those who have elected them, who have chosen them on broad principles, and left them free to work out the details of those principles in representative Assemblies—it is in that way alone that you can get the real voice of the people—the organised voice, as distinguished from the individual voices of the mob. For that reason I feel myself divided by a very sharp line of division from the noble Earl in his reasoning as to the supplement to the Bill which is before your Lordships' House.
I hope I have made plain my own feeling about this Bill and the general lines of our position with regard to it. With the Parliament Bill we must go on. We cannot regard this measure as in any sense a substitute for the Parliament Bill. That Bill, which has been pronounced on by the country, represents what we regard as the indispensable preliminary to any progress in negotiating with your Lordships a proper settlement of the constitution of this House. Having said so much, I wish also to say that in the introduction of this Bill and in the spirit of many of the speeches we recognise a great step forward. We should be ungrateful if we did not see that to this extent, at all events, there is a measure of agreement; and holding that view, and on the broad grounds I have indicated, we shall certainly not divide against the Bill. Of course, there are many points in the Bill which would excite great controversy, but
684
of those I say nothing. It may be that before any settlement of this great question can be made and the necessary reconstitution be completed a long journey lies in front of us. I will only, in conclusion, express the hope that in this Bill we have not heard the last word from your Lordships. We agree that, as Lord Lansdowne said, the majority of the two great Parties have certain great aims in common. It is no use talking of doing those things except on the basis of Party, because Party is of the very essence of our Government and Constitution, and without the Party division the Government of the day would be in a very poor position. There must be criticism, there must be difference, and it is by debate between the two sides that the truth evolves itself. We desire to restore tranquillity and to set people's minds free to address themselves to other questions than that of the Constitution. We desire to repair and render stable the fabric of the Constitution, which has been seriously shaken, and who knows but that both sides may not yet co-operate in carrying out a work of this great magnitude. The future will disclose its secrets.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, when a few days ago I endeavoured to explain the provisions of this Bill to your Lordships' House I ventured to say that we regarded it as one which invited criticism, and that so far as we were concerned we should welcome such criticism. During the discussion of the last four days we have had abundant criticism, but it has been criticism of which we have no right to complain, and it has been in the main, at all events, of no unfair or unfriendly character. And let me express my concurrence with what has been already said to the effect that, keen as that criticism has been, it has been, so far as I have observed, wholly untinged by any personal feelings of resentment or annoyance. Such criticism we have been vouchsafed, not only from these Benches but from other parts of the House, and it has really been from one part of the House only that we have received nothing, or almost nothing, in the way of useful suggestion. I refer to the Bench opposite. From the noble Viscount who has just sat down we did not gather one word upon the point as to which we are most anxious—what is, at any rate, the general principle on which the Government intend to deal with the subject we are discussing. He imputed to myself and my noble friends divergences of opinion which

685
have no real existence: he gave us his own impressions of the Education Act of 1902, and somewhat lengthy and detailed observations upon the subject of the Parliament Bill and the Referendum, but he left us in the dark upon the point whit interests us most. Lord Morley did indeed give us two or three words of illumination. He indicated to us his objection to the reconstituted House that we propose on the ground of its excessive size and because it would be what he termed a fighting phalanx, and his preference for a compact and noncombatant committee, from which he suggested it would be possible to exclude Party influences. But as we are given to understand that this smaller House of Lords is to be based on popular election and on representation it would be really interesting to us to know how Lord Morley and Lord Haldane propose to constitute it so as to exclude from it Party influences and Party organisation.
My noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, repeated to us his objections on tactical grounds to the course we have taken. He pointed out, with very great force, that we should have been on safer ground had we contented ourselves with procedure by Resolution. I entirely agree with my noble friend that the political weather is rough, and that we should no doubt navigate more comfortably to ourselves if we had shorter sail set. But that is not to our mind exactly the point. We have to convince the people of this country that we mean business, and I am afraid that Resolutions do not carry the necessary amount of conviction. While we adhered to procedure by Resolution we were apt to be told by noble Lords opposite that our proposals were moonshine, that we were merely improvising, that we were going to produce another edition of the present House of Lords in a new disguise, but virtually the same House. That is not the kind of language with which our proposals are met at the present moment. It has been admitted that we are taking an enormous stride in advance. Our sincerity has not been questioned. We have been told that we are taking a course which is frank, bold, and even helpful; and outside this House, I venture to think, we are given even greater credit for the sincerity and genuineness of our proposals than we are within it. I venture to think we should never have obtained these testimonials if we had adhered to procedure by Resolution. This is the only answer I can offer to my noble
686
friend, and I think it is entitled to weight. Lord Newton, far from blaming us for bringing in a Bill, took us to task for not having brought in a Bill some considerable time ago, and I daresay there is a good deal to be said for that view. But is he quite sure that public opinion, and certainly opinion in this House, was quite ripe for such a proposal as we are making four or five years ago? I am afraid there are indications, that it is not quite so ripe as we could wish even at the present moment.
Some of those who have taken part in this discussion want no Bill at all. Noble Lords who hold those views dwell with great force upon the ability and high reputation of this House. I need scarcely assure your Lordships that I am the last person in the world to dispute their views when they pay a tribute of that kind to the present House of Lords. I have known the House for a great number of years, and I believe there never was a time when what I may call without disrespect the rank and file of its members took, a closer and more intelligent interest in our proceedings. But I do ask noble Lords who suggest that we might let well alone to consider the remarkable speech which was delivered the other night by the Duke of Northumberland. I think that speech must have given pause to some noble Lords who would have us sit with folded hands and be content with an unreformed House. For myself I may say that I have the deepest conviction that if we want a real Second Chamber, and I believe most of us want a real Second Chamber, it is impossible to bind up the existence of that Chamber with an unreformed House of Lords. Unless we have something more convincing to offer the country than arguments based on the high reputation, ability, and usefulness of tins House, I believe it will be utterly impossible for us to resist the kind of attacks, largely based on class jealousy and class prejudice, which are becoming more and more the staple weapon of those who assail the position of your Lordships' House. Therefore I have come to the same conclusion as my noble friend on the Cross Benches, that a purely hereditary House of Lords is incompatible with what he described as the movement of popular feeling in these days. I believe it to be impossible in a country deeply imbued, as this country is, with democratic sentiment, to maintain a Second Chamber constituted on entirely undemocratic lines. If we are right in these views, then I would ask those of my noble friends who would

687
have us leave things alone whether they prefer the kind of scheme which we offer in this Bill, or whether they would rather have the kind of measure which His Majesty's Government have in contemplation—whether it be a purely elective Second Chamber, or a House of Lords constituted as at present, but shorn of all real power to influence the public affairs of this country. In my opinion we must have a Bill, and the question is, what kind of a Bill we should have.
May I notice for one moment a suggestion made by the right rev. Prelate in a passage of great eloquence and feeling? He told us that our measure neglects to provide for the representation of our great Dominions across the seas. A suggestion of that kind appeals to the sympathy of all of us; but I am afraid that the idea of constituting a great Imperial Senate in which the Dominions will be represented is one which it is impossible to fit into the scheme of the measure we are now discussing. The great Colonies themselves would certainly not desire to interfere in the domestic affairs of this country any more than we should desire to interfere in the domestic affairs of the great Dominions, and I believe it would be utterly impossible, without a revolution going far beyond the limits of anything that we are now discussing, to adopt the attractive and patriotic suggestion which the right rev. Prelate has made.
My noble friend the Duke of Marlborough objected to our Bill for several reasons—amongst others, owing to its lack of simplicity. His idea was a short and simple Bill which every one could readily understand, and he illustrated his argument by pointing out that whereas the printed copy of our Bill bears upon it a legend which sets forth that it can be purchased for 2d., the Parliament Bill of His Majesty's Government may be purchased at the moderate rate of ld. That argument is novel and carries one a long way, and I should be glad if the noble Duke at the proper time will apply the same test to the Government Insurance Bill, which occupies, I believe, no less than seventy-eight pages of printed matter. I am afraid the price of that Bill must be prohibitive. My noble friend Lord Sheffield rather found fault with us, because, he said, we have not produced a complete measure. I gather that he would have liked us to deal in this Bill with the whole question of Joint Sittings and so
688
forth; but I think we have shown a very considerable amount of courage in dealing with one-half of this most important question, and we can scarcely be blamed for having left the other half alone. We have, however, made known in considerable detail our views on the other part of the Constitutional question, and we shall no doubt have opportunities during the next few days of discussing the matter further.
The real question seems to me to be this. Let us admit that this Bill has its imperfections; but can any one suggest a better? I have waited in vain for a suggestion of that kind. Some noble Lords would go much further than we are going; some would go not nearly so far; but so far as I have been able to follow the course of the debate, there is a very considerable body of opinion on this side of the House in favour—I do not say of a Second Chamber exactly constituted as we propose it should be constituted—but of a composite Chamber based on the three elements which are included in our scheme. Let me say as emphatically as I can that we are very far indeed from putting forward this Bill as one which represents our last word in all the important matters with which it deals. Obviously there must be abundant room for criticism, discussion, and amendment, and we wish to guard ourselves emphatically against the idea that we wish our Bill to be regarded in any sense as a sort of sealed pattern from which no departure is to be made.
May I say one word more on the much-vexed question of qualifications? There are three courses open to us. We can get rid of qualifications altogether; we can create a separate category of Peers, who should have the absolute right to sit and vote in this House in virtue of their qualifications; and, in the third place, we can adopt the plan we propose, or some variant of it, under which there would be a low qualification but a qualification which must be possessed by any Peer who can look for election by his brother Peers. Now I should be very reluctant to strike qualification altogether out of this Bill. The idea is a very intelligible one. I think the fact that a section of the new House would be founded, directly or indirectly, upon qualification would increase the confidence which the public would feel in it, and I should, therefore, be reluctant to abandon qualification completely. On the other hand, I remain strongly opposed to having a class of

689
Peers who would sit and vote by right of qualification alone, and for this reason—that any such arrangement involves the admission of a Peer to this House in virtue of a title resting upon past achievement only, and not upon the prospect of his future usefulness. I also call the attention of the House to this point. I notice that ninny object to our plan because they say it involves a restriction on the manner in which your Lordships would exercise your right of selection; but if you were to add to the proposals of the Bill that there should be, let us say, fifty Peers sitting here by qualification and by qualification alone, that would be imposing those Peers on the House, and as far as those Peers were concerned, the House would have, not a restricted choice, but would have no right of choosing at all. I therefore venture to express a preference for our plan, although I readily admit that the Schedule on which it rests may very properly be revised and amended on several points.
My noble friend Lord Saltoun was rather severe on the Schedule, and dwelt at some length on the purely official character of the greater number of the persons whom it included; but the noble Lord argued rather as if every one who had held an official position in any part of the Empire was a kind of Party hack, whose election could be secured by the intervention of the Party wire-pullers. In our Schedule, however, we include distinguished members of the Indian Civil Service, members of the Diplomatic Service, members of the Regular Forces of sufficient rank, and last, but not least, we include members of the great municipalities. I therefore claim for our Schedule that it is by no means so strongly tainted with a preference for officialism as my noble friend seemed to suppose.
Then one word as to the Peers referred to in the sixth clause—those who would be appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of Ministers. That proposal was criticised by Lord Courtney, not so much on its merits as because he regarded it as one which in practice would be unworkable; and I think the noble Viscount opposite also dwelt on the difficulty of applying to this particular provision the exact machinery adopted in the House of Commons in the case of appointments to Select Committees. These criticisms do not move me in the least. I cannot believe that it
690
would be beyond the power of the leaders of the great political Parties to arrive, in the first place, at an understanding as to the strength of Parties in the other House of Parliament, and that having been ascertained, to come to an understanding as to the manner in which the right of nomination would be exercised.
I pass for a moment to the category of Lords of Parliament, who under our Bill would be chosen by electoral colleges. May I be permitted to say that I remain strongly of the opinion that our proposal—namely, that the Members of Parliament should be grouped for this purpose in accordance with the areas which they represent—is a very much better and very much fairer proposal than the alternative suggested by the other side of the House, under which the whole of these 100 Peers would be elected by the whole House of Commons sitting together. I for one am disposed to attach very considerable importance to the recognition of the territorial system in this connection. I am, moreover, deeply convinced that if, as we all admit, it is desirable to eliminate as far as possible the influence of the Party machine in these elections, we stand an infinitely better chance of doing so by adopting the arrangement of the Bill than by handing the whole election over to the House of Commons. Lord Newton in dealing with this part of the Bill made some observations on the alleged dependence of the Peers elected by one of these electoral colleges on the Members of Parliament of whom that college would be composed. What I should like the House to bear in mind is this—although the Lords of Parliament would owe their seats in the House at the outset to the votes of grouped Members of Parliament, their position would be a more independent one than that of the Members of Parliament who elect them, because under our Bill the Lords of Parliament would have a safe seat here for twelve years which may be taken, I suppose roughly speaking, as the equivalent of three Parliaments under the Bill which we shall be discussing to-morrow evening.
I should like to notice, in passing, another suggestion which was made to us—I think by my noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery—the suggestion that we might take advantage of the opportunity offered by this Bill in order to provide for the disappearance of the Law Lords from this House. That suggestion is one which has very considerable attractions for me.

691
I have ventured on more than one occasion to express a favourable opinion of a proposal of this kind. There can be no doubt that the presence of the Law Lords in this House does create a very dangerous and mischievous confusion in the public mind in regard to their position not only as Judges, but as legislators. That confusions fusion is apparently not confined to the minds of the electorate, because it evidently prevails in the minds of the colleagues of the noble Viscount opposite. I hold in my hand a copy of the election address of Mr. John Burns, and I find it contains these words. He says—
"On all industrial matters affecting the working classes they are not content with being the final Court of Appeal the interpretation of the laws, but they [that is, the House of Lords] seek as a class apart from and above the control of the electorate to give partial consideration to the removal of grievances which vitally prejudice the interests of the working people."
These words show that Mr. Burns, at any rate, is under a completely mistaken impression as to the position of this House with regard to appellate jurisdiction. I should therefore hope that if this question is further dealt with Parliament will be able to discover some less confusing title for the appellate Court, and it might easily be provided that the members of that Court should not sit as such in the House of Lords, though no doubt they would be eligible for nomination and conceivably for election under a Bill of this kind.
There is only one other point to which I wish to address myself. The principal charge we have had to meet as affecting this Bill is the charge that it is a Bill which has been drawn with deliberate unfairness to the Party opposite. We have sought to be—and in my belief we have succeeded in being—fair. I am disposed myself to agree with Lord Courtney when he told us the other evening that in his view a reformed Second Chamber might well contain a Conservative majority, provided, he said, it was not an overwhelming Conservative majority. I go further. Speaking for myself, I would say, Give us a Second Chamber the members of which are provided with sufficient credentials, and above all, possess an independent position; and I shall not be extremely difficult to please in regard to the mere question of numbers. But let me go a little further. Let me assume that there would be under such a scheme as ours a Conservative preponderance in
692
this House. I do assume it, and I assume it particularly for this reason—that I think experience shows us that with a twelve years' tenure Conservative tendencies would be very apt to develop themselves even amongst Liberal Peers. We see the thing happening under our eves. Noble Lords arrive here and take their seats on the benches opposite, and after a time
suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Those changes would take place under any system. Let us therefore assume that a small Conservative majority will be there. But do not let it be forgotten that if this Bill be read by the light of the Resolutions which this House passed last year, you are provided with an absolute safeguard against the undue action of that Conservative majority. We offer you in the first place, a system of Joint Sittings, which every colleague of the noble Viscount, as far as I am aware, has admitted to be a desirable addition to our political machinery, and which the noble Viscount himself in his speech this evening really spoke of as if the institution were already in existence. We suggest to you Joint Sittings, and then the Referendum, but not as the Prime Minister suggested the other day for what he called trivial and trumpery cases, but for cases of grave importance and great emergency, of the kind indicated in his speech by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. And here let me point out that noble Lords were in error when they spoke of the Referendum Bill of Lord Balfour as having been withdrawn. The Bill is still on the Paper of the House, and it is entirely for my noble friend to consider whether its discussion should be resumed or not.
I therefore ask the noble Viscount, Is our proposal, regarded as a complete proposal—for that is the only way to look at it—after all such an unfair and one-sided proposal as he would have us believe? Is it just to talk of our proposal as one involving the use of loaded dice? Under that proposal our big majority in this House disappears. You have a new House of which two-thirds will certainly owe their seats in it to a democratic title. You have a majority which may be forty as you tell us, or, as we suppose, eighteen, and which may also disappear altogether in circumstances which are perfectly conceivable. We offer you coupled with that Joint Sittings under which that majority, even if it

693
happened to be as high as forty, would be completely obliterated and overwhelmed by the present majority of the House of Commons. Is it really not rather an abuse of language to suggest, as the Lord Chancellor suggested, that we are inviting noble Lords opposite to surrender at discretion, or to suggest that under such a plan as ours the House of Commons will be held in a vice, or again that there is a complete absence of anything like fair play in what we are proposing?
If we are to talk about fair play, I would ask the House to consider what is the idea of fair play entertained by noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. The noble Viscount who spoke last said he desired as a preliminary to the reform of the House of Lords the establishment of something like an equality between the two Houses. What is the noble Viscount's idea of equality? It seems to me that his idea of equality is that you are to begin by hitting your enemy below the belt, that you then get him down and keep him down, and when you have got him down you will be good enough, as you put it, to "speak with your enemy in the gate." The noble Viscount repudiated with much earnestness the idea that he and his friends desire to assume the position of what I think he called "top dog" in the controversy. There never was
694
a more admirable example of the "top, dog" arrangement than that which is involved in the Bill of which the noble Viscount will move the Second Evading to-morrow. We are to be forced down and compelled, if necessary by unconstitutional means, to accept humiliating and disgraceful terms. To which situation does the expression "Surrender at discretion" apply most justly—to that which we set out to create or to that which you will create, if you have your way, by the Parliament Bill? The people of this country are not bad judges of fair play, and I think we may safely leave them to decide between us.
On Question, whether the Bill shall now be read 2aresolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.