Sitting of 14 July 1913

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:—
Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords].
Leicester Corporation Bill [Lords].
Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, namely:—
Ascot Authority Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill,
York Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Carolin's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Dooner's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Greenock Port and Harbours Bill [Lords]
(King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Conyngham Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Lord Wimborne's Estate Bill [Lords],
Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Ribble Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered.
Amendments made: In the Schedule: In the first paragraph of the Preamble, after the words "empowered to construct waterworks and supply water within," insert the words, "the limits of supply therein defined comprising."
In the second paragraph, leave out the words "(hereinafter called 'the limits of supply.')"
In the same paragraph, after the words "and are supplying water within the," insert the word "said."
At the end of the third paragraph, after the words "situated within the limits of supply," insert the words "of the District Committee."
In the fourth paragraph, after the words "within the limits of supply," insert the words "of the District Committee."
In Clause 4 of the Schedule, paragraph 9, leave out the words "of the burgh of Dunfermline as constituted at the date of the passing of the Act confirming the Order of 1904 and."
In Clause 27 of the Schedule, in Sub-section (4), leave out the words "of Fife."
In the Schedule referred to in Order, ["Description of Area mentioned in Sub-section (1) of the Section of this Order whereof the Marginal Note is 'For Protection of Town Council of Dunfermline.'"], leave out the words "Sub-section (1) of"; leave out the word "Section," and insert the word "Sections"; leave out the words "Note is," and insert the words "Notes are respectively 'Interpretation' and."—[Mr. McKinnon, Wood.]
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Dunfermline Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time, and ordered to be considered To-morrow.
Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill,
Petition from Hamilton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
Copy presented of Return giving up to the 31st March, 1913, by Counties and Provinces, the Area, Poor Law Valuation, and Purchase Money of (a) Lands sold, and (b) Lands in respect. of which proceedings for sale have been instituted and are
852
pending under the Irish Land Purchase Acts; also the estimated Area, Poor Law Valuation, and Purchase Money of Lands in respect of which proceedings for sale have not been instituted under the said Acts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5136, 5140, 5145, 5147, 5148, 5152 to 5159, and 5161 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EGYPT (No. 2, 1913).
Copy presented of Despatch from His Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo respecting the arrest of Alexander Adamovitch [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 9th July, 1913, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 198.]
RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
Copy presented of Return, in pursuance of Section 4 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, of Railway Servants of certain classes who were on one or more occasions during the month of February, 1913, on duty on certain Railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time, or who, after being on duty more than twelve hours, were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours' rest, with Appendices giving additional statements and explanations furnished by the Railway Companies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Copy presented of General Report to the Board of Trade upon Accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire constituting certain Polling Districts in the Shipley, Osgoldcross, Barnsley, Doncaster, Hallamshire, and Holmfirth Parliamentary Divisions of the county [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION (PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Tabular Statement of Staffing per 1,000 Scholars in Average Attendance in Areas of Local Education Authorities, with additional columns giving the Expenditure on Teachers per unit of Average Attendance and the Average Salaries of Certificated and Uncertificated Teachers (Men and Women separately) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT (RULES).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 1st July, 1913 [by Act].

IMPORTS (AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND).
Return ordered "of the produce imported into the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand, respectively, during the year 1912:—

1. The direct Imports (in cwts.) of chilled mutton, frozen mutton, chilled beef, and frozen beef into the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, and Cardiff;

2. The direct Imports of sheep and lambs' wool and of sheep skins (wooled), into the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, and all other ports in the United Kingdom;

3. The direct. Imports of butter and cheese into the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, and all other ports in the United Kingdom;

4. The direct Imports of the following fruits, namely: raw apples, oranges,

854

and pears, and bottled and canned fruits preserved without sugar, into the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, and all other ports in the United Kingdom;

5. The direct Imports of wheat, oats, and peas into the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Hull, and all other ports in the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Ingleby.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans (Bulgarian Atrocities).
  Sir MARK SYKESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the report of Father Gustave Michel, superior of the French Catholic Mission at Kilkis, describing atrocities perpetrated by Bulgarian bands, under the protection of the Bulgarian Government, at Kilkis, Kurkut, Ravnovo, and Planitza; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's Consul-General at Salonica to inquire into the accuracy of these statements?
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to the burning alive by Bulgarian comitadjis of 700 men at Kurkut, and the massacre of hundreds of men and women at Planitza, Kilkis, and Ravnovo; whether his attention has ben directed to the alleged statement of the French Consul at Salonica that nothing could be done in the matter as the Bulgarian Government had organised and were protecting the bands of comitadjis; and whether he will take steps to ensure protection for the lives, religious freedom, liberty, and property of all racial and religious minorities in the future settlement of Balkan territories?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have not got official information on the points raised, but I have received circumstantial accounts from the Greek Government of a very distressing nature of atrocities perpetrated by the Bulgarian Army. Similar communications have, I understand, been made to the other Powers. There have been charges and countercharges of misdoings made ever since war began last year. I have hitherto taken action only in cases of alleged ill-treat-

  855
  ment of Mussulmans, as it is natural that, when Turkey has evacuated territory in which there is a Mussulman minority, a neutral Power with Mussulman subjects should take some interest on their behalf. I cannot undertake the task of investigating all the charges that are made of ill-treatment by one Balkan State of another, while war is proceeding between them. I cannot do more at present than express our sense of deep regret, and the painful impression produced by the accounts which have reached us.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has any official communication been received from the Bulgarian Government suggesting an international conference and inquiry, as suggested in the public Press?
  Mr. ACLAND: Not that I know.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received any information as to the alleged murder of 1,500 Greeks in the Nigrita district last week by the Bulgarian troops?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have received a communication to that effect from the Greek Minister here, and a similar communication has been given to His Majesty's Minister at Athens by the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs.

  Gulf of Oman.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to a rising in the Gulf of Oman against the Sultan; whether any danger is apprehended at Muscat; and what steps are being taken to protect British interests?
  Mr. ACLAND: There has lately been considerable unrest in Oman which has now come to a head, the safety of Muscat itself being threatened. His Majesty's ships "Philomel" and "Odin" are at Muscat and His Majesty's ship "Pelorus" was expected to arrive there on the 6th instant. A detachment of the 2nd Rajputs has proceeded to Muscat, but men will not be disembarked except in emergency.

  Asiatic Turkey.
  Mr. KINGasked whether any other Powers besides Great Britain have been asked to furnish gendarmerie officers or administrators for the vilayets of Asiatic Turkey?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information on this point.
  Mr. KING: Have any of the British officers been yet sent to the Asiatic vilayets of Turkey?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is surely rather previous. I was not aware that any decision as to the appointment of such officers had yet been announced.
  Mr. KING: I think it was given last week.

  Regent's Park.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps were taken to ascertain the marketable value of the lease in Regent's Park granted to Bedford College; and whether he has consulted any land agent of repute who is prepared to state that the terms granted to Bedford College were not easier than would have been obtained in the open market?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The surveyor's valuation and report advising the letting were duly declared in accordance with the requirements of the Crown Lands Act, but no other land agent was consulted by the Commissioners of Woods.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman now think that some other agent could be employed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it is necessary on professional grounds, but in any case the agreement has been signed.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked what was the exact date when Bedford College acquired the remainder of the lease in Regent's Park; whether at or before that date any negotiations had been entered upon with regard to the extension of the lease; whether Bedford College was actually in occupation during any part of the existing lease; and, if not, why the existing lease was not allowed to expire and a new lease put upon the open market?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The assignment is dated 10th December, 1908. Negotiations were opened with the representative of the college before the actual assignment was made, as will be seen from the correspondence in the Parliamentary Paper recently issued (Cd. 6842). The college were in occupation of the buildings comprised in the old lease for a short time

  857
  prior to the date from which that lease has been surrendered. In the answer I gave the hon. Member on the 30th June I explained the reason why the lease was renewed.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Was the occupation by Bedford College any more than nominal, and did they ever carry on the business of the college in these premises or did they merely occupy them in order that they might acquire the rights of an existing tenant?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what the object of the college was in occupying it, but they were in legal occupation at the date I have mentioned.
  Sir H. CRAIKasked who are the persons who represent Bedford College in the contract for the lease in Regent's Park; and who form the council of the college on behalf of whom the lease is executed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The contract was expressed to be entered into with "The Chairman, Council and Governors of Bedford College for Women, Incorporated by Royal Charter," whose corporate Seal was affixed to it in the presence of Miss Margaret I. Tuke, councillor, Major Leonard Darwin, vice-chairman, Miss Ethel I. McKnight, secretary of council, and in pursuance of a resolution of the council as provided in the statutes of the college. The college being a corporation, the lease will be executed under their corporate seal.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Who was the chairman? Is it the case that the chairman of the council was recently living in the district?
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it was represented on behalf of Bedford College that it was the first college for women established in this country; and whether he is aware that the assertion to that effect publicly made has now been admitted by the principal of the college to have been historically inaccurate?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am aware, no such representation was made, and I have no knowledge of the admission referred to.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Was no representation made to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and is he not aware that this claim has been advanced and has been withdrawn in a communication to the "Times?"
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was asked in the question whether it had been represented on behalf of the college that it was the first college for women established in this country, to which I have replied that no such representation was made.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that such claim was made on behalf of the college, and that, when challenged by me in the "Times," it was withdrawn explicitly by the principal?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I only have the official knowledge which I have already given. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow the whole of his correspondence in the "Times"
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education whether any representations were made to his Department in favour of Bedford College on the ground of its educational work when the grant of a lease to the college in Regent's Park was in contemplation or under consideration?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer is in the negative.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to favourably consider representations from other educational bodies even if they do not happen to have the Lord Chancellor at their head?
  Mr. PEASE: I will consider any representations, but until I receive them I cannot say whether they will be considered favourably or otherwise.

  South Wales Fishery Board.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the South Wales Fishery Board propose to provide themselves with an inspection steamer; and whether he will grant their request?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand the Noble Lord's question to refer to the possibility of a Grant from the Exchequer to assist the Committee to make provision for policing their waters with a view to the enforcement of their local by-laws. The enforcement of local by-laws is the duty of the committee, and the Board are not in a position to make a Grant to provide the machinery for this purpose. I am, however, carefully considering whether means can be found to augment the police work of local sea fisheries committees.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what proportions of the average annual amount of £41,200 expended by the Board during the last five years in administering the Small Holdings and Allotments Act represent administration of the 10,000 statutory small holdings and of the 28,000 statutory allotments, respectively?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is impossible to apportion even approximately as between small holdings and allotments the Board's expenditure incurred in the administration of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. But perhaps it will be sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose to know that the time occupied in dealing with questions relating to the provision of allotments is comparatively small.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I take it that the proportion of this money expended on administration as regards allotments is a very small proportion of the whole amount?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot suggest any estimate. I can only say the time of the officials was very little taken up.

  Epizootic Abortion.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state what counties beside Devonshire in England and Wales have provided for the notification and segregation of cases of epizootic abortion in cattle; and will he endeavour to induce abstaining counties to adopt the treatment with a view to stamping out the disease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have made no Orders dealing with epizootic abortion except the Devonshire Order of last year. In view of the unfavourable opinions generally expressed by agriculturists upon the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, the Board do not consider that they would be justified in imposing similar restrictions elsewhere without clear evidence that they would be acceptable, pending the results of the scientific investigations now being carried on.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is not this matter being admirably dealt with in Cornwall by the voluntary action of the farmers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know how well it is being dealt with in Cornwall.

  Regent Street Quadrant.
  Mr. BOYTONasked whether a design for the Regent Street Quadrant has been prepared for completing the rebuilding; and whether, in view of the fact that the Quadrant from its original conception has had an architectural unity and dignity which have given an especial character and interest to that part of London, these facts have been an instruction to the architect or architects entrusted with the design?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A design was submitted a short time ago by architects acting for lessees of premises in the Quadrant, but it was not considered by the Commissioner of Woods to be satisfactory, and the matter is receiving further consideration. No architect has been entrusted by the Commissioner of Woods with the design, and no special instructions have been issued, but the recommendations of the recent Committee on the subject of the completion of the Quadrant are known to the architects who submitted the design above mentioned.
  Mr. BOYTON: Have an architect or architects been appointed to carry out the findings of the Committee?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not architect or architects have been appointed for that purpose.
  Mr. BOYTON: When they are, will the design include the County Fire Office and the block of buildings facing Piccadilly Circus and Piccadilly, or will it be prepared in accordance generally with the Committee's Report?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.
  Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise that nothing will be done until after this has been debated in the House?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman means that no appointment of architects is to take place until after the matter has been debated, I am afraid I could not give him that promise. Nothing drastic will be done without full public notice.
  Mr. KING: Can we have a promise that these plans will be exhibited in the Tea Room before they are finally accepted?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, if there is any desire in the House to see the plans.

  Swine Fever (Dutch Serum Treatment).
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) if there are any restrictions in Holland for the movement of swine even when there is swine fever in the locality, except on the farm containing the outbreak; (2) whether he has any official information showing that in Holland, when an outbreak of swine fever breaks out, the State veterinary surgeon immediately injects a serum provided by the State on all the pigs on the farm; (3) whether the serum treatment in Holland has been proved to be effective to prevent swine fever; and if many die through the treatment of inoculation; (4) if he will say how long the Dutch Government has been treating swine fever with the serum injection; and what has been the cost per animal treated; (5) if he will say how long the pigs are infectious after being inoculated with serum in Holland; and (6) whether, in view of the fact that the English methods of stamping out swine fever have not been altogether successful, he will introduce the methods of the Dutch serum treatment?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that in Holland, where the pig population is in excess of that in this country, swine fever is not seriously prevalent, that it is generally cured by treatment, and that, in the event of an outbreak of the disease, it is kept in check by the injection or a serum provided by the Government into all swine on the infected premises whether diseased or exposed to infection; and whether, in view of the failure to stamp out the disease by the methods adopted by the Board since 1908, he will consider the advisability of adopting the Dutch methods of dealing with it?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention was called recently to some remarkable reports concerning the successful treatment of swine fever in Holland. In the absence of precise official information, swine fever in Holland not being apparently what we should describe as a "scheduled disease," I immediately directed special inquiry to be made. This inquiry must take some little time, but there will be no avoidable delay, and in the meantime I would rather, if the hon. Members will allow me, refrain from making any detailed statement, which would necessarily be based only on unofficial and unverified information.
  Mr. STANIER: How long has this been going on there?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot give any detailed opinion as to the length of the experiment in Holland, which is said to be successful. Our inquiries have been proceeding for some little time there.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Pending further inquiry into this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is desirable to suspend the present system of wholesale slaughter of suspected pigs?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am afraid I could not do that. It would be impossible for us to leave any gap between one system and the possible adoption of another.
  Mr. STANIER: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to receive a report from these gentlemen who have been inquiring?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say.

  Live Stock (Improvement).
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now able to give the House any information regarding the schemes the Board and the Development Commissioners have made for the improvement of live stock?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I propose shortly to lay on the Table of the House a Memorandum setting out particulars of the Grants made out of the Development Fund for the improvement of live stock in England and Wales.

  Anthrax.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received representations from the County Councils Association urging the Government to adopt the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease in reference to anthrax; and whether, in view of the continued prevalence of the latter disease and the seriousness of its effect upon humanity, agriculture, and commerce, he will take steps forthwith to carry out such recommendations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received representations from several public bodies on the subject to which the hon. Member refers. The practicability of carrying out the Departmental Committees recommendations for preventing the introduction of anthrax is being considered jointly

  863
  by representatives of the Board of Agriculture, the Home Office, and the Board of Trade.

  Serpentine (Bathing).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what are the present hours during which bathing is permitted in the Serpentine; and whether, during the school holidays, he will repeat last year's arrangement under which school children could bathe from mid-day each day?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The present hours during which bathing is permitted in the Serpentine are from 5 to 8.30 a.m., and from 6 to 8.30 p.m. The First Commissioner has approved of arrangements being made again this year whereby school children under fourteen years of age are allowed to bathe from 1 p.m. during the school holidays.

  House of Commons (New Staircase).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether he will remove the gilt upon the terminal oak columns of the new staircase to the Terrace as being an unsuitable form of decoration?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The gilding of the newel posts is essentially Gothic in character, and it is intended to give them due value in the general design of the stairs. Examples of this decoration are to be found in furniture of the Tudor period.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the annual Report of the medical officer of health for the borough of Stepney, in which he states that the scheme for the treatment of tuberculosis under the National Insurance Act has not worked well; whether the Stepney insurance sub-committee has required applicants to go to a West End doctor for examination before treatment; whether they have been required to produce insurance cards to their detriment and loss of employment; and if 90 per cent. of the insured persons who are considered by their own doctors to be
    864
    consumptive have not applied for sanatorium benefit?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The Report in question relates only to the temporary arrangements which were in operation during the period from 15th July to 31st December last. These arrangements have undergone considerable modification since the beginning of the year, and the difficulties have in consequence been diminished. An insured person has to be recommended for institutional treatment by the expert medical adviser at Fitzroy Square, but he can receive domiciliary or dispensary treatment without visiting the medical adviser on the recommendation of the doctor from whom he is receiving treatment under the Act. An applicant for sanatorium benefit was asked to forward his insurance card in order that the committee might be satisfied that he was an insured person and eligible for sanatorium benefit, but it was definitely stated that on the application form that members of approved societies who were unable to forward their insurance books or cards should obtain a statement from their society as to the number of contributions standing to their credit. I do not know what authority there is for the statement referred to in the last part of the question.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question whether they have been required to produce insurance cards to their detriment and loss of employment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman will find the answer to that embodied in the reply I have given.

    PAYMENTS FOR MEDICINE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Treasury out of what fund the chemists are paid for medicines supplied to persons suffering from tuberculosis and receiving sanatorium benefit in the form of domiciliary treatment under the National Insurance Act; and what steps are taken to secure that they are not paid out of the Drug Fund for medical benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The cost of medicines supplied to insured persons in receipt of domiciliary treatment for tuberculosis is payable out of the Sanatorium Benefit Fund. With regard to the second part of the question, the Commissioners have suggested that special

    865
    prescription forms should be used, or alternatively that the ordinary prescription forms should bear the words "Sanatorium Benefit," or some other distinctive mark, in order to avoid the possibility of the cost of the items ordered thereon being charged to the Medical Benefit Fund.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is there not great danger of the two being confused?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is because of that danger that the Commissioners have suggested this special arrangement.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury when the Bill for dealing with the serious state of affairs in the Highlands and Islands would be brought forward; if provision will be made for payment of travelling expenses of members of insurance committees where no possible levy would be adequate for that purpose; and if the Bill obtains a Second Reading, in view of the fact that the time of the Scottish Grand Committee is fully taken up with the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill, will he consider taking the Committee Stage in the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope that the Bill to provide a Grant for improving the medical service in the Highlands and Islands will be introduced this week. The question of the travelling expenses of members of insurance committees is under consideration, but it would not, I am afraid, come within the scope of the Bill. The Committee stage of the Bill is clearly more suitable for discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee than in the whole House. The Bill will be very short, and, I believe, non-controversial in character.
    Mr. MUNRO: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that every effort will be made to get the Bill passed this Session?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Every effort we can make will be made, and I hope we will receive the assistance of the Scottish Members.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether under the National Insurance Act, as it is proposed to be amended by the Government, it is their intention that every member, whatever his age, who was previous to 15th July, 1912,
    866
    on the books of a friendly society which becomes an approved society, and who is not insured under the Act, shall receive the State Grant of 2s. 6d.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth on Thursday last.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the number of persons affected and to the varied and diversified effects of the National Insurance Act, 1911, in different constituencies and upon different classes of persons, he will grant a second day for the discussion on the Second Reading of the National insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, I am not prepared to give a second day.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether, in view of the time likely to be taken by the proceedings on the private Bill on Tuesday, whether further time will be given for the Second Reading of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the private Bill referred to is postponed.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there is some confusion in the practice of approved societies in respect of Sunday counting as one of the three waiting days for sickness benefit; and whether he will make a plain statement on the subject and have it circulated to approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I informed the hon. Member for the Wilton Division on Thursday last that I was aware that some difficulties have arisen in connection with the application of Section 8 (1) (c) of the National Insurance Act, and that if he would suggest an Amendment which he thinks would meet these difficulties, it would receive careful consideration. I do not consider that any circular to societies is desirable at the moment.

    HALF-YEARLY CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. STANIERasked if the Insurance Commissioners are yet in a position to arrange for half-yearly cards to be

    867
    given to those who wish to have them; and if there are any grave reasons why they cannot arrange this, seeing that this is advocated by some friendly societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The subject of a six months' card has been under careful consideration, and is very strongly pressed by representatives of approved societies. It would involve an alteration in the Arrears Section of the Act which makes the rate of sickness benefit dependent upon average arrears since entry into insurance. The subject would be appropriate for discussion on the Insurance Act Amendment Bill.

    STAMPS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he has now considered the representations made to him from all parties in the House with reference to supplying insurance stamps in the convenient form adopted by him in the case of postage stamps; and, in coming to a decision on the subject, will he take into consideration the advantage that postmasters in a small way of business will secure?
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the application from Members from all parts of the House for the issue of insurance stamps in book form as in the case of ½d. and 1d. stamps; if so, whether he will state whether he is prepared to grant the request; and, if so, when they will be issued to the public?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am still in communication with the National Health Insurance Joint Committee on this subject. No decision has been reached.

    Inland Revenue, Scotland (Appeals).
    Mr. WATTasked what method the Court of Inland Revenue Commissioners, at which appeals from local assessors are considered, is constituted in Scotland; who is responsible for calling it together; has he any option as to whether he shall call all the local Commissioners to the Court or does he call as many as he thinks proper and whomsoever of the Commissioners that e desires; is any quorum necessary before decisions can be come to; if so, what is the quorum; and is there any case on record where such Court has differed from the views of the local assessors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no "Court of Inland Revenue Commissioners" in Scotland, but if the hon. Member refers to the General or District Commissioners of Taxes acting for the various Divisions in Scotland, the answers to his questions are as follows: The Commissioners are appointed from the Land Tax Commissioners under the provisions of 5 and 6 Vict., c. 35, sec. 4, or by the Commissioners of Supply under Section 7 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1893. Arrangements for meetings in each division are made by the Commissioners themselves through their clerk, appointed by them and acting under their direction. The statutory minimum for a quorum is two Commissioners. There are many cases on record where the General Commissioners have differed from the views of the local assessors.

    Railway Clerks (Weekly Half-Holiday).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that clerks in the railway passenger department do not enjoy a weeky half-holiday, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to confer upon these clerks this privilege, which is enjoyed by all other branches of clerical workers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The hours and holidays of clerical workers are not regulated by Statute at present, and I am afraid I cannot hold out any immediate prospect of legislation in the direction suggested in the question.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH- BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the railway companies with the object of getting a half-holiday for these men?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid that is a question which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is he?"]

    Camden Town Labour Exchange (Charity Collector).
    Mr. GIBBSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a case at the Old Street Police Court, on 8th July, in which one Blackburn is alleged to have engaged, through the medium of the Camden Town Labour Exchange, Miss Jessie Gardiner to collect funds for a charity as to the

    869
    bona fides of which some doubt was expressed in court; whether it is customary to secure the addresses of employers seeking workpeople at the Exchanges; and whether instructions have been issued to the Labour Exchange staff not to assist the police authorities in prosecuting inquiries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Robertson): My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of the case in question. I understand that Miss Gardiner was engaged by Mr. Blackburn through the Camden Town Labour Exchange. The addresses of employers seeking workpeople are obtained in the ordinary course. As regards the last part of the question, information obtained by Labour Exchange officials in the course of their duties is, in the interests, both of employers and workpeople, regarded as confidential, and is not, in ordinary circumstances, communicated to third parties. It has been usual to make an exception to this rule in the case of inquiries received from the police, but in order to ensure that information is not given to unauthorised persons, Labour Exchange managers have been instructed that it may only be given in response to a written request from a responsible officer of police. The above instructions were observed by the Labour Exchange manager in the present case.

    Colour Blindness (Tests).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his advisers on colour blindness only consist of those who have advocated the wool test; and, if so, now that this test has been shown to be so defective, whether he will consider the advisability of adding to his advisers someone with knowledge and experience of the lantern test?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has no reason whatever to think that his advisers have not the knowledge and experience necessary to enable them to advise on the lantern test which has been adopted on the recommendation of the recent Sight Tests Committee, of which two of them were members.

    Small Dwellings (Loans).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the position that has arisen under the Small Dwellings Acquisition
    870
    Act, 1899, in which it is stated that loans may be advanced under the Act, and that such loans must be repaid within a period of thirty years or any lesser period subject to Treasury regulations; whether loans under the Act for £200 and over have been granted to the county borough council of Limerick for periods varying from thirty to twenty-five years; whether a loan of £176 is now being sought for, and the Board of Works (Ireland) have written, under date 25th June, 1913, stating that, in accordance with Treasury regulations, a period of ten years only could be allowed for repayment of a loan of less than £200; if this is so, will the thrifty working man be prevented from purchasing his dwelling-house; and whether, under those circumstances, the Treasury regulations dealing with the ten years' period will be annulled and the payments to be made on the thirty or twenty-five years' period, and thus carry out the spirit and intention of the Act, so that the humbler classes of the community may be enabled to take advantage of the Act under reasonable conditions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The ten years' limit is not insisted upon in the case of loans for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act if the Local Government Board, having regard to the character of the particular building to be acquired recommend a longer period not exceeding thirty years. I understand that further inquiry is being made by the Local Government Board as to the appropriate period in the case to which the hon. Member refers.

    Wireless Telegraphy.
    Viscount DUNCANNONasked the Postmaster-General if he will lay upon the Table the full correspondence, if any, which has passed between the British representative of the Goldschmidt system and the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will lay the correspondence in question, together with other Papers, upon the Table at an early date.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will invite tenders for the Imperial wireless chain, based on a guaranteed minimum standard of efficiency, to be laid down by the Post Office, and to be approved by the House of Commons?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Scientific Advisory Committee, over which Lord

    871
    Parker presided, reported in April last, after full investigation, that the Marconi system was the only system of which it could be said with any certainty that it was capable of fulfilling the requirements of the Imperial chain; and that the Marconi Company alone had practical experience of the sort of long distance work required. Nothing has since occurred so far as I can ascertain to invalidate this conclusion. The representatives of the Goldschmidt system accepted the invitation of the Parker Committee to demonstrate the working of their system, but only over a distance of 382 nautical miles, between Hanover and Slough. Members of the Committee were in attendance at Hanover, and engineers were sent to Slough to watch the tests, but the demonstrators did not succeed in transmitting any intelligible communication of any kind. On seeing the paragraphs recently sent by the company to the Press to the effect that they had established communication between Hanover and Tuckerton in the United States, I at once asked the company to allow the demonstrations to be witnessed by officers of the Post Office and the Admiralty, but the company have replied that they are not in a position to give any demonstrations until the first week in August. In the circumstances I do not propose to invite tenders for the work. The course suggested by the hon. Member would make it impossible to obtain the sanction of the House of Commons to any contract this Session, and would involve a delay of at least another nine months, and probably a year before work on the stations could actually be begun. I am, however, pointing out to the company what under certain conditions the erection of the second three stations of the Imperial chain will be transferred from the original contractors to any others whose system may be proved to be more efficient or more economical. If such proof is forthcoming in the case of the Goldschmidt system within the next few months, I should be very glad to consider the employment of that system for some or all of those stations.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking advantage of the suggested demonstration at the beginning of August?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, whenever they are illing to give me a demonstration, I am informing them that I shall be most happy to send officers to witness it.
    Mr. GUINNESS: In the event of that demonstration proving that they are able to telegraph 3,600 miles, will it then be too late to give them an opportunity of tendering for the whole of the stations?
    Mr. SAMUEL: In the first place it is necessary for them to show that they are able to maintain an effective continuous service, and not merely that a few experiments on any particular days are successful. In any case I am afraid that as Parliament, we hope, may rise in the middle of August, any definite postponement until after tests are made in the first week of August would mean that the House could hardly then deal with it?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Is it not possible to allow them to tender subject to guarantees, and if these guarantees are not carried out, the matter could be dealt with?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No. I do not want guarantees. I want stations that will work.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it a fact that several years elapsed after the Marconi Company had communicated across the Atlantic before they established a commercial service?
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Universal Radio Syndicate, Limited, have recently asked for permission to tender for the installation of the Poulsen system in the stations of the Imperial Chain; and whether such permission has been granted?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I received on Saturday last a request from the Syndicate to be allowed to tender. In reply to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 10th instant to the questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for the Western Division of Hampshire and by the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne in which I explained why the Government is not calling for tenders.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of any intention to transmit messages from a Marconi station in Norway to America viâ the United Kingdom; whether it is intended that the proposed post office station at Aberdeen, or any other British Government station, should be utilised in connection with such service; and whether there is any proposal or arrangement by which the British Government will receive

    873
    royalties or other payments from the Marconi Company or from the Norwegian Government in connection with such service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No such proposal has been considered and no arrangement of any kind made.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Do I understand that no British stations will be used?
    Mr. SAMUEL: We have had no communication from the Norwegian Government on the subject of any sort or kind. No such proposal has been made.
    Captain MURRAY: Is it proposed to establish another station near Aberdeen?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes. That is in contemplation.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in August last year, when he was endeavouring to secure the ratification of the Marconi contract, the Postmaster-General of Canada entered into an agreement with the representative of the Poulsen system in England for a Transatlantic service between Great Britain and Canada; whether he was aware of the negotiations at that time; and, if so, will he state the reasons for not communicating them to the House; and whether he had any communication with the Postmaster-General of Canada at that time with regard to the same; and, if so, will he state the nature of such communication?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The agreement between the Canadian Postmaster-General and the representatives of the Poulsen system was entered into in April of this year and not in August of last year. Mr. Pelletier, who was in England last August, informed me of negotiations in which he was then engaged, but it would then have been obviously improper for me to have communicated to the House negotiations to which I was not a party, which had no relevance to the proposals I had laid before Parliament, and which were still proceeding between the Canadian Postmaster-General and a commercial syndicate. I would add that the Canadian agreement which was signed in April is of a wholly different character from that proposed for the erection of stations for the Imperial Wireless Chain. The Imperial Stations are to be State-owned, but the Canadian Government does not propose to
    874
    employ the Poulsen Company to erect any station to be owned and worked by that Government. The station is to be erected by the Poulsen Company at their own cost; it will remain the property of the company unless purchased by the Canadian Government at a price to be fixed by arbitration; and it will be worked by the company with their own staff for their own profit and at their own risk. The obligations upon the Poulsen Company under the agreement are to erect stations within a specified period and to transmit telegrams at rates not exceeding specified maxima. The obligations upon the Canadian Government are to grant the necessary licences, to secure certain exemptions from the Canadian Patent Laws relating to the manufacture of apparatus outside Canada, and to take such measures as are in its power to facilitate the transmission of the Company's telegrams over the land lines belonging to the Canadian Telegraph Companies.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has any guarantee been given by this company to the Canadian Government as regards their contract?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is a guarantee.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: What is it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like notice of that.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Had the right hon. Gentleman any official correspondence with Mr. Pelletier at that time?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes; some communications passed with regard to this proposal.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the treating of these communications as confidential goes a long way to impair the control of this House over matters of national importance; and will he lay the correspondence on the Table, as in the case of the Goldschmidt correspondence?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; the correspondence has no relation at all to the proposal for the erection of an Imperial wireless chain, and it was never proposed to conduct a Transatlantic service. My correspondence with Mr. Pelletier consisted largely of criticisms of certain proposals in his intended or contemplated agreement with the Poulsen syndicate, which proposals have since disappeared

    875
    from the arrangement with the Canadian Government. I certainly could not publish any correspondence without the consent of Mr. Pelletier.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Would not the correspondence throw light on the merits of the respective systems?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No Sir; none at all.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General whether the results of the experiments between Arlington, Virginia, and the United States steamship "Salem," and between Arlington and Gibraltar, using both the arc and spark transmission, which are referred to in paragraph 19 of the report of the Advisory Committee, have been embodied by Dr. Austin, the head scientific adviser of the United States naval wireless service, in a Report to the effect that for distances of 1,400 miles and upwards the arc system, which is the Poulsen system, using less than half the current radiated by the spark system, was equal to or somewhat better than the spark, and at distances exceeding 2,100 miles in the day time the arc was uniformly louder than the spark; if so, whether he will furnish a copy of such Report to Members of the House; and whether he is aware that after the receipt of Dr. Austin's Report the United States Government awarded the contract for the Panama station, which is to have a range of 3,000 miles, to the American Poulsen Company?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not seen Dr. Austin's Report on the experiments in question, and I am not aware that it has been published. A copy was asked for by my inspector of wireless telegraphy, but was not sent. The general results of the experiments were before the Scientific Advisory Committee when they made their Report, and they were not such as to lead the Committee to conclude that the Poulsen system was capable of fulfilling the requirements of the Imperial Chain. I have no official information as regards the contract for the Panama Station, but am making inquiries.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether the Postmaster-General will give the names of his Special Committee to which he submitted in 1912 the terms for the Marconi Contract which has since lapsed; whether he has submitted to this Special Committee the terms of the second
    876
    Marconi Contract which he has now laid before the House, and, if so, the date on which this meeting took place; if this Special Committee has also considered the altered circumstances occasioned by the success of the Goldschmidt Company in establishing Transatlantic communication as foreshadowed by the Advisory Committee of Experts; in that case, will he state what the Report of the Special Committee was; and, if not, will he convoke that body and lay the facts before them before entering into any contract for the wireless chain which will definitely bind the House and the country, despite the existence of a different system which has succeeded in sending messages over a far greater distance and under more difficult conditions?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The gentlemen who attended meetings of the Committee which advised me in the course of the negotiations with the Marconi Company prior to the acceptance of their tender in March, 1912, were the High Commissioners of South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand; Captain Muirhead Collins, Official Secretary to the Australian Commonwealth Office; Admiral Charlton, Lieutenant R. Fitzmaurice, Captain M. Fitzmaurice, Captain Hope, Mr. Madge, Mr. Minter, from the Admiralty; Mr. Johnson, from the Colonial Office; Sir Henry Kirk, from the India Office; Mr. Wilkins, from the Treasury; Colonel Macdonogh and Major Seaman, from the War Office; and Sir Alexander King, Mr. Farnall, Mr. De Wardt, Commander Loring, and Mr. Taylor, from the Post Office. The actual terms of the proposed contract were submitted to the various Departments of which these gentlemen were the representatives, and to the High Commissioner for South Africa, and were the subject of official correspondence and conferences during several months. They were not laid before the Committee as a body, as the precise wording of the terms of a contract can be better settled by correspondence and by separate conferences than at the meetings of a large Committee. The same course is being adopted with respect to the terms of the new contract. As I have stated in answer to a previous question, the Company which is experimenting with the Goldschmidt system have not acceded to my request to allow the communication across the Atlantic which they claim to have established to be demonstrated at once in the presence of technical advisers of the Post Office and Admiralty.

    877
    In these circumstances it would be useless to convene a meeting of any Committee to consider claims which are not substantiated by official inspection.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: May I ask how many days ago it is that the right hon. Gentleman asked for this demonstration—how many days' notice they considered sufficient?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The experiments took place on the 3rd and 4th July. The company communicated to me on 5th July the fact that these experiments had been made. I wrote to them, I think, on 6th or 7th, asking that demonstrations should be made before my officers at the earliest possible date. A telegram was sent on the following day, and another letter was sent two or three days afterwards. Two or three days ago, I think on Saturday, I received a letter from the company saying that they were not in a position to give any demonstration until August.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Is it not the fact that excepting the Marconi organisation, none of the other firms mentioned, either Poulsen or Goldschmidt, have got the necessary equipment in existence to enable them to carry out the Imperial wireless chain, and, if the contract were given to either, would it not entail, for that reason, very considerable delay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My information is to that effect. Of course, they may be able to enlist the necessary staff.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: With regard to the last part of the question, is it not the case that the statement that, by the Goldschmidt system, messages have been sent "over a far greater distance and under more difficult conditions," rests entirely on an ex-party statement?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: So far as I am aware, it rests entirely upon Dr. Goldschmidt's statement.

    Postal Staff (Temporary Labour).
    Mr. GIBBSasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to a ease tried at the Warwick Assizes on 7th July, and to the comments of Mr. Justice Darling on the new practice of the postal authorities of engaging temporary assistance through the Labour Exchanges without first verifying references; and whether he will take steps to terminate this danger to the public who entrust valuables to his Department for transmission?
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked if Mr. Buzzard, K.C., who prosecuted for the Post Office in a recent case at Warwick, stated that, under the recent rules, all temporary postal servants must be engaged through Labour Exchanges, and thus the Government were deprived of the services of many respectable men who would not apply through these Exchanges; that even if the police saw improper characters wearing a postal badge they could not interfere, because they presumed that the Post Office had made the necessary inquiries; have circulars to this effect been issued to postmasters; and will he explain how such instructions will ensure the most reliable men for the Post Office service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, on the 10th July, it never has been and it is not the practice for men to be engaged as temporary postal servants without the taking up of references. The rule is that at least two, and generally four, references should be taken up, and should be verified by direct personal inquiry. In former years this was done by officials of the Post Office. Last winter arrangements were made between the Post Office and the Board of Trade by which it should be done by officials of the Labour Exchanges, on exactly the same lines as those previously adopted. The arrangement provided that the results of the inquiries, including the replies of the referees, should be submitted to the local postmasters to guide them in making their final selection among the applicants. During last winter nearly 40,000 men were engaged, under this arrangement, through the Labour Exchanges. In the particular cases referred to, where two temporary postal servants were prosecuted at Warwick, only one of the men, by name Partridge, was in fact engaged through the Labour Exchange. I am informed that in his case the arrangement was not fully carried out, as, in response to an urgent demand for men from the local postmaster, he was sent up from the Exchange before replies had been received from his referees. I am considering, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, what steps are necessary to prevent any local departures from the arrangements in the future. With reference to certain statements which the counsel for the prosecution is reported to have made in the case referred to, there is no truth in the state-

    879
    ment that the new arrangement between the Board of Trade and the Post Office prevents the police from communicating either to the Post Office or to the Board of Trade any information as to the character of persons whom they see to be acting as temporary postmen. I have no reason to believe there is any foundation for the other statement made by him that, as a result of the arrangement, the Government were deprived of the services of respectable men or that respectable men would not apply through the Exchanges. Counsel appears to have misunderstood the information given by the Post Office representative in the Court. Reports received as to the working of the new system show that, taking the country as a whole, a better class of labour was secured last year than in the previous year.

    South Africa (Strike of Miners).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to inquire into the use of British troops on the Rand and their action there?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): As I have already informed the House, I am expecting a full Report from Lord Gladstone on the occurrences on the Rand.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why should British troops be used for shooting miners on the Rand for making speeches less inflammatory than those which have been made in Belfast by Privy Councillors?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant time for a discussion of the Motion with reference to the action of Lord Gladstone in authorising the use of British troops in South Africa standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to give facilities for the discussion of this Motion from the time at the disposal of the Government.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is no attention to be paid to the resolutions which have been passed in South Africa and in this country protesting against the action of Lord Gladstone, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless time is given for some form of Motion the question cannot be discussed in this House, which means the burking of what has taken place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the case at all. There will be several opportunities for discussing it.
    Mr OUTHWAITE: When will the opportunities occur?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Possibly on the Colonial Office Vote, but certainly on the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: On the Colonial Office Vote we cannot discuss the action of Lord Gladstone, which is the point at issue.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Until I get a further and fuller indication that it is the general desire of Members to discuss the matter, I am not disposed to give time.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the minority are not entitled to discuss the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There will be ample opportunity on the Appropriation Bill.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on two occasions Mr. Speaker refused leave for a Motion for the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss this matter, and on each occasion said that the proper method of procedure was to move a Vote of Censure on Lord Gladstone?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that.

    Scottish Estimates.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Prime Minister upon what day he will take the Scottish Estimates; and whether he will endeavour to arrange that it is not delayed to the fag end of the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet say what day Scottish Estimates will be taken.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is not intended to press the Land Purchase (Ireland) Amendment Bill through any of its stages before the prorogation of Parliament, he will grant facilities for a full Debate to take place on its introduction in order that the Government may be informed of Irish opinion on the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill, on its introduction, will be put down as the first order for the day, and the evening devoted to its discussion.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to proceed with the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill this Session; and, if so, whether he can name a date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is intended to proceed with this Bill in a modified form at an early date, which I cannot yet state.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Before the end of the Session?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it intended to pass the measure this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, if in an agreed form.

    Metropolitan Police (Receiver's Department).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say who has been appointed to succeed the second surveyor in the receiver's department of the Metropolitan Police, who recently retired on a pension of £344 10s. a year; what his previous experience was; what commencing remuneration he receives; and what salary his predecessor had before retirement?
    Mr. McKENNA: The post of second surveyor has been discontinued under a recent scheme of reorganisation, and the duties, so far as they relate to the maintenance of police buildings, are now discharged by an officer designated principal assistant surveyor. The person appointed to this post is Mr. Thomas Brown. He has had more than twelve years' experience in connection with public buildings, namely, upwards of a year as assistant surveyor to the Croydon School Board, followed by eleven years as master of buildings under the Liverpool School Board, and assistant surveyor under the Education Committee of the Liverpool Corporation. His commencing salary is £350 a year. The second surveyor's salary at retirement was £530 a year.
    Mr. TOUCHE: In view of the duties to be performed and the qualifications necessary, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider the commencing salary very inadequate?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consider any representation the hon. Member may make.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he will say how much per day the increase of pay granted this year to the temporary clerks of works in the receiver's department of the Metropolitan Police amounts to; and how many years it is since their rate of pay was previously revised?
    Mr. McKENNA: The increase of salary is five shillings a week, which works out at tenpence a day for the working week of six days. The previous revision was in 1894.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary whether any representations have been made by the permanent clerks of works in the receiver's department of the Metropolitan Police in favour of an increase of remuneration; whether their application has been considered and how it has been dealt with, or whether it is now under consideration; and whether any and, if so, what increases have been granted to the surveyor and assistant surveyor since 1907, when the remuneration of the permanent clerks of works was last increased?
    Mr. McKENNA: Applications by these clerks of works for increased remuneration are now under consideration. Under a recent scheme of reorganisation the salary of the surveyor has been increased by £50 and he will receive a further increment of the same amount in 1916; and the salary of the senior assistant surveyor has been increased by £10 and he will have similar increments for the next four years.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Does that include provision for extra duty?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think so; but I should like to have notice of the question.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Horne Secretary whether there are any cases of hereditary service in the receiver's department of the Metropolitan Police besides those of the chief surveyor and the son of the late second surveyor?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the hon. Member can mean to suggest that any appointments in the receiver's office are hereditary in the ordinary sense of the word. If he wishes to know what other instances there are in which sons of persons who have served in the Department now hold appointments in it, the answer is four—two permanent and two temporary.

    Factory Operatives (Excessive Weight Carrying).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories in 1912 shows that the carrying of grossly excessive weights is widespread and of frequent occurrence; that boys of fifteen in tinplate works carry weights of from 90 to 100 pounds; that women and girls employed in earthenware and china works, rag-sorting works, flax works, aerated water works, stoneware works, brick works, cotton mills, and making-up works, commonly carry weights of 80 pounds, and often weights of 100 pounds; and whether, in view of the injury resulting to workers from this cause, he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with this matter on the lines recommended by the Accidents Committee?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen the passages referred to, but I do not think they are quite accurately summarised in the question. Eighty pounds is mentioned as a usual weight in two only of the industries named. The only direct statutory powers at present possessed by the Department are limited to the case of children under fourteen. By the Employment of Children Bill, now before the House, it is proposed to extend them to persons up to the age of sixteen. The Department is fully alive to the importance of the question, and is taking such action as is possible. In the case of the pottery trade the matter has already been dealt with in the new Regulations, and it has been put forward as one of the subjects for discussion at the series of conferences with employers and employed in different trades which are now being held in accordance with the recommendation of the Accidents Committee. It will be seen from the published Report of the conferences already held that considerable progress has been made in the desired direction. Instructions have also been issued to the certifying surgeons to have regard to the question when examining young persons for employment. The subject is noted for consideration in connection with the next amending Factory Bill, but I cannot say at present when it will be possible to take that up.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any effort to pass the Employment of Children Bill this Session?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord knows the present state of business in the House as well as I do.

    Waterford (Glen Laundry Prosecution).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent prosecution in Waterford of the manager of a factory called the Glen Laundry; whether, on the defendant being convicted of having obstructed the inspector in the execution of her duties, he was fined 5s., and on pleading guilty to the illegal employment of a girl of fourteen without a certificate of fitness he was fined ld. by the bench of magistrates; and what steps he proposes to take, in view of the inadequacy of such penalties in the case of serious breaches of the law?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received a report of this case from the chief inspector of factories. The facts are as stated in the question, but the amount of the penalties is a matter within the discretion of the justices, and I have no power to require them to be increased.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether the Home Office has at any time issued a circular to magistrates calling their attention to the ineffectiveness of nominal penalties, such as those recently imposed in the Glen Laundry case in Waterford, to maintain respect for the law; and whether, in view of the not infrequent imposition of such penalties, he will cause such a circular to be issued or, if previously issued, to be circulated afresh to magistrates throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Department has never, so far as I am aware, issued such a circular, and I do not think it would be advisable to do so.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary how many of the three prisoners who, on 24th June, had refused their food, and were being artificially fed, are still persisting in this course and are still undergoing the same treatment; whether he will state the date on which each of these prisoners first refused his food, the date on which each was first artificially fed, the number of times this operation has been performed upon each prisoner, and, if any of these prisoners has abandoned his intention of refusing food,

    885
    the date on which he again took food naturally; and whether he will state in which prison each of these prisoners is confined?
    Mr. McKENNA: Two of the three prisoners referred to are still refusing their food and are being forcibly fed; these two first refused food on 21st February and 29th May, and were first forcibly fed on 4th March and the 4th June, respectively; in the one case forcible feeding has taken place 264 times, and in the other ninety-four times. The third prisoner resumed taking his food yesterday, having been on hunger strike since 14th May, and having been forcibly fed 176 times. Two of the prisoners are in Wormwood Scrubs Prison and one in Manchester.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the condition of the health of those prisoners?
    Mr. McKENNA: The reports are quite favourable.
    Mr. PRINGLE: On prisoners who are not suffragettes has it no ill-effects?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think it depends very much on the amount of resistance offered.

    Railway Restaurant Cars (Shops Act).
    Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that the staffs on the restaurant cars of the railway companies are not permitted in many instances the half-day holiday to which they are entitled under the Shops Act; and whether he proposes to amend the Act so as to ensure that all such employés shall enjoy the benefits of the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: No representations appear to have been received by my Department on the subject. The question whether restaurant car attendants come within the provisions of the Shops Act raises a point of law on which I cannot undertake to express an opinion; but, in any event, I am afraid I can hold out no prospect of amending legislation in the near future.
    Mr. ALDEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman write to the railway companies?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consult the President of the Board of Trade.

    Employment of Children.
    Mr. ALDENasked the number of children and young persons under eighteen
    886
    years of age employed in factories, also the number under sixteen?
    Mr. McKENNA: The last year for which figures are available is 1907. The number of children and young persons under eighteen employed in factories at that time was about 830,000, and it is estimated the number of these under sixteen would be about 420,000. Returns of employment have been collected for 1912, but the figures are not yet available.
    Sir W. MENZIES: May I ask why the year 1907 is the last for which the right hon. Gentleman has figures?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire.
    Mr. ALDEN: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the latest figures for half-timers, with the number of boys and girls in each case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand the questime to refer to employment of half-timers in factories and workshops. The last year for which figures of such employment are available is 1907; the numbers then were 17,916 boys, and 19,211 girls, or 37,127 in all.
    Mr. ALDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman ask the officers of his Department to get later figures than 1907?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire further into the point. I should say those figures were only handed to me just before I came into the House.
    Mr. BOOTH: Has my right hon. Friend information about those half-timers who are allowed to be at home half the day and at school half the day by the school attendance committees?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think I can give my hon. Friend the information.

    Children's Courts.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Home Secretary whether there are any big towns in which no steps have yet been taken to separate children and young persons in court from adult persons; and whether he can state the number of children and young people under sixteen last year who were released on probation?
    Mr. McKENNA: The provisions of the Children Act requiring juvenile cases to be heard separately from others are, I believe, duly observed not only in the large boroughs but also at all Courts of

    887
    Summary Jurisdiction elsewhere. Full statistics as to the discharge on probation of juvenile offenders and others are given in the Annual Judicial Statistics, but the figures for 1912 are not yet complete.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RECRUITING.
    Captain CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the circulation in Dublin and Cork of a leaflet issued by the Vigilance Committee warning Irishmen against joining the Navy on the grounds that it is the most immoral Navy in the world; and whether he proposes to take any action in regard to it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the hon. Member for Ludlow on Thursday last.
    Mr. NEWMAN: As far as Cork goes, has this distribution about the Navy only occurred the other day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated we are endeavouring by the best means we can to identify the offensive document. I observe that when it was published in the "Times" the correspondent added that "The identity of the 'Vigilance Committee' which is mentioned in the circular is obscure."
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has heard the suggestion commonly and frequently made that these documents are prepared by a branch of the Unionist party?
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would care to see a copy of the leaflet in order to examine it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have read the extract from the "Times."

    CROMARTY WORKS.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any contracts have been or are about to be let for works at Cromarty; and, if so, will the condition be imposed in the contracts that the material to be used must be granite from the United Kingdom and not from Norway?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A contract has recently been let for certain work at Cromarty, but the nature of the work will not necessitate the use of granite.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask whether in any contract entered into we shall not have the Rosyth scandal repeated again?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There will not be any granite in this contract. When we do want granite we shall follow the policy of the past and get the cheapest and best.

    Mental Deficency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the slow progress made in Standing Committee with the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill, and of the large number of Amendments to the Bill now on the Paper, it is his intention to secure the passage of the Bill this Session?
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether, in view of the opposition to the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill and the fact that only one Clause has been passed in two protracted Sittings, the late period of the Session, and the importance of getting the Bill for dealing with the urgent necessities of the Highlands and Islands before the Scottish Committee, he will consider the postponement of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill until next Session; and (2) if he is aware that the town council of Lerwick unanimously support the views of the Convention of Royal Burghs, and are strongly opposed to the proposal of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill to transfer the control of lunatic asylums from existing boards of lunacy to district boards of control to be chosen by the chairman of the parish council and the chairman of the school board in each district; that they object to the alteration of lunacy rating, being convinced that the gross valuation basis of assessment has manifest advantages over the method proposed in the Bill; and that they strongly object to the stereotyped system of Grants provided by the Bill, and consider that a Grant equal to one-half the expenditure should be provided as in England; and if, under all the circumstances, and especially the fact that there has been no time to efficiently consider the Bill in the country and the dislike of Scotsmen to be bustled, he will consider postponing the Bill till next Session?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am glad to say that all the deputations from the local authorities have expressed their approval of the Bill and their desire to see it passed into law, although they desired certain amendments. Of these, one of the most important has already been adopted by the Committee, and of the others I think most are susceptible to arrangement. There have only been three sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee this Session, during which the consideration of two Bills has been completed, and a large number of Amendments on the Mental Deficiency Bill have been disposed of. I can assure my hon. Friends that I entirey agree with them as to the necessity of passing the Bill dealing with medical service in the Highlands and Islands this Session. The Bill will soon be introduced, and as it is non-controversial I do not think it will occupy much of the time of the Committee. I calculate that we shall have as much time at our disposal as has been required for the consideration of the English Bill in Committee, and I hope, with the assistance of my colleagues, to secure for Scotland the beneficial legislation which is being secured for England.
    Mr. C. WASON: In view of the importance of this Bill, to which I have referred, will the right hon. Gentleman secure that the Committee will devote a special day to this particularly in order to get it through at any rate?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope there is no doubt of getting it through.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the Business upon Wednesday next?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Board of Trade Vote.

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Pease.]
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to propose, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to acid the words "upon this day three months."
  The first observation I should wish to make, and which I think will occur to everybody, is the extraordinary contrast between the appearance of this Bill as it is now brought up for Third Reading and its appearance when it was originally introduced into the House. I think I may add, for the benefit of those who have not compared the two Bills, that I hold in my hand the original Bill, which hardly covered one page of paper, and the new Bill fills two pages of the paper and contains sixty lines, of which, as far as I can discover, only twelve were included in the original Bill without Amendment or as they were in the original Bill unamended. That may not seem a very large matter to introduce, but in view of the legislation and character of the legislation which has taken place in the last two or three years, I think it does afford a rather useful commentary on the methods of the Government. This is a short one-Clause Bill, and such is the character of the drafting and of the thought bestowed on it, that not only is it one Clause, but it is a sort of boiled extract of several previous Bills. Thus the Government have given a great deal of time to the consideration of this question, and the matter has been very fully debated in the House from many points of view, and as the result of all that deliberation and consideration and debating the Government have produced a one-Clause Bill, and that Bill has taken up a great deal of Parliamentary time, several days and one whole night. The result has been to completely transmogrify
  910
  the whole verbiage of the Bill. Although Amendments have been denied in Committee they have been accepted in Report on the measure. The Government cannot deny that this Bill shows how the time of the House is wasted—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at that suggestion. Is it not pretty obvious that when a Bill is brought into the House to which Amendments are proposed and are resisted in Debates over very long periods and which are put in on Report, who, on the face of it, is responsible for the waste of time? Is it those who move the Amendments which are accepted or is it those who omitted to sufficiently consider the Bill before introducing it and so to render those Amendments unnecessary? What I am commenting upon is on the face of the Bill, and if hon. Members will study the two Bills, as I have done, they will see who is responsible for the waste of time. When we remember that this is a one-Clause Bill, and recollect what has been the history of other and more important Bills containing more Clauses, we can see pretty well what is the cause of the difficulties in which this House and the country now find themselves in regard to other matters. I shall not detain the House long, as we have only three hours for the whole of this Debate, and the matter has already been pretty thoroughly discussed from many points of view. The House will sympathise with me in finding it very difficult to say anything which has not already been said on the subject. I do not stand here to defend the plural vote simply as a property vote. Personally I do not think that it is a necessary part of our Constitution that property as such should have any undue representation. That is not the main ground of my opposition to this Bill. I perfectly recognise that the whole of the electoral power in the country should not be held by those who have been successful in life. It may be that those who have not been so successful and who perhaps attribute their want of success to certain legislative defects, should have an equal opportunity of electing Members to this Assembly which is responsible for all political reform.
  Therefore, I want it to be distinctly understood that I do not base my opposition to this Bill merely on the ground that it disfranchises property. I go further. I think it has been admitted on this side of the House that if and when there is a general rearrangement of our electoral system, whichever side may make it, it is

  911
  very probable that the plural vote may form no part of the new general system of electoral franchise in this country. I am not standing here to defend the plural vote as a general part of a reformed system. But in saying that I desire to make one very important exception upon which, personally, I feel very strongly indeed, and that is the special representation of the City of London and the universities. The City of London and the universities are unique in that they alone, amongst all the constituencies, as far as I understand it, really represent particular elements which go towards the development of our national and social life. The universities and the city happen to represent particular homogeneous elements in our social life. Surely it is of great importance that those elements should, where it is possible, be represented. I do not want to argue the case as to whether mixed individual representation or sectional representation is the better. I would point out, however, that we have not got purely mixed representation. Take, for instance, the Labour party in this House. I suppose that there is not a single Member belonging to that party who is not perpetually stating that he and his friends are here to represent labour as such. They do not, in the true sense of the word, represent the mixed constituency as a whole. The labour representation in this House is clearly a sectional representation. I do not think that any right hon. Gentleman opposite will deny that as it stands. If we may have sectional representation of labour in this House, why should there not equally be sectional representation of two such elements as the element of commerce which is represented by the City of London, and the element of learning, and education which is represented by the universities? There are two distinct elements of very great importance in our national life, and it happens that in our system you have constituencies where those particular elements are actually predominant. The Members for the City of London are known by everybody to represent the business and commercial opinion in the country.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not concerned to argue the point. If it is not self-evident to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I hope he will permit me to differ from him and to
  912
  State my opinion. I repeat that it is generally considered to be so.
  Mr. BOOTH: What about Manchester and Leeds?
  4.0 P.m.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not in the same way. I see now what the hon. Gentleman means. He means that there are other constituencies equally representative of these interests. I think that that is not so. In these other constituencies there is a large working-class element. They are much more mixed than the City of London. There is no constituency in which the commercial and business element predominates to anything like the same extent, or is so absolutely paramount as in the City of London. In the same way at the universities you have the element of learning and education absolutely predominant. Surely it must be an advantage to the country to have these elements represented here just as the element of labour is represented to-day I think it would be a great national loss if that representation were destroyed. My own feeling is that even if the whole of our electoral system were permanently reformed and remodelled it would be desirable to retain the special franchise of the City of London and the universities. May I appeal to the Government in that respect not to look at the matter merely from the narrow point of view of the present moment? Hon. Gentlemen opposite look at this side and see the representatives of the City of London and of the universities facing them. From that point of view no doubt they consider that there is a party inequality, and that the franchise is, as the Minister for Education described it, a fancy franchise, and they desire to destroy it. But surely the franchise is not a party matter; it ought to be a national matter. The question we have to consider is not whether this or that party will get an advantage by some particular alteration, but whether, having regard not only to the circumstances of the present moment, but to the past and the future as well, looking at the whole question with a wide horizon, it is to the advantage of the country that the representation of the City of London and of the universities should be destroyed. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would say, as he did say in his speech, "We are not destroying them; we are retaining the full liberty of the franchise of the city and of the universities." Surely they will

  913
  not maintain that for a moment! You take away my life if you take away the means whereby I live. There is no doubt whatever that the city and the universities, so far as the franchise is concerned, live by the plural vote. That is perfectly obvious. When you have destroyed plural voting you have completely emasculated the voting power of the city and also of the universities. It is now possible to say—and nobody will, I think, attempt to deny it—that the city and the universities are representative in the character and way I have suggested. If this Bill becomes law, and plural voting in respect to these particular constituencies goes by the board, can it any longer be said that the city is really representative of commerce and of business? It cannot be said so Nobody will be able to say what amount and element of business enters into the representation or the proportion of those who will vote as business men and those merely as caretakers. It is begging the question. It is not honest. It is dishonest to say to this House that this Bill will not destroy university and city representation. It. will destroy them. For my part, if this Bill passes, I do not think there will be anything left in city and university representation which will be worthy of preserving at all. I think it is not creditable to the Government that that they should, rather than stand up and say they desire to destroy city and university representation because that representation happens to be opposed to them at the moment, attempt to destroy it by a side wind, and then deny that they are really destroying it at all.
  The Government policy, as stated by them and as embodied in this Bill, is to abolish plural voting at the General Election, and to retain it at by-elections, and as I have remarked, incidentally to destroy the city and university representation. Our answer to that, which has already been given and is well known in the country, is that plural voting is not the worst anomaly which exists to-day. It is an anomaly, and except as regards the city and university representation, it may go when the whole system is remodelled. Meantime the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, made a claim that if this Bill were passed the present anomalies would be diminished. Surely he does not mean to maintain that? Surely he does not suggest that the passing of this Bill is going to reduce existing anomalies, is going to simplify registra-
  914
  tion, is going to reduce the expenses which are indeed such a bye-word of our electoral system? He is going to increase them. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred, I think, to eleven different franchises and eighteen or nineteen variations. Is not this adding another franchise—or another variation—whichever he likes to call it, and a very difficult one? He is adding what I may call 525,000 voters to the electorate of the country. There will be that number who will have the option of roving about the country from one constituency to another. That will add enormously, must add enormously, to the labour of registration agents and others who will be responsible for allocating these votes and making use of them when the day of election comes. It must be a very great addition. As was pointed out in debate, the whole of these 525,000 votes will still remain on the registers as a standard of the expense which candidates will have to incur at the election, but they will not be effective votes. They are not starred. Those concerned will be in a far worse position than the ordinary starred voter, because there is no provision for their being starred. The starred voter is a complication, but a complication which to those who use the starred system is fairly simple to unravel. There will be these voters' names upon the register, and it will be impossible for the agent in any constituency to know in what other constituency they are also registered. The expense and difficulty entailed upon agents and candidates will be very largely increased. Why? What is the object of this change?
  It has been pretty obvious that the object of the change is the immediate electoral advantage of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No.") What other object is there? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us some other object that exists—that we can realise exists—and I hope that the explanation will not be too thin. We have pointed out that the change does not simplify, but intensifies, the complication of the existing law. What possible advantage is going to be gained by it? The only answer we have had from the Government is the old statement that it is going to abolish privilege. Anything may be held up as privilege, but I should have a little more sympathy with the Government if they were more consistent in that matter, and went about abolishing privilege where-ever they found it. One would then say that at any rate they were consistent. Our memories are not so very short that we

  915
  cannot remember the time, not many months ago, when the Government were conferring unheard of privileges upon trade unions; giving to them obvious privileges which are not possessed by any other section of the community. I am afraid that the suggestion of the abolition of privilege is one which will carry very little weight in this particular matter. The Government apparently propose to reduce everything to a dead level in this country. They pass a sort of automatic steam roller over every other section of the community except themselves, remaining themselves upon a kind of pinnacle of time and place.
  I most strongly object to the whole principle involved in this Bill. We cannot fathom the mind of the Government, but may I put this to them: Although their motives may be admirable, although they may be doing this in no sense from party motive whatever, it must appear to the country that they are doing it from a party motive, because we can see no object in it but a party object; and I do not think the country will be able to see any object but a party object. If, therefore, it was only for the sake of their own reputation, to stand well with the country, and to convince the country that they are desirous of legislating here not with a purely party object, but with a national object, I am sure they would have been very much better advised if, instead of introducing this particular item of electoral reform, they had introduced sonic more comprehensive measure, or some measure which would deal with the anomalies or difficulties which are national, and which are not of a purely party character. From that point of view I think the Government will find it extremely difficult to convince the country that they have any real object in introducing this Bill except to deprive the Unionist party of that majority of plural votes which it has now, and to deprive the City of London and the universities of that representation which they have enjoyed for an immense period of our political history, and which, for the benefit of the country, I believe it would be wise to allow them to continue to enjoy. On these various grounds, and on all the grounds which have been urged from this side of the House, I suggest that this Bill should not be assented to. If it is assented to, if it ever does become law, I do not think it will redound either to the credit of the Government or to the house which has in this partisan spirit passed it.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Those of us who were present at the Committee stage of this Bill will remember that on the first three or four Amendments the charge brought against the Government by the Opposition was that the Government did not intend to have a Report stage at all, and that we were going to refuse every Amendment. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman has altered the tone of his complaint. It is not, as it was then, that we are not going to accept Amendments; it is that we have done so. I recognise that the complaints both of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and of his colleagues now, as then, is part of the ordinary armoury of the Opposition. I should like, if I may say so, to try once more to state the case that the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds so difficult to understand; to give the reasons for bringing in this Bill, and the principle which underlies it. I do not propose to give an exhaustive list of the anomalies which exist under the system of plural voting. Notwithstanding, if I may respectfully say so, the vigilance of the Chairman and of Mr. Speaker, the tendency on almost every Amendment to this Bill has been to approximate to a Second or a Third Reading Debate. Therefore, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself I think recognises, almost everything that there is to be said has been said. I have always regarded the worst case of plural voting to be the case of the out-voter who owns, but does not occupy, a 40s. freehold in a borough, and for that reason is entitled to give a vote in the neighbouring county constituency in addition to any vote which he may have acquired in the borough. But that is not the only grievance which is felt under the system of plural voting. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the feelings of the ordinary voter who has only got one vote, and who is interested in some particular political question, has taken the trouble to study it, and is anxious to see his views represented in the constituency in which he lives. He works amongst his neighbours, he advances what he believes to be right; then on polling day there come into the constituency and interfere with the verdict of the constituency, people who have already voted, and who have already got their views represented in other constituencies I would like to advance this proposition, that the less likely a man is to have a plural vote the more value there is for that

  917
  vote. There is not the slightest doubt that in. the political weapons which a highly educated man, which a wealthy man, which a Man of territorial influence exercises, that he has many another weapon besides the vote. It is bad enough to have to fight all these influences, but it is worse to have to fight them when given a plurality of votes as well, and I believe the fact that the electoral machine is weighted, and heavily weighted, not only by acquired and inherited advantages, but also by a plurality of votes, is responsible for a large amount of the recent tendency to despair discernible in portions of the community so far as representation in the House of Commons is concerned and the risk of what is known as the disquieting system of social unrest. These are the causes; we want to redress this anomaly, which I can assure hon. Members is one of the worst. It was one of the remarkable admissions in the speech made by the hon. Member opposite that plural voting itself was indefensible, provided its redress was accompanied by the redress of other things.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I did not say it was indefensible.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted it. During the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech he tried a large number of the arguments advanced in Committee and on the Report stage upon this Bill by hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of certain exemptions. All these exemptions were advocated by the opponents of the abolition of plural voting in order to cut down the voting. The other day we had the claim put forward for the exemption of the universities, and then again we had the claim put forward for the exemption of the City of London; but what you have got to prove is, not that the exemption of a city like London is just or right, but that a certain num-number of people in that particular constituency should be entrusted with more than one vote while everybody else has only been entrusted with one vote. Let me deal with the other exemption, that is, that urged in regard to the universities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite urged two reasons for the exemption of universities, one was that a university constituency was so intellectual that it should have special representation, and the other was that the universities returned such excellent men. [HON. MEMBEES "No, no."] I think I appreciate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, that it is
  918
  well in this country to have the representation of some constituencies based on the ground that they are educated men, and that they should be wholly represented by educated men, and that it is right and proper on these grounds that universities should be exempted from this Bill. What is the qualification by which one may become a university voter. A graduate can secure his vote by the payment of his fees running up to between £30 and £40.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: That is not the case as regards London. It is, I think, extremely unfair of the Under-Secretary to advance such a statement as a general argument.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity. of replying in the general Debate.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I was talking about the qualification for university voters and pointing out that the qualification is not entirely an intellectual qualification, and I was assuring him that I myself paid for my vote, and that I know many others have paid similarly.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Could any man buy a vote in the university
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, of course not. No man can purchase a vote who has not taken his B.A. degree, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are a good many men who would never qualify as university voters except in the way I indicated. Now, I submit that the university graduate is precisely the man who stands least in need of special representation. The time which is most pleasant and which is considered by most people of most value, is the time spent at the university, and a time they are never likely to forget. University graduates are disseminated in every constituency of the country, and the universities are perfectly certain, whatever party is in office, to find adequate representation of their views even if the university ceased to be represented; and when we come to the men the universities return, they are not different in quality or in character to the men who have been returned from other constituencies. Surely Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone both showed that a man has to be a good party man before he can be a Member for a university. Of course, it is easy to contend that a large number of great men have sat for university seats, but most constituencies can say the same thing, and can point to the fact that great men have represented them. I think it is

  919
  true to say, the safer the seat the greater the tendency to draw towards it the more experienced or the greater men, but I would remind hon. Members that the Bill does not abolish university representation. It only gives to the university voter a choice of voting for his university and nowhere else.
  Hon. Members opposite attach very much importance to university representation. Here is then a test of their faith. As I understand it, according to them, universities are usually represented by men of such delicate minds and so carefully constituted politically, men like the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, that they could not be elected elsewhere. If that be true under this Bill when it becomes law, the people who prefer to vote for such men can do so. When we have a number of those voters choosing to exercise this power we shall know then when it comes to Redistribution whether the university representation is worth keeping or whether it is not. But as the hon. Member opposite, I think, admitted, it is very difficult to put the defence for plural voting even if it were defensible in principle, and I venture to say that there are very few people who think that it is on these grounds. The other day the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London used some very frank words about it. He said, "it requires intelligence to make money, and that if money is inherited, it requires intelligence to keep it. Plural voting," he said, "is a good thing, but I think it has only one fault, there is not enough of it." We heard during the Committee stage many claims of the great intelligence, the great political wisdom of the plural voter. But I venture to think that the real opinion of the party opposite about plural voting is to be found in the number of Amendments that they brought forward to protect the plural voter, his intelligence, his education and his political wisdom, from the consequences of the passage of this Bill. We had Amendments moved to protect him in case he did not know that this Act was passed. We had an Amendment moved to define for him this particular Act in case he did not understand what it was. We had Amendments moved in order to tell him who he should ask for a ballot paper if in his innocence he should ask the wrong people. We had Amendments moved to tell him what a General
  920
  Election was, in case he did not know, and we actually had an Amendment moved to guard him against voting twice in case he forgot he had voted already. The real case of the Opposition is not, forsooth, that they want to defend plural voting, but if only we would repress other anomalies, too, they would be prepared to accept the abolition of the plural vote.
  I ventured to point out on the Committee stage of this Bill, and I will point it out again, I do not believe there is a single anomaly in our electoral system that does not work for the good of the party opposite and against our party. The one reason why we have chosen one amongst the anomalies at a time, is, because of the time at the disposal of the Government in the present Session. Nobody will accuse us of wasting time; we are always hearing complaints of the guillotine and stifling Debate, and the Opposition are not entitled to say that you shall not correct one anomaly without correcting another unless you can prove that the existence of the one anomaly creates the existence of the other. You cannot say that of plural voting. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition tried that as an argument in favour of the minority of voters in Scotland, but that argument, I venture to say, is not an argument in favour of plural voting, but is an argument for proportional representation which would ensure the proper representation of a minority. There cannot be any substance in the statements that we have shrunk from Redistribution, which I am perfectly confident would help the party to which I belong. As my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General has pointed out before now, we are in this very Session of Parliament introducing and carrying through a Bill to reduce the Irish representation in this House by more than one-half, and that is not the sort of thing a Government would do who wished to try not to diminish its own Friends. In addition to that, let me remind the House that I agree, and I believe that most Members on this side of the House will agree, with Mr. John Bright when he said that we are precluded from any equitable system of Redistribution until there is an alteration of the Act of Union, and therefore, by the passage of Home Rule, we are taking the first step towards Redistribution, and, when it comes, I hope it will be a scheme for equality beween constituencies, and will not be like that shameful scheme which was laughed out of court

  921
  as soon as it was produced and for which hon. Members opposite were responsible when they tried to gerrymander the constituencies at the end of 1905. After these speeches from hon. Members on the other side, I think we can confidently count upon the country to support us. I suggest to hon. Members opposite—and I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition has gone out—that they do not really want Redistribution any more than they want plural voting. Let me read to the House a question which was put by the Solicitor General to the Leader of the Opposition on Friday week. The Solicitor-General asked:—
  "Does the right hon. Gentleman promise, if we introduce Redistribution proposals in this Session, that he will facilitate the passing of both these Bills this year?"
  And then followed as an answer to that question one of those illuminating revelations of the policy of the Opposition which we are accustomed to expect from the Leader of the Opposition, in which he said:—
  "I can certainly promise that we shall facilitate the passing of Redistribution quite as much as we shall facilitate the passing of this Bill."
  Therefore, the supposed desire of the Opposition to redress anomalies goes by the board. At a time when the right and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) proposes a Resolution to sweep away anomalies, the Leader of the Opposition actually promises them the same uncompromising hostility before they are seen or introduced.
  Our theory of representation in this House is widely different from the theories of hon. Members opposite. They want to represent constituencies; we want to represent constituents. They think the right thing is to represent localities; we think the right thing is to represent men. They think the right to vote should be vested in those who have what they call a stake in the country; we think the right to vote should be based upon the fact that a man has got to live under the laws passed by this House and administered by the Government. They think that a Government ought to exist by reason of the number of votes cast for it; we think the Government ought to exist by reason of the number of voters who vote for it. Hon. Members opposite base their opposition to this Bill, and in fact their whole political creed, upon the sanctity, the privilege, and the prestige of property. We want to represent not acres of land,
  922
  but the people who live and work upon the land. We want to represent not business houses, but the people who do their daily toil in those houses. We want to represent not the geographical anomalies of our electoral system, but living human beings. For these reasons I commend this Bill to the House as the first instalment of the reform of our electoral and representative system.
  Sir HARRY SAMUEL: We have all listened to the able speech of the Under-Secretary for India with very great interest. May I say that he has been extremely clever in trying to put into our minds views which we do not in the slightest degree hold, and having put them there, the hon. Member proceeded to demolish that which never existed in the slightest degree? I am not surprised at this. I have had the pleasure of listening to the greater part of the Debates which have taken place on this Bill, and I am afraid the speech of the Under-Secretary for India has left on my mind an impression, which was already formed there very strongly, that nothing but a desire for party advantage is at the back of the whole of this Bill. We have now arrived at the end, at all events for this Session, of the revolutionary and vindictive measures of the Government. Under the Parliament Act the Government are doing their very best in the interests of hon. Members opposite to avoid the submission of certain Acts to the jury of the people. Feeling that, after all, certain things which it will be impossible for them to avoid will force them to submit to the jury of the people, they are now trying to take measures to pack the jury to which they will have to submit those measures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am going to try to prove that statement. The excuse of the President of the Board of Trade for bringing in this Bill was that there were so many electoral anomalies in our system. Nobody denies that. We all agree that there are many anomalies in our electoral system, but may I ask if there are so many anomalies, why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has selected one, and only one, and that an anomaly which is not commonly agreed upon by both sides of this House?
  This Bill does no single elector the smallest amount of good, and it has never been asked for by any elector simply as an elector. This is the only anomaly, the remedying of which inflicts a very serious and great grievance on many electors in

  923
  this country. I am certain that the reason for its selection is that it is the only anomaly in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman can say quite clearly that he is going to gain for his party some great advantage, and that is the real reason why we are now discussing the Third Reading of this Bill. The opposition to this Bill rests upon various grounds. In the Debates we have attempted two things: First of all, we have endeavoured to alter the principle of the Bill, because we believe it to be wrong; secondly, we have endeavoured, and I think we have succeeded, to improve the Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill said that it had been very largely altered and very greatly improved during the Committee and Report stages. I do not think it is a very serious crime for hon. Members on this side to endeavour to guard by Amendments the electors from the heavy penalties imposed by this Bill—penalties which have never been imposed upon them before—for exercising the plural vote. Surely, if such penalties as these are to be inflicted, it is our duty to insist that every single man shall understand absolutely what the offence is, why they are inflicted, and the duration of the time is liable to them! Surely, in doing this, we are only carrying out our duties, and nothing which can be said by hon. Members opposite will deter us for one single instant from endeavouring to put these matters fairly before the House and before the country, and showing the injustices which are contained in this Bill! What are the arguments which have been used in favour of this measure by right hon. and hon. Members opposite? The President of the Board of Trade says that plural voting is an anomaly. It is an anomaly in some cases, but only in a certain number. When you come to the question of a man who is a freeholder, and votes in a county constituency because he is a freeholder, there may be some ground for saying that that is a thing which under certain circumstances ought not to be allowed, and we might have no objection to that. I maintain, however, that where there is a man who has a large business in which he earns money, and is able to employ other people —a thing which, after all, is a vital necessity to the State—he is an asset to the State, and he should be entitled to register, in the constituency in which he has his business, a vote for the selection of of the man who is going to represent his interest. If that man has a dwelling-house
  924
  in some other part he should certainly also be entitled to register a vote for the selection of the man who is to represent him there.
  To adequately represent those two places, you require men of a totally different stamp and character. For instance, the man who lives in an agricultural constituency, and has a business of importance in a great city, requires a totally different man to represent the different places in which he lives and works. I fail to understand upon what system other than that of party advantage, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can give any sanction to the line of argument pursued in regard to this Bill. As a London Member, I cannot help thinking that the great City of London occupies a position totally different to any other constituency. Let me put this to hon. Members opposite: Is there any other great city where the workers are debarred from residing in it to the extent that they are in the City of London? They are debarred from living there owing to the great value of sites for houses in the City of London, and it is difficult for any worker in the city to afford the necessary amount of money to pay for the rent of a house in the city or to occupy rooms there. Consequently, those who have businesses in the City of London, are practically precluded from living there. Hon. Members opposite profess to be very solicitous for the poor throughout the country, but surely when they debar men from having a vote in the City of London because they have business there, they are striking a blow at the poorer and not the richer members of the community who do business in the city. The President of the Board of Education has put forward a most curious theory. He stated that because a man had a big business, and because he was influential and wealthy, that was all the more reason why you should deprive him of the plural vote. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pursue that argument to its logical conclusion. If you do, we arrive at the absurdity that the only way to treat rich people is to give them no vote at all.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): As the hon. Member has appealed to me, I think I ought to correct him. Personally, I am in favour of every man having one vote. What the hon. Member has attributed to me was the concluding speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West

  925
  Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), in which he pointed out that in comparison with men of influence and power, the poor people had more to lose, and were entitled to the attention of the House more than those who had wealth and other influences.
  Sir HARRY SAMUEL: Those of us who happen to be better off than the poor always try to do the best we can for them in this House, and I think what the right hon. Gentleman has stated is a most undeserved imputation upon Members of this House. In cases like the City of London the value of the land is so great that those who have businesses there are forced to live elsewhere. Therefore, business men in the city have a double interest. They have an interest in the place where their home is and in the place where their business is situated, and why it should be looked upon as a crime that a man in that position should display an interest in each place and desire to protect his interest effectively by a vote. He has got the choice whether he will vote in the place of his business or where he lives. The right hon. Gentleman will say that is not disfranchising a constituency, but the City of London will be disfranchised for the very simple reason that it will no longer be the concentrated essence of the financial interests of the greatest city of the world. The President of the Board of Education has told us that there ought to be no doubt as to the truly representative character of the House of Commons. I say that there is very considerable doubt at, the present time.
  There is no doubt about it that the want of Redistribution gives an enormous preponderance to certain districts over others, and, if this Bill passes, that doubt will be turned into absolute certainty. A large proportion of men with great interests in the City of London and elsewhere will be deprived of their votes at a General Election in selecting Members to sit in this House. Much of the difficulty arises from the fact that this Bill will only operate at a General Election. If there are two by-elections going on at the same time and an elector has a vote in both constituencies, he will be able to cast his vote in both. It is, therefore, perfectly wrong to say that this Bill does away with the plural vote. It does nothing of the kind. It merely does so at a General Election and leaves the plural vote in existence at by-elections. Therefore, much that is done at a by-election will be undone at a General Election, and many who get in at
  926
  a General Election will not be able to get in at a by-election. No one but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want this Bill, and they want it because they know that their seats would be forfeited at the next General Election. Consequently, their great desire is to remove from the register people whose sole crime has been that they have not seen their way to support right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Thus it is that under the cloak of removing electoral grievances this Bill is produced. If the Government have one atom of honest desire left, they will at this eleventh hour hold it up, at all events, until they can introduce some other reforms which, with Redistribution, will make it possible for this Bill to achieve something at least of the ostensible intention of its authors.
  Mr. MUNRO: We shall all be in sympathy with one observation which fell from the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) who moved the rejection of the Third Reading of the Bill, and that is that it is exceedingly difficult at this time of day to find anything fresh to say upon this subject. But, inasmuch as this Bill is regarded with great keenness on the other side of the border, I venture to make just a few observations on the occasion of its Third Reading. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that it was a Bill designed to pack the jury. We take a very different view of it. Our view is rather that the jury is already packed and that this Bill is designed to remedy that abuse. What would one think of a jury consisting of some members who had two votes and of others who had only one vote? I do not think that such a thing would be tolerated in the legal realm, and I do not see why it should be tolerated in the political realm. We recognise in the argument to which we have listened an old and familiar friend. The argument is age-worn, and it is founded upon the old saying, "Jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day." Whenever the Liberal party have proposed that plural voting should be abolished as a precedent to Redistribution, the reply from the Opposition has always been that the order of events should be reversed, or that at all events, if not reversed, that both reforms should be brought into operation at one and the same time. Let me inquire for a moment why that should be so. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite have the right not only to dictate to us what our Bills should contain and what they should not

  927
  contain, but also to dictate to us the order in which those measures should be introduced?
  There is no real logical connection between Redistribution and the abolition of the plural vote. You may have Redistribution carried out and the plural voter may survive. You may abolish the plural voter, and you may not redistribute seats. I venture to submit to the House that there is no logical connection between the two. If you reject this Bill, you will not make the task of Redistribution in the least degree easier, and, if you pass it, you will not make Redistribution any more difficult. All you can say in regard to these two measures is that they are both items of franchise reform. The argument on the other side appears to be that unless you introduce a comprehensive measure—that was the word which the hon. and gallant Gentleman used — of franchise reform, yon must have none at all. We do not think that is a reasonable view, nor do we see why one abuse—I call it more than an anomaly—should not be remedied because other anomalies may remain. Let it be remembered in this connection that we are preaching no revolutionary doctrine. We are founding ourselves upon the doctrine which you yourselves accepted and applied to county council government in 1888. We are merely applying the same doctrine which you then accepted to Parliamentary elections. Surely, inasmuch as that doctrine involves that large constituencies should be made smaller, and so the way paved for hon. Gentlemen's pet doctrine of "one vote one value," there is nothing revolutionary about the proposals which we make! There is one reason, and a very good reason, why this particular reform should be carried through at the earliest possible moment. It has long been demanded and has long been promised. An attempt was made to redeem that obligation, as the House well knows, in 1906, when a Bill of the same sort passed its Third Reading on 3rd December by a majority of 229 votes in this House. That Bill on 10th December was spurned contemptuously in another place after less than two hours' debate.
  We hear a great deal about the decadence of this House and its loss of self-respect. Those were the days of the real degradation of the House of Commons. Those were the days when its proceedings were a farce. Now, for the first
  928
  time, we are masters in our own House, and we propose to use the powers which the Parliament Act has conferred upon us. This is a long overdue reform, and the creditors in the obligation have pressed for payment. Personally, I regret that this Bill was not introduced at an earlier stage in this Parliament and pressed through with vigour then, but, having been introduced at this particular stage, I certainly, for one, will not move a little finger to favour any device which would have the effect of postponing its operation by a single hour. I think that the reason the Opposition oppose this Bill is not because they love Redistribution, but because they fear the demise of the plural voter. If they loved Redistribution in itself, why was it when they were in power they delayed introducing a Redistribution measure until 1905, and that, when they introduced it, so far from it being effective, it was merely amusing? The real reason why the Opposition oppose this measure was very frankly and candidly stated by Sir F. Dixon-Hartland at Bristol, when he said:—
  "I approve of plural voting as a most valuable thing. There are several constituencies, where, if the plural voter did not exist, the Conservative party would have no existence in Parliament."
  That, no doubt, is quite so, and, in these circumstances, it is natural that you should desire, if not to destroy the Bill, at least to delay it. It is human nature to put off going to visit the dentist, but this is a piece of legislative dentistry which I am afraid you cannot longer put off. Accordingly, being for the first time in a position not only to carry by a vote in this House any reform of this description which is proposed by the Government, but having also the power under the Parliament Act to carry it into active and full operation, we propose to avail ourselves of these powers and to carry this measure into law. We are undeceived by the argument about Redistribution. It is a mere lapwing cry. It does not deceive those who use it, and it does not deceive those who hear it. Holding these views, we shall vote for the Third Reading, which I have no doubt will pass by a substantial majority.
  5.0. P.M.
  Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Member seems to think that we wish to dictate to the Government the order in which they should introduce their Bills, but our contention is that electoral reform ought to be carried out in some fair, logical, and consistent manner. Hon. Members opposite ignore the fact that this Bill is incon-

  929
  sistent with our present electoral system, which the Government are leaving in other respects untouched. Our present electoral system is based upon what Mr. Gladstone called "the recognition of the individuality of constituencies." It looks upon constituencies not as so many aggregations of individuals, but as places having traditions and characteristics of their own, which ought, as Mr. Gladstone said, to be recognised, at any rate, to some degree. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Montagu) has in view an entirely new electoral system, because he only proposes to consider aggregations of constituents. He does not propose to have regard to constituencies. Our present electoral system is based upon this recognition of the individuality of constituencies. This Bill proposes to debar from voting men who pay rates and taxes, who occupy premises or reside in a constituency, and who perform all the duties of citizens in that constituency. They are men who take a leading part in the commercial, municipal, and public life of the constituency, and yet they may not vote. The President of the Board of Education, in introducing the Franchise Bill of last Session, referred to "interest in a locality" as being the test of a man's qualification for a vote. He said that occupation was sometimes a better test of interest than residence. If interest in a, locality is the test, upon what principle are the Government going to limit it as proposed by this Bill. I quite agree that there may be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes an interest in a locality. It may fairly be held by some people that an absentee owner has insufficient interest in a locality, but. I think that one is entitled to ask upon what principle the Government are going to debar men from voting who take a leading part in the business life of the town, and are perhaps the mainsprings of the prosperity of the town. The only logical reason for doing that is that there ought to be equality of voting power, but do the Government propose to establish equality of voting power? If they do, they will have to sweep away the present system of majority representation and set up a new electoral system. Under the present system, if this Bill is passed, votes will not be of equal value. Votes are not of equal value at the present One, because, in the first place, constituencies differ absurdly in size; and, not only on that account, but because at the present time there is
  930
  no system under which minorities are represented. It is absurd to say that votes are of equal value in various constituencies at the present time. A Conservative vote in many Liberal constituencies is of no value, and Liberal votes in many other constituencies also have no value. A vote has no commercial interest as a rule, and it is only of value if it enables a man to give effective expression to his political opinions. Large numbers now have no means of giving expression to their political opinions. The Government must remodel the electoral system if they mean to establish equality of voting power, which is the only basis upon which they can rest this Bill. Do the Government propose to establish equality of voting power? I do not mean do they propose to do it in the dim and distant future, but do they intend it in the present Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Harcourt), when moving the Second Reading of the Franchise Bill last Session, said we should go on with measures which would make some approach to equality of electoral power. That very elastic phrase left a large margin for gerrymandering if anyone desired it, but it showed that, under their proposed Redistribution on the old lines, the Government were not contemplating really establishing any exact equality of voting power.=Then with regard to the manner in which the Government has accepted proportional representation in the Home Rule Bill, I submit that that shows that they intend the minority to suffer. They do not propose to establish equality of voting power, which is the only justification that can be made out for this Bill. In any case, they are not entitled to deal with this matter in piecemeal fashion. This Bill must be considered m connection with the Franchise Bill which the Government introduced last Session. Under that Bill they were evidently aiming at an ideal system. Let me call attention to what Mr. Gladstone said in 1884. These were his words:—
  "To aim at an ideal system would draw in the question of women suffrage and the question of proportional representation."
  I venture to think that the Government, by the policy they have adopted, have drawn in the questions of women suffrage and of proportional representation, but they have not brought in equality of voting power. These questions cannot be shelved in the way in which the Government are endeavouring to shelve them. This ques-

  931
  tion of electoral reform must be dealt with as a whole. The time has passed for tinkering with it. What the Government are really doing is that they are carrying out a comparatively small alteration without giving the House an opportunity of considering and discussing the lines upon which electoral reform should proceed. We are entitled to say that this Bill is inconsistent with our present electoral system, and, as the Government do not pretend that they can really deal with the whole question in the present, Parliament, we have a clear and logical reason for opposing this measure. The only purpose with which I believe the Government are pushing it forward at the present time is in order to gain some electoral advantage thereby.
  Mr. KING: I am not one of those who find it difficult to produce new arguments in favour of this Bill. I have sat many hours listening to speeches on this side and on the other, and many things have ocurred to me during the Debate which have not been alluded to at all, and I propose, with the permission of the House, to bring before it one or two of these considerations. In the first place, I look upon this matter as embodying a very high and noble principle—a principle of equality and justice which we are here approaching, in connection with our electoral law, in a way that we have never approached it before. I believe entirely in equality as part of liberty and of justice. But so long as you get one man at a General Election voting thirty, forty, or even fifty times there is no electoral justice at all, because there is no electoral equality. Therefore, on the ground that the Bill is a first approach to electoral equality I welcome it most heartily. Secondly, I welcome it because it is going to be passed in spite of bitter opposition from the other side. We have reached a stage where we shall never really get any democratic advance in this country except by fighting for it persistently—I am afraid for two or three Sessions. I am very glad there is ample time left in this Parliament for this Bill to be carried under the provisions of the Parliament Act.
  I should like specially to refer to the arguments which have been addressed to us from the other side in connection with university representation. It has been a sort of swan song of sorrow which we have been listening to from hon. Members opposite. We heard it eloquently voiced in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman
  932
  the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who represented to us that a university constituency was an absolutely ideal constituency. I dare say that was partly because no university ever invited him to become its representative. There was an occasion in his career when he would gladly have accepted a seat for one of these ancient places of learning, but none was offered him. He was perhaps too independent and too superior for the narrow class which usually predominates at universities. We should look at this matter of university representation as in some way connected with this case. I like to think that the universities would never have got any representation at all had it not been for a Scotsman, James I. In Queen Elizabeth's time the universities persistently asked for representation in Parliament, and it is to the honour of good Queen Bess that she stoutly refused their request. I should have liked to have heard some of her language. I suspect it was choice and strong. But representation was given them by James I., and ever since then universities have been distinguished as being safe Conservative seats and nothing else. The first historical fact I wish to impress upon the House is that we are doing justice—I am sorry to say we are not sweeping away university r-presentation altogether — but we are taking the first step towards that end, and thereby we are doing justice to the great Queen of the Tudor period by returning to the state of things which she desired to prevail.
  I want next to call the attention of the House to the fact that university representation as it is does not represent the best university ideals. I am going to take the case of my own university, and I say what I do in a sense of-justice and not in any sense of ingratitude. There are on the electoral roll of the university of Oxford at the present time only 7,000 voters. Who are they? There are 4,000 undergraduates in Oxford, and yet we have only 7,000 graduates entitled to vote for the two Members of Parliament! The reason is this: It is not all graduates who become electors of Oxford or Cambridge. It is only those who pass for the M.A. degree and pay £15, together with an additional sum, practically £40, to keep their names on the books, and it is for this reason that the franchise at Oxford has been called a pecuniary rather than an educational franchise. There are at least 35,000 graduates of Oxford, and at the

  933
  present time only one-fifth are entitled to vote at a Parliamentary election. When you have the representation of Oxford confined to one-fifth of the graduates of that university you cannot say it is an ideal representation at all. You cannot say it is educational. You cannot say it is academic. It is merely a privilege representation, a representation reserved for those who pay the money in order to keep their names on the college books. Who are they? I am not ashamed to confess that most laymen are mean and choose rather to pocket the money than to pay it down in order to retain their membership of Convocation. Let me say that the larger number of voters on the university franchise are the clergy, and that is partly accounted for by the fact that there are many college livings to be given away. The clergy keep their names on the college books knowing that if they only retain them there for thirty or forty years they may be sure of having a college living offered them sooner or later. The real reason, therefore, why these members who constitute the large majority of electoral power at Oxford and Cambridge keep their names on the college books is that they may get a chance of a living later on. That is a very unfortunate thing, for it shows that the real academic sense is not represented at all. These facts are very well known and are acknowledged by everybody who knows anything of recent movements in Oxford.
  I hold in my hand a book which was written and published in 1909 by Lord Curzon, the chancellor of the university. Lord Curzon wrote this book with the object of getting certain reforms carried through in Oxford University, and it is very striking that the reform which he puts before any other to be aimed at in connection is this, that Convocation should be reformed altogether—that it should be altered so that the present composition of the electorate of Oxford should be either widened or restricted. It should be either widened by admitting all graduates or restricted by only having the cream of them. Let us remember that, however liberal and progressive Lord Curzon may be in academic affairs, in political affairs he is strictly Conservative. I should like the House to realise this, because it will then understand the full force of some of his remarks about university representation as it is at present. He says, for instance:—
  "That the most urgent reform, rightly regarded as a condition of other reforms, is a total change in the composition of Convocation."
  934
  A total change in the university franchise! How can it need any such sweeping reforms if, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said, the Universities of England are already perfect and ideal constituencies? Lord Curzon quoted an opinion which has been stated upon very high authority, that the form of government, that is Convocation, which elects the Members of Parliament for Oxford University, is the very worst form of government ever devised by the wit of man. I do not go so far as that myself but it is very striking, and Lord Curzon quotes—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not discussing the reform of Convocation now. The hon. Member is wandering a good deal from the Bill now before the House.
  Mr. KING: I quite appreciate your warning, Sir, and I will come directly to some of the quotations immediately dealing with the franchise, in which Lord Curzon has favoured us. I am making it clear that he is referring to the franchise for voting for Members of Parliament as it now exists at Oxford. He says:—
  "At present the franchise at Oxford—"
  and the same thing would apply to Cambridge University,
  "is not educational but is pecuniary; it is not catholic but is sectional."
  If that be so, it is a very good thing to take a step towards the abolition of university representation. You must either change it altogether or abolish it. Candidly, I am in favour of abolishing the representation of universities, because I think the university man, wherever he is, has an advantage which will be worth more than the power of putting one or two crosses opposite the names on a ballot paper. Is it not clear to anybody who faces the question fairly, that this Bill goes a great way towards reforming the universities and the university franchise, which, if it is to be preserved, will have to be preserved on totally different lines from those now existing. It has been said in the course of the discussions upon this Bill, from each side of the House, that no answer has been attempted to the contention that university representation is a superior kind of representation to the mere democratic vote of the man with the occupation qualification, and that it ought to be preserved. I have attempted to show that the university representation, as it exists, is entirely illusory; it is pecuniary, not

  935
  educational; it is sectional, and not catholic. I will attempt in a few words to show why I think the principle of one man one vote, which we are now enacting to come into force at a General Election, will be a step in advance for all electoral reforms. A great many professions of desire for change in connection with our electoral system have been made on both sides of the House. I accept them from the other side as being to a very large extent sincere, but, at the same time, I believe strongly in what was said by the Under-Secretary for India, that all electoral anomalies tend to favour the superior, the wealthy, and the conservative elements, rather than the democratic, the labouring, and progressive elements in society. Therefore, I look upon this Bill as a lever which I hope will be brought to bear, and will produce for us a Redistribution scheme before this Parliament closes. I regard a redistribution of seats as a crying necessity, but not as the first necessity. I believe the first evil that ought to be swept away is that of the plural vote, but as soon as that is swept away we ought to have a redistribution of seats. In conclusion, I want to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite, that they should not only allow this Bill to be passed here, but allow it, if possible, to pass in another place. If that is done, and the Bill obtains the force of law this year, I, at any rate, will do everything I can on this side of the House—and I believe there are very many other Members upon this side who will take the same course—to induce this Government to bring in a Redistribution scheme next year, so that when we have a General Election we shall have a system of constituencies as nearly equal as possible, and the conditions of equality and justice which the Opposition demand will be attained, because we shall then have one man one vote, and also one vote one value.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I desire to say a few words upon this Bill, because, when I come to read it as amended, I find that some portion of it, no inconsiderable portion, is strangely familiar. Although the Government have adopted my somewhat imperfect drafting, that does not make me anything but an opponent of the Bill, because nothing is more natural than to try to mitigate the penalties and the effects of the principle which we dislike. If I am not proud of the drafting, so far as
  936
  I am responsible for it—at any rate I have this consolation, that however imperfect it may be, the Government drafting which preceded it must have been still more imperfect. We are discussing once more a measure for the abolition of plural voting—a very simple measure and a very short measure, in that respect differing very materially from the Bill over which we spent a considerable time in 1906, which was introduced by the Secretary for the Colonies. Both Bills have the same object in view, and it is only in the method of attaining that object in which they differ in any degree. One cannot help admiring the different means by which the Government try to deprive some persons of the exercise of the franchise. The Bill of 1906 was a Bill of ten Clauses and two Schedules. It was discussed at considerable length, but was rejected in another place, and a great deal of obloquy was hurled upon the other place for their action in that matter. If they required any justification, it has been afforded in the fact that that Bill has not seen the light again and that an entirely new Bill is now produced. It is a curious example of what might happen under the much-boasted Parliament Act, that if that Bill had been enacted in 1906 the Government would have been in a position to pass the Plural Voting Bill in 1908, a Bill of which they evidently disapproved, because they did not reintroduce it when they had the opportunity.
  The author of that Bill apologised for its complications, but he said it was necessarily complicated in order to be efficient and sufficient. The greatest enemies of the present measure cannot say it is complicated—at any rate in its drafting. Therefore, on the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, as it is not complicated it cannot be efficient or sufficient for its purpose. Nobody can say that the Government have not put their object perfectly clearly before the House. It is not hidden in mystery as in the case of the London Elections Bill, 1907, which, under the guise of making London one constituency, would have debarred large numbers of persons from exercising more than one vote. Reference has been made by the Under-Secretary for India to the fact that we must abolish anomalies one by one. I am not going to argue that principle, but if you set out with the object of abolishing anomalies and are only going to abolish them one by one, why select as your first measure, as you are doing, a Bill which, while endeavouring to abolish one anomaly,

  937
  creates the other anomalies pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman? Let us look at the effect of this Bill. In the first place, it is only to apply to a General Election and not to a by-election; therefore a person with two votes is entitled to utilise them both at a by-election. When a Ministry has occasion to appoint a new Member to a certain office in the Government, under the present law that Minister has to seek re-election. If he has been elected at a General Election, under the provisions of this Bill he has to seek re-election on his appointment as a Minister of the Crown upon an entirely different franchise of which nobody could possibly foretell the result. I should have thought that present Ministers of the Crown know why they would rather fight on the present franchise, without putting further difficulties in their own way. It is an advantage that any Redistribution of seats is to be based upon population and not upon electorate, otherwise you might have grave questions arising as to how you were to redistribute the seats, because you would have to have two different schemes, one for the by-election and another for the General Election. I do not see how you can avoid the necessity of two registers. It will be impossible for a returning officer to know how many persons are going to vote. Inasmuch as the expenses of elections, heavy enough as they are to-day, are under the Corrupt Practices Act, 1885, based upon the number of electors, a returning officer's charges may be based upon an entirely wrong assumption as to the number of voters, and the unfortunate candidates, both the elected Member and the defeated candidate, will have to pay a great deal more than they ought to pay because there is no chance of finding out how many persons can vote.
  The President of the Board of Education said that plural voting was an absurdity, an injustice, and an anomaly. He, nevertheless, allows it to continue, except at a General Election, which only comes once every four or five years. Hon. Members opposite say that the constituencies look upon plural voting as a great injustice, but the Bill continues it, except at a General Election. The value of property as an element of qualification ought to cease, we are told, but that qualification will still continue. If ever there was an Amendment moved which ought to have been carried, because, in his inner consciousness, every Member knew that it applied
  938
  to the Bill in every way, it was the Amendent limiting the time of its operation This can only be a temporary measure. It is passed for general Parliamentary elections, but we upon this side know, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, that only one General Election is aimed at, and that is the next one, at which they hope to gain some particular advantage out of the Bill. I look upon the principle of this Bill as entirely bad. There are anomalies which should be swept away, but I believe you will never do justice to the people of this country by sweeping away one form of anomaly to suit a party purpose, and bringing into being others which are worse than those you are endeavouring to remove.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I am very pleased to think that this Bill, which contains anomalies which I should think would be welcomed on the other side, has reached the present stage. Let us take some of the supposed anomalies which are expected to exist under this Bill. I will take an illustration given by the hon. Member (Mr. Staveley-Hill). The impression he left on the House was that somehow or other under this Bill candidates for county constituencies would incur some heavier expenditure, in returning officers' expenses, than they do at present. I contend, with some practical experience and some slight knowledge, having brought the question of returning officers' charges more than once before the House, which on one occasion unanimously passed by Resolution, that we shall only be in the same position in which we are at present. I fully admit that the charges are excessive, but at present, those of us who have, attached to our county constituencies, the electors in some neighbouring boroughs outside the county, have the whole of those voters charged for in the calculation with regard to returning officers' expenses, so that while we shall not get rid of that charge, it is not an extra anomaly created by this Bill. Unfortunately the Bill does not sweep it away, but it does not create an extra charge at all.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: What I said is not exactly what the hon. Member understood. I was giving as an instance a constituency which might have 12,000 voters on the register, a certain number of them plural voters, and probably 4,000 or more would be taken off, and the candidates would still be paying on the basis of 12,000.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: That is quite what understood. There are thousands of plural voters in my own case, and we pay for them now, and we shall have to pay for them then. This will not sweep away the anomaly in my own case of having to put a polling place in Greenwich and another in Woolwich, but it does not make an extra charge upon the candidate more than he has to bear at present. I want to see an entire change in the whole of the conditions of Parliamentary election and the work of the returning officer, and I also want to see the counties relieved of that burden, as they should be, and as every other candidate for public office is. The great charge made against the Bill is that it is not identically on all fours with the Bill introduced in 1900, or that introduced last year. I think it is a great improvement on the Bill of 1906. What is the real point with regard to anomalies? We have heard on each stage of this Bill the charge that the Government is not dealing with the whole of the electoral anomalies. Just imagine, if the Government had put down a measure dealing with the whole of the anomalies of the electoral system, what fate it would have received. Owing to the condition of things it would not have been possible to pass.
  An HON. MEMBER: Do it next year.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: With pleasure. I want to see Redistribution as strongly as any Member in the House. I have a constituency of 24,000 electors, so that I should be pleased to try my fate with a much more equal number with other Members of the House. Last year the Government did bring in a much broader measure. We know the conditions under which it had to be dropped but they showed their earnestness in bringing that measure in. Now we are in the position of dealing with one anomaly only. My experience goes back a very long number of years in connection with this House, and it teaches me that it does not always do to wait, when you have a great series of anomalies, until you can get a gigantic measure which will deal with the whole of them in one Session of Parliament. It is much better, when you can, to get rid of any anomaly which exists. That clears the field and enables you to go on to another anomaly and clear that away. If you wait until you have all the anomalies dealt with in one Bill, we shall wait for a considerable number of years and perhaps not get them then. The
  940
  opposition to this measure has been based wholly on the question of property. We have had again this afternoon from the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) the plea of the gentleman who has interests in many places. It has been reiterated by every hon. Member on the other side since. I want to ask is not that very representation of property the greatest anomaly you have at present? No one has had the courage to take up the question of persons having an interest in a constituency for their business premises having a vote. Under the existing law you have simply given it to persons who have a residence within seven miles except in the case of the City of London, which is treated more favourably. If hon. Members opposite think that property should give a right to the vote in the place in which it is situated, totally apart from the qualification which the individual has in his residence, they ought to have the courage to propose to sweep away the seven miles restriction. I shall be told by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that his constituency is in a more favoured position. It always has been treated much more favourably. There they have a radius, both in regard to the livery, franchise, and property in the city, up to twenty-five miles. We believe that we are standing forward quite rightly to get rid of one of these anomalies, and when the case is urged, with regard to universities or with regard to the City of London, that property should have this qualification, why should you not give it to the large manufacturers in Manchester as well as to the manufacturer in the City of London? "Oh," say hon. Members opposite, "they cannot live at present inside the borders of the City of London on account of changed conditions." I admit it, but neither can you do so in the neighbouring constituency of East Finsbury, and does not the same thing apply to Manchester and Liverpool? If you want to see what are the conditions of life of Manchester, go at the time business ceases to the railway termini, and you will see an exodus similar to what you will see at every railway terminus in London. Go to Liverpool, and see not only the railways, but the pier and harbour, and see the boats taking the people away.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Do away with the limitation altogether.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: That is the point I want to come to. The hon. Baronet has the courage of his convictions. He is an

  941
  out-and-out advocate of the plural voter, but that is not what we have had advocated during his absence this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) said that possibly under some conditions it might be done away with and he has made a special plea not for the people I am alluding to, but especially for the university voter and for the voter in the City of London, and we have had that put forward by every hon. Member opposite since then. The whole thing is an inconsistency. It is based upon the old idea that you have to base all your suffrage on the qualification of the individual and not on the human being. Since 1832, in 1867, and in 1884, we have been getting away from this and getting nearer to giving the franchise to the mass of the people, not because they have particularly high qualifications, but because we believe that as citizens they have a right to take part in the election of those who are to make the laws for them that they have to obey. This is another anomaly being swept away I admit, and I should have been pleased has it been possible for the Government to bring in a measure much broader in its principle than this. I believe the time is coming, and very speedily, when you will have to abolish your property qualification and get rid of your livery franchise, and your 40s. franchise, and the whole lot of them, and you will have to give a vote to the individual, not because he is a lodger or any occupier or a livery man, or anything of that kind, but because he is a human being.=The whole basis of the argument has been on this one question of property. We have had the same thing over and over again. Whenever I want to see the horrible things which are going to happen to property if there is an extension of the rights of the people, or if anomalies which restrict their power are removed, I read up the Debates this House in the year prior to the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, and when I have read enough of that I turn to 1867, and when I want to see the end of the world coming with regard to reform I turn to the Debates which preceded the sweeping away of the property qualification in 1858. You had all these prognostications of what would happen to the country if you did not have these favoured individuals given an extra vote, yet the other day an Amendment was moved showing the high idea one hon. Member had of what was necessary for a qualification, which was that supposing a plural voter could pass some test equal to
  942
  the standard of an elementary school he should not have the vote taken away from him. The whole thing has been asked for for a long period of years by the people, and when I am told that they do not desire it, all I can say is that I have patience enough to wait until the time comes when, if this receives the fate in another place which some people say it will, we shall see what the feeling of the people outside is in connection with the plural voters. There is no justification for it in these democratic days. The people who live in these areas ought to have the selection of the person who is to represent them, and should not on the polling day have their votes overborne by persons coming in from any part of the earth. Even this afternoon we have had suggested many palliatives that might be accepted. We have had it hinted that, it is possible voters on the borders of county constituencies should not flood the ballot boxes with votes in opposition in many cases to the people who live inside the constituencies.
  I congratulate the Government on having got this Bill to the position in which it now is. I welcome it as one step towards the reforms which we desire. Surely those people who are always saying that they have confidence in the mass of the people of the country cannot be afraid to allow the mass to vote as freely as possible, without having their votes checkmated and overborne by plural voters. It is not a question as to who is to vote inside a constituency. We are dealing with the man who has a dozen, or it may be thirty, votes, and who at election time runs round day after day voting in the different constituencies. Hon. Members opposite say they have the support of working men. If that is so, what have they to fear? If they have the support of a majority of working men, surely they do not want plural voters to flood the constituencies. I look with the keenest satisfaction to this Bill passing the Third Reading to-day. I am sure that, whatever may be its fate in another place, we have nothing to fear, because the day of the plural voter is doomed. I recollect that so far back as 1885 we had some talk about the plural voter. Hon. Members opposite were not so keen on the question of plural voting then as they are to-day. Some hon. Members had the support of plural voters at that time. They are keen to-day when we are attempting to pass this Bill. Whether the measure becomes law this year or next year, we are going to have the elections

  943
  of the country purified in such a way as to give every man the right to act on his manhood.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: Now that the back benchers are allowed to speak, I find from the speeches of the hon. Members for North Somerset (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) that they have something like a conscience. They say that this measure ought to be immediately followed by a Bill for Redistribution. When I interrupted the Under-Secretary for India, I wished to call his attention to the anomalies arising out of the numbers of the electorate in different constituencies. I wanted to know about Kilkenny and Donegal. Kilkenny has 1,731 electors as against 58,145 in Romford. So long as snob an anomaly is in existence, it is not for the Government to press through a measure of this kind. That the Government are attempting a very difficult thing is proved by the history of the measure. They have in the past tried to abolish the plural voter by more elaborate proposals. They are now attempting to do it by a one-Clause Bill. It is practically a one-line Bill, because all the rest merely deals with machinery. The difficulties in the way have been shown in the course of the Debate, and I venture to warn the Government, as one who knows a little about the subject, that even now there are still glaring flaws in the Bill which certainly ought to receive some attention on the part of the Government. There are two points with which I wish to deal. The Solicitor-General practically did not deal with them at all. I believe these flaws will rapidly show themselves, and that an amending Bill will have to be put on the Statute Book. There is, in the first place, the question in regard to expenses. It is clear that General Elections will cost more than they ought to cost. The cost is calculated at present in respect of the number of electors in a constituency, and if plural voters still remain on the register the total expense which a candidate may incur will be the amount allowed in respect of that number, though many electors will be unable to vote. In the second place, I wish to call attention to the much-boasted fact that the plural voter still has a choice as to the place where he will record his vote. I say that he has not got that choice. Hon. Members will recollect that at present borough nominations may take place within three days after the receipt of the writ for the elec-
  944
  tion, and the polling might very well take place, and indeed it often does take place, on the day following nomination, that is to say, on the fourth day after the receipt of the writ. In a county the fourth day is the earliest upon which the nomination can take place, and the seventh day is the earliest for polling. I want the House to consider the ease of the man who has a vote in a borough under the first of the conditions, and a vote in the county under the second of the conditions. The result is that when the pollings occur in a majority of the boroughs the nominations in a large number of the county constituencies have not taken place. That being so, a man may wish to exercise his vote where he thinks it is most wanted, but if he does not vote in the borough he may find that there is no contest in the county. The result will be that he will be absolutely defrauded of his vote in that way. I find that at the last General Election in December, 1910, there were a considerable number of electors who voted on Monday, 5th December, the nominations having taken place on 3rd December in the Chorley, Accrington, Westhoughton, Middleton, and Newton Divisions of Lancashire, and also in the Northwich Division of Cheshire. On Monday, 5th December, nominations took place in the Clitheroe, Stretford, Darwen, Heywood, Prestwich, Radcliffe, Ince, Bootle, and Blackpool Divisions of Lancashire, and also in the Altrincham, Macclesfield, Crewe, and Wirral Divisions of Cheshire. On the 0th about ten nominations took place in the remaining Divisions of the two counties. The candidates did not send round polling cards until after the nominations had been made, because they did not know the names to put on the cards, but if this Bill passes the plural voters in Manchester would have to vote in Manchester, or run the risk of not being able to record their votes at all. I think that is a serious disqualification, and one which ought to be dealt with in this Bill. The Government are running roughshod over the plural voter in that direction. I wish to draw attention to the fact that a Petition may be moved for on the ground that the votes have been bad owing to the fact that a man has voted twice. The result will be that a candidate may very largely suffer by having an immense amount of expense put upon him in trying to find out the person who voted twice at that particular General Election. It will be practically impossible to find out. I

  945
  think there will be a very heavy burden put on candidates if an election petition is brought forward. The Government in its love of symmetry in legislation has made practically what might be called a "flat rate," which has been so fatal in the National Insurance Bill and the Shops Bill. In both of these measures the same fault appeared. I hope the Amendment will be carried.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is remarkable to find that the ground of opposition to this measure has somewhat changed. It is true that certain Members, like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), do not hesitate to oppose the Bill because they religiously believe in the right of the plural voter. The hon. Baronet is of opinion that the plural voter is an asset to the community. It is rather unfortunate for him that the majority on his own side of the House at least have abandoned that claim. It is a remarkable fact that the real opposition to the Bill is not because they believe that the plural voter ought to be maintained, but because this admitted reform does not go far enough, and that logically it ought to carry with it a greater reform which some of us hope will follow this particular measure. What becomes in that case of the usual argument of hon. Members opposite that in all matters of legislation we must move very cautiously? We, on this side of the House, do not hesitate to say that this Bill is not nearly drastic enough. It is an absolute farce to have forty people at a by-election coming in to vote, while they can only give one vote at a General Election. We want the same restriction made applicable to by-elections as this Bill now applies to General Elections. After all, what is the real ground upon which the plural voter claims to vote more than once? I do not agree with the suggestion that property or wealth is the real test. You can never measure a man's stake in a country simply by the property he holds. As a matter of fact, the richer an individual is the more comforts he can secure. Take the ordinary poor man. Some of your laws are vital to him. The whole health and happiness of himself and his family are dependent upon good laws well administered, but rich men, being more fortunate, can go where they like if the locality is not suitable, and get rid of all those difficulties. We say, especially to the working men, "You have got to obey
  946
  the laws." In great trade disputes, where passions are aroused and feelings are engendered, we have got to say to the working men whom we represent, "Whatever your opinion of the law may be we want you to obey the law," and we can only claim to ask them to obey the law by being able to say to them, "You have equal power in making the law." Therefore, because we believe that there should be equal power, that the stake of the labourers in the country is equal to that of the duke, that their responsibilities are the same, and that property is not a measure of intelligence, we support this Bill, not because it is the end of the subject, but because it is the beginning of what we on these benches at least hope will be really democratic government, founded on manhood suffrage, at least.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I rise because I have a very large number of voters in my own Constituency, and I want to stand up for them. I challenge the statement of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) that all inequalities of voting power in this country are in favour of our party. What about Ireland? There are more members per head of the population in that country than in any part of the United Kingdom. Are they in our favour or are they not? The Under-Secretary for India (Mr. Montagu) made exactly the sort of speech which I expected him to make. It worthily represented the style of speech which comes from those benches. It was a party speech supported by dishonest argument. His statement was that the value of a vote to the individual was far greater to the poor voter than to the rich one. I do not think that he believes it for a moment. I have a great respect for the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Thomas), who made a similar statement, and I think that he does believe it, but I would like to explain why I disagree with him entirely. He says that the stake of the poor voter in the country is greater than the stake of the rich man whom we take as being the type of the plural voter. The rich man, he says, can move easily from this country to another, whereas they poor man is obliged to remain where he is. Exactly the opposite is the case. You see the enormous stream of emigration to Canada which is going on at the present moment among poor men who have only one vote. It is very much more difficult for a man with a large amount of property in this country to transfer himself and his pro-

  947
  perty to another part of the world. The justification of plural voting to my mind is that it is one of the rewards of industry. The Under-Secretary for India laughs—I am sure that that is a perfectly absurd argument to him. The minds of the Government are so small that they cannot grasp this, and they can only see the means and not the end. They see the trees and cannot see the forest.
  But the justification of holding any property of any kind, whether money or votes, is that in a state of barbarism nobody works hard, because people will not get the reward of their industry, but a state of civilisation induces people to be industrious in order to keep the rewards of their industry. They are just as much entitled to have plural voting because they have accumulated a large amount of property as they are to retain any form of property because they have been industrious and use their talents to the best advantage. If you are going to do away with plural voting and have Redistribution the hon Member for Dartford said that he wanted to stand up for his voters and give them an equal right with other voters. I stand up for the voters in my Division. I have over 30,000 constituents. There are some twenty constituencies in other parts of the country which return twenty Members with the same number of votes as that with which my voters return one. I want to see that my voters have justice done to them and that they have the same power as voters in very small constituencies who return Members with a small number of of votes. This Bill is not brought in for the purpose of equality but for party purposes. The country knows this as the Government will find out at the next election. I shall oppose this to the utmost of my power in this House and out of it. The Government very unwisely are continuing this dishonest policy and continuing to bring in Bills entirely for their own party advantage. The country is coming to understand it, and they will pay for it when they go to the polls.
  Mr. M'CURDY: I have heard in the course of this Debate the word "anomaly" used a great many times. The question is being continually put from the benches opposite as though it contained some profound political truth: Why, when there are so many anomalies in our electoral system, should the Government select this one for redress at the present time? All those questions
  948
  proceed upon an assumption that., because there is an anomaly in some section of our laws it, therefore, becomes a duty in some way of this House to redress it. Anomalies are not peculiar to our electoral laws. In a country which has grown up like this, by a slow process of evolution through centuries, we find in every department of our laws anomalies, some of them injurious and some of them innocuous. To say that there are anomalies in our electoral laws, our criminal laws, our shipping laws or any other branch of our laws is not to suggest that it becomes the duty of this House to spend any of its time in proceeding to reduce the code of laws to order and regularity. We remedy anomalies for one or two reasons, either because the anomaly creates a tangible injustice so serious and so much felt that it becomes worth while to devote the necessary legislative time in order to redress the grievance, or because it is a matter upon which the opinion of this country has been obtained, and with regard to which, whether that opinion is right or wrong, the party in power has come in with a certain policy as part of their programme, so that they are in honour bound to carry it into effect. The position with regard to this question of plural voting is this. Only one hon. Member, so far as I know, has in the course of this Debate ventured to put forward any serious argument in defence of this anomaly. That was the hon. Member who last spoke, and who put forward the somewhat startling doctrine that property has only one justification, that it is the reward of industry, and that the plural vote is, therefore, justified and to be encouraged as one form of property which encourages industry in this country.
  Apart from that argument, which I think would not find much acceptance in academic circles, no one has attempted to suggest that the plural vote is in itself a fair or defensible thing. The party opposite possess many advantages, not the least of which is that they have a reputation which I think they cherish of being a party of sportsmen. As sportsmen they can hardly look with feelings of satisfaction upon an anomaly in our electoral system which gives a man of wealth and influence extra votes at the ballot box when he comes to put his votes against those of his poorer neighbours. It was suggested that the removal of this anomaly is packing the jury. The effect of plural voting is much more clearly described as

  949
  loading the dice. I do not wish to argue here the abstract question as to whether the plural vote is fair or defensible, or, as I believe, unfair and indefensible, because so far as we on this side of the House are concerned that is a question which was settled very many years ago. So far as my recollection extends, the principle of one man one vote and the abolition of the plural vote has been a leading feature in every Liberal programme placed before the country at every General Election for the last quarter of a century. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that when the Liberals after a long exclusion from any share in the government of the country at last come into power things should go on just as in the past, that although Liberals are at last in power no Liberal measures are to be passed into law, and that though their fellow countrymen have at last returned a Liberal majority none of the electoral pledges upon which they obtained the suffrages of their fellow countrymen are to be carried out. That is a view which hon. Members opposite, if they try to put themselves in our place for a moment, can hardly attempt to maintain. So far as we are concerned this Government has for the last three years been mainly occupied in the very simple task, which there can be no doubt it is their duty as honourable men to perform, of simply paying to the electors of this country the electoral debts incurred not only at the last election, but at every election preceding it for a quarter of a century past.
  We are engaged at the present moment in passing into law reforms like the granting of Home Rule to Ireland and the abolition of the plural voters. So far as the Liberal party are concerned, these have been fixed principles of their policy now for very many years. We consider that the business of this country must be regarded as a going concern and as regards a matter like the abolition of the plural voting which has been thrashed out upon the platforms of this country over a. period of many years and which has never lost its place in the party programme, there must come a time in the lapse of years when we must proceed to business to carry that reform into effect. It is said that there are other anomalies in connection with our electoral law which ought to be remedied at the same time. Reference is made to inequality between the constituencies and to the alleged need for registration. I may point out that some of those inequalities between the constituencies and the alleged=950
  urgency of Redistribution, as instanced in the case of Romford, do not excite the interest which they aroused a century ago, though the existence of the plural voter has been regarded up and down the country by the Liberal party as one of those reforms which must be carried into effect. I dissociate myself entirely from those speeches made on this side of the House in which the suggestion was made to the Government that when the Plural Voting Bill is carried through, it should then turn its attention as soon as possible to the removal of other anomalies in our electoral law. Really, their removal, interesting as it may be, is an academic subject of Debate; it is not an urgent and vital question which should further and immediately take up the time of this House. The new century has brought new problems for legislation. In the last century we were largely occupied with measures of political reform, creating and improving our system of franchise; but in this new century the House is already confronted in no pleasant way with other social problems; and more than once it has been face to face with a spirit of industrial unrest in relation to great social questions with which our predecessors in the last century were very little troubled. We are engaged at the present time in removing out of the road of useful legislation such subjects of political reform as the plural voter, and the giving of Horne Rule to Ireland—questions which ought to have been settled, and, but for the wrongful action of another place, would have been settled many years ago. We are simply passing overdue reforms in order to make room for a new and vivifying policy of social reform which the workers of this country look for, and which I hope under the present Government they will not look for in vain.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: The hon. Member who has just sat down has largely based his support of the Bill on the assumption that it means one man one vote; but surely that is not the case, because in the two-Member constituencies the dual vote will still exist. A resident in a two-Member constituency will have the plural vote as hitherto; and it is very significant that the Government who assert their disinterestedness in promoting this Bill should be face to face with the fact that they propose to do away with the plural vote where used to their disadvantage, while in the two-Member constituencies, which statistics go to show are largely in favour of the Liberal party, the plural

  951
  vote is allowed to continue. I am not in favour for one moment of disfranchising the two-Member constituencies. I would rather like to see our electoral basis broadened rather than narrowed—extended rather than the present proposal of disfranchisement. My object in voting against the Third Reading of this Bill is largely because it is an unbusinesslike and unstatesmanlike proceeding to deal with one so-called anomaly and leaving great anomalies untouched. I agree with the arguments used by my hon. Friend who spoke from the second bench just now, as to the disparity between constituencies, an elector in one constituency having ten times as much power as an elector in another constituency. The first measure of reform should have been Redistribution and a rearrangement of the constituencies.
  Then there is a question which for years we have been urging as one that ought to be dealt with—that is, the question of the registration of electors. It is monstrous that under the existing system a man may be resident in a constituency twelve or fifteen months before he is entitled to record his vote. Surely that is one of the questions that ought to have been dealt with at the earliest possible moment. In the Constituency which I have the honour to represent there are a good many soldiers and sailors, who, when following their occupation and serving their country in their several capacities, are often debarred from recording their votes, simply because they may be at sea or abroad at the time of the election. Surely that is a very valuable section of the community which ought to have every consideration, and surely some arrangement ought to be made by which it can take its part in the government of the country which it does so much to support. In reference to the Bill, it seems to me that the Amendments we made will prove helpful to the rural constituencies, and also very necessary to enable the voters to understand the Bill. In the first election that takes place extreme confusion must necessarily arise, and the Amendments which we were enabled to introduce into the Bill I think will prove very valuable and helpful.
  The penalties imposed by this measure are most severe. The man who asks for a ballot paper twice may be punished by fine or even imprisonment I cannot help thinking that it is a vindictive policy in a measure of this kind to have such heavy
  952
  penalties. I repeat that I cannot help thinking that the penalties which are provided for are vindictive. I believe that the Government in taking the action they are taking are acting merely from a party point of view. I believe also that the country will realise that this is a gerrymandering measure. The Government know very well that if they appealed to the constituencies who put them in power an adverse verdict would be passed upon their work, and hence they want to rearrange the constituencies in a way which is not according to any logical basis or plan, but simply because they desire to destroy the plural vote in those constituencies where they think it will militate against them. I submit that the country is ready for an all-round reform in registration and Redistribution, and surely the Government ought to have dealt with the general question in a statesmanlike manner, so shat all parties would have stood on an equal basis. I shall unhesitatingly vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, which I believe to be a gerrymandering measure, and one unworthy of the Government to present to the House.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. and learned Member for the Wick Boroughs remarked that this Debate has at any rate contributed nothing new. I venture to differ from him. The hon. Member for Gains-borough told us that the plural vote is the reward of industry and he justified it on that ground, ignoring entirely the fact that a man may, through a long life, be an industrious member of the community, bringing up his family with credit to himself and advantage to the country and yet be without a vote, while another man who happens to inherit a number of houses, and who makes no industrious effort whatever may inherit twenty or thirty votes. Yet we are told that the plural vote is the reward of industry. This is a new defence. The hon. Gentleman showed how entirely wrong is his notion of the basis of the vote. If he bases it on wealth, then the man who has ten times more wealth than another should have ten times as many votes. As a matter of fact, the plural vote is not based on wealth. It is wealth in the form of houses only. If wealth be the basis of the vote, why should there be a differentiation between one kind of wealth and another kind of wealth? If a man of wealth puts his money into land or houses he gets a multiplicity of votes, but if he puts it into shares he does not.

  953
  The true basis of the vote, is found in the interests, the vital interests, of the individual. In this Legislature we legislate on all those things which touch the vital interests of individuals, whether rich or poor. An hon. Gentleman compared the interests of the agricultural labourer with those of the business man in the city. As a matter of fact, their political interests are equal.
  There is no difference, from the political point of view, between the interests of one person and the interests of another. The vital interests of those who toil daily are the interests for which we legislate, and those interests for which we legislate are not measured by the amount of money which a person has but by his vital human interests. Men are politically equal in regard to those interests, as men are equal before the law. It has been endeavoured to justify the plural vote for the university by confusing the qualifications of the voter with the qualifications of a Member of Parliament. They are entirely different. The qualifications of the voter do not depend on his education, on his culture, or upon his wealth, but upon his power to select a man to represent him in this Parliament. That is a very elementary power indeed. A person of a very low form of intelligence can do that. We are all critics, but we are not all of executive capacity. I may criticise a novel, though I may not be able to write one; I may criticise a poem, though I may not be able to compose one. Our power to criticise or to understand others is infinitely greater than any executive power which we may possess ourselves. All a voter has to do is to ask himself two questions: First of all, "Does this man know what my interests are?" And second, "Is this man who asks me to vote for him sufficiently honest and capable to represent those interests in Parliament?"
  When the elector comes to a conclusion, he casts his vote accordingly. He does not require to know all the intricacies of legislation, or all the theories of legislation; he does not need to be acquainted with political economy; all he requires to ascertain is, "Does this man know my interests, and can I trust him to represent my interests?" A man who walks into a bank and hands over a cheque may know nothing of the complicated accountancy that goes on behind the counter. He knows only the simple process of putting in or taking out. So it is with the voter in the simple process of casting a vote.
  954
  The qualifications for a Member of Parliament are very numerous and very complex indeed, but the qualifications for a person to vote for a Member of Parliament are very elementary. The interests of the individual are those of himself, his family, and his substance, and in that respect correspond to those of every other man who has a wife, family, and substance, and those interests require to be represented here. In so far as they are represented here, this House becomes a Clearing House of the people's interests, and we here adjust the self-interests of all the individuals whom we represent. We have been told that we are urging the Bill because of a party advantage to us. Assuming that that is so, it is resisted for the very same reason. You cannot accuse us of bringing in this Bill for our own party advantage while you resist it with the tenacity of purpose with which you have resisted this Bill. It consists of only one simple effective Clause, and notwithstanding that, day after day you have resisted every line and word. You say you do so on principle. If it is an advantage to us, and you resist it with such vehemence, it must be an advantage to you to resist it, so that in that respect we are quits. We are not offending any principle by bringing it in if you are not offending by opposing it.
  You say there are other anomalies, but it surely is right to pick out the greatest anomaly first. Of all the electoral anomalies that exist, this is the greatest, because more injustice is done in many ways. Thus, if you give a man twenty-eight votes, every voter in the constituency is at a disadvantage from the fact that plural voters exist in the constituency, and the vote of the ordinary elector is reduced in value in consequence of the existence of those plural votes. It is a greater injustice to deprive a man of a vote or to lessen the value of his vote than it is to have anomalies that exist with regard to Redistribution. I am one of those who believe that if you redistribute the constituencies you will confer greater advantage, or, at any rate, very great advantage, on the Liberal party. Take Walthamstow, for instance. Under Redistribution that constituency would be entitled to four representatives, instead of one, and those four representatives would be all Liberals. You accuse us of being actuated by party motives in bringing forward this measure, and you say we would reduce the party interests for which

  955
  we stand if we brought in Redistribution. I believe that Redistribution, with the balancing up of the large populous constituencies and sparsely populated cathedral towns, in such a way that you would not materially alter the balance of parties, or whatever alteration there was, would be, I believe, in favour of the Liberal party. While I am in favour of Redistribution, and while the whole party is committed to it, the injustices and the anomalies which arise from plural voting are so much greater that they are entitled to be considered first. This whole policy of doing away with the plural voter is the same policy which in the past the nobility initiated when it demanded from the Monarch a share in government; which wealth continued when it demanded a share from the nobility; and which we now continue when we demand for citizenship to-day its rightful share from wealth. We are readjusting and not creating any anomalies. Instead of creating a new injustice, we are doing away with injustices that are age long. Wrongs that have existed in the past we are trying to rectify by this Bill, which I hope before many hours are over, will pass its Third Reading.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member who has just spoken has shared with a considerable number of other Members on the other side the impression that the qualification for a Member of Parliament is to represent simply individual interest. He based the whole of his speech upon that hypothesis. He entirely forgot, as far as I can see, that the present qualification for a voter is a property qualification, that is, either owning or occupying property. Therefore the argument from this side has been that as long as that is the qualification, and the man does, in fact, in absolutely different constituencies and different towns have the qualification of ownership or tenancy, he comes within the right and title of having votes in those respective places. I am one of those who think if this question of plural voting is ever to be dealt with upon a reasonable and truly scientific manner, it will have to be by altering the qualification, and not by thinking with the present register. The question of dealing with the plural voters as we know him to-day could have been dealt with by the Government, if they so desired, in one or other of two manners. It could have been dealt with
  956
  so as to make it impossible for an individual to vote in two places. That has not been done. It could have been dealt with so as to make the constituencies under all circumstances, both for General and by-elections, to be similar constituencies. That has not been done. In both those directions this Bill miserably fails. Then I ask myself, if the Government are in earnest in this matter, and I am willing to assume that they are, why have they adopted this particular method of bringing in this Bill? The answer is, I think, fairly obvious to every man in this House, and also to the country, and it is that they wanted to make their Bill as simple as possible in form, and without really dealing with the merits of the subject to get the utmost party advantage that could be got in the shortest possible manner. I submit respectfully that is a scandalous position for the Government to take up. I do not know how many voters there are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple), but I suppose there are 10,000.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Twenty-two thousand.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: That probably represents about 100,000 inhabitants, and I ask what becomes of the other 78,000? The whole of the hon. Member's speech was grounded upon the suggestion that the whole 100,000 ought to be represented, while in fact there are only a majority of those who choose to vote, arid who voted for the hon. Member, and I have no doubt they have made a very admirable and satisfactory selection so far as the hon. Member is concerned. But what becomes of the other 78,000?
  Dr. CHAPPLE: That is the total population. The 22,000 represent the rest.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are 22,000 voters, and 78,000 in the constituency are without any representation.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: You include the children, and their fathers represent them.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: But a bachelor in the hon. Member's constituency has got exactly the same voting power as the father of a family of ten. Therefore, any argument he chooses to put before the House to show that there is anything like individual representation is obviously contrary to the principle of the arithmetical table. The 78,000 people in the hon. Member's constituency who do not vote consist of a certain number of

  957
  children and of women and a very considerable number of adults, who, owing to the property qualification of owning or tenanting property, have not got a vote. They also consist of a number of people who unfortunately move from one constituency to the other and who are all temporarily disqualified. The numbers of anomalies and difficulties that arise in dealing with this matter are very great. What I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member is this: If he is going to make a speech again anywhere in public on the lines of the speech he has just addressed to this House, he ought to do so by admitting that all adults in his constituency should have votes. The hon. Member did not deal with the subject from that point of view.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: It would have been out of order to do so.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think if the hon. Gentleman were to carry his speech to its logical conclusion he ought to go a step further, and ought to argue that the father of every child under twenty-one ought to have an additional vote in respect of that child. When he has given every man a vote and every woman a vote and every father of a minor child an extra vote in respect of that child, then, and then only, will the whole of the constituency be fairly represented. I have no doubt if he put the matter in that alluring manner before his constituents the next time he addressed them, and if the Radical Government should see fit to adopt his excellent suggestion that everybody in the country ought to be properly represented, then I have no doubt that the new constituency will, by an overwhelming majority, send the hon. Member back again to the next Parliament.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) seemed to think that it is an extremely easy thing to be a good critic, but says it is not so easy to be a good Member of Parliament, but that anyone can be a good elector, as there is nothing simpler, since you have merely to see whether Mr. A or Mr. B will promote the interests of yourself and your family. I venture to think that the representation of the electors is much more complex than the hon. Member thinks, and that there are infinitely better reasons for the enfranchisement of the working classes than the not very flattering reasons which the hon. Gentleman has given. A great
  958
  many hon. Members on the other side seem to think they have disposed of the plural vote by labelling it an anomaly. I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, who, I think, demolished that idea altogether. He said, "It is not enough to say that it is an anomaly; it is not enough that it may be an anomaly; in addition to that you must find adequate reasons for putting an end to the state of things so described." What are the adequate reasons for taking up this particular so-called anomaly of the plural vote, the hon. Member did not state, but I think we can guess what they are. He said, and this was the only reason he advanced, that the abolition of the plural vote had been in the forefront of the Liberal programme for some time. Yes, but why? Why is the plural vote a thing which is bad in itself and ought to be done away with? One difficulty in speaking on the subject at this stage is the extreme paucity of argument advanced in support of the measure. The House is entitled to some more reasoned statement of the grounds on which the party opposite think that the plural vote is a thing to be condemned.
  Two arguments have been put forward One was our old friend the civilised world. We were told that nowhere else in the civilised world could you find the plural vote. We have had that argument before, but it has always seemed to me that even if it were true, we ought to know our own business best. It is idle to endeavour to regulate the conduct of a great country like this by an assumed subservience to the opinion of other parts of the world under very different circumstances. But it turned out that when the Solicitor-General rather rashly put forward that argument and asserted that in our great Dominions beyond the sea you would look in vain f5r a vestige of the plural vote, he had very insufficiently examined his facts, for an hon. and. learned Friend of mine immediately stated that in Canada for the Dominion Parliament the plural vote does exist, and that at the last General Election he himself voted for the Dominion Parliament in several constituencies. The Solicitor-General said that that was an exception. It is a very big exception when you find that the greatest of our-Dominions beyond the sea recognises the propriety of the plural vote. It was also said that we on this side had admitted

  959
  that, if the Referendum were introduced, there should be no plural vote in connection with it. The Solicitor-General just touched on that argument. He evidently felt that it would not bear much development, for he passed from it very rapidly. The reason is not far to seek. If you have a Referendum, you refer one specific question to the verdict of the people. The people are asked to say, "Aye" or "No" do you want a particular measure to become law? They are put in the position of a jury. An hon. Member opposite asked, whoever heard of a juryman having two votes while his fellow has only one? I quite agree. If you refer a question to be decided by one great constituency, that of the whole United Kingdom, you must allow each elector who expresses his view only one vote on that specific issue.
  But when you come to the question of choosing Members for Parliament, it is obviously impossible to have one constituency, in which I agree each elector should have only one vote. You could not choose the Members of the House of Commons from one constituency consisting of the whole United Kingdom. If you did, according as there was a slight preponderance of votes one way or the other, you would have a House of Commons returned all of one way of political thinking. It would be absolutely impossible to apply the principle of proportional representation to a constituency of such a size and with the number of Members so great as that of the House of Commons. Therefore, for the purpose of electing Members to serve in Parliament you must break up the United Kingdom into a number of constituencies, and the question is, how best to secure the representation of each constituent. The Under-Secretary for India seemed to think that he had hit upon a startling political truth when he said that the party opposite desired to see the representation not of constituencies but of constituents. Whoever heard of a locality being represented apart from the electors in the locality? Of course, what you want is to secure the opinion of every man who is qualified to be a constituent in that constituency. How does the hon. Member propose to develop that He said, "What we want to do is to get the votes of those who work in a factory." But what the hon. Member is doing now is practically to disfranchise the head of that factory, the man who has organised and manages it. I submit that
  960
  the head of the factory is just as much entitled to a vote in respect of it as any workman who serves under him. He is not disentitled to it because he happens in another constituency altogether to have a qualification of a different kind which entitles him to vote in that other constituency, if that constituency is to be properly represented.
  For the proper representation in Parliament of each constituency you must utilise every element in the constituency which will make the choice arrived at thoroughly representative. You cannot leave out any element in the constituency the presence of which tends to increase the representative character of the Member selected. Take the case of a man who has a large estate in a particular county. He resides there, he employs a great deal of labour; he devotes his attention to the management of the estate; he is thoroughly versed in all the affairs of the county. Will anyone tell me that that man ought not to have a vote in respect of the constituency in which his estate is situated? The same man may also reside in a town. He takes an active part in the life of the town, and any meeting held there would sorely miss him if he were absent from it. On what possible ground can you say that he is not to have a vote in each of those constituencies, where the absence of his vote would render the result of the election less thoroughly representative of the constituency? Exactly the same considerations apply to the very common case of a merchant or shopkeeper who carries on business in a town, who takes an active part in municipal life, and who also has a residence in the country entitling him to vote in another constituency. On what principle are you to say that those separate interests are not to entitle the man who possesses them to two votes? The idea is that because most men have only one set of interests and in one constituency, therefore those who happen to have two or more sets of interest in different constituencies are not to enjoy those votes to which those interests entitle them. It is a very crude version of the old saying, "One man is as good as another," with the addition which I dare say many Members opposite would make, "and a great deal better." The contention does not bear examination when you look at the proper mode of securing thoroughly representative Members of Parliament by splitting up the United Kingdom into suitable constituencies and allowing to vote

  961
  in each of those constituencies all those who have an adequate interest and qualification in it.
  7.0 P.M.
  The references made in this connection to the Referendum really rest upon some confusion of thought. The two problems are absolutely and essentially different. Such reasons are brought forward as lead one to suspect that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are really ashamed to give the true reason for this proposal. It may be stated that the plural voter is a man of some business capacity, of some trained intelligence and education, and that the possession of these qualifications leads him to vote against the present Government. If that is not the reason, or the main reason, for this measure, I shall be glad to have from the Prime Minister some more adequate defence of the proposals than has yet been attempted. It is said that the plural voters always vote Unionist. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Or that most of them do. If hon. Members opposite did not believe that most of the plural voters vote Unionist, I do not think we should have heard of this Bill. Many hon. Members opposite have openly stated that they support the measure for that reason, and I think one hon. Gentleman frankly declared that it was a good party measure. The plural voter was not always one who held the Conservative or Unionist faith. One does not need any great knowledge of our political history or to go very far back to be aware that the City of London for a long time was a stronghold of Liberalism, and that the City of London, in Parliament and out of Parliament, rendered the greatest possible services to the cause of liberty in this country. The City of London was a supporter of the old Liberalism. I admit that it will have nothing to do with latter-day Radicalism, but that is because Liberalism, and not the City of London, has changed its character. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I think, if they reflect for a moment, they will find that the change is not, I think, in the City of London. The same thing may be said of the universities. The University of London used to be a safe Liberal seat. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] Until quite recently. I remember very well when a distinguished Friend of the Prime Minister, and of my own, stood as a candidate for the City of London. He was afterwards a judge, and he is still living. He stood for that university. He was beaten by a large majority, but he said he
  962
  was perfectly satisfied in having established the fact that there were a considerable number of Conservative electors in the University of London. That, then, was the state of things. The same thing might, to some extent, be said of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The first Member for the University of Edinburgh and St. Andrews was, I think, that very distinguished man, Sir Lyon Playfair, who entered Parliament a Liberal and remained a Liberal to the end of his life. An hon. Friend beside me reminds me that he was Vice-President of the Council under a Liberal Government. May I just ask the Prime Minister whether he does not feel that if these university seats still voted Liberal he would not have an overwhelming case for retaining their votes?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)dissented.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The Prime Minister shakes his head, but I venture to suggest that I think he would see the subject from a very different point of view, and I should be very sorry if any unhappy wight below the Gangway wanted to disfranchise the universities merely because they consisted of plural voters who, inside and outside, conceived Liberal principles to be paramount. I listened, if he will allow me to say so, with some amusement to the Under-Secretary for India, and to the excuses which he faltered forth with regard to the treatment of the universities. He says that the Bill does not abolish university representation. Oh, no, the Government do not abolish it, but they take a step which they expect will deplete the ranks of the voters and entail such inconvenience as to facilitate the ultimate destruction of university representation. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite mean, and that is what the hon Gentleman—
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is not a depletion of their ranks. They can still vote for the university in as large numbers as before.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Yes. But all, or nearly all, of those gentlemen have another place where they are entitled to vote. Has the hon. Gentleman thought this matter out? Has he considered that university representation in its very nature, in its essence is of the nature of a second vote because it is a special qualification? Why take it away in this indirect manner when you have not the courage to take it away directly? The

  963
  hon. Gentleman gave us another reason which certainly somewhat astonished the House; certainly it amused it. He said that the university vote is bought; anyone who paid, I think he said £40, could get a university vote. He said the university vote does not represent intelligence. He instanced himself. He said, "I have a university vote. I paid £40 for it." He had, of course, to admit the soft impeachment of having taken a degree in Arts before he could get the vote; that he must be a B.A. in order to qualify for the university vote. The hon. Gentleman, if I rightly understood him, actually informed the House that qualifying for the B.A. degree was not at all a test of intelligence. Is it not a test of education? Is it not a test of intelligence? I think that the hon. Gentleman did both himself and the subject a great injustice when he put forward that view. The university vote is not a vote that can be bought. In many of the universities there is no fee to pay at all, or, if there is any fee, it is an extremely small one. The university vote in no university can be got except by having taken a degree, which certainly ensures that the candidate has a certain amount of learning for the acquisition of which a certain amount of ability is required.
  I regard this Bill as thoroughly bad in two respects in the way in which it is worked out. We have heard a good deal about faggot voting. We are told that faggot voting is a very bad thing. If the Bill were directed simply to put an end to faggot voting, there might be something to be said for it. But this Bill is not so directed. This Bill is directed to deprive of the franchise a number of men who are just as entitled to their second vote as is any man who has only one vote. In another respect the Bill will work in a very startling way. Is it not a very remarkable thing that under this Bill it would be constantly the case that a by-election would be decided one way in a university constituency—or, indeed, in any other constituency—and an election at a General Election in another way? For this reason: that all the voters would have their votes at the by-election, while at the General Election many of the voters might be requested to vote elsewhere. You will never know where you are with the result of the election, and you will introduce a most extraordinary element of jerkiness into our electoral system. I do submit
  964
  that if that were the only objection to this Bill, it would be enough to condemn it.
  Whenever there is a General Election a man will be entitled, and will be expected, to wait till the last moment before he decides in which of the two or more constituencies in which he has a vote he means to exercise that vote. Is not that introducing a great evil? Is it not enough to say that this Bill is based on a wrong principle; that it introduces into our machinery at election times such an element of uncertainty? The introduction of Redistribution at the same time would not in the least have reconciled me to the abolition of plural voting. But I do say that the fact that you do one and leave the other undone is a very great aggravation of the conduct of the Government in this matter. You say, "Oh, one man one vote." And that "It is a monstrous thing that one man should have two or more votes although in different con stituencies when his fellow has only one vote, because he is interested in only one constituency." You say that each elector ought to have equal power as regards the number of votes he can give. But do you not recognise that it is a much greater anomaly—if that term is to be used—that the voter in one constituency should have a voter power ten times that of the voter in another constituency—and sometimes even more? You strike at the one because you think that it tells in favour of your opponents, and you leave untouched the inequality of voting power in the several constituencies because you know that you would not gain anything by it, that in all probability you would lose, and that there is a very great chance that you would lose very heavily indeed. The long and the short of it is that you strike at the plural vote because you believe it to be predominantly Unionist; you retain the inequality of the distribution of voting power because you think it helps you.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The arguments both on one side and on the other in regard to this matter are so familiar that it is difficult to present them at this stage of the controversy with any semblance of novelty. I shall, therefore, endeavour to be content to leave the defence of this Bill where it stood when my colleague, the Under-Secretary for India, sat down earlier in the afternoon having made, I think, a most cogent and admirable speech. At the risk of again travelling over the ground which he traversed so well, I should like, before the

  965
  House comes to a Division, to deal shortly with two or three points which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and by other opponents of this measure. I notice a great difference in the tone in which its various critics approach the Bill. Many of them, I think most of them, in the course of this discussion, have admitted that the plural vote is what is called an anomaly, that it is indefensible in principle— [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] —that it has got to be got rid of; but they say that this is not the proper time nor the proper way in which to effect that reform. On the other hand, we have from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down what I may call a thorough-going, full-blooded, uncompromising defence of plural voting in principle. So far as I may judge from his speech—I do not know how much opinion he represents on the other side—if he and those who think with him have their way, in no reform of our electoral or representative system, in which their party is concerned will we see plural voting disappear, or even be substantially reduced. It is a most healthy, desirable, and salutary thing. Yes, but several speakers on the other side to whom I have listened, have adopted a totally different view. Amongst others there is the hon Member who moved the Amendment at the beginning of this Debate. In regard to the analogy of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, he said that we may ignore what is done in other countries, because we are wise enough to take care of ourselves. Still I do not think it is immaterial to the discussion to state what has been repeatedly said in the course of these Debates, that there is no other democratic country in which this system of plural Toting prevails.
  An HON. MEMBER: Canada.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, the statement made the other night with regard to Canada applied only to the province of Quebec, and the law has been changed in the province of Quebec since the time the hon. and learned Gentleman recorded his two votes.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The statement was made in regard to the last General Election for the Dominion Parliament.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General was perfectly correct.
  966
  There is no such thing as the plural vote in Canada to-day, nor, so far as I am aware, is there in any of the self-governing Dominions of the Crown in any part of the world; nor, let me point out, is there here in our own system of local and municipal government. It has never been established in our local government, and in regard particularly to our Parliamentary system, where you have a divided borough, like the Tower Hamlets, in which you have seven different constituencies, there is no such thing as plural voting between the different divisions of the borough. I am speaking now of voting for one county council, as I was speaking of one Parliament, and the analogy is complete. When you have Parliaments for different parts of the United Kingdom, then the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London will be able to push home his point. I must make one word of reference to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said with regard to the attitude of his party, and I suppose of himself, to the Referendum. When the Referendum was, I will not say invented, but promulgated as part of the official programme of the Tory party, the electors of the country were assured that in its application plural voting would not be allowed, and as far as I know, whatever may have been the case with other parts of their programme, there has been no recession from that position on the part of any responsible leader of the party opposite.
  How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman endeavour to reconcile the abandonment by his leaders of plural voting in regard to the Referendum with its retention at any rate in regard to Parliamentary elections. He says, "Oh, there, when you are dealing with the Referendum, you have only got one constituency, the whole of the United Kingdom, and you have only the specific question which is submitted to it." But the question submitted to it is ex hypothesi, one of overshadowing and overwhelming importance, a question in which the whole country is concerned, and where you are dealing with that, it is not thought right that any elector in the country, however well educated, even with the advantage of a university education, however many properties he possesses, however many ware houses he may have, it is not thought right to give any elector more than the same proportion of authority as is given to all the other people. Why should a different principle be applied when you are dealing, not 'merely with one overshadowing ques-

  967
  tion of importance, but when you are dealing with the whole question of how the country is to be governed during a period of five years. Every consideration which applies to the one case applies a fortiori to the other. The more moderate opponents of this Bill who preceded the right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded this. I think the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment did, and I think two or three hon. Gentlemen whom I heard later in the Debate conceded it, and all that they pleaded for was to deal in an exceptional way with exceptional classes of constituencies—the City of London and the universities. In regard to the City of London, I cannot for the life of me see why it should be treated in a different way than any other great commercial centre in the country. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) shakes his head. But the same phenomena which you have seen there—that is to say, the growing disappearance of the residential population and the growing monopolisation, if I may use the expression, of the areas for business purposes—you see in a greater or less degree in Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and in almost all our great industrial and commercial centres It is merely a question of degree as between them and the City of London. To single out the City of London for special treatment on that ground would be, I think, to give it a privileged position to which it is not entitled upon any ground whatever. But, further, when you come to work it out in detail, just see how absurd the consequences will be. As my hon. Friend pointed out a few moments ago, if you treat the City of London as a separate entity, a man who has, to take an instance from my own profession, chambers in the Temple will have two votes, a man who has chambers in Lincoln's Inn will only have one; the Governor of the Bank of England will have two votes, the Governor of the Tower only one; the station-master at Cannon Street will have two votes, the station-master at London Bridge will only have one. The absurdities and injustices and inequalities to which exceptional and favoured treatment would lead are really so numerous and, when you come to examine them, so grotesque, that I am sure it is a proposition that cannot seriously be put forward.
  Then I come to the universities. It is an old subject of controversy between hon.
  968
  and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down was rather indignant at the Statement of my hon. colleague that you can buy a vote at the universities. He was referring, of course, to the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and not to those more austere bodies on the other side of the Tweed which my right hon. and learned Friend opposite so worthily represents. But is it not the case at Oxford and Cambridge? It is quite true that you have got to pass your B.A. degree; after that everything comes perfectly easy to the man who is ready to spend £20 or £30. He becomes a Master of Arts, and thereupon acquires a university voter's qualification by the payment of money. Will anyone say who is really acquainted with the fact—I do not want to throw any discredit on the old universities, a son of one of which I am proud to be—but could anything be more absurd that. the ordinary pass B.A. degree at Oxford or Cambridge, which a great number of Members in this House have acquired with greater or less difficulty, but if we probe into the recesses of our own consciences will anyone say—I see a large number of B.A's. of Oxford and Cambridge around me—will anyone pretend in his most complacent moments that the fact that he passed an examination and got a degree gives him a certificate of intelligence and qualification as compared with the ordinary citizen of this country which entitles him to a second vote? I do not think so, and I should be very much surprised if we were assembled together to determine the question that anyone else would say so. The truth is you cannot possibly justify the theory—I am, not speaking of the university franchise, a totally different thing, but of the retention of the duplicate vote for persons who have been at the universities—unless you are prepared to go a great deal further and admit other tests of intelligence still more shapeable and authentic, and to apply them by the duplication and the triplication of votes in almost every possible direction.
  But as my hon. Friend pointed out, with perfect truth, this is not a Bill to disfranchise universities. We have tried our hands at that before—I dare say we may again—but we are dealing here with a Bill which does not disfranchise the university voter. It give him an option, and if he wishes to take advantage of what he has acquired in his youth at the hand of his

  969
  Alma Mater, and be represented here in the House of Commons rather by one of the Members for the university than by a Member of the constituency in which he lives or in which he carries on his business, there is nothing to prevent him enjoying such a luxury. I do not say a word against the quality of university representation. Universities have been represented by eminent men, but anyone acquainted with their history knows, and the University of London is a striking illustration, that I am speaking the truth when I say that it is conducted on purely partisan lines. We have had two cases. I do not go back to the case of Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel. You have two cases in living memory, those of Sir John Gorst and Sir Michael Foster, In London, men elected as the candidates of a particular party, who remained most essentially faithful to the party, at any rate to the principle it goes for, but because they showed understanding and judgment, were treated by these universities, such as they would be treated by any other constituency in the country. It is a matter of experience, whatever it ought to be as a matter of theory, that it is a pure fiction to suppose there is anything more independent in the position of a university representative or anything more broadminded in the attitude of the university elector, than is the case in any other constituency. I submit to the House that the claims for special treatment in these two classes of constituencies entirely breaks down when you come to examine it.
  I want to deal with one other point. It is said, and the argument has been repeated almost ad nauseam in the course of these discussions, that we are dealing here with a particular anomaly which we have singled out for special treatment because it happens to be, or we think it is, so long as it continues, injurious to our interests as a party, and it is said that if you were honest and sincere in this matter, you would deal not merely with the abolition of plural voting, but you would deal simultaneously with the Redistribution of electoral power. I am one of those who believe—I have often expressed the belief—that any fair Redistribution of electoral representation in this country, would be not to the disadvantage but to the advantage of the party to which I belong. I do not believe for a moment that hon. Gentlemen opposite are well founded in their view, if it is their view, that such a Redistribution upon fair and equitable lines would redound to their party
  970
  interests, and I am most anxious to see it undertaken. I hope—I have expressed the hope before, and I repeat it to-day—that it may be undertaken, not only at a very early date, but with something approaching general consent on both sides of the House. I cannot for the life of me see why we should not be able to come to an understanding how to redistribute our areas. I do not sec how it ought to excite party passion or party difference, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out so well in the speech he made, we have in legislation in the present Session made a most important contribution towards the solution, or at least the partial solution, of this problem of Redistribution. What has been the crying and glaring anomaly which has always been preached from the benches opposite, and preached by them when on this side of the House; I agree, with just as much urgency and emphasis with regard to the distribution of electoral power? It has been the excessive representation upon the principle of numbers or anything else which, as you say, under our existing system is given to Ireland. We are going to get rid of that. You have in the Bill which this House passed by so large a majority—I have not the least idea what its fortunes may be at this moment, but it represents the considered judgment of the House of Commons, which it has passed in two Sessions with undiminished majorities, and if it is allowed to go on the Statute Book it will reduce the Irish representation, not to what it ought to be, upon strictly numerical lines, which would he sixty or seventy, but it reduces it to forty-two, so that really the example which you have always put forward as the most urgently calling for Redistribution of electoral representation is the example which, if you will allow our measure to pass into law, will cease to exist to-morrow. Therefore, we have two things about Redistribution: First, we are as anxious for it as you are, and we have as equally strong party motive, if party motive comes in, for wishing to see it take place as you have. In the second place, we have made a very important step in the direction of dealing with this most urgent problem in the course of the present Session; and I say, lastly, as is obvious to anybody in the time at our disposal this year, it is quite impossible to deal with all the subjects until we have the opportunity to do so.
  My right hon. Friend opposite asked me to say upon what principle this Bill rested,

  971
  and I will tell him. It rests on the very simple principle that in a democratic country one ought to count for one. For the purposes of electoral representation every citizen who gets the franchise ought to be on the same footing, neither better nor worse than any other citizen. That is the principle upon which this Bill proceeds. It is a principle which is recognised in every other democratic country and throughout the length and breadth of our own Empire, and I commend it to the House upon two grounds. First of all, the ground for justice, because at the present time you have a privileged class of half a million out of a total electorate of eight millions, who obtain under our existing electoral laws an unjustifiable advantage over their fellow electors, and that is the ground of justice. Secondly, I recommend it upon the ground of policy, not of party policy, but of the high, broad, public policy that the House of Commons ought to be, as everybody admits in theory, as accurate a reflection as you can make it of the minds of the people, and so long as you allow the infusion of an adulterating element at the General Election in the various constituencies of the country you have no security and no real safeguard that the House of 'Commons does really represent the considered judgment of the people.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not propose to stand for more than five minutes between the House and a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] I rose in order to urge the desirability of proceeding with a Redistribution measure during the life time of this Parliament. I welcome the Prime Minister's statement in that regard, and I hope, before the next General Election, we may pass a Redistribution measure. After the election, we may fairly be said to represent an equal body of electors. There is one other thing I want to say about plural voting, and it is that in the old days Members of this House represented far more particularly than they do at the present moment the constituency which returned them to Parliament—[Interruption.] —and they did far more work for their own particular constituency than for the country. In recent years, we have seen a great evolution and change in regard to the work and duties of Members of Parliament. One hundred and fifty years ago a Member of Parliament represented his constituency only—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] —and now we all represent the country as a
  972
  whole. [Interruption.] I am quite aware that there is a bargain to conclude this Debate between the two Front Benches, but I think an hon. Member might have the privilege of speaking for five minutes on an important measure of this kind, and I intend to continue my remarks. What I have pointed out is only a legitimate development. When Members represented their constituency only plural voting was necessary, but now that hon. Members represent more the country as a whole, and not a particular constituency, it is only right and fair that we should abolish the plural voter. I regret that this Bill proceeds on a wrong principle, and it does not go to the root of the evil. There are two ways of dealing with the plural voter. You might leave the matter to the revising barrister, or you might make it a crime to vote twice. I am always against making a fresh crime, for it seems to me there is far too much of that kind of thing— [Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I must ask hon. Members to give the hon. Member a fair hearing.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am aware that hon. Members desire to get away to their dinner, and I wish to enter my protest against an hon. Member of this House not being allowed to speak for five minutes upon such an important Bill. The House is so anxious for its dinner that hon. Members do not mind passing a Bill which creates a new crime. I should have been better pleased if this Bill had been one to prevent the names of plural voters appearing on the register. If their names are allowed to appear on more than one register these people will say that they are still entitled to vote more than once, and what machinery is there in this Bill to prevent them voting. It is bad policy to carry legislation which we have no means of enforcing, and under this Bill there are no means of discovering whether a man has voted twice or not. When you have party feeling running high as you have at the present time, many people will vote twice, and they will run a very small risk of being discovered. I think this Bill is a step in the right direction by making it illegal to vote twice, but my complaint is that you will find it very difficult to carry it out. The risk of the reformed scheme will be more or less agreed to by the House, but the contentious part will have to be forced through

  973
  under the Parliament Act, and in that way only we shall secure a real reform in the representation of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I believe this Bill, if carried, will not be merely a measure of advantage to the Liberal party but one
  which will tend to the better democratic government of the country as a whole.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 222.

  Division No. 201.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 P.M.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Leach, Charles

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Adamson, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lewis, Rt. Han. John Herbert

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lundon, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Falconer, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lynch, A. A.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Armitage, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Field, William

  McGhee. Richard

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  France, G. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Barnes, George N.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barran, Sir J. N.(Hawick Burghs)

  Ginnell, Laurence

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

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Glanville, Harold James

  Manfield, Harry

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Martin, Joseph

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

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boland, John Pius

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

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hackett, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hancock, John George

  Molloy, M.

  Brady. P. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Moiteno, Percy Alport

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harmsworth. C. B. (Luton, Beds)

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayward, Evan

  Morrell, Philip

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morison, Hector

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

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Muldoon, John

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Munro, R.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hewart, Gordon

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaste)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clough, William

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Horne, Charles Sylvester (Ipswich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cotton, William Francis

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Dowd, John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Crooks, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Rt.Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shee, James John

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  De Forest, Baron

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman, H. M.

  Delany, William

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  King, Joseph

  Pointer, Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Doris, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pensonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Radford, G. H.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Webb, H.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Sheehy, David

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C, (Radcliffe)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson. John M. (Tyneside)

  Thorn, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ure, Pt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Yoxall. Sir James Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Croft, H. P.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jackson, Sir John

  Astor, Waldort

  Dickson. Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Baird, J. L.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Barnston, Harry

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

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

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fell, Arthur

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bird, Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Boyton, James

  Goldsmith, Frank

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bull, Sir William James

  Grant, J. A.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, W. R.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Gretton, John

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Butcher, J. G.

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cater, John

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cave, George

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B

  O'Grady, James

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hills, John Waller

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothlan)

  Pryce-Jonas, Colonel E.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  976

  977

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stanier, Beville

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Starkey, John R.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Stewart, Gershom

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Royds, Edmund

  Swift, Rigby

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

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

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Winterton, Earl

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'I., Walton)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, Sir George

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Snowden, Philip

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Sanders.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [27th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
When the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill was adjourned, I was endeavouring to show the House that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. A. Pease) by proposing to make the Act of 1899 compulsory was really entirely disregarding the recommendations and the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded. The Royal Commission stated quite clearly that the Act of 1899 should not be made compulsory. They went further than that, and recommenedd that the existing special schools should not remain under the Board of Education, but that they should be handed over to a new Board of Control for the mentally defective which was to be set up. Under the Mental Deficiency Bill, which is upstairs at the present time, we are setting up a Board of Control for the defective. We are handing over to that Board of Control all persons who are idiots and imbeciles, and also all persons over sixteen years of age who are feeble-minded, but the feeble-minded under sixteen are to remain under the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech which he made the other day, gave us no good reason for setting up this dual control. He did not even tell us why local authorities should be forced to provide two sets of residential institutions, one set under this Bill and one set under the Mental Deficiency Bill, which has already had a
978
Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he proposed to make the present system universal and uniform. He also said that under the proposals of this Bill he would only be using existing authorities which have already got their machinery at work. The only machinery which is at work at the present time is in the large towns, where special day schools have been set up. There is no machinery at work in country districts. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to make this Act universal and uniform all over the country. It is impossible, because in country districts day schools would not meet the case; you would have to set up residential institutions. If this Bill is passed, local authorities will clearly be forced to set up two kinds of residential institutions, and that must involve an enormous charge upon the rates.
8.0 P.M.
All we ask for is that the Report of the Royal Commision should be followed, that we should have one central authority and one local authority, and that the county schools should be asked to set up one residential institution for all grades of mentally defectives of all ages. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he said that he hoped he would get the Second Reading on that very day. He spoke of the Bill as if it were some small departmental measure, and he actually asked us to give it a Second Reading in half an hour. This Bill is not only going to impose an extremely heavy charge on the local ratepayers, but it is also going to impose a heavy charge upon the taxpayer. This small Bill, which the P.M. right hon. Gentleman hoped to pass in half an hour, is going to cost the taxpayer an additional £155,000 a year, because the President of the Board of Education stated that the Grant at the present time amounts to

979
£45,000, and he is going to increase it to £200,000. Before the House gives the Bill a Second Reading it ought to be satisfied not only that the object in view is a good one, but that, by passing the Bill, we shall accomplish our purpose in the best and most economical manner. One of the points which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to make was that a parent would probably not object to sending his child to a school or institution under the Board of Education, but that he would object to sending it to one under the Board of Control. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that, to the ordinary parent, it makes no difference whatever whether the institution is under the Board of Control or under the Board of Education. The special school at the present moment is known as the "silly" school, and I do not think that it makes any difference to the parent whether the "silly" school is under the Home Secretary or under the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. Why is the right hon. Gentleman opposed to handing over these special schools to the Board of Control? I believe the only reason is that they are at the present moment under the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman, like most Ministers, is in the hands of his official advisers, and we know perfectly well that once the officials have got a thing under their control they are not very willing to give it up. They have these special schools now under the Board of Education, and they are not willing to hand them over to any other authority.
Only a few days ago we passed a Money Resolution for the Mental Deficiency Bill, and we discussed, at great length, the new Commission that is to be set up. We agreed to create a new Board of four paid Commissioners with a large staff of expert advisers, and it is only reasonable that, having created this new expert Commission for the mentally defective, we should hand over mental defectives of all ages to the new Commission. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions: "Why is this Bill called the Defective and Epileptic Children Bill?" In Clause I there is no duty imposed on the local education authority to make provision for epileptic children, and it does not deal with such children. A little lower down, in Clause 2, however, a parent is to be fined or punished for not sending a child to a school for epileptics, yet, apparently no schools for epileptics are to be provided,
980
and why should a parent be fined for not sending his child to such a school when we are not asking the local authorities to set up schools for such children. The other point is an extremely serious one. It is contained in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, where it is provided that where, in respect of any mentally defective child, the Board of Education are satisfied that the local education authority have failed to make suitable provision for the education of the child, the Board may make a deduction from any Grant payable to the authority under Section 10 of the Education Act, 1902, to such amount as the Board of Education think just. That introduces an entirely new principle in regard to Grants. So far, when the Board of Education have made special Grants, either under this Act or for any other special purpose, they have only been allowed to deduct. the amount of that special Grant from the Grants which are made to the local education authority. But under this Bill, if the local education authority does not come up to the standard, whatever it may be, of the Board of Education as regards schools for children mentally defective the Board may come down on the local authority and say, "You have not done what you ought to do under this Act. You have not done that which you are required to do, and we are going to punish you by taking whatever we think just, and deducting it from the ordinary Aid Grant under the Education Act, 1902." That is an entirely new principle. It is one which has not been contained hitherto in any Bill or Act of Parliament, and, surely, we are entitled to have an explanation from the President of the Board of Education on this matter as well as on other matters. When he introduced this Bill the right hon. Gentleman did so in a very few words Practically, he did not explain it at all, and I submit that the House is entitled to a full explanation, because this is not a small departmental measure, but it is a Bill which is going to impose a very heavy burden on the ratepayer and a very heavy charge on the Treasury. It is for these reasons that I move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I rise to second the Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, did not put forward any case whatever for making it compulsory, and it is to its compulsory character that I object. At the present time these special schools are voluntary in all senses of the term. No education authority is forced to provide

981
them. Only those educational authorities which care to provide schools of this character need do so. To compulsion of that nature, however, I have no objection. I do not think it is outside the scope of a centralised authority to compel the various local authorities to make suitable provision for these unfortunate children. It is against the other sort of compulsion introduced in this Bill for the first time that I wish to enter a protest. At the present time there are some of these special schools for mentally defective children in many of our big towns. It is easier to have schools like these in towns than in country districts, because one school does for a whole town. At the present time it is absolutely optional with the parent whether he should send a feebleminded child to the special school or not, and he cannot be fined or punished in any way if the child does not attend. But now, for the first time, and without any argument in its favour being put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, he is going to change that and to say that the parent must, whether he likes it or not, send the child to the special school. Many parents think it a slur on their children that they should be sent to "silly" schools. There is a certain amount of feeling against these schools at the present time, and that feeling will in future be very largely enhanced when it becomes understood that these schools are to be the ordinary channel for the passage of the child to some sort of asylum. I do not view with any sort of satisfaction the very determined opposition that will arise to the compulsory character of this Bill when parents begin to realise that when they are sending their children to what are called "silly" schools, they are also sending them to imprisonment for life.
Mr. PEASE: No.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes, where the educational authority so decide, it may, when the child reaches the age of sixteen years, draft it to a home under the Mental Deficiency Bill. What was the main argument for compulsion in regard to ordinary education? I am against it in that respect because I believe parents are sufficiently anxious for their children's welfare to send them to school whether the education is compulsory or not. But the main argument put forward for compulsory education was that if it were not compulsory some parents, instead of taking their children to school, would send them
982
out at a very early age to earn their own living. That was no doubt a good argument in favour of compulsory education so far as ordinary children are concerned. But these mentally defective children at the age of seven are not fitted to earn their own living, neither are they at the age of twelve, and the very fact that they are mentally defective withdraws them from the possibility of being sent out to work; therefore the main argument in favour of compulsion so far as ordinary children are concerned does not apply to these mentally defective children, as even if they are not sent to the school compulsorily there will still be every incentive for the parent to send them there, especially if the schools are known to be places where the children are kindly treated, and well educated, and well looked after. Undoubtedly ninety-nine out of every hundred parents would, under such circumstances, send their children to the schools voluntarily, and it is not fair that they should all be put under compulsion because the hundredth parent may have a passion for looking after his child himself.
The real difficulty arises in connection not with town schools, but when you come to deal with the country districts. It is proposed under this Bill to set up residential schools to which every poor parent is to be compelled to send a child from the age of seven onwards, that may be mentally defective. If the local education authority thinks a child is not as bright as an ordinary child it is to be sent under compulsion to one of these residential schools. Hon. Members of this House do not send their children to a boarding school till they are nine or ten years of age, and working-class parents do not send their children away to boarding schools at all. They have got accustomed to sending them to day schools, and to many parents it is a terrible thing to send a child entirely out of their charge, yet under this Bill you deliberately go to these people and compel them to send away permanently a child which, it may be, is the favourite child, for mothers often feel more affection for a feeble-minded child than for one which has all its wits about it. At the age of seven years a mentally defective child of parents living in the country has, under penalty of imprisonment for the father, to be sent away to a residential home. I do not even believe that it will be allowed to return home for the holidays, while, when it reaches the

983
age of sixteen, it will be sent to some sort of asylum. What will parents say when put in such a position as that?
It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under the Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL [By Order].
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I ought to explain to the House the somewhat peculiar circumstances in which this Bill comes before it. It is a Bill which seeks to give power to the London County Council to borrow large sums of money. Year by year the London County Council have to come to this House to get authority to borrow sums for its capital expenditure. In the case of any provincial city or borough the municipal authority has to make out a case before an inspector of the Local Government Board, but the position of the London County Council is unique in the respect that it has no such duty upon it, and that it comes direct to this House. It promotes, year by year, a Bill, and as a general rule, the Bill goes through unopposed. From time to time, somebody in the House makes a Motion such as I am making to-night, for the purpose of getting an explanation as to certain sums for which the London County Council ask power to borrow. I have had the privilege on four or five previous occasions of making similar Motions and asking questions as to the powers the London County Council seek at the hands of this House. It is not an interesting question, but it is a question which the House ought to consider carefully before it authorises such large expenditure as is provided for in this Bill, and we ought to be satisfied that the powers are necessary
  984
  and for the good of the public at large. There was, in 1909, not in consequence of my intervention, a gratifying drop in the amount for which power to borrow was asked. This year, unfortunately, the figures have risen, and the county council are now asking power from this House to borrow a sum of £5,332,475. That is a larger sum than they have sought to borrow for the great number of years, certainly since 1907 or 1908, and it is quite apart from the sum they propose to borrow, £78,000,000, for loans to various borough. The sum in which I am particularly interested is the £5,332,475, the details of which are included in the Schedule, and as to the more important items I am going to ask the representative of the county council to give us some explanation.
  The first point is a minor matter about which I have asked before. It is No. 25 and relates to the erection of buildings and incidental expenditure in connection with the new County Hall, for which they ask power to borrow £301,000. As long ago as 1905 or 1906 I asked in this House whether the county council had any estimate of the amount they were going to spend upon this hall. At that time they had not got one. I do not know whether they have one now. At that time we voted a considerable sum of money to enable them to make preparations for building the County Hall, and, as I understand it, this is the first sum we have been asked to vote for the actual building of the hall. I should like the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what the county council expects the total expenditure upon this hall will be. I understand that the £301,000 is merely an instalment. We ought to go very carefully before we vote an instalment, and inquire what sum the county council intend to spend upon what may be a necessary building, but which may be looked upon rather as a luxury. My second point, which probably has the most public importance, is item No. 28, "Provision of schools and other purposes." The county council ask this year in that connection for the extraordinarily large sum of £1,000,000. Nothing like that has been asked for before. I have the figures here, but the House may take it from me that the amount asked for in previous years has been nothing like £1,000,000. I gather that this extraordinary demand is largely in respect of alterations to buildings which are necessary owing to requests made by the Board of Education, and it may be that the

  985
  county council are not entirely to blame for it. If that is so, the House should consider the matter carefully before this vast expenditure is made by the county council. If the Board of Education regulations make the London County Council pay something like £1,000,000 in one year for the alteration of buildings for the purpose of making classes smaller, probably we shall afterwards be asked to authorise the enlargement of playgrounds in the City of London, where land is of great value. If this sum were required in order to pay more to the teachers, I should be the last person to object, because I believe it would increase the benefits of education and be for the good of the teachers in many cases. But this is a capital sum, which has nothing to do with the salaries of teachers. They come from year to year out of the rates or Grants. This £1,000,000 is to be borrowed simply for the purpose of bricks and mortar, or, more correctly, for the purpose of altering existing bricks and mortar, by sub-dividing class-rooms and altering them in various ways. I submit that is a very severe tax upon the community, and I ask that the hon. Member should give some explanation of this large increase before it is passed.
  I should like an explanation upon two other points in the Bill. In regard to one, there is a very great increase—that is, the sum of £500,000, which the county council propose to borrow for purposes connected with the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 and 1862, and contributions to local improvements and expenditure upon improvements and work authorised by various Acts. I should like some explanation why that figure has gone up to £500,000. Turning to a very small point, an old friend with which I have often troubled the House, item No. 32, "Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904," I may say that I am an interested party in this particular point, because I once held a very few shares in an unfortunate company which was run off the river by the competition of the London County Council. The item provides for the partial reconstruction of Greenwich Pier, for which power to borrow £2,200 is asked in the coming year. Will the hon. Member in charge of the Bill explain why that work is still necessary. I understood that Greenwich Pier had been repaired or rebuilt some little time ago.
  I want to impress on the House the importance of our getting a check on this expenditure. It has always been important, but it is more important this year
  986
  than it has been in other years. Every other year when the County Councils Money Bill has come before the House it has had to put in it what powers it was to have as to borrowing, as to repayment, and also as to the use of the sinking fund. Many great financiers have criticised these provisions from time to time in the House, and last year, possibly to avoid the difficulties occasioned by these criticisms or for the sake of convenience, they carried through a Consolidation Bill which was not, therefore discussed in the House, and which put them in an extraordinarily strong position from their point of view, and with reference to these very large borrowings they are proposing to make this year they have power, with the consent of the Treasury, to defer repaying any of these sums over a period of sixty years. They have greater power now than they have had in any previous year when this Bill has come before the House.
  It is important for this reason. It is a dangerous power to give any local authority when it comes to such a large sum of money, as, for instance, the figure of £1,000,000 for building and repairing board schools, because with the present constant changing of Orders from the Board of Education, if we are to have a succession of these somewhat irritating Orders which do not assist education, but increase the burden on those who are trying to educate the people at large, the life of a school is not likely to be fifty years, and the very schools which are being altered this year, I imagine, will none of them attain to that happy age of longevity, and they have probably all been built during the last ten or fifteen yea's. When you come to borrowing money for the purpose of building schools and repairing old schools and spread it over fifty years, that is a very considerable financial advantage to the municipal authority which is borrowing, and one which I am not quite sure the House is justified in passing without some explanation. It is a matter of importance that sums of this magnitude should be checked by someone, and in the peculiar position of the London County Council there is no one who can check them, it is no one's duty to go into them, to raise any objection or to ask for any explanation, except this House. That is my excuse for bringing the matter before the House.
  Mr. NIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am sure every Member of the London County Council and every ex-member, indeed, I think every ratepayer in London, must regard with pride and satisfaction the intelligent and inquisitive interest which my hon. and learned Friend takes in the expenditure of the London County Council. The mere fact that the London County Council have to come to Parliament for all its capital expenditure, whether borrowed for its own use or for the use of other local bodies, which is controlled and regulated by the House of Commons, makes it impossible for anybody to complain of any criticism which may be passed by the House of Commons upon that expenditure, because the House of Commons, having to regulate and control it, must undertake a certain amount of responsibility for it. I have no complaint whatever to make of the criticism of my hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, the questions he asked were most apposite and most pertinent and, probably, as one who is rated himself with this expenditure, he has every right to know what is the ground for it and whether or not it is justified. I hope to prove that it is justified and I hope to allay any alarm he may feel as to the excessive nature of the expenditure as it appears in this Money Bill. The Bill, in asking for an expenditure for a total borrowing power of £6,565,475, is a little misleading, because from that sum we ought to deduct the powers given last year which were never used. They could have spent to the amount of £3,794,930, so that the net aggregate new borrowing powers are £2,770,545. I should like to assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is a great deal of check and a good deal of criticism in the county council itself. There was a time when the criticism and the check and control of the finance committee of the county council was not very substantial and not very real, but that control now is very complete indeed. Estimates are submitted by the various spending departments to the Finance Committe, and they are thoroughly overhauled by the Finance Committee from the point of view of what the council can really afford to spend. Days are set up in the county council, just as in the House of Commons in Supply, in which all the great terns, both of capital expenditure and revenue expenditure, can be and are very fully discussed. So that there is a great deal of criticism within the council itself.
  988
  The House must recollect that, after all, this great spending authority has to submit itself for re-election once every three years, and the elections are fought most strenuously and every particle of expenditure during those three years, and the policy which dictates expenditure, is very minutely examined by the electors and by the ratepayers themselves. I agree with my hon and learned Friend that there was a drop, and a long drop, in 1908–9 in the amount of money which the council sought power to borrow. I am rather proud of that fact, because it was the first time the London Municipal Reformers obtained possession of the county council, and they set to work to see whether they could not borrow less money and make their actual estimates of expenditure approximate more nearly to the actual expenditure from year to year. No doubt there was a fault in that direction, and the county council had got into the habit of asking for power to raise larger sums of money than it was ever likely to spend. During the last few years undoubtedly the estimates for capital expenditure have approximated much more nearly to the actual amount which is to be spent, but still for all that, they cannot approximate very nearly, because under the rules and regulations which govern expenditure in the county council you cannot shift expenditure from one head to another, and therefore it is obligatory on those who are responsible for the policy and expenditure of the county council to ask under each head for more money than they are likely to spend. If it were possible to shift the expenditure from one head to another, I have no doubt that these estimates would be more approximately accurate. There has been a little criticism by my hon. and learned Friend because this year the county council is asking rather more money than it asked in the years 1908 and 1909. After all, it is quite impossible to make a comparison of one year with another. A fair estimate would be to compare one quinquennial or decennial period with another similar period.
  My hon. and learned Friend first of all asked information as to the money to be expended on improvements under the Metropolitan Management Act of 1855. He asked why we want so large arum as £681,145. It is impossible to regulate this expenditure so that one year tallies with another year. Some years, it is obvious, you must carry out greater works in the way of road improvements than in

  989
  other years. One year you may have a favourable opportunity for purchasing property at a better price than in other years. This year we are looking to the carrying out of one or two important improvements. The widening of Kingsland Road and Ball's Pond Road will cost £186,000. That is the contribution for this year. That is an improvement which is very much needed. We contemplate spending £150,000 on the widening of the Strand, which, again, is very much needed. These are items of expenditure which have been very thoroughly canvassed by the committees of the county council, and thoroughly overhauled by the county council itself. I do not think there is an item to which, if my hon. and learned Friend had intimate knowledge of these matters, he would offer any objection at all. He would say, "All that is perfectly legitimate expenditure by the county council as the successors of the old Metropolitan Board of Works." No body like the London County Council could possibly exist if it did not carry out from year to year large Metropolitan improvements, such as the widening of roads and streets, and generally making traffic in London more easy than it is at present.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a question in regard to Greenwich Pier, upon which it is proposed to spend £2,200. When the river steamboat service was given up on account of the enormous annual loss to the ratepayers, which we did not think justified the expenditure, the piers which had been bought from the Thames Conservancy reverted to the Thames Conservancy—or rather, its successors, the London Port Authority—but the piers which the county council itself had wholly or partly erected, or bought from another authority, did not revert to the Port of London Authority. They remained in the hands of the council. This particular pier is going to wreck and ruin, and can be of no use to the county council which cannot hope to earn toll by the users of this pier unless a considerable sum of money is spent on repairs. The county council receives a fair amount from coasting steamers for the use of the pier. We are proposing to put it into a state of repair, and continue the charge for that service, but the pier will not be of use if it is not repaired. I hope that this explanation will be satisfactory to my hon. and learned Friend, and that it will show there is no intention to revive the old Thames steamboat service which caused such a serious loss to the ratepayers. As
  990
  to the expenditure on the London County Hall, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there has been any estimate. I can assure him that there has been an estimate which has occupied a very great deal of time and attention on the part of the Establishment Committee to which that expenditure is entrusted. It has also occupied a great deal of time and attention from the Finance Committee. The total estimated cost of the whole scheme, that is to say, the site, the buildings which are to be put upon that site, the reclaiming of the river, and everything connected with it, is £1,770,376. It is obvious that after you have got your foundations in and reclaimed the river, the expenditure proceeds more rapidly. That accounts for the fact that we are asking to borrow a considerably larger sum this year than last year, and it is only reasonable to surmise that next year and the year after the amount will be very much larger, because it is obviously in the interest of everybody to get this building up as soon as possible, and more especially when we realise that the council is paying for the rents of different buildings £40,000. The inconvenience to the council's work is enormous through having buildings scattered in almost every direction, and connected by telephone. Undoubtedly we shall be capable of much more efficient and effective work when we get all the different departments, or most of them, under one roof, where all our servants will work with one another.
  I do not think any person ever supposed that you could get a county hall for much less than it is now proposed to expend. I thought that £1,500,000 would be quite sufficient, but, after all, the House must recollect that new duties are constantly being imposed on the London County Council, and that, therefore, the staff must be enlarged in order to undertake these duties. What would have sufficed seven years ago would not suffice to-day, because of the new duties and the additional staff. I hope I have satisfied my hon. and learned Friend. He may think that we are rather too extravagant, but I am sure he will agree that it was absolutely necessary for the county council to have a new County Hall in which to cencentrate all the staff. After all, these matters are all criticised in the most vigorous way by the two parties in the London County Council, and the electors themselves recently had an opportunity of saying whether or not they approved of

  991
  the general policy carried out by the county council. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked information as to the large expenditure on schools and school buildings. He said he would not object at all to a large expenditure on the salaries of teachers, but that he did rather object to, or, at all events, he thought he ought to criticise, the large expenditure on bricks and mortar. Let me tell him that the teaching staff in London are very well paid compared with the teaching staff anywhere else. There is a pension scheme, which I do not think any other local education authority has set up—at all events on the same scale. Nobody can say that the London education authority is in any way mean or niggardly in its treatment of its teachers. As regards buildings in London, we have to pay a large price for school buildings. The cost of the buildings is due to the expensive charges for building materials, which, as everybody knows, have been and are still going up. Again, I say I do not think this is an excessive sum if the House considers what the Department of Education demands on the part of education authorities. I do not say that we should have spent all this money on our own initiative. A certain amount has to be spent on schools for physically and mentally deficient children, and a certain amount on training colleges, but the great bulk of the expenditure is occasioned by the policy of the Board of Education in gradually bringing pressure to bear so that the local education authorities, certainly the London education authority, have to adopt the policy of reducing the size of their classes. When that policy was first introduced, the London County Council asked for time to consider its full effect. After much deliberation and controversy, the London County Council agreed gradually to bring about a policy by which every class for infants would be reduced to forty-eight, and every class for children other than infants would be reduced to forty.
  That is going to cost a great deal of money. I do not say that I grudge it. I think that no teacher, certainly in the higher classes, can teach efficiently more than forty. It will cost altogether over £5,000,000, spread over fifteen years. That alone will mean something like a 4½d. rate. That is the cause of asking such a very large sum this year, because though the scheme will be spread over fifteen years the Board of Education will insist on a
  992
  very large amount of work during the next two years. We must pull down some schools and rebuild others, and, altogether, they hasten the rate at which we should otherwise have been willing to spend our money. I think if we can afford it, it is a good thing. It is a question of what we can afford. The education rate in London is very high. We are looking forward to a time when part of it may be borne by the taxpayers, who ought to bear it, and not by the ratepayers. While I admit that we are borrowing a great deal of money, yet it is satisfactory that every year we are borrowing less money than we pay back, and both the borough councils and the county councils are in this respect setting a good example to provincial bodies. The net debt of the London County Council on the 31st March, 1911, was £51,832,845. On the 31st March, 1912, it was £51,809,784, and on the 31st March, 1913, it was £51,398,842, so that the net debt of London is gradually decreasing notwithstanding the very large sums of money which are being spent on what are, after all, in the main, useful purposes. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. and learned Friend and the ratepayer, that the money is being well expended, that we are not lavish in our expenditure, but are spending our money well and wisely, and that the whole financial position of the London County Council at the present moment is sound and healthy, and redounds to the credit of all those governing this great expenditure and administering this money which is placed at their disposal.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I thank my right hon. Friend for the spirit in which he has received the criticisms which I have made. I hope that he will not expect me to accept everything which he has said. The local debt the last time that I referred to the matter was £49,000,000. It has certainly gone up since then, but I hope that it will now gradually be reduced. I do not suppose there is anything to be gained by dividing the House, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I beg to move, "That Standing Orders, 223 and 243, be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I ask what that means?
  Mr. MACLEAN: The Standing Orders referred to relate to the time within which the later stage of the Bill must be taken. It is customary at this stage of the Session to move that these Standing Orders be suspended, and the Motion is in accordance with that custom.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I beg to move to leave out Clauses 30 and 31. I am reluctant to ask the House to intervene between a Committee upstairs and its decision, but I am bound to move to leave out the Clauses. This is a General Powers Bill, though it is called a Tramways and Improvements Bill, in winch power is taken to construct new tramways at Wandsworth and Hampstead, to make further improvements in connection therewith, to widen the Strand, to carry additional passengers in tramcars on special occasions, to erect street refuges where tramways are situated, and to enable the council to work any tramways they may purchase. It will be seen that this Bill is a very usual Bill, and contains provisions to enable the London County Council to carry out urgent and necessary public work. It provides for £33,930 for new tramways, and £229,000 for street improvement. I do not think that anyone would wish that a Bill of so much public importance should be sacrificed even for a year. All these Clauses, I believe, met with the full approval of the Committee upstairs. Only on one Clause did any trouble arise. That is one which is now known as Clause 30. It is a very simple Clause, and no man who has any experience of the procedure of this House would suggest that the London County Council would promote a separate Bill for the purpose of acquiring the powers which it seeks under Clause 30, to enable the council to work certain lines in the London county area, which, under the County Council Act of 1896, they have got power to work. It was practically as a drafting Amendment to the Act of 1896, or to correct a Parliamentary inadvertence, that this Clause appeared in the Bill. The London County Council has power to work in the county 148 miles of tramway, but because of a Parliamentary inadvertence it has not the power to work two
  994
  or three small pieces of line which have been constructed in the county since 1896. The reason is because in the Bill of 1896 the council only took power to work existing lines, and never thought that any tramway would be constructed in London other than tramways constructed by itself, and no really effective tramway has been constructed in London other than that constructed by the county council. But with the consent of the county council two lines have been made linking up the system inside the county. Without the consent of the county council they could not have been constructed. Then, after the council had purchased those small pieces of line which had been constructed since 1896 with their consent, it was found that the Act of 1896 only gave them power to work existing tramways; therefore, although they bought these small pieces in connection with the larger section, they had not the power to work them. They were purchasing under the Act of 1870, and, as they had not the power to work them, what could be more reasonable than that the county council should put a small Clause in the General Powers Bill to give them that power. When this Clause came before the Committee, the London United Tramways Company appeared on the scene. They were given a locus by the authorities of the House, or they obtained a locus on this Clause. I want to submit to the House that they had no locus on any other Clause; they had nothing whatever to do with any of the other Clauses of the Bill. If hon. Members look through the evidence given before the Committee they will see that is so. What is the position of the United Tramways Company in the county? They have four miles of tram line system, and by agreement with the county council these four lines were purchasable in 1909, and they are in process of being purchased. They are not actually paid for because there is some litigation, and legal proceedings are still going on as to the price of the purchase.
  9.0 P.M.
  But there is no dispute that they are being purchased by the council and they are workable by the council with this exception. A few years ago a small link line of about a mile was made between these two systems going into the county. That mile of tramway was constructed with the consent of the county council, and was to be purchasable at the same time as the four miles being purchased under the Tramways Act. Through an inadvertence the county

  995
  council has not power to work the tramways constructed since 1896, and it was asked by the Company that the Committee upstairs should give statutory running powers over the whole four miles and the one new mile, making five miles in respect of which statutory running powers were asked for. On this Clause, the London United Tramways Company are thereby reopening the whole question of running powers inside the county. I think the House will agree that it opens up a very serious position, a more serious position than that relating to the particular one mile of new tramway. It is asking the local authority under the Tramway's Act of 1870 to buy out and purchase the tramway undertaking, while this decision of the Committee upstairs gives the company perpetual statutory running powers of these lines. It seems to me that is an impossible position; it is an extraordinary position in which to put a public body like the London County Council. There is nothing new in making these arrangements, and the county council have, in six other instances, made arrangements with outside undertakers to come inside the county. The London County Council are pledged to give facilities to this company, but they must be mutual facilities; they must be facilities on conditions and terms for a limited time, and to be renewed from time to time, as the case may be. But here is given to this company a statutory and perpetual right after the ratepayers' money has been used to buy out their undertaking. There is all the difference in the world between going to arbitration for ordinary facilities and arbitration under these conditions. The Committee asked, "Why do you object to arbitration?" Arbitration for mutual concession and agreement is one thing, but to go into arbitration with perpetual statutory running powers for all time over these particular lines would make it impossible for any local authority in the country to enter upon the purchase of these tramway undertakings at all. We ought not to allow the measure to pass in this form. The London County Council, after all, are a public authority representing four and a half millions of people; they are not a profit-sharing company working for profit alone. As I have already pointed out, they are willing and anxious to give facilities, and they have made agreements with six other undertakers under similar conditions. I expect that
  996
  every local authority would be very much concerned and disturbed if this Bill were to pass with this Clause which the Committee has put in. It has been pointed out to me that it very likely will encourage other speculative tramway companies in different parts of the country to go to small villages outside large centres with tramway undertakings, and then, under the policy of this Clause, claim the right to come into the centres, with recognition by the central authority of their statutory running powers. I would remind the House that the traffic problem in London is a very difficult and complicated one at the present time, and to introduce this new complication must add still more to the difficulties. The Committee upstairs took the view of the company, and inserted Clause 31 in the Bill, giving them statutory running powers subject to arbitration.
  I desire to come to the action of the county council before the Committee. The county council gave the matter anxious consideration, and they decided that they could not accept the decision of the Committee. They announced to the Committee after an adjournment from one day to the next, their intention of withdrawing Clause 30 from the Bill altogether, leaving all that other part of the Bill which, as they understood, had been already passed by the Committee, and which dealt with large improvements, street improvements, and other matters, one amounting to £229,000 and another to £33,000. Thus they proposed to withdraw Clause 30 which had been the bone of contention and on which the London United Tramways Company had persuaded the Committee to give a decision in their favour. The usual course is to allow the promoters of an Omnibus or General Powers Bill to withdraw a Clause of this nature if the Committee are not satisfied with it, or if they put on conditions which the promoters are unable to accept. I venture to say that the London County Council as a public authority could not and ought not to have accepted the decision on public grounds. It was not a question of pique or disappointment because they had not carried their point, but in the interests of the public and of the tramway undertaking, they could not in their responsible position accept the decision. However much we may differ, I do not question the right of the Committee to come to a decision on the evidence, but I do say the Committee, having come to that decision, the county council had no other course open as a

  997
  public body but to decline to accept it, and they asked the Committee to allow them to withdraw Clause 30. But the decision of the Committee was, if the county council withdrew Clause 30 from the Bill, that the Committee would reject the whole Bill. I think that that is not according to precedent, and not according to the usual procedure of the Committees of this House, and that it is not a course which we, now that the Bill is before us for consideration, ought to agree to. It seems to me an unnecessary course for the Committee to have taken. First of all it is an Omnibus Bill, and being a Bill containing other provisions, surely it could not have been in the public interest for the Committee to have threatened the London County Council that if they withdrew the small Clause, and if they did not accept its decision, that then the whole Bill, with all the public interests concerned was to be rejected, although the Committee as understood by the county council had already passed the other parts of the Bill!
  I have read the evidence and I know that the hon. Chairman did not quite take that view, but the county council understood that all the other parts of the Bill had been passed. I do not challenge the right of the Committee to come to its own conclusions upstairs. That is what Committees upstairs are for, to hear the evidence and give their decision, but I think in this case they made a mistake. I do not think they realised the far-reaching effect of their decision, and I think if the Committee had realised what it meant and how far it carried, they could not have given that decision. From the evidence, it seems to me that they were surprised that the London County Council did not accept the decision, and that seems to be the reason of the Committee's decision to reject the whole Bill. Anyone with experience of these large public matters in the government of London would not have felt surprised, while the Committee seemed really surprised. The action of the Committee in refusing to allow the county council to withdraw the Clause is not, I submit, in the public interest, and is not in the interests of this House as far as private Bills are concerned, but is destructive of all the usual practice on General Powers Bills, because if you are going to hang on one Clause the whole future possibilities of the other Clauses of a General Powers Bill you would have to have a Bill for every small purpose for which a public authority has to come to Parliament.
  998
  There is then the question of the procedure of the House, which, after all, I think, is the most serious side. There may be differences of opinion with regard to running powers and arbitration. As to those, the Committee may have its own opinion and we may have ours, but I think, with regard to the procedure, the House is bound in this matter to take a serious view of the decision of the Committee, and that is why I put down a Motion to leave out Clauses 30 and 31. Originally, I had put down, at the request of the county council, a Motion to leave out Clause 31, that was to give the county council its Bill, as it promoted it in spite of the Committee. I sometimes act as Chairman of Committees upstairs, and am desirous, as I am sure every Member is desirous, of supporting those Committees as far as possible. We are jealous of our Committees upstairs. What I have said does not lessen my respect for the hon. Chairman and those who take part in Committee work upstairs. Because of my regard for Committees upstairs I put down a Motion to leave out Clauses 30 and 31, so as not to override the Committee altogether, but to have the matter over, and take out the Clause on which the Committee came to a decision and also Clause 31 which the Committee put in the Bill. I think that would be the fairest way of doing it, leaving the county council another year to come up for the remedying of the small defect in the Act of 1896.
  On the question of procedure, I think it is in the interests of the House to have again on record, so as to help matters in the future, what has taken place on previous occasions. On the 3rd of July 1902, a similar circumstance arose in the House. It was in connection with the South-Eastern and Chatham Companies Bill, about a swing bridge on the River Swale. There the Committee wanted to put upon the promoters of that Bill a condition which they refused to accept, and that Committee threw out all the other parts of the Bill, because the promoters refused to accept the decision of the Committee on the small points. The matter came to the House, and it was moved to recommit the Bill back to the Committee, and it was recommitted back to the Committee by a large majority. With your permission, Sir, I would like to read to the House what the Chairman of Committees of that date said. I think you, Sir, were the

  999
  Chairman of Committees at the time, and this is what you said:—
  "He ventured to say that the Committee in that matter had fallen into an error. The proper course would have been to have said that the Preamble, as far as it related to the Swale Bridge, was not proved. It seemed to him it was impossible to say that the Preamble relating to other matters was not proved, because it was proved, and clearly proved, and the Chairman of the Committee stopped counsel from proceeding with it, because he said he was satisfied. He was concerned on behalf of Omnibus Bills generally. It was perfectly obvious if railway companies and corporations had to introduce every one of their proposals as a separate Bill, the cost would be gigantic, the mass of documents which the House would have to struggle through would be piled mountains high, and the whole system which had worked effectively and well would be destroyed. He was sure the House would not desire to do that. As far as he hail been able to search the records of the House there was no precedent for the action of the Committee. For those reasons he thought it desirable that the House should accept the Instruction, and he thought the Committee on consideration would see that a proper course to take would be to report to the House as proved the portions of the Bill that really were proved and to reject that portion of the Bill which in their opinion should not be passed."
  On the same occasion, Mr. Parker Smith said:—
  "The issue was as to whether or not the system of Omnibus Bills was to be continued. It had been argued that if the Committee differed from the promoters and sought to impose a condition which the promoters were unwilling to accept, the Committee were entitled to use the threat that unless the condition were accepted they would throw out, riot merely the part of the scheme to which the condition related, but the whole of the Bill. That, he contended, was not the function of the Committee. The Committee was a judicial body, and was bound to go into the various points and give a judicial decision upon them. The House was in an entirely different position, and was fully entitled to look into all the circumstances of the case, and, if it thought the company were not fit to be entrusted with further privileges, to reject the scheme. But the only excuse which would justify a Committee in taking that course would be some gross breach of faith on the part of the promoters, and there was no such suggestion in the present case. If the decision of the Committee were upheld, a railway company would be bound to break up its Omnibus Bills into a dozen pieces, and submit each one separately. The present system was most convenient, not only to the promoters, but also to the House, and should be maintained. He believed the additional power claimed by the Committee, and for which no precedent whatever could be found, would lead to mischievous and far reaching consequences, and therefore he hoped the Instruction would be accepted."
  The Instruction was accepted by 169 votes to 93. I think that puts the case as far as this particular Bill is concerned. On the merits of running powers, I think the Committee has made a mistake. On the question of procedure, I think it is the bounden duty of the House to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs. Supported by the views of the then Chairman of Committees and of Mr. Parker Smith and by what we all know and feel in regard to Private Bill Committees, I think I have made out a case for asking the House to omit these two Clauses from the Bill. Therefore, I beg to move.
  Mr. CASSEL: I rise to second the Amendment.
  From the fact that I do so, the House will recognise that on this question there is no difference between the two parties in the House or between the two parties on the London County Council. Both parties on the council are absolutely agreed that the retention of Clause 31 would be a most dangerous precedent, and I think their view is shared by all other local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. I should like briefly to emphasise the two points made by the hon. Member opposite. With regard to procedure, I think that all Members, in whatever quarter of the House they sit, will recognise the importance of doing nothing to render the procedure in connection with Omnibus Bills more difficult. It is of the greatest importance, not only to local authorities, but to the public and ratepayers generally, that that power of proceeding by Omnibus Bills should be preserved intact. It saves money and time, and it is often a means of procuring powers of great importance to the public which otherwise could not be obtained. The House should bear in mind that we are not really asking it to-day to reverse the decision of the Committee on this particular Clause. All that we are asking is that the London County Council, objecting very strongly as it does to the particular Clause which has been made a condition of this particular power, should be entitled to withdraw its application for this particular power, and to take the other powers of value to the public which are contained in different portions of the Bill, to which I think the Committee themselves saw no objection, and which were not in any way opposed by the company at whose instance Clause 31 was inserted. In regard to that Clause we have to bear in mind that the council were merely seeking to remedy a drafting defect in the Act of 1896. That Act for the first time authorised the London County Council to work the tramways which it purchased. I think that if the real intention of Parliament had been carried out, it would have authorised the county council to work any tramways which it might purchase at any time, but as a matter of fact the power conferred by the Act is limited to tramways, the construction of which had already been authorised at the date of that Act. The particular mile of tramways in question was not authorised until a later date, namely, 1902, when the county council, as a condition to giving its consent to the

  1001
  line, stipulated that it should have a right to purchase that mile of tramway in 1909.
  At the time it seems to have escaped everybody's attention, but although the county council would have power to purchase that particular line, it would not have power to work it, because of the shortcoming of the Act of 1896. It could not have been the intention of Parliament to give the county council the power of purchasing that line without also intending that it should have the power of working it. As far as concerns the other four and a third miles of tramways which the same company has within the boundaries of the London County Council, the council actually has the power both to purchase and to work them, and there is no such condition imposed as that which is now proposed in connection with this one mile. Is there any reason why with regard to the four and a third miles there should not be such a condition, while with regard to the one mile, there should be such a condition? The four and a third miles run through the important centres of Shepherd's Bush and Uxbridge Road, and if this condition were necessary at all it would be equally necessary there. It was only by utilising the opportunity afforded by the necessity of remedying this defect in the earlier Act that the company proposed to obtain compulsory running powers, not only over the one mile, but over the four and a third miles as well. I agree with the Committee that there should be running facilities over these lines. The council, through a former chairman of the highways committee, and a past chairman of the council, expressed their full intention of granting running powers over these lines, but what they say is that they cannot accept having it put upon them as a matter of compulsion. They recognise, as I think everyone who studied the situation must recognise, that it is in the public interest that there should be continuous running up to the great railway termini at Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith, and the council will no doubt be prepared on reasonable terms to grant running powers to the company in question. But if Parliament trust the London County Council to be the tramway authority at all, surely they can trust it to be reasonable in this matter. I submit that once the county council has been trusted to manage this large system of tramways in London, Parliament ought to trust it to be reasonable in this matter of granting facilities. To have a compulsory Clause of this descrip-
  1002
  tion put into an Act of Parliament is a precedent which under no circumstances they cart accept, and I submit that, taking that view, they ought at least to be able to withdraw that portion of the Omnibus Bill to which this particular condition is attached.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: I think it will be to the convenience of the House if at the earliest possible moment in this Debate I endeavour to state, in as few words as possible, what were the considerations which influenced the Committee of which I was Chairman in their decision upon the Bill now under consideration. Before entering upon this matter I would acknowledge the graceful compliment which the mover of the Motion made both to my Committee, and to the various Committees upstairs, to the effect that he believed they always did their best in the public interest and for the credit of this House. I may add that in connection with the Committee over which I presided, several Members, myself included, have already served on bodies similar to the county council. We all have great sympathy with Municipal undertakings, and there was certainly not in the minds of any one of us the smallest prepossession against the exercise of such powers as the county council has, or any desire to make in any way the task to be carried out any more difficult than it is. I cannot put the determining consideration more concisely I think than in the words which I used upstairs, and which, by the leave of the House, I will read:—
  "We are here as a Committee of the House of Commons exercising the functions of the House of Commons, and to watch the interests of the public. We cannot divorce ourselves from that duty to the House of Commons because we are sitting up here. We are charged by the House to carry out functions which belong to the House as a whole, and, therefore, we have to consider the interests of the public. That is the view that we take upon this question that we are deciding. If this Bill has to go through, the public must be protected in the direction that w e consider necessary."
  Therefore, we acted entirely upon the evidence which came before us as to what was in the public interest. We had to consider the interests of a large section of the public that uses the tramways, and a still larger section of the public which has a right to the roads over which the tramways run. We came to the conclusion that the interests both of those who use the tramways, and of the general traffic facilities of the metropolis, could not be properly and adequately protected unless we inserted Clause 31, which gives

  1003
  running powers and ensures through communication over these lines. The question which we had to determine arose, as has been pointed out, out of the purchase of the compulsory powers under the Tramways Act of 1870 of a certain portion of the line of the London United Tramways Company. Under that Act the London County Council is enabled to compulsorily acquire the tramways within its area. Under the Act of 1896 it acquired, in addition, the power to work those trams, and this power was applicable to all the tramways which were included in the schedule of that Act. That schedule included all the tramways within the area of the administrative county of London which were then constructed. Of the portion which is now under purchase, one section, I might say two-thirds, were included in the schedule. The remaining portion was constructed subsequently to 1896. Therefore, the county council have not the power to work it, and so were obliged to come to Parliament to get special powers for that purpose.
  The London county boundary lies at a distance of about one mile westward from those great centres of traffic, Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith Broadway, on which the whole system of the London United system converges. When the purchase has been completed, if the powers now asked for are granted, the whole of that section which lies between the county boundary and Hammersmith and Shepherd's Bush will be cut off from the system of the London United Tramways Company, and will only be able to be worked by the London County Council. In the last few years there has been an immense development in Middlesex and in Surrey out westward. Any traveller by the Great Western Railway will see what has happened in the last few years. In the development of Ealing, Acton, Hanwell, Hayes, and so on, lying along the Uxbridge Road and as far as Uxbridge. Southward, at Hounslow, Chiswick, Richmond, Hampton, and other places there is the same development going on. All these newly developed districts are linked up by the system of the London United Tramways Company, which now extends to upwards of fifty-five miles of tramways, including that five miles or thereabouts which have been referred to. For the convenience of the large population which has grown up the system of through traffic has been carried into effect,
  1004
  and I would ask the House for a moment to consider the movement which is taking place every day. The traffic, which is carried over these fifty-five miles of line of the London United Tramways Company is all drawn into two centres. We had it in evidence that there were 20,000,000 of passengers in the course of the year, distributed from the two places I have named, by the other means of conveyance—the tubes, the omnibuses, the District Railway, and so forth. In order to facilitate this operation for people in the distant parts of surburban London, there have been set up a system of through booking at cheap rates from the system of the London United, and by means of an agreement between that company and the railway companies coming into the principal centre of London. Now at this point we come upon the difference between this case and any other that has arisen in the working of the London tramways up to the present time. Parliament laid down certain conditions when it authorised the making of this tramway now in the possession of the London United Tramways Company. Parliament required as a condition of granting the Bill to the London United Tramways Company, empowering the construction of these tramways, the insertion of a Clause compelling the company to carry passengers from Acton, Ealing, and other places to Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith, a distance of five miles, for one penny. Parliament, therefore, has this obligation to see that the benefits which are given to the public are secured, and to see that the companies that have to fulfil that obligation are placed now in the position to continue it, and that the powers sought shall not interfere with the rights given to the company. The company have given over the key of its whole system. It is vital to know what its position is going to be in respect of the obligation which is to be imposed upon it by Parliament, and the manner in which that obligation will be accepted by the authority taking over a part of the line. The public has a right to know how its convenience is to be assured. On this question the London County Council, through their counsel, have declined to indicate what the position is, and they have declined to reply.
  I will ask the House to consider what would be the effect upon this system of through traffic if the London County Council is given this Bill minus the safeguards we thought fit to insert for the

  1005
  benefit of the public. The stream of traffic may be broken at a point a mile or thereabouts to the westward of the central termini—at a point which has no distinction other than that it happens to be the geographical boundary of the London administrative area. That is a point where there can be no facility for the congregation of cars on a road which is covered at every time of the day by vast masses of traffic of all kinds. I ask the House to consider what would be the effect of requiring a break in the through traffic to take place at what I may call a casually selected point upon that road. We had evidence in the Committee—police evidence—as to the urgent necessity for having through running on these tramway lines. We had photographs put before us snowing the congestion of the areas at certain points and the rush there is to get on the traffic, and we were able to form a very clear idea of what would occur in that road, which I know through having passed over it, but the name of which I do not remember at the moment. The only clear answer we have to the many questions put to witnesses was this. Here is the statement of counsel on behalf of the promoters:—
  "We know that they have a system of through tickets, that is quite true, and we have exactly the same powers under a recent Act of Parliament, and if the worst comes to the worst and they decline to work this, we shall be able to grant through tickets so far as our system extends—that is, to the boundary."
  What is the use of issuing through tickets to the boundary when you have to carry people many miles beyond the boundary and when there is a statutory obligation to bring those people in from Acton, Hanwell, to the centres for the cars? The only hope held out was that if the worst comes to the worst these tickets will be issued, giving people a right to travel one mile westward of Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith. I cannot conceive how practical men who show much ability in doing the work of the county council could contemplate a proposal which is wholly Chinese in its grotesque exclusiveness, and which would be much more worthy of a Pekin local authority than of the great London County Council. Hon. Members have spoken to me in the Lobby and I have here the views of counsel upstairs as to the policy of the London County Council. We on the Committee upstairs have no concern whatever with questions of policy. We had to deal with the simple administrative problem. That problem is this: Here are 60,000 people who
  1006
  have been conveyed every day of the year—that is the average—backwards and forwards in districts which are miles away from the county boundary on to the central lines. They have to travel over two lines of tramway, and one of the essential limits in that line of tramway for which there is this Parliamentary obligation is to carry its through traffic from Acton, Hammersmith, and the route now marked by the red line on the paper that has been circulated by the county council showing the line through which they wish to acquire power. Surely, before we could give that power we had a right on behalf of the public to know what are going to be the arrangements by which the public are to be guaranteed the privileges which they hitherto enjoy. The question was answered by the chairman of the Tramway Committee of the London County Council to a certain extent. He, under cross-examination, admitted the desirability of through running, and disclaimed any intention to turn the people out compulsorily at the county boundaries. But he could not give any guarantee or any indication that they would not be so turned out. He admitted the existence of a stated bitter litigation between the company and the council. We all know that individually—and I think co-operate bodies are the same—when they are in that condition they live in an atmosphere which is not always conducive to sound judgment and calm consideration. I see that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) has on the Paper a Motion to delete Clause 31. The hon. Member knows a great deal about the question of housing in which he takes a deep interest and he is eloquent on the evils of overcrowding and slum areas, but if the housing problem is ever to be settled, and if the working classes are ever to be given the means of finding homes in a healthy atmosphere you must have free, cheap, and easy communication. That is a truth which has been recognised by some people for a long time, but I can assure the House that it has been driven home to my mind, and to the mind of every Member of the Committee, by what we have heard in the course of our inquiry. That inquiry was a long one extending over six weeks and went into matters cognate to this question, and we could not eliminate from our minds all we heard on the question of tramway traction and other mechanical traction which is now coming so much to the front.

  1007
  Another fact which was impressed upon us very strongly was that at the present time there is an immense development of mechanical traction of various kinds, and one of the effects which must result from the application of science to mechanical traction is to create an entirely new set of problems in regard to the crowded industrial areas of this country, and we were not prepared to accept the narrow policy of the London County Council which might block the way to the solution of this question through the ever varying condition of mechanical traction of which we have had considerable experience.
  We look upon it that in this question of mechanical traction there lies one of the means to a solution of the great difficulty of the housing of the working classes of this country, and therefore we could not accept the view that the county council must be placed in that proud position that it was not to make terms, and to submit its terms if necessary to arbitration in order to facilitate the ingress and egress of this vast crowd of workers who come into London every day from these outlying districts. It has been represented in a circular, of which I have a copy, and from which my hon. Friend who moved this Motion quoted, that the Committee of which I was Chairman created a new precedent in procedure. I utterly repudiate any such suggestion. It has been represented that the Committee created this precedent by not permitting the Clause to be withdrawn after argument, and this was supported by a dictum of yours, Mr. Speaker, given when you were Chairman of Ways and Means. If I may say so, with the greatest respect, the Committee would gladly be guided, Mr. Speaker, by your great experience, but I may also say that we acted entirely in the very spirit which you advocated. What we did was this: We considered that it would be most unjustifiable, in the interest of all parties, that the matters dealt with in the Bill which was before us in Clauses 30 and 31 should be put back and should have to stand over again and form the subject matter of a fresh application to Parliament, and thereby cause fresh expenditure. We considered that there should be a guarantee of through traffic in the running powers given to this company which we were assured the council was willing to consider.
  The principal witness on behalf of the promoters admitted that he accepted to
  1008
  the full the Report of the Commission on London Traffic, and when challenged with the fact that in that report there is a recommendation that there should be arbitration on matters of difficulty between the various parties, he said with some reluctance that he accepted that When I put it to him that we were only proposing that that should be done, with which he fully agreed, and had expressed his agreement, he said the only answer he could give was that the London County Council had never submitted to arbitration and did not wish to begin it now as a precedent. I do not think that is any reason The London County Council, like any other body, exists for the good of the public, and it is the duty of that body to come to such agreement as will ensure that the public has secured to it those benefits which Parliament has demanded. Parliament has required that the statutory rate should be given throughout these lines, and that it should be possible for the people in the outlying districts to come in as a chief rate to the great centres of industry and traffic. We considered that it was in the interests of the public that we should know how that was going to be carried out. We, therefore, gave our decision, which I will read because I feel that my hon. Friend did not give it in the actual terms.
  Our decision was that:—
  "The Committee is unanimously of opinion first that the working powers asked for should be given to the London County Council; secondly, it is also of opinion that the public must be protected from such an interruption in the through traffic as might arise under the conditions shown to exist at the present. It will, therefore require the concession of such running powers for the London County Council from the London United Tramway's Campanies as will ensure the continuance of the through traffic by the companies, and that terms be arranged between the authorities by a reference to arbitration."
  It is altogether a travesty to say that we have arbitrarily thrust upon the county council perpetual running powers. We left it absolutely open for these two authorities to discuss, and to arrive at any decision which they thought fit. That might include perpetual powers, and it might include a limitation at to the period. There was nothing excluded from their purview, but the London County Council refused to do this because they refused ever to go to arbitration. They say, "We are reasonable people; we will only do what is reasonable." Surely, if men are so reasonable they ought to have no fear of going before an arbitrator. We have based ourselves in our decision and

  1009
  in our action on Sir Erskine May on private Bill proceedings where he says:—
  "If Parliament apprehends that it (the private Bill) will be hurtful to the community, it is rejected as if it were a public measure, or qualified by restrictive enactments not solicited by the parties."
  We have qualified that which we considered to be right to give to the London County Council by a Clause which is not solicited by them, but in our opinion that Clause is demanded in the public interest, and I ask the House to support the Committee, and to confirm its decision.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I am sure that the House will feel the difficulty of its position this evening after the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Baronet, in the last words of his speech, stated that the Committee's decision was not so far-reaching as we had hitherto understood it to be. Whatever that decision may have been we have only to deal with the Clause, and, as the Clause has not been read to the House, perhaps I may be allowed to read it now. Clause 31 is as follows:—
  "From and after the completion of the purchase by the council of the tramways in the county of London belonging to the London United Tramways, Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') the company may run cars over and use such tramways and take thereon the tolls and fares prescribed by the London United Tramways Acts, 1873–1912, in respect thereto upon such terms and conditions as to payment and otherwise and with such facilities including a supply of electrical energy as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement may be determined by an Arbitrator to be appointed on the application of either party by the Board of Trade."
  10.0 P.M.
  Those words undoubtedly give to this company a right over the tramways within the county of London, which, as far as one is able to see, is perpetual and cannot be contested by the London County Council or by anybody else, and which must be allowed by the arbitrator. The only questions to be settled by arbitration are the terms and conditions of payment. This, as my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment stated very clearly, brings into operation a new principle of very great importance. The House is well aware that in 1870 the original Tramways Act was passed and the whole principle of it was that a tramway company should henceforth only have a concession for a limited term of years, and that when that term expired
  1010
  the local authority should have the right to put an end altogether to the concession. There was no question then as to the intention of Parliament that the local authority should be the authority to say whether the concession should come to an end or not. The local authority was absolutely autonomous in its own area. The London County Council has, up to the present moment, been autonomous within the county and it has used its authority in no selfish way. My hon. Friend seemed to be of the opinion that the opposition of the London County Council at the present time arose from some feeling of pride or exclusiveness. It is not for me to defend the present county council, but my hon. Friend is quite mistaken. I read the evidence, and I know pretty well what the feelings of my Friends on that council are, and there is no question of pride concerned at all. It is merely this great general principle: that the London County Council, being the one authority which, on the expiration of the concession, has the right to settle who shall have trams in the county, and having purchased that right, should have a free hand to make its own terms with the company as to running powers and should not have to submit to any arbitration. It seems to me that is a reasonable position and the only right position for a public authority to take up. If it had been shown in evidence, or if it could be shown now that the London County Council had abused its position, or had unreasonably refused to allow other authorities to run their trams within this area, it would have been a different matter, but that cannot be said. There are, as a matter of fact, several lines over which companies' cars do run—one, indeed, a company associated with this campany—and there has been no difficulty between the two authorities in making a proper bargain for the benefit of the public with the free hand which Parliament intended they should have. Therefore, there is really no case made out for bringing in such an important alteration as this would be. There is a still stronger reason from a Parliamentary point of view why this should not be done. Our private Bill procedure is based more upon our judicial procedure than upon the ordinary procedure of Committees. Promoters bring their scheme before Parliament and a perfectly independent Committee considers it, and accepts or rejects it, or puts conditions upon the scheme, but it has the scheme before it, and at any moment I submit the

  1011
  promoters have the right to withdraw it, or, in an Omnibus Bill, a part of the scheme. It would be a very disastrous thing if in these general Omnibus Bills the promoters were given to understand that they could not withdraw a particular portion if they thought it necessary without running the risk of losing the whole Bill.
  That has been argued already, and I will say no more about it. But I submit that when a Committee puts a condition upon a promoter, that condition must be something within the four corners of the Bill. The proposal made in this Bill was, as has been pointed out, a proposal to allow the London County Council to work a single mile of tramways across a line which has very little to do with the main lines over which the Committee have now given running powers. This was argued before the Referees who gave a locus standi to the company, and strictly limited it to Clause 44 as it then was, or Clause 30 as it now is. At that moment the Council might have withdrawn Clause 30. They presented it to the Committee, and it was assumed that they were entitled to withdraw the Clause at any moment during the passage of the Bill. At the moment the decision was given by the Committee, counsel for the London County Council said, "Very well, we withdraw the Clause." But they were not allowed to do it. The Clause was put in by the company, and the condition put in that Clause gave the running powers. If a condition such as that, which is one going far beyond the question of merely working this one mile of traffic, if such a condition is put by a Committee on promoters, it is depriving this House of its right to settle the main principle. I submit that a proposal allowing the company to have running powers over tramways in London ought not to be given except in a definite Bill brought in either by the company or somebody else for the purpose of giving these running powers, otherwise the House has no proper opportunity of discussing the matter. It comes up now as a new proposal at a stage when it is very difficult for us to differ from the findings of the Committee.
  As a matter of fact this company did bring in a Bill for this particular proposal in 1909. The purpose of that Bill was to give running powers over lines in the county of London. The Bill went to the
  1012
  House of Lords first, and a Committee of that House rejected it. They failed to get the running powers when they proposed them definitely and openly before Parliament. Now they are getting them by a side wind in a Bill which has next to nothing to do with the question. I venture to submit that that is not what was intended by our reference to the Private Bills Committee, and that we should be justified—as I hope the House will agree—in doing what I venture with great respect to say the Committee should have done, namely, allow the withdrawal of both these clauses by the county council. That will not be a reflection on the Committee in any way. I feel certain from the speeches we have listened to that there is a great deal to be said for the Clause. We must remember the question of the compensation payable to this tramway company is still before the Court of Appeal, and therefore the proper moment for bargaining has not arrived. When it does come, and when the council is in possession of this tramway, I feel certain they will be bound, by the exigencies of the case, to come to some fair, reasonable arrangement with the company to enable these running powers to be given. But as part and parcel of that agreement there must be some mutual concession on the other side. If running powers are given the company over the lines in London, running powers must be given to the London County Council over the lines in Middlesex. This Clause does not do that. If the Committee had thoroughly gone into the whole question, as they would have done if there had been a definite proposal before them, they would have realised there are a large number of considerations to be borne in mind before arriving at the stage that one party alone should have this particular right. I have no doubt as to what will happen. The London County Council will agree to the company running their cars and the company will agree to the London County Council running their cars.
  Sir W. BULL: They are willing to do that now.
  Mr. DICKINSON: That may be so, but it is not embodied in this Bill. If an offer such as that is made, it is absolutely essential that we should strike this Clause out of the Bill in order that we may know definitely the terms of the concession. I trust, therefore, the House will agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, and strike out this Clause.
  Sir W. BULL: As the Member for Hammersmith I stand aloof from both parties. We have been saddled with this dispute since 1909. Since that year litigation has been going on between the London County Council and the London United Tramways Company, and my Constituency has been suffering through it. Hon. Members who travel by motor car through the district must be well acquainted with the condition of affairs brought about by this dispute. I want the House to understand it, and I wish we had in this Chamber a large screen on which a map could be exhibited, so as to place before Members the realities of the situation. Hammersmith is in shape what has been called a "soldier's jacket." It is four miles long and about a mile wide all the way down, while Uxbridge Road is practically the soldier's belt. We have on the extreme borders of London a large tramway belonging to the London United Tramways Company, fifty-five miles of which is outside the county of London, and the whole dispute is with regard to one mile of line inside the county of London—from King Street on the south, to Uxbridge Road on the north. It is idle for the county council to contend that they cannot come to terms in this matter. Tramways have been in existence for forty or fifty years. The cost per mile and the daily number of passengers carried per car are matters within the knowledge of Mr. Fell and other officials of the London County Council, and why they have not proposed terms from the United Tramways Company without troubling the House I cannot understand.
  I have no interests on either side. All I wish to do is to secure a settlement as quickly as possible. The Chairman of the Committee has told us that the best way to do that is to insist upon arbitration. He suggests that these two bodies should come together and try and arrange terms, and that if they do not do that, the matter should go to arbitration. The last speaker said that no doubt, if the Clause was struck out, the exigencies of the situation would be such that after a short time they would come to terms. But it is now four years since this quarrel commenced, and they have not yet come to terms. The whole matter is still hung up, the roads are destroyed, and the shopkeepers of King Street, Hammersmith, are being ruined because the street cannot be properly widened. The same thing is occurring in the Uxbridge Road, and it is
  1014
  all with regard to this little piece of line. The last speaker spoke of it as a small and unimportant piece of line, but, in fact, it is a very important junction, between the Broadway Station south and Uxbridge Road north. It is one of the most important pieces of line which the company possesses, and it is idle to pretend that women and children in the winter time are to be turned out of their trams half a mile from their destination in King Street, Hammersmith, or in Uxbridge Road, and have to change from a red car into a blue one and pay another fare. In these days of inter-communication it is impossible to suppose that such a condition of things should be allowed to arise.
  I understand that the London United Tramways Company have all along stated to the county council that they are perfectly willing to allow them running powers over all their lines. There is no reason why the London United Tramways Company's cars, which for the last ten or twenty years have run over these lines, should not continue to run over the lines down to the termini at Uxbridge Road and the Broadway. There can be no question as to the cost, or of knowing what the expense is. Everybody knows the number of passengers, for the accounts are properly kept. Only a curious pride on the part of the London County Council prevented them from saying what their terms were before this Bill went through. Both sides could have met together in the Lobby for half an hour before this Bill came on to-night and could have arranged terms. I understand that the company, up to the time the Debate started at 8.15, were willing to come to terms if the county council or any responsible officer on their behalf would say, "If we cannot come to terms, we will give you a letter agreeing to arbitration by an entirely independent person, and in the meantime let both cars run." Then there would have been no trouble. The county council said, "No. Let the old litigation in regard to cost be settled. Then we will consider the matter, but we will not allow any arbitration whatever." Why should not the London County Council allow arbitration just the same as any other public body? I am not speaking for the municipal council of Hammersmith, but on behalf of myself and my Constituents, who are suffering very greatly indeed through this continual delay. I do not think there is any question in dispute, and

  1015
  I believe the whole matter could be settled in half an hour by any levelheaded business man. The last speaker suggested that the Clause should be cut out, so that the matter might be brought up again next year if the parties do not come to any decision. Are we to wait another year while King Street is left in its present horrible state? There is danger because of the traffic. Children are being killed owing to the horrible state of the street. We are tired of the delay, and we say—
  "A plague on both your Houses"
  We are sick and tired of the whole matter. I would suggest that the situation is entirely unique. It can never happen again while London and the world lasts. This happens to be a small piece of line, and owing to the carelessness of the lawyers on one side the Clauses with regard to it were not inserted. I earnestly urge the House to adopt the suggestion of the Chairman of the Committee, who, after six weeks of very careful consideration of the matter, deliberately came to the conclusion that the best way to settle this unhappy dispute was to make the two bodies knock their heads together, and, if they cannot come to terms by arrangement, submit it to arbitration. That is the most reasonable and proper course they can pursue. This unhappy litigation has been going on since 1909, and I, as representing the people of Hammersmith, implore the House to put an end to it once and for all, and to allow us to have the two great main western roads out of London clear of all the troubles we have had for the last four years.
  Mr. MOONEY: The point of view I take is not at all the point of view put forward by the hon. Baronet (Sir Ivor Herbert) or by the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Bull). In my opinion if this House passes the two Clauses which we are asked to omit they will be creating a precedent of a novel character. What is the history of this case? There is one Clause in the Bill dealing with vehicular traffic. A petitioner appears against the Bill. He has no locus to appear against the widening of the Strand or against the borrowing of money and other work, but only against this particular Clause. He comes before the Court of Referees of this House, which has the right to decide whether he shall be heard on petition or not, and that Court
  1016
  gives a limited locus to appear against a particular Clause, and it is because I was a member of the Court of Referees that I rise to intervene in the Debate, and also because I take a certain amount of interest in Private Bill procedure. I have no fault to find with the hon. Baronet in the motive which urged him and the Committee to come to their decision, but what I object to is the method by which that decision was arrived at. There is no precedent for a Private Bill Committee of the House which said to a promoter promoting an Omnibus Bill that if he does not give a petitioner who is petitioning against a particular Clause what he wants and what he thinks he ought to get, it will throw out the whole Bill being supported by the House. The House has never agreed for a moment to accede to that condition. What it might have done, and what has been done over and over again, is for the Committee to say, "Unless you give the petitioner the protection which we think he ought to have we will find the Preamble of the Bill not proved as regards that particular Clause." But to say this petitioner, who has no right to be heard on 29 Clauses, is to have a right to have them rejected because he cannot have his way on the thirtieth is ridiculous. This a very large question from the point of view of Private Bill procedure. Omnibus Bills are a method by which municipalities and companies are able to get their legislation with a minimum amount of cost. It would be a great pity, especially to municipal authorities in the three Kingdoms, if the power of Omnibus Bills were to be taken away and if this decision of the Committee is allowed to stand, then Omnibus Bills are done for once and all, because every authority will have to come with a separate Bill for everything it wants to have done, otherwise they will find themselves in this position, that because a Committee cannot get a decision on one important matter of the large and enormous works which were contemplated under the Bill it will have to be thrown into the melting pot and brought up by a series of separate Bills. I want to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means has he ever in his experience known a case where the House of Commons has supported a Committee in threatening to throw out an Omnibus Bill unless a petitioner was given the right he sought under a particular Clause, and whether it has not been the invariable practice of the

  1017
  House to say, "We will find the whole of the Preamble proved, except that portion which is opposed," and the Committee has never exercised the right to throw out the unopposed part of the Bill, because a particular part was opposed, and whether it was a fair method to use the powers of this Committee after telling the promoters that the only part of the Bill they wanted to consider was Clause 44 (now 30) to say, "If you do not give the petitioners what we think they ought to have, we will go back on our previous decision, and will not give you any part of the Bill at all unless you do what we ask." In my opinion the promoter of an omnibus Bill has a perfect right to withdraw at any time any portion of this Bill, and either to ask the Committee to treat the remainder of the Bill as unopposed, and send it to the Unopposed Bill Committee, or to consider the unopposed portion of it and pass it, but to obtain the Clause by the method which has been adopted in this case is entirely contrary to the practice of the House, and I should be very glad to hear the Chairman of Ways and Means give the House some guidance in a matter on which I think the House ought to have guidance.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I have been appealed to by one or two speakers on the matter affecting the procedure of Private Bill Committees in the House, and I am in the very fortunate position of not needing to give an opinion of my own on this occasion, because you, Sir, when you held the office of Chairman of Ways and Means on 3rd July, 1902, spoke in an almost exactly similar case, and I, after having examined that most carefully, do not think that I can add usefully a word to what was said by you on that occasion. There is no doubt that, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mooney) has said, it is usual for the Committee on a Bill, which is opposed on a particular Clause, or a particular part, to pass the Preamble of the remainder of the Bill, and to deal with the opposition on the Clause or Clauses to which that opposition is directed; and it is quite correct, as the hon. Member has said, that the Court of Referees granted a locus to the petitioner against the Bill, limited to that particular part of the Bill, namely, the Clause which was 44 in the original Bill, and which appears now as 30 in the amended edition. I would just, perhaps, put in this caution, that I am a great believer in trusting our
  1018
  Committees upstairs with very large powers. I go as far as to say, for instance, that a Committee might be justified in throwing out an unopposed Bill on its Preamble. There might be a Bill which it was nobody's interest, financially, to opose, or, perhaps, nobody could afford to oppose it, and yet it might be the duty of a Committee, after examining the Bill, to reject it on the Preamble.
  With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Member as to whether promoters ought always to be allowed to withdraw a Clause, or part of a Bill, rather than submit to conditions imposed upon them, I would not lay down that as a universal rule, although I am quite with the hon. Member that I know of no case where the use of such power has yet arisen—that is to say, I know of no precedent—and I observe that you, Sir, on the occasion referred to in 1902, stated that you knew of no precedent for a refusal to allow promoters to withdraw rather than to take what they asked under a condition that they could not see their way to agree to. I can conceive that such cases might arise, and I, therefore, wish to protect myself in the way I have done. I do not propose to advise the House with regard to the merits of the question at issue. The merits have been so clearly put before the House by one side and the other that I think the House is competent to form its own conclusion on this matter. I think my only function is to say what I have said on the point of procedure. I think the action of the Committee has had exception taken to it on the point of procedure merely. It is true that there was some talk in the Committee of throwing out the Bill on the Preamble if the promoters did not agree to certain conditions, but that does not appear, so far as I can see, to be insisted upon, and if it had been it would have brought it within the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means on the occasion referred to. I think that is all I need say. I hope the House will now take a vote on the question before it.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: The Chairman has said that the Bill was not threatened to be withdrawn if the Clause was not accepted. I understood that that was the definite statement on the part of the Chairman of the Committee. I understood that the county council withdrew altogether from this Bill because the chairman stated definitely that unless the Clause was accepted this Bill would be rejected.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: I do not think that my hon. Friend wishes to misrepresent, but I do not think that that is what occurred. I do not think that a threat was ever made in that way. We insisted upon a Clause being introduced. We pointed out clearly to the promoters that if they were going to refuse to take the Bill as amended, they would themselves be sacrificing the whole Bill.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: May I read the following:—
  "The Chairman: If you will allow me to say one thing, it may shorten matters, I think. If you do not accept the conditions upon which we allow the Preamble to be proved the Bill is lost.
  Mr. Erskine Pollock: Not the Bill. This is in the Omnibus Bill.
  The Chairman: Yes, excuse me, the Bill."
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I have read that Report and, judging rather by the event than by the actual words used on the one side or the other, the Chairman, I think, will agree, that to have perhaps rejected the whole Bill in such a case was not a proceeding which the Committee really intended; and I am satisfied not to go any further into the matter. The question at issue now is really the merits of the question on which the House has the power, if it chooses to do so, of revising the decision of the Committee. I do not wish that any words of mine should prevent the House exercising its judgment on the matter.
  Mr. ERNEST CRAIG: As I was a member of the Committee I wish to endorse everything which our Chairman has said with regard to this matter. The Committee were placed in a very difficult position. We relied upon the evidence which was given to us and the chief witness took up a position which to us was incomprehensible. Sir Edward White was asked if he would, in case of disagreements between his council and the tramways company, agree to the matter being submitted to arbitration. He refused to accept that as a possibility. He was pressed by several questions. On each occasion he refused to accept the possibility that there should be any disagreement between his council and the tramways company in coming to an understanding upon the question of running powers, and this seemed so extraordinary to us, especially to me as a business man, that the Clause which was agreed to by the Committee, seemed to be the only way not to impede the tramways company or the council, but to assist them to carry out their work
  1020
  and to do it in accordance with the requirements of the public.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL: I have listened with very great care to the whole of the speeches made this evening, and I cannot help thinking that the House must be under a misapprehension as to what really happened in Committee upstairs. The evidence has been read by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green to the effect, which was perfectly plain, that it was a question of taking these Clauses or not having the Bill at all. It was only a short time ago that the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) said that the London County Council was continually coming to the House with these Bills. The county council want to save the time of the House as far as they possibly can, and in regard to many of their measures they feel it incumbent upon them to place these matters in an Omnibus Bill. What position will the county council be in if, because of one item with which the Committee did not agree, it is to be said, as has been said in this case, that the Preamble is not proved? I hope, after the remarks which have fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means, that the Chairman of the Committee will, as far as he is concerned, at all events agree that the Preamble of the Bill was proved, with the exception of Clauses 30 and 31. What is the whole question? There was a mile of tramway constructed connecting two main arteries from Goldhawk Road on the North to Uxbridge Road on the South. If the County Council had been hostile to the Bill they could have come here to oppose it; they did not do anything of the sort. They made the suggestion to the London United Tramways Company, that, as they had power with regard to four and one-third miles in 1909, they would not oppose the construction of this piece of line by the London United Tramways Company. What happened? The London United Tramways Company brought a Bill into the House of Lords, which was rejected immediately, asking that the purchase of their line should be left over for another fifteen years. The Company would have had no means of constructing the cross-line, and apparently their one idea was to impose some onerous conditions upon the London County Council. We have had many of these questions before the London County Council with regard to running powers, and

  1021
  although we may have had differences with regard to some of them, all I can say is, that in every case up to the present time we have been able to arrange with the whole of the various authorities with regard to running powers. Naturally, we are desirous of arranging running powers with the London United Tramways Company. But the London County Council have never up to the present time had a Clause imposed upon them by which it was made obligatory that they should either arrange terms, or if they could not arrange terms satisfactory to the County Council, that they should be forced to arbitration. It has not been necessary heretofore, and why should it be necessary at the present time?
  The Chairman of the Committee has stated that 60,000 passengers were being conveyed over it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) drew a dismal picture of passengers being cast out from the cars of the London United Tramways Company, there being no power to carry them on to the terminus. That is not the intention. We desire hereafter td make reasonable terms not only with the London United Tramways Company, but with any of the authorities who come forward and ask us to do so. But when we purchase those lines, and know full well the cost of working them, it is most reasonable that we should say that, having paid for them, at all events we should have something to say as to the amount to be charged. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammer smith, stated it would have been perfectly easy as far as we were concerned, to have gone into the Lobby and to have arranged how much was to be paid by the London United for having powers to run over those lines. He did not tell the House one important point, and that is that up to the present time the London County Council do not know how much it has to pay for the lines that it has recently acquired. There are over five miles, and it has been a question of arbitration. There was £250,000 or £260,000, I think, asked for the purchase of those five miles. It is not a question for me to go into here as to whether that is equitable or not, but at all events the London County Council have in their wisdom stated that there are various facts that were not brought before the arbitrator at the time, and therefore they are not satisfied that they are in a position to pay the amount of money decided by the
  1022
  arbitrator until the whole facts have been decided. I cannot help thinking that is a reasonable answer to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hammersmith that it was perfectly easy to actually decide what the cost of running should be. If the purchase price had been decided it might have been possible to have said to the House, "We shall be prepared to accept such and such terms." There was a remark which emanated from the Chairman of the Committee to the effect that the London County Council ought to be able to take up the matter at the present time and that they ought not to have placed in their hands the power to decide what they should charge. I should like to ask the House if the council are not to be masters of their own decision what are they to do with regard to running the whole of the tramways undertaking. Surely that undertaking has been placed in the hands of the London County Council, and having that power placed in their hands by the ratepayers of London are they to prejudice the interests of the ratepayers by saying to outside authorities, you can come in here and run on the line on terms which are to be decided, in many cases perhaps by those who are not thoroughly conversant with the whole position. The House has heard many arguments with regard to these running powers to-night, though I cannot think that either the Chairman of the Committee or my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. E. Craig) have put forward any statements to justify the Committee in arriving at their decision. Therefore, I personally am strongly in hopes and firmly convinced that the Amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall) will, if there is a Division, be carried by a very large majority, thereby proving at all events that this House is satisfied with the way in which the Council has carried out its tramway programme. The hon. Member for Hammersmith stated that this line was only a question of half a mile. That may be, but for the county council it is an important consideration in regard to the whole of their line. The London United Company had one mind and one mind only with regard to the opposition to this Bill—they were desirous of keeping off the county council as far as they possibly could from purchasing this line, hoping by so doing to force the county council to come to the terms which the

  1023
  company considered advisable. The past policy of the county council in the matter of administration will near the strictest investigation; they have looked after the tramway system in the interests of the public at large. Therefore, I trust that this Motion will be carried with general accord.
  Mr. NIELD: As one who represents 163,000 people interested in this question, I hope the House will give some consideration to the position taken up by the public body for whom I speak. It is not often that you get a public body coming forward with evidence in support of a private company's proposal, but that is what occurred on this occasion. The three authorities concerned sent evidence in favour of the proposal, and why? Because they knew the necessity when dealing with the county council of getting in black and white this condition for the protection of persons using these trams. No speaker has referred to the legislation of 1902, whereby this company was compelled to charge statutory penny fares for long distances—for instane, from Shepherd's Bush to the county boundary, seven-eighths of a mile, and two miles beyond that. That penny fare cannot be cut any lower, and all that is asked is that failing agreement upon terms, the question shall be decided by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. What can be fairer than that? It is the usual clause in Bills of a similar character, and I think it is the minimum which the House ought to give to the travelling public in a congested district of this description. The Chairman of the Committee has pointed out that he was satisfied as a person unacquainted with the district, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith has emphasised the impossibility, in view of the condition of the road, of an exchange of trams. There is no place where a tram can draw up and another take its passengers. Through running is absolutely necessary.
  If in 1870 Parliament could have foreseen the cutting up of Middlesex, I do not think they would have given sole control of the tramways to the local authority, which was subsequently to be the county council. If there ever was a case which there was a justification for a Traffic Board to regulate the whole traffic of the Metropolis, apart from the question of the local authority, it is this particuar case which we have been discussing to-night. There are two long main arteries, the one from Shepherds Bush tapping the Metropolitan
  1024
  Railway in two places, and the other at Shepherds Bush proper and the western extension as it crosses Uxbridge Road. Apart from that the line runs for seven-eighths of a mile, and then enters the county of Middlesex, crossing the Broadway, Hammersmith, where it taps the Great Northern and Piccadilly tube in the Hammersmith district, and carries passengers along the Bull Road. The position which this House has to appreciate is this, that London only deals with about a mile of the road, which leaves fifty-five miles of track in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey. If the county council is enabled to impose any terms it likes upon travellers for Ealing, Hanwell, Chiswick and neighbouring districts that is what it will do. The hon. Member for Dulwich referred to the existing arrangement which London has made. London has always made these arrangements at the point of the bayonet, because she was supreme. I speak feelingly as a member of the Middlesex County Council, and as a member of its tramways committee. I have a recollection of an arrangement over half a mile between the Highgate Archway Tavern and the boundary of the county. I wonder if this House credits the fact that the sum charged by the county council for the privilege of the Middlesex trams running over that distance was so high that it paid for the outlay in three years?
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: Time is short and I ask leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to say that we might come to a satisfactory decision on the question, if it is the feeling of the House that we should do so. We do not wish to deal with this matter in a contentious spirit. The suggestion that has been made by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment certainly takes away from the county council any advantage that may be given, and the county council will have time to consider matters before they bring in another Bill, and some satisfactory conclusion may be arrived at. Therefore I shall be quite disposed, and I think my colleagues on the Committee will be quite disposed, to allow this Motion to pass in order that this extra chance may be given to arrive at a satisfactory and peaceful conclusion.
  Mr. NIELD: The only answer I can make to that appeal is the answer my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hammersmith has made already, that we have to consider not only a danger but the danger

  1025
  that has been caused by the delay in the last four years, and to ask that this question should be settled to-night. It is perfectly true if these Clauses are carried it will enable the county council to raise the question afresh next year, but that fact ought not to deprive the House of coming to a decision upon the merits—those merits which caused the Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues to refuse, as they did, to pass the Bill rather than to have this Clause 31 as a condition for passing the Bill. I was giving an instance of the unreasonableness of the county council with regard to the Middlesex tramways. These are unfortunate conditions, and I submit there is no better tribunal for settling them than a Board of Trade arbitration. I do say, speaking for these large numbers of people whom I represent, that this House should be chary of leaving them at the mercy of the London County Council. Of course, they have got to make their tramways pay somehow. They have made arrangements with Middlesex for tramways running from Tottenham Court Road to Finsbury, but they were obliged, owing to the action of the motor omnibus, to meet the Middlesex Council for once in their lives. In view of these facts, I ask the House to view this matter on its merits, and to secure the protection of a Board of Trade arbitrator in fixing these fares.
  Question, "That Clauses 30 and 31 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—[The Deputy-chairman.]
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords.] (By ORDER.)
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question [27th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time"—[Mr. J. A. Pease], resumed.
Question again proposed.
Mr. PEASE: May I appeal to my hon. Friends to allow the Bill to pass its Second Reading to-night. I understand that the Committee upstairs will tomorrow pass the Bill in conjunction with which this is going forward, and I submit that this Bill should be sent to the same Grand Committee, where I am quite prepared to consider any reasonable suggestions made in the Committee and on Report, and I appeal to the House, as there is a strong opinion in favour of the principal Bill to give me the Second Reading to-night.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am awfully sorry to have to refuse that Bill, but I do so not because I want to wreck the Bill, but because I think it requires discussion. We have heard only one speech against the Bill so far, and only a very short speech from the right hon. Gentleman on its introduction.
It being Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned
Debate to be resumed To-morrow (Tuesday)

WAR IN BALKANS.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. DAVID MASON: I rise to make an appeal to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as representing His Majesty's Government, to take some action, jointly, if possible, with other Powers of Europe, to bring to an end the state of affairs which exists in the Near East. I am sure the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman occupies a unique position to-day both in this country and in the councils of Europe. He has an influence second to none among foreign ministers, and therefore an appeal made to him is one which I think will not fall upon deaf ears. We know, of course, that there is talk of some mediation on the part of Russia; but, as is well known to anyone acquainted with the Near Eastern problem, Russia is, perhaps, suspect in the sense that she is a great Slav Power. Her interests are naturally bound up with Slav ambitions and desires, and she has rightly attained a great position as the protectress of Slav ambitions and desires. Perhaps for that reason her influence may be

1027
suspect of other Powers, Austria, for example, is also a great important Power, but she also is looked askance at by some of the members of the Concert. I think that all will admit that the right hon. Gentleman has a unique position and distinction. He enjoys the confidence of the other Ambassadors, and therefore, any action which he may take cannot in any sense of the word be looked upon as an interested one. We know that since this war has commenced again, there has been practically a fratricidal war, a war between brother and brother, a war between Slav and Slav, and that the hopes of those who looked for an advance of freedom in that part of the world have been dashed to the ground by this wanton slaughter which now seems to continue, and as to which at present there seems to be no end. It may well be asked: "What remedy have you to offer of a practical character that Great Britain might propose on this occasion." It is not for me to suggest or to offer any definite policy, but I might perhaps venture humbly to suggest that there is one method. If Great Britain in conjunction with the other Powers were to impose an armistice or to propose to impose an armistice upon these Allies, I do not believe for a moment that any Power would refuse to support the right hon. Gentleman in that action.
Certainly no people in Europe will refuse to support the Government in taking such action. After all, we are responsible. Great Britain, in particular, is the principal signatory of the Treaty of Berlin, to which all these events can be traced. We were the principal signatories to that treaty, and, therefore, we have a responsibility to those people. It may be argued by some that we had better leave things alone, and allow them to fight it out. May I submit one or two arguments against that policy of drift? It has been well said that peace, perhaps, is the greatest British interest. We are at present enjoying a great boom in trade, great commercial prosperity, and we are suffering from financial stringency. It is well known to those who study these affairs that those two things are more or less connected together, and what is likely to accentuate this stringency more than war. We know already that there is considerable hoarding on the Continent of Europe. Trade is already affected in Germany and the East of Europe as the
1028
result of this wanton war and of the possibilities which may take place as the result of its spread. That, I think, is one argument which surely should appeal to many for action at this stage, and, if we desire this boom of commercial prosperity to continue, if we wish the boom in trade to further advance, then every possible effort should be utilised to try and bring this unhappy war to an end. That is one argument which I venture to submit to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman.
Then there is another agreement, and that is our Treaty obligation. We know that just recently we have engaged in a further Treaty—the Treaty of London, and we are told—I do not know how much truth there is in it: perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on the point—that Turkey is now about to break through that Treaty—to tear it up as so many other Treaties have been torn up in that part of Europe, and to march her troops through the disputed territory upon Adrianople. Surely it places this House, this country, and this Government in a humiliating position, if we are to have this solemn farce of a Peace Conference and a Treaty drawn up, and if anarchy is to be the result! If chaos is to continue, it is a reflection on our common civilisation and our common humanity.
I would conclude by saying that there is a higher call than that of Treaty obligations, and that is the call of humanity. Those at present engaged in warfare—torn away from the plough and from peaceful industry—know nothing of the ambitions of kings and emperors, and if we are anxious, as I hope we are, to do something to save the peoples of these countries, then I submit we ought to use some effort more than the mere policy of drift to bring this horrible state of conflict to an end. I am told that 50,000 lives have been destroyed since this fratricidal war commenced. I ask the House and I ask the right hon. Gentleman—we believe Great Britain is still a great Power—we have never been so wealthy, we have never been so strong in armaments—so strong in the Councils of Europe—what is our strength worth if we cannot use it in a case like this to bring to an end such a horrible state of affairs? If our civilisation is worth anything, if the culture of Europe is worth anything, why allow these primitive peoples to continue this carnage, this inferno, this slaughter? No material advantage can

1029
accrue to Europe, no economical advantage can accrue from it, and I submit it is a reflection on Europe and on this country if we stand silently by while this terrible carnage continues.
This is not a party question. I am happy to think Members on both sides are agreed on this, that there can be no controversy and that behind the Foreign Minister and behind the Government there is a united nation and that they will have the strength of the country in their support in any action they may take. I have already indicated in a vague manner what might be done. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do what of a practical character can be done. Peace might be imposed, or an armistice might be imposed on the Allies, or an ultimatum might be issued to the various combatants by the Concert of Europe. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not give us some assurance, something more than mere vague assurances, that the matter is receiving, as I have no doubt it is receiving, his most serious consideration, but that something of a practical character will be done, and that he will hold out some hope that Europe is not incompetent upon an occasion of this sort? When our relations with Germany, France, and Russia are so happy, when we have been entertaining recently the French President, when our Monarch has recently visited the German Monarch and our relations have never been so happy with the Continent of Europe as they are to-day, on an occasion of this sort surely Great Britain is not bankrupt in her policy, and something might be done to bring to an end this horrible condition of affairs in the Near East!
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Nobody can say that anybody who paints in strong colours the deplorable situation which is caused by the war in the Balkans at present is using too strong language. One can hardly exaggerate all the painful features which are caused by the war now proceeding between the Balkan States. If fair words could have had any influence upon it I would have been prepared to talk night after night on the subject. Surely if anyone considers what the character of the war is, the passions which accompany it, the appalling risks which those engaged in that war are now running, it must be
1030
obvious to them that mere words from the outside Powers are not likely to affect the situation. Indeed, the hon. Member himself seemed aware of that, for he used the expression "impose peace." Who is to impose peace? Am I, or is the Government to come down to this House and ask for a vote of credit to make use of the forces of the Crown to impose peace in the Balkan Peninsula? And, if the House gives us that credit, how are the forces of the Crown going to be used? What are we going to do in the war between Bulgaria and Servia, for instance? The hon. Member began, I think, by ruling out of this matter Russia and Austria because they were two of the interested Powers.
Mr. D. MASON: No; I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. What I meant to convey was that it has been said recently, and it appeared recently, that there would be a single intervention of those two Powers, and that the right hon. Gentleman should take action conjointly with the Concert of Europe, he leading the Concert of Europe.
Sir E. GREY: The Concert of Europe has not to deal with questions of this kind. If the hon. Member will consider the geographical features he will see that the Concert of Europe cannot as a whole deal with matters of this kind in the interior of Europe. It has to appoint some Executive to do it. Though every Power is most anxious to see this war brought to a conclusion, and I may assure the hon. Member that especially those who have to deal with foreign affairs throughout Europe and who are in responsible positions, are at least as anxious as anyone can be, it is exceedingly difficult for the Concert of Europe to be brought to forcible measures to impose peace. Anything that can be done to bring the war to a conclusion by agreement between the Powers I am sure will be done readily. The present situation, as I understand it, is this: Bulgaria has appealed to Russia to secure a cessation of hostilities. Greece and Servia are willing to agree to a cessation of hostilities with conditions on which I am not accurately informed, but which they insist that Bulgaria must accept before they agree to a cessation of hostilities. The hon. Member asked me with regard to the Turkish advance. We have been assured, so far that the Turkish intention is only to occupy territory up to the Enos-Media line, which was agreed upon by the peace signed not by us, as

1031
the hon. Member seemed to imply, but by the Balkan States and Turkey the other day. So long as Turkey adheres to that intention and occupies up to the Enos-Media line I do not see that exception can be taken to her action. The frontier has been delimited by an international Commission, and meanwhile it is natural that Bulgarians, on the one side, and Turks, on the other, should respect the frontier line. We trust that Turkey will adhere to that intention, because any advance beyond that line on the part of Turkey would add to the complications which already exist.
There is another matter which remains still of vital importance. That is that the Great Powers should continue to keep in touch with each other and that no one of them should take any action which is likely to cause difficulties in future. That has been the object which we have striven to promote in common with the other Powers ever since the outbreak of the war between Turkey and the Balkan States, and that is the object which we shall continue to pursue. The Great Powers have in the course of the last few months come to certain decisions between themselves, especially about Albania, which have materially contributed to preserve harmony between them. It is of course essential that nothing which happens in the war now proceeding should upset those decisions which have already been come to, and which are a valuable asset on the side of harmony between the parties. There are other matters still to
1032
be decided between the Powers to secure complete agreement between them, and these we continue to discuss, and with these I trust we shall make some progress. But the best prospect I can put before the House is that the war now proceeding in the Balkans is so exhausting and so horrible in its features that it should not last long, and that the mere intensity of it should bring it to a conclusion, and we hope that no complication will arise out of it which will make any of the great Powers lose touch with each other or endanger the Concert of Europe. The first business of the Concert of Europe, after all, is to preserve peace and harmony between the component parts. If that were not secured the consequences to Europe would be far more disastrous than anything which has yet occurred. I see every prospect that the Great Powers will continue to remain in touch, and that as they have overcome complications which have hitherto arisen, so they will continue by keeping in touch with each other to overcome complications which may arise in the future. That will be a great point gained if that is so, and for the rest I can only hope that the mere risk which every one of these belligerents is running by the continuance of the war and the horrors which accompany it will bring home to them more forcibly than anything else can do the necessity, in their own interests, of bringing this to a conclusion as soon as possible.
Adjourned at Twenty-five minute after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS MEDICAL SERVICE COMMITTEE.
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS MEDICAL SERVICE COMMITTEE.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  NOTTINGHAM OUTWORKERS.
  NOTTINGHAM OUTWORKERS.
  COST OF PROSECUTIONS.
  COST OF PROSECUTIONS.
  Statistical Office Increments.
  Statistical Office Increments.
  Income Tax (Travelling Expenses).
  Income Tax (Travelling Expenses).
  Land Valuation (Ireland).
  Land Valuation (Ireland).
  Liquor Licence Duties.
  Liquor Licence Duties.
  Local Taxation (Committee's Report).
  Local Taxation (Committee's Report).
  Motor Licence Duties.
  Motor Licence Duties.
  Inland Revenue Staff.
  Inland Revenue Staff.
  Reversion Duty.
  Reversion Duty.
  Irish Land Stock.
  Irish Land Stock.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
ROYAL NAVY.
  MAIN ARMAMENT (GERMAN "KAISER" CLASS).
  MAIN ARMAMENT (GERMAN "KAISER" CLASS).
  Belgian Law of Recruiting.
  Belgian Law of Recruiting.
BRITISH ARMY.
  FIELD BATTERIES.
  FIELD BATTERIES.
  FORCES (STRENGTH).
  FORCES (STRENGTH).
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  Army Institute Funds.
  Army Institute Funds.
  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Southern Nigeria (Land Ownership).
  Southern Nigeria (Land Ownership).
  South Africa (Strike of Miners).
  South Africa (Strike of Miners).
  Colonial Service (Regulations).
  Colonial Service (Regulations).
  Secondary Schools (India).
  Secondary Schools (India).
  Scottish Estimates.
  Scottish Estimates.
  Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Carmarthen Lord Lieutenancy.
  Carmarthen Lord Lieutenancy.
  Egypt.
  Egypt.
  Copper Fumes.
  Copper Fumes.
  Colour Tests.
  Colour Tests.
  Post Office (Staff).
  Post Office (Staff).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.

Preamble
The Earl of LANESBOROUGH—Took the Oath.
The Earl of PEMBROKE and MONTGOMERY—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 12th of June last discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
SOUTHGATE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
IRVINE BURGH BILL, [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order of the House for the Second Reading To-morrow, discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

ABERYSTWYTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MORLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
WEST BRIDGEORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
TITCHFIELD DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 117.)
MIDLAND RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
UNITED DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
WESTGATE AND BIRCHINGTON GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Carlisle Order was withdrawn: The Order made on Tuesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
CONVEYANCING BILL. [H.L.]
Ordered, That there be laid before the House a Memorandum respecting (The Lord Chancellor).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to the proeedings of Insurance Committees: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 118.)
KIRKCALDY AND DYSART WATER BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water—Was presented by the Lord Emmott; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 120.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO- VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CONVEYANCING BILL, [H.L.]
Memorandum respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 119.)

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, in moving once more the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, it would in no case be necessary for me to enter into a close or detailed description of the measure, and it is still less necessary when we look at the Motion which the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition has placed upon the Paper, because that Motion, in terms, expresses no opinion whatever upon the merits of the Bill, but simply states that there is no evidence that the country approves of it, and that therefore it ought to be submitted to the country again. I will ask the attention of the House to the Motion of the noble Marquess directly. But first I will remind your Lordships, in the roughest possible outline, what the essential provisions of the Bill are. This Bill proposes to institute an Irish Parliament composed of two Houses elected by different constituencies, and to create an Executive responsible to that Parliament. Great Imperial questions are withheld from the consideration of that Parliament, the discussion or settlement of religious questions is excluded from its purview, and a number of important subjects which have been dealt with by recent legislation of the United Kingdom are reserved from its consideration. The Lord Lieutenant ceases to be a member of the Government of the day, the number of Irish Members in the House of Commons is greatly reduced, and in the last resort the stamp of subordination is set upon the Irish Parliament by the existence of the power of veto. The scheme of finance in the Bill hinges mainly on two facts—namely, the collection of all taxes by the Imperial authority, and the transfer of a fixed sum from the British to the Irish Exchequer for the purposes of the Irish Government. That, in the briefest outline, is the framework of the Bill.
There is a further reason, my Lords, why in moving the Second Reading it is not necessary to discuss once more the details of the clauses. On the last occasion the objections taken in this House to the Bill were to a large extent objections of detail. The principle of self-government for
870
Ireland received substantial support from many who at ordinary times give very small assistance to His Majesty's Government—both from the right rev. Bench and from the Benches opposite; but in spite of that fact your Lordships did not choose to go into Committee to discuss the details of the Bill, and it met its fate on the Second Reading. I think it is clear that the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite, so far as it is concerned at all with this question of Irish Government—as to which I shall have to say a word later—is mainly founded upon the refusal of Ulster to accept a scheme of Home Rule. Nobody supposes that the noble Marquess would say that this Bill ought once more to be set before the electorate for its approval merely because its scheme of finance seems to sonic people unwise or because it is not thought reasonable to set up a separate Irish Post Office. The noble Marquess's Motion is founded upon the objections of Ulster.
We have given respectful attention to the objections which have been stated by those who are entitled to speak for the four counties in the North-east of Ireland, and we note that those objections are not admittedly founded upon a dread of actual oppression either by law or by processes of administration by the Irish Government. They hold that the outrage upon them is completed by the mere passage of such a Bill as this. One Member of Parliament in another place, who is entitled to represent the Irish view, said that the creation of an Irish Parliament is in itself an attack upon Ulster, justifying, I presume, such reprisals as Ulster may think fit to make. One might assume that those reprisals would take a form only too familiar to us in the past—the form of assaults upon Roman Catholic or Nationalist workmen, of attacks upon hostile processions, and possibly upon hostile property. Such demonstrations would be put down, as they have been put down in the past, by the Police, and they would excite no sympathy in any quarter in this country. For after all, my Lords, it takes two parties to make a Civil war, just as it takes two to make any kind of quarrel; and the mere fact that assaults of that kind might be committed, regrettable though it might be, would not justify the opponents of the Bill in calling our attention to the great gravity of the situation created by the hostility of Ulster.

871
But we have more authentic information of what Ulster means to do if this Bill is passed. We have probably all of us read the speech which was delivered by Sir Edward Carson on Saturday last on the famous anniversary of the 12th of July. We all of us admire—I yield to none in admiring—the personal qualities of Sir Edward Carson, and I yield to none in the respect which I entertain for the convictions which he holds; but as to whether the advice which he has given to his compatriots in the North of Ireland is prudent or practical advice is a matter which has to be considered. In the first place, I note in passing that Sir Edward drew attention to the fact that there was a majority of English votes against the Second Reading of this Bill in another place. That seems a strange boast coming from a Unionist. I should have supposed that the essence of the Union, as it is regarded by the Party opposite, is that there is no difference whatever between the votes either of individuals or of different districts throughout the United Kingdom; and to point to the fact that English votes preponderate one way whereas Scottish or Welsh votes preponderate in another scents to me to hold lightly or cheaply the principles upon which I always supposed that Unionism was based.
The advice which Sir Edward Carson gives and the prophecy which he makes is that when this Bill becomes law the Province of Ulster will be invited by a self-constituted body to pay no more direct taxes. The Province of Ulster contains a large number of persons who are not likely to be swayed by the advice given by such a self-constituted body; but there are in Ulster a number of persons, perhaps even a numerical majority of adults, who may feel disposed to follow it. But, my Lords, what will be the result if that advice is followed? Some of the direct taxes, as we know, are trivial—taxes on armorial bearings; taxes on dogs, which I think in Ireland are rated at 2s. a head; and so on. The main subject which one may assume that Sir Edward Carson had in his mind was the income Tax. Those who pay under Schedule A and Schedule B and to some extent under Schedule D of the Income Tax—those who pay as landlords, who pay as working farmers, or who pay on the profits of their trade—may no doubt be advised, and in some cases induced, to withhold the payment of their tax. But,
872
as your Lordships know, a very large proportion—I do not know what proportion but a very large proportion—of the receipts from Income Tax are tapped, so to speak, at the source, and therefore would not come under the operation of such a proceeding as this. And then, as we know, in the matter of indirect taxation it would equally fail to be effective. It is not to be supposed that the consumption of whisky or of porter or of tea and sugar is likely to be reduced or affected by a desire to diminish the British revenue collected on behalf of Ireland. I confess, therefore, that, formidable though this threat sounds, when one considers the comparatively limited number of persons who would be likely to be affected by it and the comparatively limited number of subjects to which it could apply, the threat seems less awe-inspiring than it undoubtedly appeared when uttered on an Ulster platform by so eloquent a speaker as Sir Edward Carson.
We appreciate, and in some degree we sympathise—I can honestly say that I sympathise—with the objections of Ulster to such a measure as this; but I am bound to point out that those objections are not, so far as I can see, and so far as I am able to understand, founded upon anything which could be described as a principle. That is where the analogies which it has been attempted to frame between the attitude of Ulster and the attitude of other communities who have revolted or have threatened to revolt appear to me altogether to break down. The analogy has been quoted—it was quoted, I think, in debate in another place—of the American Revolution. Quotations were made from speeches by some of the great men who were prominent in that Revolution, who said that they did not wait for serious oppression but acted in opposition to the assertion made by the British Government and in defence of a great principle. Well, there was a principle there. Whether the attitude of the American Colonists was right or wrong, they disputed the right of the Imperial Parliament to tax them, an unrepresented community. But what principle is involved in the objection of Ulster to a Parliament sitting in Dublin? I can understand the existence of a strong preference for representation at Westminster, but there is no principle involved in that. There exists, I know, a keen dislike to individual members of the Irish

873
Nationalist Party, like Mr. Dillon or Mr. Devlin; but there is no principle involved in that. Those are both questions of individual preference.
If there is any principle whatever involved in this opposition, it is one which I do not think ought to be dignified by the name of a principle at all—it is the sentiment of hatred for the Roman Catholic Church. As to that I can only say that if the voters of Great Britain thought that the inhabitants of Ulster or the four counties were liable to fall, I will not say under a system of oppression conducted by the clerical party in Ireland, but even under any kind of disadvantage or disability, I believe that England, Scotland, and Wales would be at once in a blaze against this Bill. Perhaps not the strangest, but at any rate one of the most remarkable features in our national character is the intense Protestantism of these three portions of the United Kingdom, and—I do not hesitate to say it even in the presence of noble Lords who are Roman Catholics—the mistrust which the average citizen in this country feels of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant sentiment in this country is far too bigoted; for some of 113 on both sides remember the intense difficulty which we found, difficulty which for a long time seemed absolutely insuperable, in correcting the merely offensive phrases in the Royal Accession Declaration, even without in any sense weakening the force of the declaration of Protestantism made by the Sovereign. Some of your Lordships, perhaps, recollect the occasion of the Eucharistic procession in the autumn of 1908, which, as I happen to know, threatened a graver menace to the order of this metropolis than anything which has occurred since the great Reform demonstrations of 1866. Therefore if there over the country now an obvious apathy with regard to these fears of Ulster, it is founded on the fact that people in England, Scotland, and Wales do not believe that the North of Ireland stands in any peril from the Roman Catholic Church.
It is worth noticing that the stronger is the case for the Ulster argument, taken alone, the weaker thereby becomes the case for this General Election which the noble Marquess in so many words demands. An election, or a referendum if you will, on this question would be of no service
874
to the Ulsterman who takes an extreme view of the establishment of an Irish Parliament. If the Ulsterman believes that he is going to be placed under the heel of moonlighters or of Roman Catholic priests—and I do not know that he would draw a favourable distinction in favour of the latter—if he believes that the establishment of this Parliament is going to place him in that position it will be no advantage and no consolation to him to know that a certain number of crofters in Ross-shire, and of agricultural labourers in Suffolk, and of miners in Glamorgan, whether you appeal to them by election or by referendum, are willing to sacrifice him. My Lords, if the Ulster contention is a sound one, if we are asking the Ulsterman to subject himself to a harsh and cruel tyranny, we have no right to do it because a majority of the electors of this country desire it. Assuming it to be morally wrong in itself, it would remain morally wrong however large the Parliamentary majority that desires it. More than that, we know that those who are best entitled to speak for Ulster, men like Sir Edward Carson himself, and like Mr. Walter Long—whose absence from Parliamentary discussions we on this side regret, I am sure, as much as any of your Lordships—have scouted the idea that the verdict of a General Election would be taken by them as final, exactly in the same way as they have scouted the idea that the exclusion of the four counties from the administrative area of an Irish Parliament would in any way, of itself, reconcile them to the Bill.
We cannot disguise from ourselves that in placing this Motion on the Paper—a Motion which, taken by itself, might almost seem to indicate a not unfavourable future for this Bill—the noble Marquess is in reality making a demonstration not so much against this Bill as against the Parliament Act under which this Bill has come before your Lordships a second time. We are told that the Bill has not been before the country, and that therefore it is reasonable that it should go there. How often have Bills of great importance been placed before the country before they have been passed? I think it would be easy to exhaust the instances by counting on the fingers of one hand. But the creation of an Irish Legislature and of a responsible Irish Executive have been, as we maintain —I do not desire to enter once more into

875
the interminable discussion of how much or how little the electors knew before the last General Election—before the country, and were known to be the settled policy of the Liberal Party if we were returned to power. For this reason I cannot regard the Motion of the noble Marquess as being anything but a renewed assertion of the pretensions of the majority of your Lordships' House on which we all had so much to say during the passage into law of the Parliament Act. We described it then as a modern assertion.
I repeat once more that it is an absolutely modern assertion which the House of Lords of forty years ago would have not thought of making. And in proof of it I ask your Lordships to consider briefly the circumstances of the Parliament of 1868—Mr. Gladstone's first great Government. The General Election of 1868 came as near to being a referendum election as any which has taken place in this country. Before Parliament was dissolved Resolutions had been moved for the abolition of the Irish Church, and those Resolutions formed the main subject placed before the electorate of the country; and when Mr. Gladstone came into office with a majority of 121 his first step in the session of 1869 was to bring in his Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, which, after various adventures, was passed by your Lordships' House. It might have been held—I think your Lordships now in the House would have held—that this had practically exhausted Mr. Gladstone's mandate. You would have considered yourselves entitled to deal with any other measures which Mr. Gladstone thought fit to introduce much as in recent Parliaments you have dealt with ours. And yet during the sessions of 1870 and 1871 the whole system of elementary education in this country was entirely remodelled and placed on a different basis; the whole land system of Ireland was dealt with, in many respects in a manner unpalatable to the majority of your Lordships' House; short service in the Army was introduced; religious tests were abolished in the Universities; the ballot was introduced for Parliamentary elections—considered by the Opposition of that day as an infinitely bolder and more dangerous step in advance than the abolition, for instance, of plural voting could possibly be considered by anybody to-day; and, in addition to that a Licensing Act was passed, and a Mines
876
Regulation Act, and a number of other measures, all of which excited acute Party controversy. I do not mention the abolition of purchase in the Army, because that, as we know, was carried in the end by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. And yet, my Lords, we are told that to attempt to pass in two sessions four measures such as this Bill, the Welsh Church Bill, the Scottish Temperance Bill, and the Plural Voting Bill, is piling an amount of work upon Parliament which it has never been asked to undertake before, and that the effort to consider and pass these measures in two years is an outrage on any system of Parliamentary Government. Consequently before any of these measures can become law, although this Parliament is not far advanced in years, the noble Marquess considers himself entitled to ask for a Dissolution.
Yes, my Lords, we regard this Motion as little more than a protest against the Parliament Act. We have none of us ever pretended or stated that the machinery set up by the Parliament Act is an ideal machinery. Any final settlement of that question ought to be one which would produce equality—I mean a reasonable degree of equality—between the two Parties as regards the two Houses. The Parliament Act was simply, and no more, the result of that collision between the two Houses of Parliament which might easily have taken place in 1861 at the time when the repeal of the Paper Duty was thrown out; and it might easily have taken place in 1871 over the measure which I mentioned for the abolition of purchase in the Army. In the first case it was avoided by a financial expedient, and in the second case by the employment of the Royal Prerogative. And the collision, therefore, did not take place until the rejection of the Budget of the year 1909–10, which—and I believe in saying this 90 per cent. of noble Lords opposite would agree with my view —represented the most flagrant act of political unwisdom ever perpetrated by any political assembly in any part of the world, at any rate since the Polish Diet ceased to exist at the end of the eighteenth century. We are told that the system under which Bills come forward under the Parliament Act is an unreal system. Reality, I suppose, only existed when months could be spent in another place in the consideration of a Bill and the effort to improve it, only to find that the

877
Bill was summarily rejected almost at the moment of its arrival in your Lordships' House.
I remember an old story of one of the French Kings, who in a dangerous illness was attended by a doctor who was more remarkable for his skill than for his acquaintance with the ways of the Court of Versailles, and who kept on saving "His Majesty must do this," "His Majesty must not do the other." The King said nothing, but after the doctor had left he lay with his face to the wall and muttered over and over again to himself the word "Must," "must"—a word which he had never heard before. And I cannot help thinking that the feeling of at any rate some noble Lords in this House about the Parliament Act is not altogether unlike that of Louis XV when for the first time he heard the unpleasant word "must" addressed to him. The possession and the exercise at will of arbitrary power, which this House possessed for so long, is not an easy or a pleasant thing to part with. I shall doubtless be told that that is a most unfair description, because this House never has claimed arbitrary power but has always shown itself desirous of giving way to the clearly expressed will of the country. Yes; but the decision of what is a clear expression of the will of the country has been regarded as an appanage of the House itself. And it is for this reason that, supposing there was no Parliament Act and I was told that in the event of a General Election returning a Liberal Government once more to power this Rouse would pass a Home Rule Bill—well, my Lords, without impugning for a moment the veracity of anybody, I can only say plainly that I do not believe it. I know how many loopholes there are for evading such a consequence as that. The number; the source of the majority—to go back for a moment to Sir Edward Carson's boast that more English Members voted against the Second Reading of this Bill than voted for it—might be held to destroy its validity; the composition of the majority. Any one of those points might be, and as I firmly believe would be, if a Bill had to go through its ordinary course, be taken by this House, not perhaps to justify the refusal to read such a Bill as this a second time, but to justify its alteration in Committee to such an extent as to make it in the opinion of its promoters worthless, and leave its pro-
878
moters confronted once more with the task of going to the country—perhaps fruitlessly again—for a confirmation of their action in bringing in the Bill.
It is complained that these proceedings are a farce because a Bill of this kind cannot be amended in the House of Commons. Supposing the Bill could be amended in the House of Commons, I wonder in what terms the complaints would he uttered then. If a Bill could be introduced and passed through the House of Commons in one form one year and come up here with the same title but entirely different in substance in the second year, then you would be entitled to accuse us of setting before you a purely bogus scheme for prolonged consideration and delay in arriving at a conclusion, because the subject to be considered would have changed as the sessions passed along. That would have been a legitimate charge of unreality against the Parliament Act. Then it was said that the possibility of making suggestions in another place was an unreal and valueless privilege because the suggestions would not he accepted, and therefore it was futile to take any advantage of that power. So far as that argument is a good one, it is a good argument, against the taking of any Committee stage on any subject, from the side of the minority. Being a minority you cannot rely upon carrying any particular Amendment or any particular suggestion that you may introduce. But how can it be maintained that there is no advantage from the point of view of public discussion in arguing point by point the various matters on which the two sides of the House differ? It may be and it often is, in Committee that you do not get precisely what you want, but you often get something else, not precisely in the terms in which you asked for it, but something which cannot be described as being of no value. At any rate, even if the possibility of making suggestions which would be considered in this House is regarded as rather derogatory to the dignity of the House of Commons, we here need not take any attitude of that kind, because the fact of those suggestions being made is in itself a tribute to the value of our debate here.
Then it is argued that, after all, there is no moral force behind a Bill of this kind because it is passed by a miscellaneous majority, not homogeneous, not, indeed,

879
of the same mind on all the subjects which some of its members would like to bring in. The support of Irish Nationalists, we are told, is purchased by their adhesion upon other matters in which they are not particularly interested. Well, my Lords, that argument may at any rate be given a somewhat wider application. I notice that the Irish Unionist Members—sixteen, I think, they are in number, without counting the two University seats—vote on all occasions with the Front Opposition Bench. If I look at those sixteen Members, I dare say as individuals they are, besides being obviously Unionists, in the main Conservatives. But are their constituents Conservatives? I do not think it would be found that a large number of those who return to Parliament some of the Unionist Members for Ulster would go very far, or take very much trouble, on behalf of the Welsh Church. I do not know that all of them would go very far or take much trouble on behalf of the licensing policy favoured by noble Lords opposite.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: As a former Unionist Member for Ireland in the other House I beg to say that they have always taken the line of supporting the limitation of licences in Ireland and in England too. They did not vote against the licensing clauses of the famous Budget.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope the noble Duke will give us before long a longer maiden speech than he has favoured us with at this moment. But without reference to any one great measure, my point was simply this, that it would be altogether impossible to include as Conservatives in the ordinarily understood sense of the word a very large number of those electors who support the Ulster policy of the Front Bench opposite. One more argument which is used to emphasise the unreality of our present proceedings is that it is improper to pass a Bill of this kind so long as no scheme of reform has been brought forward, and, indeed, carried into effect, for your Lordships' House. On that I may say, in the first place, that I cannot imagine any reformed House of Lords which would arrogate to itself the power of demanding something like an annual Dissolution of Parliament. But apart from that, it is surely equally true to say that it is very difficult, if not actually impossible, to reform this House, or even to bring forward a scheme for a reformed House of Lords, until you know what the
880
constitution and composition of the House of Commons is going to be in the future. It is surely obvious that the future of a Second Chamber must depend to some extent upon the composition of the Lower House, and that so long as it is not known whether you are going to have 100 Irish Members in the House of Commons or forty, or, as noble Lords apparently now would prefer, none—so long as you do not know that, it is not altogether easy to say what the precise composition of this House ought to be.
It is clear that it has been decided that this Bill is not only not to be passed, but that once more it is not to be discussed in detail. There have been pleas in both Houses for some form of conference to deal with this question of Home Rule. Pleas have come from independent members of your Lordships' House; pleas have come from independent members of the Nationalist Party, who are certainly not excessively friendly towards His Majesty's Government; but, so far as I know, no response to any invitation of that kind has come from anybody entitled to speak on behalf of the Opposition. We have done our best in framing this Bill to put forward what we hope to be a reasonable and a practical measure. But certainly we do not pretend for a moment that this is the only Home Rule Bill, I would even say the only kind of Home Rule Bill, which Parliament might be asked to consider. In some respects the difficulties of framing a Constitution for Ireland in relation to England are unique—unique partly from the particular situation of these Islands in relation to each other, and still more owing to the history of the last 300, or, if yon like, 500 years. But so long as the Irish minority is supported by the Party which happens to be in a minority here now, so long as it repeats that it will recoil from no action, whatever may be the result of such action, even to the loss of many lives, so long as that action prevents the institution of any kind of Irish Legislature and Irish Executive—because the names that we are using in this particular Bill do not in themselves matter—then there is no common ground upon which the Parties can confer, and it only remains for this Bill to proceed on its course until it completes its journey as a constitutional Statute under the law of Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to move the following Amendment—
That this House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I am sure the House will excuse me if, in moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I do not follow the noble Marquess even over the very brief résumé which he gave us of the contents of the Bill upon the Table. The noble Marquess quite rightly inferred that my object in making this Motion is rather to call attention to the question of procedure. As to the contents of the Bill—I do not say for a moment that the contents of the Bill are not material even to the Motion which I am about to make—I leave them willingly to the speakers who will follow me. The noble Marquess expressed a very unfavourable opinion of this Amendment, but I observed that he stopped short of suggesting to us what course we ought to have followed. I infer from the tenor of his speech that in his view it would be proper for us to give the Bill a Second Reading and to proceed to the discussion of its details in Committee. If we took that course, we should be doing two things neither of which I venture to think your Lordships are prepared to do. You would, in the first place, be accepting the principle of this Bill; and, in the second place, you would be acquiescing in the treatment which has been meted out to your Lordships' House. I do not think we could do either of those things without a serious loss of self-respect.
My Lords, this Bill is, in the view of most of us, detestable in its principle, pernicious in its leading features, and inexcusable owing to the circumstances in which it is brought forward. Six months ago—I do not think it is more than six months ago—your Lordships refused to live a Second Reading to this Bill. We stated our objections with great fullness, and I must say, looking back at that debate, that I never remember a more one-sided discussion in this House. I think only two, certainly not more than three, Cabinet Ministers favoured us with any observations upon the Bill during the course of a four nights' debate. Will any one suggest that we should this evening take back that decision, that we
882
should, in effect, express repentance and regret for the action which we then took, and admit that it was either ill-advised or inadvertent? Has anything happened to justify such a change of front on the part of your Lordships? In Parliament we have been marking time; but we have learnt a good deal during the last six months. We are better able than we were to recognise the value to this House of those second and third stages through which this Bill has to pass before it can become law under the Parliament Act, and we are also better able to estimate the value of the pledges which were given to us when those discussions were in progress.
I am not going to weary your Lordships by reading extracts to the House. I will merely recapitulate with the utmost brevity half a dozen pregnant sentences which fell from the lips of Ministers at different times while the Parliament Bill was under discussion. We were told that there was to be long delay and consultation between the two Houses. We were told that opportunities would be given to us which would preclude the possibility of arbitrarily smuggling into law measures condemned by public opinion. We were told that this House was to be so generously treated that the House of Commons would be embarrassed, hampered, and fettered at every moment by the elaborate safeguards and precautionary provisions which the Bill set up. It was said that every Bill was to pass through the ordeal of full discussion during three consecutive sessions of Parliament, and was to take all the risks which such delay and discussion involved. And, my Lords, when some of us ventured to suggest that it would be possible under the Parliament Act to press several important and controversial measures simultaneously through Parliament, we were met with the retort that it was so difficult to get even one controversial measure through Parliament that our apprehensions were utterly groundless. Finally we were told that the powers left to us—the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack used the phrase—were "menacing and formidable," and one of his colleagues added that they were in his view "excessive and unreasonable." We are now in a position to contrast these promises and undertakings with the manner in which they have been fulfilled.
There was one point upon which I think few of us were in doubt. I believe every one had it in his mind that under the Parliament Act there was, at any rate, some certainty that a measure the provisions of which had not been fully discussed in one session would have the undiscussed provisions examined in a subsequent session of Parliament. Let us see how the Bill on the Table fared in this respect. In the last session no less than twenty-four clauses escaped without any discussion at all. Do not let us be told that they were trivial or unimportant clauses. I will not give a full catalogue of them. But amongst them were clauses dealing with the subjects prohibited to the Irish Parliament., with the exception of trade outside Ireland; the provisions respecting the position of Irish Ministers; the powers of the Irish Parliament over Money Bills; the number of Irish Members at. Westminster and the mode of their election; the taxing powers of the Irish Parliament, with the exception of the general power of altering Imperial taxes; the question of the concurrent powers of legislation reserved for the Imperial Parliament, and the whole of the schedules dealing with the distribution of the seats in the Irish Parliament and for Irish representatives at Westminster. The system under which we are now living precludes the discussion of these omitted questions. I say deliberately that it precludes the discussion of them because yon can have no real discussion unless you have the power of amendment. There can be a discussion, but it is not an open and free discussion, and it is a discussion without the possibility of amendment, because, as the noble Marquess well knows, Amendments upon any of these points would mean that the Bill had lost its identity and with its identity had lost the immunities of the Parliament Act.
The absurdity of this arrangement was so obvious that in order to meet it His Majesty's Government have invented this new "Suggestion Stage" upon which the noble Marquess relied just now. I noticed the other day the account which the Prime Minister gave of the operation of this Suggestion Stage. It was, he said, for a two-fold purpose. In the first place it was "to enable Parliament to correct patent mistakes acknowledged on all sides in the structure or form of the Bill," and, in the next place, "to meet possible
884
developments in the direction of compromise." Let me say at once that so far as the Suggestion Stage offers facilities for the correction of patent mistakes we do not feel the least grateful for the opportunity offered to us. That, if it is a concession at all, is a concession to His Majesty's Government. It enables them to correct in the second year the bad workmanship of the first. But we are not concerned, and it is no favour to us that His Majesty's Government should be given the chance of correcting blunders of their own. Then, my Lords, as for the opportunities of compromise, what we understand by compromise is the kind of arrangement which can be made when the two Parties meet on equal terms and are able to effect an amicable adjustment of the difficulty. But under the Government's Suggestion Stage the two Parties do not meet on equal terms. One Party meets with a halter round its neck and the other is in a position to dictate terms. Therefore the Suggestion Stage fails to give us any advantage worthy of the name. The point is one of the utmost practical importance, because in our view the great value of the Committee and the Report stages, which are superseded by this new Suggestion Stage, is that when you are dealing with an imperfect measure—and we believe this to be a very imperfect measure—its imperfections are brought to light during the ordeal of open discussion which, until this new dispensation arrived, Bills had to go through in the other House of Parliament. Many of us can recall Bills which survived the ordeal of Second Reading but which came to grief because they were not able to stand the ordeal of open and unfettered discussion in the Committee stage. That is the real ordeal which, under the Parliament Act, the Government are able to shirk. It comes to this—that the opportunities promised to us are really worth little or nothing, and that the Government of the day have only to put a Bill on the Parliamentary rails in the first session and sit tight while the Bill gradually matures and comes into operation in the third session of the same Parliament. All the subsequent intervening stages are little better than a farce.
But I do not complain of His Majesty's Government because they claim that this Bill should derive some of the advantages, at any rate, of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act is on the Statute-book,

885
and, whatever we may think of the methods by which it found its way there, we have to accept it for better or worse. But I do say we have a right to expect that, if His Majesty's Government are going to use the Parliament Act to the full extent, they ought at least to apply it with some regard to decency. It is not enough to rely upon the letter and to pay no attention to the spirit of the Statute; and I suggest to noble Lords opposite that in relying on the letter of the Statute they are setting a bad example to their successors who in conceivable circumstances may find it convenient to take a leaf out of their book.
The great and dominant fact with regard to the Parliament Act is surely this—that when it became law the noble Marquess and his colleagues never for a moment suggested that it left the Constitution in the shape which they desired it to assume. They admitted, not on one occasion, but on innumerable occasions, that the question of the powers of this House and its Constitution were intimately connected. I need not cite the often cited Preamble of the Act—the Preamble on the strength of which Parliament accepted it. I need not cite the frequent admissions that the reform of this House was a matter of urgency and did not brook delay. When I see on the Front Bench opposite the predecessor of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack (Earl Loreburn) I am almost tempted to remind the House again of his historical and perhaps not quite felicitous reference to the "twin Bills." But the successor of the noble and learned Earl made an even stronger statement at an earlier date but on the same point. Speaking on the subject of the Veto Resolution, he used these memorable words—
"This policy is a single policy. It is in my view not a Veto Resolution and then, as a separable part, a reconstituted Second Chamber. It is both; the two form organic parts of one whole."
There he went one better than the twin Bills of his predecessor. The noble and learned Viscount then went on to say—
"Do not let us fall into the mistake of thinking that we can separate the policy into two independent parts."
That is exactly what His Majesty's Government have been doing; and I cannot help thinking that the House must have heard with something like amazement the brand-new dilatory plea put forward by the noble
886
Marquess opposite. He put the sponge over all those old pledges. He said: "Of what use is it to talk about the reform of the House of Lords until you know what sort of House of Commons is going to emerge out of the scramble?" That put back the question of House of Lords reform indefinitely; it is no longer a debt of honour to be paid off in the lifetime of the Government; it may be set back to the Greek kalends.
But His Majesty's Government went even further. Not only were we promised a reconstituted House of Lords, but we were given in these debates some idea of the bases on which the new House of Lords was to be constituted. It was to be small in numbers, the hereditary principle was to disappear, the two Parties were to be evenly balanced, and the House was to be entrusted with functions, neither few nor unimportant, proper to a Second Chamber in a democratic country. Those were the Prime Minister's words, and they spell a strong House of Lords. Not a House of a kind that you could flout and disregard, as you flout and disregard this House of Lords; a House of Lords you could not ride roughshod over in the manner in which you ride roughshod over us. Do you think, if the House of Lords were constituted like that, that they would allow themselves to be put off with your precious Suggestion Stage? I do not believe it would be tolerated for a moment. These two measures should have been, if possible, advanced side by side. I am willing to admit that it might have been difficult to do this; but then I say if they were not run side by side it was your bounden duty to proceed with the second measure as soon as you possibly could. Your first effort should, I suggest, have been directed to that, and, during the interim, you would have been well advised if you had concentrated your attention upon overtaking some of those large arrears of useful legislation which have notoriously accumulated, and allow more controversial measures to stand over for a time. Our complaint is, in the first place, that you are, as I have shown your Lordships, almost cynically prolonging the interim, and in the second place that you are making use of the interim in order to pass a number of highly controversial measures precisely of the character you solemnly assured us were not the least likely to be dealt with in such a manner.
Do not let us be told that there is no time for dealing with the question of House of Lords reform. We are to have a colossal Education Bill. The Lord Chancellor has promised us a great measure of reform of land transfer; another of his colleagues a vast scheme of agricultural reform which is to uproot and get rid of the present system. If there is time for these things, why is there not time to deal with the question of the House of Lords? What His Majesty's Government have been doing in defiance of their pledges has been to start three first-rate measures in the first session. One of them, not owing to any fault of their own, they were unable to proceed with—but there remained two first-rate measures, to which they added a third, the Scottish Temperance Bill, which, judging from the reception it received in this House, was never regarded by any one as a measure to which the Parliament Act could with any decency have been applied. You launch your measures. You sit tight. You decide what provisions you will discuss, and how much time shall be given for discussion. Meanwhile the Bills move on automatically, until in the course of time they take their place on the Statute-book as measures so immaculate that during their passage through Parliament it has not been necessary to make a single alteration or erasure in any of them.
And no aggravation is wanting. The noble Marquess spoke just now of the mandate of the Government. I have no time to go over that much worn part of the case. I should have been quite ready to argue that there could not be much of a mandate for a measure which the Prime Minister in his last four election addresses thought it convenient to omit altogether from mention. Be that as it may, I am prepared to argue that there can be no mandate for the Bill on the Table. It bears no resemblance to the Bills of 1886 and 1893, still less does it bear any resemblance to the Irish Councils Bill of 1907, which presumably represented the real frame of mind of His Majesty's Government at that particular period. What makes the matter worse is that by no stretch of fancy can this Bill be described as an ordinary Bill. It is a Bill which in most countries would be described and treated, not as an ordinary Bill, but as an organic Bill dealing with the machinery of government, raising great constitutional issues, and as such deserving of special treatment.
Another point: How do we stand with the country in regard to this measure? The noble Marquess derided a passage in my right hon. friend Sir Edward Carson's speech, in which Sir Edward referred to the fact that there was a majority of votes in England in favour of the maintenance of the Union. The noble Marquess seemed to think that that argument had no relevance. He said it was a singular argument for Unionists to use. I think it is a particularly appropriate argument. This is a Bill that proposes a dissolution of partnership, and are we to be told that the senior partner, the predominant partner, as I suppose lie would be called, is not entitled to have a voice in the transaction? What is more, the voice of the predominant partner is making itself heard more and more distinctly. Have noble Lords opposite kept their eyes on the by-elections? There have been 24 since the Home Rule Bill was introduced. We went into those elections with eight Unionist and sixteen Liberal Members of Parliament. We came out with a majority of one on our side. Are not these facts relevant when we recall another pledge given to us, again by the Prime Minister, that no Bill was likely to be passed through under the Parliament Act unless it had the unswerving support of the House of Commons coupled with that of a stable majority of consistent public opinion in the constituencies? I do not think the by-elections augur very well for the stability and consistency of the support given to His Majesty's Government by public opinion in the constituencies.
But the worst aggravation of your conduct is, I venture to think, your treatment of Ulster. Ulster was described last year by a right rev. Prelate as grim, determined, and menacing. Is she less grim, determined, and menacing now? I wonder what reports the Government receive from their representatives in Ireland on that subject? Cannot they see what is happening in Ulster? Will not they see what is happening there? One of the colleagues of the noble Marquess not very long ago expressed his opinion that the Ulster difficulty was a pure myth. I almost suggest to the noble Marquess behind me (Lord Londonderry) that his friends in Ulster might take for a legend and inscribe on their banners the words which Cleopatra addressed to Antony at a critical moment in her fortunes, "Not know me yet?" The grievance of Ulster

889
is not merely that you are abandoning her, not merely that you are depriving her of a part of her representation, but that you are going to place her in subjection to the Nationalist majority, and that you are going to do that as part of a very thinly-veiled Parliamentary transaction. It is the price of the phalanx which saved your Finance Bill from defeat, the phalanx which has saved you repeatedly when you were in direst distress, and the support of that phalanx was given, as one of the members of it said in the House of Commons, for reasons entirely unconnected with the merits or demerits of the measures. I know that if I were to suggest, or if it were suggested in Ulster, that there was anything like a compact between the parties I should be met with an indignant repudiation. I am not particular as to the use of the word "compact"; but there is a practice familiar to diplomatists and usually described in the words do ut des. That is what is happening. Each side delivers the goods. The Nationalist Party deliver their seventy or eighty votes, and you are going to deliver, when the moment comes, the loyalists of Ulster to such treatment as the Ancient Order of Hibernians choose to mete out to them.
The noble Marquess dwelt on the groundlessness of the fears of Ulster. He asked whether there was any analogy to justify them, and he suggested that the one sentiment with which Ulster is inspired is a bigoted detestation of the Roman Catholic Church. I regret that the noble Marquess should have given the weight of his authority to such a theory as that. But Ulstermen know from experience what they may expect from a Nationalist Parliament and Executive in Dublin. Let me give the noble Marquess an analogy, not wholly uninstructive. What of the analogy of the Irish Local Government Act of 1898? I am sure he has not forgotten "the words of love then spoken" by representatives of the Nationalist Party. What has been the result? My noble friend Lord Midleton told the House last session that in Munster and Connaught, out of 366 members of the county councils only three Unionists were elected; and the Nationalist Party now make it their boast that the whole of these county and district councils have become what they call a network of Nationalist organisation. If that is what has happened under Home Rule on a small scale, what do you suppose
890
will happen under Home Rule on a larger scale? I believe the Ancient Order of Hibernians will be the piper who will call the tune if this Bill becomes law. The Order has had the good fortune to secure, under your Insurance Act, a princely subsidy which has largely increased its membership and added to its already considerable power and position in the country. Let me read a sentence from a newspaper which, I am told, represents the opinions of the Order. It runs thus—
"To-day the alleged leaders of the Irish nation are protesting their love and loyalty to England, but the younger generation is getting ready. In such cases it is the younger generation which counts. The Parliamentary Party has no power to bind them, and they will not be bound by any pledges the Parliamentary Party may give. They are heirs to a great tradition, descendants and legatees of the generation that waged all implacable war on England, and they will carry it on with what weapons they may. Ireland can wait until the present decrepit compromise—
that is your Bill—
"is settled one way or another; but her hands will not be tied and her children will never rest content with English domination, even though it wears a green robe and has its headquarters in Dublin."
Do not tell me after that that the apprehensions of Ulster are without foundation. When you judge Ulster severely because she announces that she is going to offer resistance to the introduction of this new system of government—when you judge us hardly for saying that we will in present circumstances support Ulster whatever steps she may be driven to take, you forget what Ulster has got to fear, and you leave out of sight her moral right, not to dictate what is to be done for the rest of Ireland, but, so far as she is concerned, to resist by every means in her power the infliction of this monstrous indignity upon herself. The noble Marquess favoured us with some ingenious conjectures as to what Ulster might or might not do. I am not in the secrets of the Ulster leaders, but I can tell the noble Marquess what Ulster will not do. She is not going to run away, and she is not going to accept the position which this Bill will assign to her; and if that is so, she will remain a standing menace to the pacification of Ireland, which is one object with which this Bill is introduced by His Majesty's Government.
The Leader of the House asked what Ulster was going to do. May I retort with another question, What is His Majesty's Government going to do? We have had a formal announcement from the Chief Secretary that British bayonets are not

891
going to be used for the purpose of coercing the men of Ulster. Then what are you going to do? If not bayonets, when, where, and how are you going to deal with the serious problem which beyond all question confronts you as soon as this Bill is within measurable distance of becoming law? But I desire very much that it should not be supposed that the attitude we are taking up is an attitude of mere obstruction, or that we suggest for a moment that you ought to withdraw this Bill altogether from the operation of the Parliament Act. We suggest a course which we believe to be perfectly compatible with your policy and greatly to the public interest. We suggest that before the Bill becomes law automatically you should dissolve Parliament and refer this Bill to the electors; or, if you prefer it, that you should take the opinion of the country by means of a referendum, as the noble Marquess suggested a moment ago. I make no apology for mentioning the referendum. We have had a great many discussions about it in this House and out of it. I remember that the Prime Minister at one time was certainly not wholly unfavourable to the idea. He said that our Party system had been developed in recent years with a rigour and inelasticity not on the whole conducive to the best interests of the country. Those are admirable words, if I may he allowed to say so. He objected to the use of the referendum for every-day or trumpery or trivial matters and I venture to think he was perfectly right. But he went on to say that he did not exclude the referendum for special, rare, exceptional and conceivable cases of constitutional difficulty. I say the whole of the Prime Ministers conditions are present here. The case is exceptional and rare, and it deals with a constitutional difficulty, and if the example of our own Dominions is worth anything, I think the noble Marquess would find that in many of them a case of this kind would, beyond all question, form the subject of a referendum.
I suggest to the Government that the advantages of such an appeal as I advocate, either by means of a General Election or a referendum, would be many and obvious, and that the disadvantages are not apparent. I will assume that you have a General Election and win, and come back with a sufficient majority. You will have sacrificed absolutely nothing. Your Bill will still remain under the Parliament Act, and the first and second passages will still
892
be so much to the good. The Royal Assent could be given without the change of a day in the date. On the other hand, you will gain advantages which seem to me priceless. You will know for certain that you have not misread the opinion of the people of this country, and we shall know that the country is not with us and we shall govern ourselves accordingly. The noble Marquess suggests that Ulster will always remain irreconcilable. I have no doubt that there are many people in Ulster whose deep detestation of Home Rule is undying. But you will not have in England or Ireland against you that great body of men who at this moment feel that they are being tricked and jockeyed under the Parliament Act; and if the character and intensity of our opposition is affected, it seems to me that the opposition of Ulster would inevitably be to some extent affected also.
Now I take the other eventuality. Supposing you go to the country and lose. You will have been saved from a blunder, the most stupendous and deplorable blunder that any Government has ever committed: the blunder which you will have committed if in one way or another you coerce Ulster only to find out that all the time the feeling of the majority of the electors is against you. Conceive the feeling that would arise in Ulster. Conceive your own position, if, after blood had been shed and lives lost, you found you had make a mistake—not only an unpardonable but a futile mistake. I do entreat you to take these things into consideration.
There is another contingency which I hope you will not overlook. Suppose you refuse us a General Election and you settle down to serve out your five years term of office. In that case this Parliament will expire in the last days of 1915. But before that time comes the position might have changed very materially indeed. The Irish Parliament will have been summoned. Assuming that this Bill became law at the end of May next year, the Irish Parliament would be summoned at the beginning of January, 1915. It might by Order in Council be summoned earlier, but as I read the Act it could not be summoned later than about May 5, 1915. That will be about eight months before your five years comes to an end. Now when the Irish Parliament is summoned the whole of the 103 Irish Members automatically vacate their seats, and are replaced by forty-two other Members.

893
The immediate result of that is that fifty of your devoted henchmen in the House of Commons are wiped off the slate. Half of your majority disappears. Then you go to the country and take the General Election. Supposing you lose twenty-five seats, counting fifty on a Division. Your majority will have disappeared altogether, and in the meantime you will have provoked something like a rebellion in Ulster, and you will have sown the seeds of animosities which may endure for generations. Is that a position which Ulster could accept? Is it one which we could accept? Is it one which you would find altogether to your taste?
Then, my Lords, let me say one word in regard to an argument which the noble Marquess I think did not use, but which is constantly used. We are told that if Home Rule is not given to Ireland there will be a far graver difficulty than the Ulster difficulty to be encountered in the south and west of Ireland. I believe this argument to be an absolutely fallacious one. The rest of Ireland has prospered during recent years as no other part of the United Kingdom has prospered, and as few countries in the civilised world have. I will call only one witness in support of this view—the Chief Secretary. Mr. Birrell said the other day that a new Ireland had grown up since the days of Mr. Balfour. He said that he found evidences of a new life, of a new spirit, that there was a new literature, that the country was covered with thousands of cheerful homesteads, that new Universities were growing up, and that a new Irish movement full of national sentiment, national pride, and national feeling was arising. All perfectly true, I have no doubt, but all this has happened under the system which you are going to break up and get rid of altogether, and you are going to substitute for it a system which is untried, which is on the face of it less advantageous to the people of Ireland, which is adversely criticised by many of the ablest members of the Nationalist Party, and which is accepted by the rest as a payment on account, with their tongues in their cheek. The difference between your policy and ours is that we desire to preserve a proved success while you desire to impose a system which we believe is predestined to failure.
Now, my Lords, I have only one other observation to make. We are told that it is impossible to leave things alone. We are told of the congestion of Parlia-
894
ment, that decentralisation is necessary, that Parliament must be relieved. We object to this Bill because we are convinced that it will afford no relief to Parliament, but that, on the contrary, almost every line of it is calculated to produce friction and difficulty. We do not believe it will bring us one step nearer to that larger and more complete measure of devolution which so many of the best friends of Ireland desire. We know, at any rate, that my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey), who is, if anyone is, an ardent supporter of the principle of federation, regards this Bill not as a step likely to facilitate federation but as an obstacle in its way, which would have to be removed before anything could be done to bring about the kind of federation that he desires. His Majesty's Ministers, I am convinced, have thought out their scheme of federation about as much as they have thought out their scheme for the reform of your Lordships' House. Whenever their scheme of federation is produced I, for one, am ready to treat it with the utmost respect and a desire to find in it a solution of the difficulties with which we have for so long contended.
But with regard to this Bill, do not let it be supposed that our attitude is merely an attitude of obstruction. If the country wants this Bill we are ready to let them have it. We ask you to put the question to the test, and we are ready to abide by the decision. You may say that a General 'Election is costly, troublesome, and disturbing, but what is that compared with the tremendous stake for which you are playing? Let me say again that His Majesty's Government, by adopting the course we advocate, run absolutely no risk except the risk of finding out that they are labouring under a mistake and being saved from its consequences. From my heart I believe that the request which we make is a fair and reasonable request. And above all it is a democratic request; and therefore we appeal to you, as the champions of democratic principles, not to turn a deaf ear to our prayers, and not force this Bill upon the people of this country until you really know that they desire to have it.
Amendment moved—
To leave out all the words after ("That") for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz.: ("This House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess closed his speech with a recommendation to His Majesty's Government to submit this Bill to the opinion of the country. The reason for that recommendation in the noble Marquess's opinion was that a sufficient authority had not been given by the constituencies for the introduction of this Bill. I am within the recollection of all your Lordships when I say that before this proposal of legislating on Home Rule was considered, the Prime Minister declared that the intention of the Liberal Party was to legislate on the subject of Home Rule if they were returned to power at the General Election. It will be in the remembrance of the noble Marquess that he himself gave notice to his adherents that if the Liberal Party were returned to power at that General Election, one of the first things they would do would be to introduce a measure of Home Rule. I respectfully submit that ever since that time it was common knowledge in the country that the Liberal Party had been authorised to legislate for Home Rule, and that every request since then that has been preferred to His Majesty's Government to take the opinion of the country upon this Bill was only an endeavour to reverse the decision which was come to at the poll in the year 1910.
The speech of the noble Marquess will be read with regret, if not with disappointment, by every Liberal, and by that large and growing body of Unionists who would be glad to see this Irish question settled on terms fair and equitable to all concerned. I was prepared, when I heard that this Bill would be brought up a second time in your Lordships' House, to develop still further the points which I submitted for your consideration in February last. I then endeavoured to submit to your judgment four propositions. I endeavoured to show that there was urgent necessity for substantial changes in the government of Ireland; that that urgent necessity had been admitted by the leaders of the Conservative Party in both Houses; that the necessary reform could not be carried into effect unless the principle of representation were introduced into the Irish Government; and, lastly, I endeavoured to show that the framework of the Bill before your Lordships' House enabled you, if you were so disposed, to introduce into the Bill any improvements or changes which in the
896
course of the debate you might consider to be necessary. The noble Marquess, in the course of his speech, stated that he, during the debate last February, heard no representations from this side of the House which seemed to him to be deserving of notice. Of course, in regard to what I said myself, I am a partial witness; but I did not notice on the part of the noble Lords who took part in that debate any attempt to answer the suggestions and the arguments which I then brought forward. Through the action and the course which the noble Marquess has taken to-night, it is, of course, useless to attempt to justify this Bill to your Lordships, or to defend its provisions; but I cannot help comparing in my own mind the atmosphere prevailing in this House to-night with that which prevailed when this question was last before your Lordships.
When this question was before the House on the last occasion there was a spirit of conciliation and good feeling prevalent on both sides of the House. No one who had the privilege of listening to him on that occasion will soon forget the elevated and impressive eloquence of the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York, in which, recognising the difficulties with which the question was beset, he counselled patience and toleration and compromise. What has been the history since then? I speak without fear of contradiction when I say that on the part of the Government anti on the part of the Irish Nationalist Party there have been expressions of the utmost willingness to consider every and any proposal for amendment which the Ulster Unionist Party might bring forward, provided it were consistent with the essential principles of Home Rule. How were these advances received by the Unionist Party in Ulster? It is common knowledge that they were received either in sullen silence, or that they were rejected with contumely. And now what are the circumstances? We have it stated in the public Press that preparations have been made for armed resistance, and that the intention of the Ulster Unionists is to deluge Ulster with blood if this Bill is carried into law.
I think myself that too much is made of these Ulster preparations. I think, if your Lordships read carefully the debate in the House of Commons on October 29 last, you will find that the Ulster Unionist

897
demands are not really so extensive and so exacting as the noble Marquess believes. You will find it there stated, on the authority of the Ulster leaders, that they do not fear any religious persecution, a persecution which is entirely foreign to the Irish Catholic nature. Neither do they fear anything like legislative persecution, because against legislative persecution they are safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill and by the ever-watchful superintendence of this Parliament over the subordinate Irish Parliament. What they do profess to fear is administrative persecution, administrative oppression, which may, they say, be exercised outside the law and contrary to its provisions. I myself have no fear that such administrative oppression would be exercised; but if that be the kind of persecution which the Ulster Unionists fear, and if their desire be to live in peace and amity with their fellow-countrymen, what is there to prevent them making the suggestion that in order to provide concrete and material safeguards against such persecution there should be created in the four counties of North-east Ulster an independent administrative enclave. Why should not that proposal be brought forward by Ulster now if they wish to avoid the evils which the noble -Marquess thinks are impending? If such a proposal as that were brought forward, I myself would find from my own experience sufficient reasons for giving it favourable consideration. I should consider in no niggardly spirit what measure of power should be conferred upon such an administrative entity. It would administer its own local affairs—affairs connected with local government, with education, science and art, with agriculture, and technical instruction, possibly with public works, and with such other matters as would be ordinarily discharged by a local body. The allocation of funds might be in proportion to the ditties devolved and the moneys transferred to the Irish Parliament under this Bill; and the patronage of local appointments might follow the devolution of duties. But it would always be under the control of the Irish Parliament. Ulster would remain an integral part of Ireland for all purposes of administration common to the whole country. I consider that if any body of Ulstermen were anxious to put an end to this controversy in terms of fairness and equity, it is in that direction that they should seek for a solution; and
898
if such a solution were sought by the people of North-east Ulster I would give the assurance for myself and for the few friends who think with me to help as far as we could to bring this groundless quarrel to a close, in the hope of full reconciliation in the years to come. But I would at the same time insist upon the due representation of North-east Ulster in the Parliament at Dublin for more reasons than one. I would insist on it because I think that not only would it be right that the Ulster representatives should be present there to watch over their own interests and to give their counsel and advice on Irish affairs generally, but because their presence in the Parliament of Dublin would afford some representation to the Protestant minority in the rest of Ireland—a representation which, as the Bill now stands, the minority will not be able to procure on the basis of population. Also I would insist on it because the presence of Ulster representatives in Dublin would make for mutual understanding and the establishment of that goodwill which would render unnecessary the perpetuation of special arrangements in the four Ulster counties.
My Lords, if this Bill had gone into Committee and if anybody had made such a proposal as the one I have now outlined, he would find in me a supporter. Your Lordships know my opinion that the Bill, as it is before your Lordships now, requires amendment on the financial points. I would say that it also requires amendment in regard to the larger representation of minorities. Something might be done by going further with the principle of proportional representation, which is embodied in the Bill; and more might be done by going back to Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1886, and by providing for the representation of the Irish Peerage in the Irish legislative body to give that additional representation of the Protestant body in the Catholic Provinces which would not otherwise be found. Those are the things that might be provided for if the Bill were given a Second Reading, and if it were the intention of this House not to protract this pernicious quarrel but to settle it once for all on a basis of mutual toleration and of mutual compromise. This question, in my opinion, never will be really and truly settled except upon that basis. I think it is a monstrous thing, an abhorrent thing, that Ireland should enter upon her new life, that she should

899
begin to practice her recovered liberties, at the cost of the estrangement of the grandchildren of those Irish Volunteers whose names are a household word throughout Catholic Ireland. I believe if Irishmen were allowed to settle their own differences without the constant irritation of men who do not really understand the intimate feelings which animate the Irish Catholic, his intense desire for fellowship with his Northern fellow-countrymen. If we were let alone to manage our own affairs and not to have the Irish question made the shuttlecock of Parties in this House, I believe that you would have in Ireland the growth of a sentiment and a spirit upon which the Government of Great Britain could rely.
The noble Marquess referred to the Ancient Order of Hibernians in terms of depreciation and dislike. I do not know that I have ever met one of them, but I know the spirit which animates them, and I can assure the noble Marquess that the spirit which animates them is not one of disloyalty to the British Crown. I feel strongly upon this subject, and I sincerely resent being deprived of the opportunity of discussing in Committee the real questions which require settlement. I regret, I repeat, that our country and our cause should be made the shuttlecock of Parties, and that, instead of discussing the question of Irish Home Rule, we should be drawn into the vortex of disputes regarding the Parliament Act and such matters of high Imperial policy upon which the prominent statesmen of the country should be engaged, and not upon matters of Irish local government. My Lords, I am sorry that the debate should end in this way, and that this conflict should go on for another year. I can only express the fervent hope that Ulstermen and the men of the rest of Ireland will put their heads together, consider what it is they really want, and then ask your Lordships' House for it.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, as was quite natural, the noble Marquess, in moving his Amendment, addressed himself rather to the Parliament Act and its defects than to the Bill for the better government of Ireland; and with all the criticisms that the noble Marquess made upon the Parliament Act—indeed, I think with regard to any criticisms that could be made on that Act—I most
900
cordially and entirely agree. But at the same time I cannot vote for the Amendment. Towards the close of his speech the noble Marquess made an appeal that this Bill, before it goes automatically on to the Statute Book, should be referred to the people at a General Election or by referendum. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of that, but that does not exactly fall in with the words of the Amendment, which are, "That this House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country." That is quite another thing. With that I, of course, could not agree, because it debars this House for an indefinite period from in any way considering this Bill, never mind what suggestions may be made for its alteration or what suggestions may be made for its drastic amendment. We have, I suppose, certainly some months, possibly a year, of breathing space before the curtain rises on the final act of this—shall I call it tragedy or a farce? A farce it certainly is, so far as the procedure in Parliament is concerned, and a tragedy it may possibly become.
I frankly admit that the prospects are not very bright, but still I am sufficiently optimistic to hope, and even to believe, that common sense and statesmanship may yet prevail, and that steps may be taken to find a possible solution to the question involved in the Bill before the House. It is to that possibility that I want to address myself. I see no object in going into the general question of Home Rule. When this Bill was before this House last January I then endeavoured to the best of my ability to give the House my reasons for the strong conviction that is in me that a settlement of this question is necessary, not only for the welfare and the development of Ireland, but for the welfare of Great Britain, for the restoring of efficiency to Parliament, and for progress towards the great ideal of a more closely connected Empire. I endeavoured then to combat what I know is a delusion—that the great majority of the people of Ireland are disloyal, and that they have any desire or intention of persecuting or ill-treating the Protestant minority. I maintained then, and I maintain still, that the Bill before the House does not make a final settlement and is not even constructed on lines that can naturally

901
develop into a final settlement; and I am of opinion that it requires drastic amendment. I voted for the Second Reading in January last because I thought that a way might be opened for large amendments in the and for the very obvious reason that it is far easier to amend a Bill than to amend an Act. I am not going into any of those matters again; I should only repeat myself. I wish to confine myself to the possibilities of a peaceful settlement by conciliation and compromise of the problem involved in Home Rule.
I must express my regret that His Majesty's Government have during the last six months done nothing to try and inaugurate a settlement of the question by conference and by consent; they have done nothing whatever, as far as I can see, to deal with a situation which certainly is one of considerable gravity and which may become a situation of actual menace. I look upon that as culpable neglect on the part of His Majesty's Government, because the situation, complicated as it is, and even almost desperate as it may seem to be, does not, I believe, preclude a peaceable settlement. I would ask your Lordships to try and look at this question, for a moment at any rate, in its naked integrity, and strip from it all passion and prejudice and Party considerations. The question is infinitely larger than is suggested by the title of the Bill; it is not merely a Bill for the "better government of Ireland." You will never have in Dublin a Parliament satisfactory to the whole of Ireland unless supremacy over that Parliament is vested in an efficient Parliament here working under a balanced Constitution. That I am perfectly sure of. The problem therefore involves the question of the reconstruction of this House and the efficiency of Parliament. You never will have efficiency in the other House of Parliament until Parliament is relieved by devolution. Until the foundations of our own House are firm and secure, it would be the merest folly to talk of adding another story to it and thinking of any representation of the great Dominions overseas. Until this question is settled the whole progress of the Empire is hung up. Until it is settled you never can have ascertained the real balance of political opinion in this country; you never can gauge the volume and strength of conservative feeling;
902
you never can have real representation; you never can have any certainty that the real will of the people is carried out. It is therefore not merely a question of the better government of Ireland, but a great national and Imperial question.
What is the attitude of the two great Parties towards this question? There can be no doubt, I think, that the attitude of this House in January last was that it had got to be settled, that it was necessary that a settlement should be arrived at. So many notable speeches were delivered in this House on that occasion that there can be no doubt about that. That, I believe, to be the conviction of the great majority of Conservatives and of Liberal Unionists also throughout the country. They want a settlement; they see the necessity for a settlement of this question. And what is the position of the Party opposite? I know it is constantly said that the Government throughout have been acting under compulsion. I do not wish to argue whether that is so or not, or to what extent it is true; but surely it cannot be denied that they have, at any rate, acted also on conviction and of their own free will. They know and believe that this question has got to be settled. So far the two Parties are at one. I do not, of course, mean to say that they touch each other as to the exact nature of the kind of settlement that ought to be made; but they are at one in believing that a settlement is necessary, and that it ought to be a settlement subject to certain conditions—a settlement not made by force, but arrived at by consent.
I need not trouble the House with quotations. The notable speeches that were delivered by the noble Marquess opposite, by the Leader of the Opposition in the other House of Parliament, by the Chief Secretary, by the Postmaster-General, and by many others will well be within the recollection of the House, all pointing towards a desire for a settlement by consent. Why is nothing done towards bringing about a settlement by consent? What have His Majesty's Government done? Absolutely nothing. His Majesty's Government have bound themselves by the terms of the Parliament Act to bring in a Bill a second and a third time without altering a letter or a comma. To get over that difficulty they invented a very ingenious but absolutely useless piece

903
of mechanism called the Suggestion Stage, and they made that Suggestion Stage ridiculous by nominating themselves as the only people who were to settle what might be suggested. Many valuable suggestions have been made out of doors, suggestions which would, I dare say, have satisfied many of the objections raised in the North-east corner of Ulster, but of what avail is that when they cannot be discussed in Parliament? What is the use of asking the people of Ulster who protest against this Bill to say what they want in the way of safeguard when their views cannot be discussed in Parliament? As long as the attitude of the Government is that this Bill as it stands is a letter-perfect Bill, and as long as they exercise absolute censorship and say "Nothing shall be considered in the other House of Parliament unless we think it ought to be considered," the Suggestion Stage is a mere farce, a mere theoretical dodge. It comes to nothing. His Majesty's Government have done nothing, and they alone have the power to do anything effective. Even if they do not care to extricate themselves from a great difficulty, or to extricate their country from a great difficulty—even if they think that the turn of fortune's wheel may relieve them of ultimate responsibility, surely they have no right to leave such a legacy to those who may become responsible hereafter!
My Lords, why has nothing been done? I must turn for a moment to the position in Ireland. In the first place, in my humble opinion the fundamental mistake that has been always made in dealing with political reform in Ireland is that Governments have taken the initiative in framing the measures. You will find throughout the world every conceivable variety of local self-government, of devolution, of autonomy or whatever you please to call it, varying to any extent, the only similarity being that in all cases where a community desire local self-government or an extension of local self-government the initiative has come from the community making the demand. The people have met and consulted and considered the matter, and have drafted out, perhaps roughly but still fairly distinctly, a plan upon which legislation could be erected. That is the course that was adopted in respect of a most vexed question—the transfer of land in Ireland; that was the course adopted by Mr. George Wyndham, a great
904
statesman and a great benefactor to Ireland, and whose death is a great loss to this country. What did he do? He said "Confer on this matter; try to come to an agreement; and if you can come to an agreement I will try to act upon it." Irishmen did confer, they did come to an agreement, and the Chief Secretary did act upon that agreement, the result being the best Act that ever was passed for Ireland, an Act which, if it had not been scandalously interrupted, would have by this time absolutely settled one of the great questions in Ireland. That method of procedure, I understand, is not going to he adopted by His Majesty's Government, even in the case of the land. I understand that a Land Bill is to be introduced and left to us to wrangle over. That is certain to introduce Party politics and Party prejudices. That is not the wisest course to pursue. But let that pass. I ask your Lordships, Why was not the method of procedure that was so eminently successful in the matter of land purchase in Ireland adopted in the matter of political reform?
I am bound to say in all honesty that I am afraid the Parliamentary Party Ireland, the Nationalist Party, are very much to blame. Unquestionably such was the temper of the people all over Ireland—North, South, East, and West—not so very long ago that a calm and friendly discussion of the question of political reform would have been welcomed, and it would have succeeded, just as the Land Conference succeeded, in a formulated agreement. At that time the faith of the Nationalist Party was a sound and orthodox faith. Unfortunately for Ireland the Party fell into grievous heresy, and lost a great opportunity. They have made great mistakes—I am sure with the best intentions, but still mistakes—very grievous to the cause they had at heart. They should have maintained their independence. They forfeited it by a strict alliance with one of the great political Parties, thereby committing Ireland to facts and principles contrary to the welfare of the country and to the nature and consciences of the people. They crippled their own activities and were accessories to the killing of land purchase. They might have been a National Party; they preferred to be a Nationalist Party, most unfortunately dominated by a secret and purely sectarian society. They sought to obtain Home Rule behind the backs of the people by Parliamentary

905
manœuvring— possibly, my Lords, in certain circumstances a proper policy and the only policy to pursue, but surely absolute folly considering the consensus of opinion which certainly would have been expressed in Ireland and which would have carried absolute conviction to the two Parties here and to the whole population of Great Britain.
A treat opportunity was lost, and what is the result? This Government, and any Government, find themselves confronted with an opposition of at any rate a very formidable character in the North-east counties of Ireland. A question, difficult and complicated enough in itself, has been made unnecessarily difficult and complicated. Dead and dying passions and prejudices have been galvanised into life. I am not going to try to analyse the opposition in Ulster and go into its merits and demerits and its causes, except just to say this, that the theory so industriously put about in Great Britain that the majority in Ireland are aliens to the minority in race and ideals and economically and socially is perfect nonsense. Historically and ethnologically and in every other way it is not true; it is a mere modern invention. I do not want to labour that; it is sufficient for my purpose that the position in Ulster is serious. I would lay down three propositions which I think govern the case. First of all, that these three or four counties in Ireland cannot possibly be permitted to stand for ever in the way of the progress of the Empire, the restoration of the efficiency of Parliament over here, and the welfare of Great Britain. They must eventually listen to reason. Secondly, that as regards this Bill as it stands and the procedure adopted towards this Bill the people of Great Britain will not allow the employment of force to coerce Ulster; and, thirdly, that this matter cannot be left to be fought out in Ireland alone. The idea of an. Irish Parliament struggling into a very difficult life in the midst of ill-feeling, ill-will, and possibly serious not and disorder, is to me monstrous and unthinkable. Those propositions are, I think, sound. Is then the matter before us hopeless? I think not. I can see no reason why the differences, acute as they are, should not still be settled and adjusted.
I wish to make three short quotations to your Lordships. I want to call your attention first to a very notable utterance
906
made in Edinburgh on June 13 by Sir Edward Carson. He said—
"What the Nationalist Party wanted was not local government, but to be a separate nation from the United Kingdom. If Mr. Redmond wanted an extension of local government there would be no great difficulty in dealing with that, if it was to be taken as a final settlement of the Irish question, but what Mr. Redmond wanted was to get hold of them and to put them under his ideas of a nationality. What he wanted was something totally different from what any colony had ever granted to its provinces."
May I examine into that for a moment? What are we to understand by "nationality"? Surely we are not to quarrel about the exact meaning of a word. "Nationality" is about the vaguest term there is. Are the subjects of the Crown all of one nation? We know they are not. Are the people of the United Kingdom all of one nation? So far from it that we have never been able to invent a word expressive of that conception; and a nameless thing is nothing. I will take an example. I do not know whether the leader of the Opposition in the other House is an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scotsman, or a Canadian, and I do not suppose he knows himself. In fact, I do not know whether my noble friend behind me here is an Englishman or an Irishman—I do not know what his nationality is. The truth of the matter is that Ireland always has been, and is, and always will be a nation. A nation connotes individuality, and that individuality and nationhood cannot be taken away by a war, or by confiscation, or by enactments of Parliament. All that legislation can do is to grant or take away or define the symbols, the outward expressions, of nationality.
I think that Ireland is perfectly justified in expecting that her individuality, her nationality, should be indicated in a grant of local self-government. What is local self-government? I suppose it is an exercise of certain legislative and executive functions by the people of certain areas. What on earth is the difference? Surely if the old time-dishonoured practice of settling affairs in Ireland by encouraging Irishmen to fight each other is to be adopted, for decency's sake let us have something more definite to fight about than the meaning which this or that dictionary may express of the term "nationality." Sir Edward Carson says that there would be no great

907
difficulty in dealing with the question of local self-government, but that "what Mr. Redmond wanted was something totally different from what any colony had ever granted to its provinces." I think it is allowable for me to transpose those words from the negative into the positive sense, and to say that in Sir Edward Carson's opinion there would be no great difficulty—in other words, a discussion would be possible and perhaps profitable—if the demand was not different from what any colony had ever granted to its provinces; if, for instance, the demand was that the Irish Parliament should be on a basis analogous to the status of, say, the Parliament in Quebec.
May I contrast that with two quotations from two politicians as far removed from Sir Edward Carson in almost all respects as are the poles asunder—I select Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Joseph Devlin. What did Mr. T. P. O'Connor say at Ottawa not so very long ago? He said that—
"his mission was to secure Canada's approval of a Federal scheme of government for the four kingdoms of the British Isles, such as the Provinces in Canada enjoy under a central Government."
Sir Edward Carson would be prepared to discuss and to go into conference, I presume, as long as it was on the basis of the powers which the Provinces in Canada enjoy under a central Government. That is exactly what Mr. T. P. O'Connor says they want. And what did Mr. Devlin, speaking at Townsville, in Queensland, say? He said this—
"What I hope to see is that we shall have a Federal system which will enable England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland to have councils or parliaments to apply themselves to the purely parochial and domestic work of their respective countries, leaving the Imperial Parliament to transact the purely great but purely Imperial functions of the nation."
Surely if you eliminate passion and prejudice and Party considerations, there is no practical difference between the views expressed in those three speeches. They all point in one direction, and in the one direction, as I believe, in which salvation is to be found—that is of a settlement on Federal lines by consent.
It is true that Sir Edward Carson said that the Nationalist Party want Ireland to be a separate nation. I do not know, of course, what the Nationalist Party want but of this I am absolutely certain, that
908
the huge majority of the people of Ireland do not want separation. Under a Federal system the most valid objections raised in Ulster would disappear. There would be no question of separation, of loss of citizenship in the larger sense, of the deprivations Sir Edward Carson seems to dread. My Lords, putting Ireland out of the question altogether if you so choose, I feel sure that among all thinking men in this country, of all political shades of opinion, there is a strong desire that this question should be settled. I think I have shown by those three quotations that a settlement by consent on Federal lines is certainly not impossible. Is no effort to be made before this Bill comes up for a third and last time to bring about a conference to try and settle this question? If such a conference succeeded it would open the way to a solution that everybody would he desirous to see. If the conference failed, it would at any rate have this advantage, that it would point out clearly and distinctly the points which are irreconcilable, and we should then know exactly where we stand.
There is a great responsibility upon the shoulders of two men—upon the shoulders of Sir Edward Carson and of Mr. John Redmond. I do not know whether they will rise to the sufficiently high level of patriotism. There is a much greater responsibility upon the shoulders of His Majesty's Government. I do not know whether they will have the necessary prudence and the necessary courage to act. But this I do know, that it will be a discredit to them, and, what is far worse, a disgrace to statesmanship, a crime against civilisation, if an honest and sincere effort towards settling this question by consent through a conference is not made before the Bill comes up to this House for the third and last time.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I approach this question as one of those many Home Rulers who would enormously prefer that it should be settled by way of conference and conciliation, and that it should be settled in its natural and close connection with those other constitutional questions which are before us, and which are equally incapable of being solved by any Party victory on one side or the other. I agree with very much of what has been so well said by the noble Earl who has just sat down. My disagreement with him is

909
almost limited to one point. I cannot believe, as he seems to think, that the Government regard this Bill as a word-perfect Bill, or that there is any sort of unreadiness upon their part to meet any overtures that may be made. The matter is not one for any exchange of recriminations, but I certainly was under the impression—speaking on this particular point from a purely impartial point of view—that if there was to be conference and conciliation, the next move rather lay with the Opposition than with the Government. However that may be, I hope myself that the end will yet be of that nature, and on that account I regret all the more that on this occasion the Bill should have been met by an Amendment from the noble Marquess opposite which, if I may respectfully say so, seems to be little more than an expression of a wish that the Irish question could be shelved.
Supposing there were a General Election to-morrow, what issues would be before the electors? We should have the various aspects of the land question before them, we should have the Insurance Act, the Marconi affair, the rival land policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Marquess opposite; we should still, I suppose, have Tariff Reform; and we should have the question of Welsh Disendowment, which comes, I believe, far more closely home to the imaginations of most people in England than do the fears of Ulster. In fact, there is every prospect that at the next General Election the confusion of issues will be greater than ever before, and it seems to me all but unmeaning that we should talk of referring this question to the electorate by means of a General Election. If in that election the Government should win, it would be ridiculous to speak of their victory as a verdict for this particular Bill. If in that election they should be beaten, it would be equally ridiculous to claim upon the other side that it was a verdict against the principle of Home Rule. After that election there is only one thing which we could guess—and we can safely guess it now—as to the opinion of the average elector on this question. It is that he believes the Irish question is a real question, a question which ought to be resolutely met and solved, and he hopes that the statesmen who rule over him will settle it for him. Beyond that I do not believe that the opinions of the
910
average elector go, or will ever go, however many General Elections we may have.
The noble Marquess made a reference to the possibility of a referendum to the electors as a substitute for a General Election in this matter. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the referendum is within the four-corners of the Amendment which the noble Marquess moved. I confess at once that the referendum is to me a far more attractive suggestion, but there is this difficulty about it. I do not see how the referendum can be made a clear and definite pronouncement. Do you mean to refer to the electors the decision upon the principle of Home Rule, or the decision upon the particular form which Home Rule should take? Those are two very different questions. As I said just now, I believe that the electors elect Parliament to settle these difficult questions for them. Whether it would be, as the noble Marquess says, democratic I do not know and do not care; but I am sure that it would not be, as a rule, statesmanlike or just or courageous for Parliament to throw back on to the shoulders of the electors the responsibility for settling the very questions which Parliament is expected to solve. Should this Bill be submitted to the judgment of the electors by a single vote taken on the Bill as a whole, then I submit that you will be asking of the average voter a judgment which you have no right to ask from him; you will be asking the man, who can have no means of judging, a large number of highly difficult questions which puzzle even noble Lords in this House. Above all, you will be putting on him the responsibility of saying what really is the true weight to be given to the fears and to the menaces—if I may use that word in no offensive sense—of Ulster. That is a question which the average elector is totally incapable of deciding. Should the average English elector vote in favour of the Bill, as I am rather inclined to think he would, it could not really be said that Ulster would cease to have precisely the same reason for protesting against the Bill that Ulster has now. Speaking, perhaps, rather hastily about the suggestion which I think many noble Lords must have been surprised to hear to-night from the noble Marquess, there is a real objection, as it seems to me, to referring to the electors the decision upon a particular Bill, unless by some means or

911
other you are in a position to assure them that the measure represents the principle upon which it is based in its most perfect and best-considered form. On that condition, and I should be inclined to say on that condition only, can the suggestion of the referendum, any more than that of a General Election, be, if I may respectfully say so, considered a right way of meeting this question.
I believe it is really common ground between us on this side of the House and, I will not say the whole of the noble Lords opposite, but certainly a large section of them, that there is this Irish question pressing upon us and demanding settlement. I am not going to range very widely over that great question, but there are still, I think, a few remarks that can be made upon the subject which have not been made very often before; and I am going to ask permission to make some of those remarks, which, to save time, I shall not attempt to weave into any very connected argument. I have often been impressed—I hope your Lordships will not think it at all a fantastic or unreal consideration—by the intimate connection of this question of self-government in Ireland with the question of national defence and of the security of these three kingdoms. Many noble Lords opposite are, as I frankly confess I am myself, desirous that the defence of this country should be provided for by a system of national training and national service in which every man who was capable would be compelled to take his part. Under the present system of Union, about which we used to be asked to entertain such almost reverential feelings, you could not possibly extend such a measure to Ireland. Nor, if you abide by the present system of the Territorial Force on the voluntary basis, under the present system of government would any statesman dare to extend the Territorial Forces Act to Ireland. The effect of the system of government under the Union is actually this, that so long as it lasts in its present form it is impossible that the United Kingdom can draw for defensive purposes upon the forces—and I believe they are of a very high quality—which Ireland can supply. Noble Lords opposite, with the experience which many of them have had of soldiering and of the British Empire beyond the seas, know well enough the real practical importance
912
of sentiment in a matter such as this, and I put it to them, Is it not practically certain that Ireland could be made a source of great additional strength instead of a source of real strategical weakness to the United Kingdom and to the Empire if we only ceased to treat the spirit of Irish nationalism as something compounded of absurdity and treason, and recognised it as something very natural and quite inevitable and honourable, something which we could turn just as easily into a strength as into a menace to the Empire?
Now, my Lords, that leads me to say a few words in relation to the Nationalist Party, with whom I am proud to have had many associations 'for many years. I confess that I was very much surprised and even pained when I heard the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition use language which seemed still to contend that the whole spirit actuating the Nationalist Party and the Nationalist movement was one of deadly hostility to this country and something which could justly be called disloyal. I was a good deal relieved later, because it seemed to me that the noble Marquess answered his own suggestion. That imputation of disloyalty upon the whole Nationalist movement did duty when it was necessary to contend that the people of Ulster would have grave cause to fear under Home Rule, but directly the noble Marquess had to deal with the suggestion that there might possibly, if this measure be rejected, be rebellion or disorder to deal with in the rest of Ireland, then we had at once put before us the picture—I believe a truer picture—of an Ireland which in recent years had become so contented, so full of happy homesteads, that the mere idea of disloyalty and rebellion was an absurd suggestion. It is difficult for an uninformed Englishman to gather from the speeches of those who know Ireland what the real condition of affairs there is. But it is not possible for him to believe that both these contentions can be true, and it is possible for him to believe that they both are wide of the mark.
One of the most extraordinary facts to my mind in the whole situation is the miscellaneous—I would almost say incompatible—elements out of which the Nationalist Party is very solidly

913
welded together. You have among them men of the most radical and most conservative cast of mind. You have Protestants and Catholics, and among the Catholics clericals and strong anti-clericals. You have temperance advocates, and the strictest devotees of the liquor trade. I might continue the list; but one striking instance, which occurs to me because I saw him just now at the Bar, is that of a gentleman whose chief political creed outside the question of Home Rule is that property in land is criminal, and that all property in land should at once be confiscated. That gentleman sits and holds an influential position as a Nationalist Member of Parliament by the votes of constituents most of whom have recently acquired the freehold of their farms. I have pointed out what extraordinarily diverse elements are combined together in the Nationalist Party. There is another fact in regard to it to which I should like to refer. The Nationalist Party contains, as I strongly believe, men of character and ability, whose merits have not been sufficiently recognised in this country. But it contains others. I speak with respect and liking for some of the gentlemen to whom I am about to refer, and I am saying nothing more in regard to them than what they have most frankly said about themselves when I say it is also the case that a considerable proportion of the representatives of Ireland are men who have not that status and position in their own neighbourhoods, or that experience and attainment and capacity which might be expected of the chosen representatives of a people. Yet these men are chosen, and chosen often without a contest or the possibility of a contest, while constantly the very men who, under a normal and healthier condition of society, would be leaders of Irish life and thought and politics are set aside, and, as we have been told, excluded even from their boards of guardians and their county and district councils.
The conclusions that I wish to draw from the state of facts that I have tried to put before you are these. Surely this diverse character of the Nationalist Party and the other characteristics that I have dwelt upon must bring home to any man who thinks about them the deep-seated-ness, the persistence, the almost invincible character of this claim which has been maintained in season and out of season, through so many years—the claim of Irish nationality and the claim of Irishmen to
914
manage their own Irish affairs. It has also, I think, another aspect. Surely it is idle to bolster up the fears and apprehensions of people in Ulster and other Unionists as to what might happen under Home Rule by a reference to anything that you may criticise or dislike in the present methods of the Irish Nationalist Party. I say again that I speak with nothing but honour and admiration for the persistent fight that that Party has kept up. Still I am perfectly aware that there are many incidents in the campaign for Home Rule in Ireland which a great many people very naturally point to as examples of the narrow-minded or unjust things which they think will be done in Ireland under Home Rule. But, my Lords, is it not really certain under Home Rule that the people of Ulster, if they themselves are united, will be in all probability the most powerful single section in the Irish Parliament? Is it not absolutely certain—and this is, to my mind, even of more importance—that within a very little while after the passing of Home Rule the natural leaders of Irish society, those many men of high character and great ability, respected by their neighbours, who are now set aside from taking part in the public work of Ireland because they are tied and bound by the traditions of Unionism, will take the places that they are so well qualified to fill as leaders of Irish public life?
I, like the noble Earl who last addressed your Lordships, am one of the people who do not regard this question as standing alone. I hope this measure, if it is carried, will be an instalment of the larger scheme which, though not demanded for all parts of the United Kingdom on anything like the same grounds of urgency that Irish Home Rule has been demanded, I believe to be necessary for the good government of the United Kingdom. I am plot going into the arguments for Home Rule all round, but I want to point out, very briefly, in what way the suggestion of a larger scheme of devolution, as it seems to me, affects the position of Ulster and the position of the Irish Unionists generally. In the first place, I should imagine that it might have some sentimental effect upon them. So far as sentiment is concerned, it would be one thing to have the sort of separate treatment that might be given to a larger Isle of Man, and another thing to stand upon exactly the

915
same footing as Scotland and England. But there are much more serious practical considerations. We refer very much on this side to the continued supremacy of the Imperial Parliament as a safeguard in some sense against possible abuses under Home Rule. The supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, if Home Rule existed—its over-riding power—we should all hope would not often, if ever, be put into actual force; but nevertheless the existence of that power would have a reassuring and a restraining influence, if people felt convinced that the Imperial Parliament could and would in case of necessity intervene. Now an Imperial Parliament limited solely to looking after the common affairs of the three kingdoms, to doing Imperial work, could and would, if necessary, intervene effectively in Ireland. But an Imperial Parliament fully occupied with the domestic concerns of England and Scotland, and hoping not to be troubled any longer with Ireland also, would not be looked to as an equally efficient safeguard.
I want, if I may very briefly, to indicate the relations of the present Bill to that larger scheme to which the Leader of the Opposition referred this evening in terms, I think, of greater sympathy than some of us had previously known that he felt. The noble Marquess said that the present Bill in its main outlines could not fit in with a Federal scheme for the whole of the Kingdom. I am not going to attempt to thrash out that exceedingly difficult question, but I would like to suggest the line on which I think that question must be examined. I suppose we shall all agree that what is vital to this Bill, not in every detail but in broad outline, is the distribution of powers and functions which it makes as between the Imperial Parliament and Government and the proposed Irish authorities. The question whether this Bill would fit in to a larger scheme I suggest resolves itself into this. Is the distribution of power as between the Imperial and subordinate authority the same as it would require to be in the larger scheme of Home Rule all round? Whichever country, whichever kingdom, you take, I suggest that there is one guide that would have to be followed in that distribution of power. A very large part of the administration, the greater part, in fact, of the domestic administration, of each kingdom at the present time
916
is conducted by separate Executive authorities. A very large part of the legislation of the three kingdoms in this one respect runs, in spite of the Union, on altogether distinct, and even sometimes divergent lines; and I think in examining what are the powers that would be necessary under any scheme of Home Rule to be given to a subordinate Legislature, if you took as your clue the functions of government which are actually carried out by different administrative authorities to-day, you really would find that the distribution of powers in this Home Rule Bill is not very different from what it would have to be made by any statesman who proposed to give a measure of self-government to Ireland at all, and that it runs very closely upon all fours with the distribution of powers which under Home Rule all round would have to be effected between the Imperial authorities on the one hand and the three subordinate authorities of England, Ireland, and Scotland upon the other.
I do not know whether I have made my meaning plain on that point, as I have condensed my remarks so much, but I certainly will not attempt to amplify what I have said. I will only add that for my part I support this Bill upon two grounds quite equally. I support it because in my opinion it is a good first step towards that larger scheme of devolution which the future good government of the whole of this Kingdom and this Empire seems to me so urgently to demand; and I support it no less upon its own merits by itself and because I sincerely believe that it will be a step towards the revival of a sounder and more united national life in Ireland.
[The sitting was suspended shortly before eight o'clock, and resumed at nine o'clock.]
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I rise full of that diffidence which is natural, I think, in one who addresses your Lordships' House for the first time. During the few remarks I have to make I hope you will forgive me for my temerity in venturing to take part in this debate. I do not intend to dwell on the general features of this Home Rule Bill, because these have become, I may say, ancient history. They have been discussed at great length both here and in another place, and also in the country at large. I only wish, therefore, to dwell upon one point—a point which I think I know particularly well. That is the most grave

917
danger that the present Government is incurring in proposing to force this measure upon an unwilling people in Ulster.
Without undue egotism I think I may say that I speak on this subject with a certain amount of knowledge. I am an Ulsterman. I have lived in Ulster for most of my life, and for twelve years or more I represented an Ulster constituency in another place. After hearing the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, at the commencement of the debate this evening, I really wonder if His Majesty's Government understand the gravity of the case which confronts them. As I have said, I imagine I know the Ulster people fairly well. I remember even now, though I was then a boy, the intensity of the feeling which was aroused in Ulster in the days of the Home Rule Bill of 1886, but the feeling which existed at that time is not to be compared for one moment with the intensity of feeling which is displayed in Ulster at the present time.
The noble Marquess opposite said in the course of his remarks that he did not know what principle the Ulster Unionists were working on. The noble Marquess dwelt a great deal on the question of principle. He referred to it in various ways, but I am bound to say that none of his arguments convinced me in the slightest degree. I do not think I can describe the principle which is the basis of Ulster's opposition better than by referring to the Solemn League and Covenant which was signed by such an enormous number of men and women in Ulster last year, and which, I am proud to say, I signed myself. If your Lordships will bear with me for a minute I will read an extract from that document—
"We do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant to stand by one another throughout this time of threatened calamity and defend for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom."
After a reference to the proposed Parliament in Dublin the Covenant proceeds—
"And in the event of such a Parliament being thrust upon us we mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority."
If that is not a principle sufficient to stir up the great majority of the people of the Province, I want to know what principle is? That document has been signed by
918
people who are Irishmen, who are Ulstermen, who know the dangers which surround them, who have the most absolute abhorrence of this Parliament which His Majesty's Government wishes to force on them, who know the class of men which will compose that Parliament, who know the forces which will elect the members of that Parliament, who know the hostility which those forces—the people opposed to them—have always shown to their most cherished ideals, and who will absolutely refuse to submit to a Parliament in Dublin until compelled to do so by sheer force of arms. I know it is a grave thing that I am saying, but it is well that His Majesty's Government should realise the real feeling of Ulster.
In his introductory speech the noble Marquess opposite referred to a speech which had been made by my very old friend Sir Edward Carson, and he threw some doubts on the practicability of a policy of non-payment of taxes by the people of Ulster. He did not refer, however, in any shape or form that I can recall, to the fact that should this Bill become law the Ulster Unionists propose to set up a Provisional Government for Ulster; nor did he refer in the slightest way to the steps which the Government will take to meet the dilemma in which they will be placed by the creation of that situation. I do not know, none of us know, what the Government intend to do; but I am bound to say it is my absolute conviction that should this Bill become law Ulster will carry out her resolve to the letter. It is customary on the part of supporters of His Majesty's Government to refer to us Ulstermen from whom they differ in political opinions as bigots. Well, who are these Ulstermen? They are descendants of the same flesh and blood as yourselves. They are members of the great Anglo-Saxon community who went over there some hundreds of years ago to help you to hold Ireland for yourselves; they have stood by you faithfully ever since through times of stress and peril; they have borne unflinchingly any amount of ignominy, obloquy, and sneering from those who differ from them; they have shed their best blood for your Empire; they have never indulged in those crimes of shooting into cottages, of cattle-driving, and other similar things which have marked the progress of the Nationalist Party in Ireland—that Party which the

919
Liberal Government is so glad to be supported by; and they have never indulged in jubilation on hearing of the defeat of British soldiers in the field. They come from the old Cromwellian stock, and most of them hold Cromwellian ideas still steadily in their minds. They are one of the few peoples in these islands who have really the courage of their own convictions, and they are not to be turned for one moment from their determination.
A noble Lord whom I see opposite went, I believe, on the tour which members of the Eighty Club made through certain parts of Ireland last year. I only wish he had come to Ulster. It is not too late now, and if he would come later on in this year I should be glad to offer him any hospitality that lies in my power. If he could see some of the big meetings that take place in the North of Ireland I am sure they would impress him as they have impressed most deeply other visitors to Ireland. From an educational point of view it would be worth the noble Lord's while to do this, although I am not quite sure whether for us Ulstermen the time for big meetings is not past, and that we have not now to devote ourselves purely to the task of putting our organisation in thorough working order to resist the great peril with which we are faced. Be that as it may, my offer stands good if the noble Lord chooses to accept it. I have attended most of the great meetings myself and have been absolutely astonished by the whole-heartedness of the people of Ulster, by the spirit of self-sacrifice which they display, and by their splendid unanimity. There you see, marching side by side, gentle and simple, rich and poor, employer and employee, farmer and farm labourer, and the remnant of what used to be called the landed gentlemen, for I am glad to say that most of the land in Ulster now is owned by the former tenant farmers. There is no division in their ranks, and it is not a political question in the ordinary sense of the word which thus unites them. I know it. I have fought several hotly-contested elections in the North of Ireland and can tell your Lordships that the people there are prepared to sink all their differences—the differences which separate classes in this country—purely in the interests of the maintenance of the Union. Those are the kind of people on whom His Majesty's Government are proposing, by means to which I need
920
not refer, to thrust a Home Rule Bill which is literally abhorred.
What will be the result? I cannot say. I do not believe that any member of His Majesty's Government can say either. But I think that at this stage we who oppose this measure with all the strength we possess have some right to ask His Majesty's Government to state what they intend to do, should this Bill become law, in face of the resistance of Ulster, which will be maintained. That is really all I wish to say to-night. I can assure your Lordships that I speak from the bottom of my heart on this subject. As I have said, it is a subject of which I know something, and it relates to a people of whom I am proud to be one. It relates to a people whom I honour and respect. It relates to a people whom I love.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I am very proud to follow the noble Duke in the patriotic and eloquent speech he has just addressed to you, and I think your Lordships ought to be very much obliged to him for having brought the House back to the bed-rock of reality. The noble Marquess who opened the debate this evening thought proper to make merry at the expense of the Unionist Party in the House of Lords because they have been brought face to face with a word which sounded rather strange to their ears—the word "must," the word which fell so strangely on the ears of the French Monarch. Nobody likes being made to do something that he dislikes, and the noble Marquess is perfectly entitled to enjoy any triumph that he may feel at having placed us in a position which we hate. When we find that the fact that we are not getting our own way about the Home Rule Bill is fraught with such grave dangers to society generally, I can only say that it makes the position still more unpalatable.
What I want to know is this. Do His Majesty's Government think that the Unionist Party here are the only Party who are not going to get their own way? If so, they are greatly mistaken. A very unaccustomed sensation is about to be experienced by the Radical Party in this country. For the first time in the whole of their career they have been brought face to face with a set of circumstances from which no threats, no cajolery, no analogy about Colonies, no majority, no Limehousing, no whitewash, no hushing-up, none of the other means and devices

921
which they are always employing, will save them. They have to face the issue of Ulster which the noble Duke has just placed before your Lordships with so much earnestness and sincerity.
We heard just before dinner a very long speech from Lord Charnwood, and into the latter part of it with regard to the Territorial Army in Ireland I will not follow him. The first half of the speech was directed to the general tenor of the Amendment of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in this House, and the whole of that part of the noble Lord's remarks was redolent of that fine Radical mistrust of the electors of the country which has characterised the present Government ever since they came into office a few years ago. Every conceivable device one can think of for bringing this issue before the people was reviewed by the noble Lord in turn. First of all there was the ordinary and legitimate device, which I for one favour, of a General Election, but with that he would have nothing to do. He showed a sort of leaning towards the referendum, but finally he decided that that also was a highly dangerous form of procedure, and so he returned to the device of the conference or the compromise. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, so well analysed what is necessary to precede a compromise that I need not follow him into that, but although the noble Marquess was himself a member of a conference not very long ago I do not think he will consider me impertinent if I suggest to him that the people of this country have not got a very great appetite for conferences between members of the two Front Benches at the present time, and what all white men wish to see is that this matter should be fairly fought to a finish. They would sooner see it fought to a finish at a General Election, but if that means of settlement is denied to us, then we must fall back on the only other means at our disposal.
It is very interesting at this time of day to see the Radical Party standing up for the doctrine of passive obedience and divine right. They are the descendants, in the political theory at any rate, of those who used to deny the divine right of kings. We on our side are the political descendants of those who maintained the divine right of kings. We will continue to vindicate the principle that there is no divine right in any political caucus, and
922
certainly not in the Radical caucus as it exists at the present moment. We have heard something this evening about the theory of the mandate. I quote from the works of Edmund Burke with the most profound reserve in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, who I notice has just entered the House. I agree with what Mr. Burke said about mandates. The theory of mandate is very easily overdone. Mr. Burke said that mandates are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land and arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and basis of our Constitution. That sounds rather formidable, but it is quite a different thing from what you are trying to do now, which is to prevent this issue by every means in your power from being placed before the electors of the United Kingdom. You can prove by any sort of dialectical political philosophy you like to employ—and we have heard a great deal too much of that in relation to this Home Rule question—that you have a mandate for a policy which you forgot to mention at successive elections in your electioneering addresses. We have heard the argument so often in this House that it would not be useful to waste time just now in combating it. But even if you push the theory of mandate to its most extreme limit you will never be able to convince your fellow-countrymen that if at the General Election you received a mandate to pass a Bill to separate Ireland from England—a Home Rule Bill, or call it what you will—at the same time you received a mandate to put that Bill into force in face of the kind of resistance that you are threatened with from the people of Ulster at the present time.
The electors were never told at the General Election when you sought their votes that you were going to employ force to coerce Ulster, and that you were going to insist on forcing this Bill through Parliament by means of the Parliament Act, no matter what was the strength and character of the resistance it might meet with from Ulstermen. On the other hand, you may try to justify your policy by throwing the theory of the inundate to the winds and saying that it is one of the theories of Government that you represent the people who have placed you in power, and that they have got to be contented with the manner in which you represent them. You may go on to say, as the

923
Prime Minister has said in another place, that the only way of settling what is called the Irish question is by passing the measure that is now before Parliament. There is one question you never answer. It is a question which has been asked in the House and on public platforms in the country hundreds of times, and it will be asked again. It is this—If you are burning inwardly with an intense conviction that the only way to deal with Ireland is by giving that country Home Rule, why in Heaven's name did you not pass a Bill for Home Rule for Ireland through the House of Commons when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman came into power in 1906 and you had the opportunity to do so, seeing that you possessed an absolute majority, which was free from all the disabilities that obtain at the present time? I should be very much obliged if some noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite would be good enough to answer that question, and explain why the idea of Home Rule was postponed by the Radical Party—publicly postponed—until Mr. Asquith smelt powder at the General Election of 1909 and went down to the Albert Hall and did what the Radicals always do when they get into a mess, began to offer Home Rule to the Irish Nationalist. Party in the fear that unless he secured their support in the new Parliament his majority might not be so great as it otherwise would be. I know what the answer to this may be. It is that if you had brought forward the Home Rule Bill then, under the Constitution as it then existed and had existed for hundreds of years, you would never have been able to carry it. I am perfectly prepared to accept that statement; and, if that is your attitude in regard to this matter from a Constitutional point of view, you have succeeded in proving to demonstration that your only chance of carrying home Rule for Ireland is by setting up single-Chamber government in this country. The historic Constitution under which this country has been governed for so many years, and which has been a model for all other countries, has been the one thing which would not admit of you satisfying the demands of the eighty gentlemen whose support you look to in the House of Commons to enable you to carry other legislation.
Nobody who has studied the general effect of, and the influence exercised by, public opinion in this country from an
924
historical point of view can possibly deny that if at any time it had been ascertained beyond doubt that the vast mass of public opinion was really rapturously in favour of Home Rule for Ireland any Party would have been able to carry it, Constitution or no Constitution. It has been stated, I think in the House of Commons, that if the Unionist Party—it is an assumption very difficult to imagine—had passed a Home Rule Bill for Ireland through the House of Commons, of course the subservient Unionist majority in the House of Lords would have immediately passed it without question. All I can say is I should just like to have seen the Unionist Party in the House of Commons try. I am sure the noble Marquess will not think I have the least desire to be offensive in that remark, because I am sure I have not. I want, indeed, to take this opportunity of paying my humble tribute of gratitude to him for the magnificent and uncompromising defence which he has made to-night in this House of the principles of Union, a defence which will be exceedingly valuable in the future, supposing—though such a thing is not in the least likely to happen—there should be any wavering among our own supporters. We have proved on a great occasion, however, that the House of Lords is no mere appanage of the Carlton Club, and that when feeling really runs high this Assembly is an independent Assembly. I think, therefore, that a Unionist leader who tried to pass a Bill for the separation of Ireland from England would find himself in a very equivocal position.
But you, his Majesty's Government, have chosen the other course. You have chosen the only course which was open to you to pass a Home Rule Bill. You have chosen the course of hamstringing the Constitution of the country, and noble Lords opposite have to take the responsibility for what they have done. It is no use labouring the point that the people of Ulster, as it is called, are going to resist by every means in their power the imposition upon them of the authority of a Parliament in Dublin. My object in coming here to-night was to tell noble Lords opposite and their friends that they will not have to deal with what are called Ulstermen supposing they pass this Bill into law without a reference to the electors of this country and it comes in the last resort to a trial of physical force. Some

925
of my friends and I, among whom I am proud to number the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, and several members of Parliament, have instituted a league called the British League for the Defence of Ulster and the Union. In case noble Lords opposite do not know the address of this League I will tell them that it is No. 25, Ryder Street, curiously enough next door to a gunmaker's shop. I can assure no-ale Lords, however, that this circumstance is an accident and not a design. What I do say with all seriousness is that if the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, would like to come round to the office of the League at any time he likes when it would be convenient for him to meet me there by appointment, I will tell him what we are doing. There is one reservation I must make. I shall not tell him bow many men I have on my side, because it might not be advisable at this juncture for him to know that. But if he will come round I will place him in possession of information as to exactly what I and my friends are doing and intend to do. If he chooses then to send the Police to inquire further into what we are doing, we shall be very happy to meet them. I think noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite would be astonished if they knew the amount of influential support this movement is receiving from all classes of our fellow-countrymen in England, Scotland, and Wales. I wish with the greatest sincerity in the world to tell His Majesty's Government from my personal knowledge that supposing they resolve to try conclusions with the Ulstermen without first giving the British electors a chance of deciding about this Bill, they will find themselves out not only against Ulster, but against all those in England, Scotland, and Wales who value the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. This movement has been enormously strengthened, fortified, and encouraged by the fact that His Majesty's Government were not only going to try a break up the Union, but because they had abrogated the Constitution of this country in order to attempt to carry that into effect.
I and those who are acting with me have the most profound sympathy and the very greatest respect for the Ulstermen. But supposing that the whole of Ulster were in league with the Nationalist Party in Ireland to carry Home Rule for Ireland, our opposition to Home Rule would not be
926
weakened, but strengthened, because we should consider the danger then to be all the greater. I dissociate myself from those who are trying to put the Unionist Party in the position of making this an Ulster question only. As far as I am concerned it is not an Ulster question; it is a question of the Union or separation. We are not going to talk at any length about this Bill to-night because, with the exception of the clauses to which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has referred, it has been talked about pretty considerably in another place as well as in this House. But what we do feel about this proposal to separate Ireland from England is that if you are going to have separation at all let it be a complete separation without any of the disabilities which attach to England, Scotland, and Wales under the present proposal. I would far sooner that Ireland were cut adrift altogether to pay for herself and to govern herself without being subsidised from this country and sending over forty-two Irish Members to keep a perpetual control over our concerns. But first and foremost with an increasing number of people on this side of the Channel stands the principle of the Union and nothing but the Union, and we say that we will not submit to Home Rule or to any substitute for Home Rule either for Ireland or for any other part of the United Kingdom, now or at any other time; that our alternative for that is the good old government which used to prevail, and will prevail in the future, of King, Lords, and Commons at Westminster; and that we do not wish to see these islands submitted to any other authority. And I sincerely trust that in the future, on the Unionist side at any rate, there will be no tampering with the principle of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. That is our alternative to the proposals of noble Lords opposite.
Every conceivable form of governing Ireland has been tried, and the only form that has at all approached a success is that which has prevailed under the Act of Union, and that has only been a failure according to the degree in which the idea of separation has received countenance and encouragement from responsible statesmen in this country. If you want any testimony for that, please do not quote Unionist leaders in either House of Parliament. All you have to do is to look at

927
the speeches of Mr. Birrell, and of Mr. Redmond and other Nationalist leaders, and there you will find a receipt that we handed over to them in 1906 an island more peaceable, more prosperous, and more contented than it had been for a great many centuries. That in the speeches of the Nationalist leaders and their friends is a complete vindication of the success that has attended the Union. We are also told that if we intend to beat off this Bill by appeal to physical force—by the sword—in Ulster, there will be a rising of the Nationalists on the other side. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has dealt with that situation so much better than I can attempt to do that I would refer noble Lords who were unlucky enough not to hear the speech to the report that they will see to-morrow morning. But do your Lordships not think that men who will draw the sword in order that they may step outside the United Kingdom are not likely to receive such a measure of sympathy from this country as those who are prepared to draw the sword in order to remain inside the United Kingdom and the British Constitution? It is a different thing altogether. But, even supposing that they are prepared to throw on one side all the material prosperity which has accrued to the South of Ireland in virtue of the Act of Union, in virtue of Mr. Wyndham's Act, and to take up arms against the Union, if we are going to have Civil war at all I would far sooner have a Civil war to keep part of the Empire together than see a Civil war with the idea of breaking up the Empire, and allowing one of the most important parts of the United Kingdom to secede from the remainder.
The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, made some very interesting remarks, with which, with great respect, I thoroughly agree, in regard to the analysis of the term "nationality." The whole claim for separation—for any sort of Home Rule of which we have ever heard—has been based from first to last upon the idea, the ultimate idea, of Ireland being a nation. Lord Dunraven said with great truth that to analyse the term "nationality" and to define it in a dogmatic manner was an exceedingly difficult thing to do; but, at any rate, you will agree that Ireland is either a nation of herself, or she is not a nation except in so far as she is a member of and part of the English nation. In the latter case she cannot possibly have better
928
terms than she is having at the present moment. She has got representation, and over-representation, in what used to be a free Parliament and will be a free Parliament when we have reformed the House of Lords and given it powers proper to a Second Chamber. But if Ireland is a nation, then that is all the more reason why we should govern this nation from Westminster. We do not propose to allow on our most vulnerable flank a separate existence to a nation whose very leaders have constantly declared war upon this country. All their speeches are saturated with the most disloyal utterances. You cannot get away from that. Have you not heard of the men who are steeped to the lips in treason? Is not His Majesty's Government supported in the House of Commons at the present moment by a gentleman named Lynch, who fought on the opposite side in the Boer War and has declared his intention of attacking us again as soon as the opportunity offers? If that is the kind of nation Ireland is, do you think we are going to hand over Ireland to a Government of her own in order that she may carry out the principles of Mr. Lynch and his friends? I think not. If I may once more quote from Mr. Burke, I should say with him that the close connection between Great Britain and Ireland is essential for the two countries, and that at bottom Ireland has no other choice except to live and to die with Great Britain.
The best question in my humble judgment that has been asked since this debate began has been put by Lord Lansdowne. We shall not get an answer to it, but I will just ask it again. What are you going to do? Has it occurred to you that by prolonging this suspense you are doing a thing which must militate against the prosperity of Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom, that you are doing a thing which is equivalent to sitting on a volcano, and that you are exasperating the people in the North of Ireland in such a way that even the dignified and restrained resistance which they are offering at the present moment might be well excused if it broke out owing to the tension which the Government are keeping up for no apparent reason except to keep themselves and their friends in office? Every moment of suspense to which Ulster is submitted increases the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. We are told that there will be a difference of date between the passing

929
of the Bill into law and the time at which it becomes operative. I shall not be considered unduly incendiary if I say that the Ulster people, dignified and restrained as they have been, are not likely in their present temper to recognise any nice distinction between the time that the Bill passes into law and the time that it becomes operative. As soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent and becomes an Act of Parliament they will not be going too far—I do not say what they will do, and I will not incite them to do anything—but they will not be going too far if they regard that as an open declaration of war against Ulster on the part of His Majesty's Government. That is the moment we shall have to look out for trouble in Ulster.
We are now getting to that stage in the constitutional readjustment which was foreshadowed by some of us on this side of the House when the Parliament Act was being passed. It is that you are placing the Monarch in a much greater position of responsibility than he has ever been placed in before, because the people of this country will not have, and do not mean to put up with, single-Chamber government, and they have always shown that there must be some authority which get-at-able behind the will of the representatives they send to the House of Commons. Under the old Constitution the House of Lords used to be the buffer between the House of Commons and the Monarch. Our only resort now is to go straight to the steps of the Throne in the hope that we may get our grievances redressed in that manner.
I should very much like to hear before the end of this debate whether you really intend to persevere in your attitude towards Ulster at the present moment. We can quite understand that a Government fresh from the constituencies with a large majority in both Houses of Parliament, who had obtained, if such a thing can be obtained according to the rules of the political game, a clear mandate for Home Rule for Ireland, might receive such a measure of support in this country that would dissipate the promised armed resistance of the Ulstermen; but you must be quite aware that that condition of things does not prevail at the present moment. Do you really think that you are strong enough to go on goading these people into resistance to an Act of Parliament?
930
Do you think that your whole record of government since you have been in office is sufficiently based upon public confidence to enable you to do such a thing? Are you satisfied with the results of the by-elections for one thing? Do you think that a Government, with Consols at the present price, and with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who does not know the difference between a speculation and an investment—he has told us he does not—is the kind of Government that can coerce these people in the North of Ireland? Do you think that, a Government who, with all the forces of the Crown, the policeman, and the gaoler behind them, cannot manage a handful of women is going to manage these hundreds of thousands of Ulstermen? It is all very well for you to laugh, and I am not going to make a speech about women's suffrage now; but your record of the way in which you have treated these women does not entitle you to the amount of public confidence you ought to enjoy if you are going to try to coerce the men of Ulster. I shall be very glad indeed if, before the end of this debate, though I do not expect it in the slightest, we hear from some noble Lord opposite what it is that the Government propose to do.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I feel that little further can be said on the subject of the Bill now before the House than what was said in the debate of January last. Our objections to its provisions remain unimpaired, and we are convinced that the feeling against it among Unionists in Ireland is as strong as ever, nay, even stronger as time has gone on and they have had more opportunities of considering its details. I say this, and I wish to impress it upon this House and on the country, because an impression seems to have got about in some quarters that opposition to Home Rule in Ireland is weakening except in the North. I am convinced that nothing can be further from the truth. Since the debate in January I have spent practically all the time in Ireland. I have had repeated opportunities of conversing with people from all parts of Ireland, and I have been assured by all that Unionists in the East, South, and West of Ireland feel as strongly opposed to it as any one in the North. On the other hand I have been assured that there is weakening on the other side, that many former supporters of Home

931
Rule now look with anything but favour on the Bill before the House, and are not by any means anxious to see it on the Statute Book. This is said to be especially the case with the agricultural class, which I need not remind your Lordships forms the largest part of the community. The reason given is tolerably plain. Those who have profited by the Land Purchase Act, and purchased their farms are now in a comfortable position and are not anxious to change it, and they look with some apprehension on what may happen in the way of increased taxation. They prefer to remain as they are, and those who have not yet purchased are looking forward to doing so and being placed in a similar position.
It may be asked, Why do they not come forward and say so? My Lords, there is such a glamour about the mere name of Home Rule, associated as it is in the Irish mind with all manlier of golden dreams and Utopian speculations, that anyone who has once been a professed Home Ruler, but now disapproves of the present Bill, is afraid of the obloquy and perhaps more serious consequences to which he would be exposed if he gave any publicity to his views and was considered a renegade to his former faith. I began by stating that there was little new to be said in opposition to this Bill. But we feel bound to reiterate our objections to its provisions, in the hope that our continued protests may have some effect upon the people of this country, and induce them to look more closely into the matter and refuse to abandon us in our hour of need. For we, the comparatively few and scattered Unionists in the East, South, and West of Ireland, appeal to them for protection on the ground that why we need it is that we have been consistently faithful to the connection with England, believing as we do that it is of vital importance to both countries that the Union should remain unimpaired.
It will naturally be said, "Why do you require protection? What are you afraid of Have you not the assurance of the leaders of the Nationalist Party that if Home Rule is once established all past differences of opinion will be forgotten, all causes of discord will cease, and all will be encouraged to work loyally together for the good of their common country? Have you not, moreover, the safeguard of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament?"
932
I am sure, my Lords, that this forecast of a happy state of things embodies the wishes and hopes of the leaders of the Nationalist Party and that they would endeavour as far as they could to bring it about. But past differences are not so easily forgotten, and there have been ominous hints from other prominent members of the Party that it would be remembered who were their friends and who were not. Moreover, there are other sources of discord which give rise to apprehensions. As I have said before in this House, what we chiefly dread is renewed and increased agitation and over-taxation. For the land question still remains, and many covetous eyes will be directed to the amount of land still held by landlords and large farmers. Now we feel to a certain extent secure under an Executive responsible to the Imperial Parliament, even under one which has dealt as leniently with agitation as the present Government. But what security shall we have under an Executive responsible to a Parliament elected under the auspices of the United Irish League and the Ancient Order of Hibernians? It is administration which we fear rather than legislation. But there is a certain danger about fresh legislation. It may be directed specially against our interests, and, in any case, if a difference arises between the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Parliament as to the merits of any measure passed by the latter and the Imperial Parliament insist on their supremacy, a state of discord and turmoil would result in which the Irish Executive would be on the side of the malcontents.
Then as to over-taxation. The financial provisions of this Bill are so miserably inadequate to the requirements of the Public Service, that recourse must be had to increased taxation, and one of the few modes in which fresh taxation can be imposed is by a tax on the land. I do not attach so much importance as some do to religious differences. I have many Roman Catholic friends who are as much opposed to Home Rule as I am, but still the religious question does somehow come in in some shape or other in all Irish affairs, and may do so, for instance, in matters of education, to our detriment. There is no finality about this Bill. It falls so short of what has been demanded, that it must be clear that the Nationalist Party accept it only as an instalment, as a sort of stepping-stone, from which a longer

933
and a stronger step can be taken, always in the direction of separation between the two countries. I have said nothing as to the feeling in the North of Ireland. I am in no way connected with the North, and have no authority to speak for it; but no one can be blind to the serious dangers which may arise in that quarter. Nor is the danger confined to Ulster, for any disturbance there may cause a rebound in other parts of Ireland, winch would endanger our fives and properties. It is no doubt a political maxim that the minority ought to give way to the majority. But if the minority refuse to give way the only solution is force.
It is, of course, in the power of the Government to force the minority to give way, and they would ultimately succeed in doing so. But at what a cost! I would ask His Majesty's Government most seriously to consider whether the ultimate benefit which in their opinion would accrue to the two countries by this grave constitutional change is so certain and so extensive as to warrant its being enforced on loyal subjects of His Majesty the King—who only ask to remain as they are—by armed conflict, bloodshed, and loss of life. I wish earnestly to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to this aspect of the question now before us. They have no doubt stated that it is not their intention to employ the forces of the Crown against the people of Ulster. But if not, how do they propose to effect their object?
LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will extend to me that indulgence which you always give to one who addresses you but rarely. It is now more than eight years since I last spoke in your Lordships' House, so it cannot be said that I have trespassed unduly on your attention, and I should not have intervened in this debate were it not that I think I approach this matter from a standpoint and with a personal experience rather different from that of the majority of your Lordships. I propose to address myself this evening, not to the Bill which is before your Lordships, but to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess; and if I may paraphrase that Amendment, its purport is that the will of the people should be ascertained upon this Home Rule Bill, and that when it has been ascertained it should prevail.
934
Perhaps after eight years in Australia I have become unduly saturated with democratic ideas. But from my Australian standpoint the necessity of consulting the people before any great constitutional change is adopted seems to me so self-evident a proposition that it hardly requires argument; and in Australia the right of the people to be consulted is so jealously safeguarded that no constitutional change can take place without the will of the people having been first ascertained upon it. Now, under our Constitution there is only one method by which the will of the people can be ascertained, and that is by the process of a General Election—and what a clumsy process that is, after all. It is dubious in decision; it is open to any one to challenge the issue upon which it is being fought; and local circumstances may so deflect public opinion in a district that the real question at stake is absolutely lost sight of. Such as it is, however, it is the only method available.
May I illustrate my argument from the position in which I find myself to-day. I was in. England last in 1911, when the Parliament Bill was before your Lordships and going through Parliament. I was precluded by the fact that I held His Majesty's Commission from taking any part in the debates upon that Bill in your Lordships' House, or voting upon any question in connection with it. But if I had been in a position of greater freedom I should have stated that I felt bound by the verdict of the preceding election. The will of the people upon that Parliament Bill had, in my opinion, been ascertained at that election, and that will should necessarily prevail. That, indeed, was the predominant issue at stake. But I come back after two years and I am asked to believe that all these other issues which are now crowding in upon your Lordships one after another were also under review at that election and received the sanction of the electorate. I am personally unable to accept such a suggestion. And even if they did, are not the circumstances entirely altered from the time of that election? Home Rule must largely depend upon the provisions which are contained in the Bill itself; and the attitude of Ulster, of which we have heard so much to-night, must surely largely distinguish the position now from what it was when the Bill was first before your Lordships.

935
Now, how would such a question be dealt with in Australia, and how have they in fact dealt with such questions in Australia? I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I dwell a little upon this point, because it is surely wise in these democratic times and when our own Constitution is in a state of flux that we should see how our democracies across the seas safeguard themselves from the possible tyranny of Parliament. You must remember, my Lords, that the Constitution which exists in Australia is a Constitution of your own making; it is a Constitution which received the sanction of the Imperial Parliament; but under it no constitutional change can take place without a reference to the people. The process is briefly this. Amendments are proposed to some clause in the Constitution, and those are embodied in the form of a Bill; that Bill goes through the usual stages, through both Houses, and is then referred to the people for their assent.
While I was in Australia there were three occasions on which this reference to the people was employed. The first was some years ago, and as it related purely to a matter of machinery I will not further dwell upon that, but I quote it for this purpose—that it shows how the Australian people have determined that not one jot or tittle of their Constitution shall be changed without their having a voice in the matter. But since then there have been two other occasions, and I think they will exemplify the danger of a Government imagining that it for all time reflects the will of the people. I will quote them because I think they are pertinent to this debate. In 1910 the Labour Party came into power in Australia with an overwhelming majority. It proceeded to transact the business it had to do, to carry out the programme which it had laid before the electors; and in 1911, the year after, it referred, in the form of a Bill, the main plank of its programme to the electors. That reference to the people resulted in an equally overwhelming majority against the policy of the Labour Government. Let me pause there for a moment. In April of 1910 you have a Government brought into power by a majority which, in those small majorities of Australia, was an overwhelming one in both Houses. They proceeded during the course of that wear to elaborate their programme and to bring their measures into the shape of
936
Bills. They referred the main plank of their platform to the people for their assent, and in the following April, only a year after, the people who had returned them by that overwhelming majority said, "No, we will have nothing to do with what you put forward as the main plank of your programme." If it was ever suggested over here that a year after a Government had been returned to power it was possible that the country might have changed its mind, any one who made such a suggestion would be laughed to scorn. Yet there it is in Australia as a fact, that within a year the country refused to accept the main plank of the Government's platform.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Will the noble Lord tell us whether anything had happened in the meantime to confuse the first and direct issue and, second, how that issue was actually presented to the electorate?
LORD CHELMSFORD: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for having interrupted me. So far as I am aware, between 1910 and 1911, when the verdict of the country was taken upon that piece of policy of the Labour Government, nothing passed which would in any way conflict the issues. In the first place, the Labour Government came in on the general issues of a General Election, on no one particular plank but on the general policy of the Labour Party as contrasted with the general policy of the Liberal Party—the Liberal Party is there more or less what we should know here as the Conservative Party. Then in 1911 the Bill which was passed by the Parliament dominated over by the Labour Party was put in the form. I think, of some three or four questions, embodying its main proposals, to the electorate, and the electorate on those three or four questions which were supposed to embody the proposals of the Bill passed by the Labour Government decisively rejected it. I hope the noble Viscount is satisfied with the answer I have given him.
The question is. Is the same sort of thing to happen here? Because if my belief is right, in 1910 the present Government were returned upon the issue of the Parliament Act, but they seem to take that same election as proof positive that the people have assented to all the other

937
issues which are now being brought forward. May I return to the history of the years after tin?, rejection on that referendum From the years 1911 to 1913—the other day—the Labour Government in Australia continued in power with unabated prestige and with undiminished powers; and then in this year, as perhaps some of your Lordships are aware, there was both a General Election and another referendum on the same issues which were placed before the people some two years ago. I half fancied that the noble Viscount, when I was putting before him what happened in the referendum of 1911, thought that the issues were not put so clearly in 1911 as that the country might think they were the same issues as those for which the Government was returned in 1910.
Let me tell your Lordships what happened in this particular year. In the referendum of this particular year, so jealous was Parliament of the Australian people having full information on the issues involved in the same Bill which was passed in 1912–13 as that rejected on the referendum of 1911, that a pamphlet was issued and circulated to every voter in Australia containing the arguments—the authorised arguments—in favour of the Bill on the one side, and the authorised arguments as against the Bill on the other side; and so the matter was fairly and squarely placed before the electors. And what was the result of this last General Election and this last referendum? The Labour Party were rejected by the small majority of one, and the referendum, so far as I can gather—the complete figures ate not yet to hand—has been again decisively rejected. With regard to the General Election it is to be noticed that, as far as the figures are concerned, the Labour Party has suffered its main defeat in the State of New South Wales. Now, anybody who has been in New South Wales recently will know that there are local conditions at the present moment in that State which would militate against a Labour Government; and I believe that if those local conditions had not existed, so far from the Labour Government having received a defeat in the State of New South Wales, they would have actually maintained their position; and you would have had the curious fact of a General Election resulting in the return of a Government
938
to power while the people at large rejected the main plank of that Party's platform.
My Lords, do not these facts—because they are facts—form cumulative evidence in favour of important constitutional changes being submitted to the judgment of the country? The question of a referendum is hardly one that is germane to this debate. But I can quite conceive it might be said that the conditions of which I am speaking and the conditions in our country to-day are scarcely parallel. It might be suggested that Members of Parliament in Australia are not quite as much representatives as Members of but House of Commons purport to be to-day; but, my Lords, apart from the domination of a Party caucus, I believe they are just as much representatives, and not delegates as some people might suggest. For instance, the referendum is not the initiative. Members of Parliament in Australia do not go with a direct instruction from their constituencies to vote on certain subjects, but they go and initiate legislation; they are free to do that, and then subsequently it is open for the people at largo to say whether they will or will not accept it. There is one other objection that might be urged against the parallel of those cases which I have been suggesting and our own position—namely, that in their case there is a written Constitution and in our case an unwritten Constitution. It is the very fact that writing has been introduced into our Constitution that necessitates an Amendment such as the noble Marquess has moved to-night. And I think the further answer to that would be that when the framers of the Australian Constitution drew up their Constitution they were convinced that there was a moral obligation on the part of a Government to present any change that they proposed in the Constitution for the consent of the people; and realising, as they believed, that there was that moral obligation, they converted by Statute that moral obligation into a legal obligation. I believe that moral obligation is still upon any Government in this country to-day, and that they are bound morally, as Australian Governments are bound legally, to submit any important change in the Constitution to the judgment of the country.
The two points I have endeavoured to bring before your Lordships are these. First, the precaution that is taken in

939
Australia to ascertain the judgment of the country; and, secondly, the warning that it gives us that the country may disapprove of the policy of a Government even after the very shortest lapse of time. May I bring one more Australian piece of evidence before your Lordships? It has more of a personal touch. In 1907 there was in Queensland a severe political crisis on the question of the two Houses, and I personally came in for severe criticism with regard to the action which, as Governor, I took at that time. But I am not concerned to defend myself from that criticism, nor is it really a matter which is of any interest to your Lordships' House; but the main principle which I endeavoured to set before myself at that time—and I think the noble Marquess who leads this House and who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies will agree—was that so grave a matter should be submitted to the judgment of the country. Now, my Lords, that submission to the judgment of the country resulted in a decision which was adverse to the Upper house. But what did the statesmen in Queensland do when they were returned again with directions from the country that the Lower House was to prevail, and not the Upper House? They did not endeavour to abolish or emasculate the Upper House. They had too great a respect for the sovereignty of the people. But they proceeded to pass an Act that where the Upper House had twice rejected a Bill that had been sent up to them by the Lower House, then the matter should be referred to the people. My Lords, if the Parliament Act of 1911 had been passed on these lines there would be no necessity for any protest on our part on this side of the House, nor for any Amendment to be moved by the noble Marquess, and we should not be indulging in this, what I might term as a farce or make-believe, but the Bill would as a matter of course be submitted to the judgment of the country. In the light of the experiences which I have laid before your Lordships and from sincere conviction, I find I have no choice but to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think it is now some fifteen years since the noble Lord who has just sat down and I worked as friendly enemies upon one of the great administrative bodies in the county of London, and I hope he will
940
therefore allow me to offer him a hearty welcome back to England after a singularly successful time as a Colonial Governor. I only regret that from what he has just said we shall probably be as much separated during the debates in this House as when we served together on the London School Board. We have all listened with interest to what the noble Lord has been able to tell us of the constitutional position in the Federal Government of Australia and also the various conditions in the different Colonies. On a good many of the points which he raised we shall be very glad to meet him when once more this House is engaged upon the discussion of a referendum. But will he allow me to say that there are two lessons which I should have thought he would have brought home with him from the great Dominion of Australia. One is that not one of those Colonies would have tolerated the existence of a hereditary Upper Chamber; and the other is that there is not a single one of all the various Parliaments of Australia which would not have passed a resolution in favour of the Bill which is now being dealt with by your Lordships' House
The noble Lord who spoke to us with so much knowledge of Australia, if he will allow me to say so, is not perhaps so fully acquainted as other members of your Lordships' House with the history of what has happened in this country during the last few years. The Parliament Act became law in the year 1911, and the noble Lord must know that that Act was not made law for its own sake, but in order that it might be used; and from the very moment when it was proposed and explained to the people of this country they knew perfectly well that the Home Rule Bill was one of those measures for which the aid of the Parliament Act would be invoked.
There never has been, on the part of noble Lords opposite or on this side of the House, any misunderstanding upon that point. Both the Welsh Church Bill and the Irish Bill were Bills which everyone knew at that time His Majesty's Government would bring forward and pass into law under the provisions of the Parliament Act. And we know, as the noble Lord himself acknowledged, that the people of this country gave their direct authority for the passage of that measure, and we claim that the passage of the Parliament Act, which was placed before the country as deliberately as any measure could be

941
at any General Election, involved their approval for other things for the purpose of which the Parliament Act was brought forward.
In those circumstances we ask why it is that the noble Marquess asks for another General Election upon this occasion? When is the demand of noble Lords opposite for General Elections upon Liberal Bills going to stop? Will they ever be content to let any Liberal Bill go through this House without having a General Election upon it? That just shows the difference between the treatment this House gives to Conservative Bills and Liberal Bills. While the noble Lord was away measures were introduced which had never been explained to the country. This House passed them without amendment and almost without discussion. But when it came to Liberal Bills this House entered upon a very different course; and we really come to-night to the old quarrel, familiar indeed to those who have taken part in debates in this House for the last seven years, that there should be some equality of treatment between Bills presented by a Liberal Government and those presented by a Conservative Government.
Now, we have had a most important declaration from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, a declaration upon which should have liked to say something. It was a direct challenge to His Majesty's Government, and it was a direct challenge upon very different terms from any which have yet been presented by any member of the Front Opposition Bench. Perhaps it would he desirable that it should be answered upon an occasion when the noble Marquess is himself present. [The Marquess of LANSDOWNE had temporarily left the House.] But let me say something, at any rate, upon the challenge which the noble Marquess threw out to us upon the question of the by-elections which have taken place during the last few months. We had one special example of a by-election, particularly interesting at the moment. When the House last had this very Bill before it your Lordships threw out the Bill by a large majority one day and the next day Londonderry returned a Nationalist Member of Parliament, and the consequence was the Province of Ulster was represented in the House of Commons by 17 Nationalists and only 16 Unionists. That was the answer which Ulster made to the action of your Lordships' House.
942
Since that time there have been a certain number of by-elections, to which I am anxious to draw the attention of this House, and in connection with which appropriate comments have been made by various Members and various organs connected with the Opposition. Lord Robert Cecil, speaking of the Midlothian by-election, said that its majority was against the Insurance Act and the land taxes, and accurately reflected the opinion of the country upon Lloyd George finance and philanthropy. And the Morning Post said that "the question which will bulk largely in the contest—at least, the question on which most votes will be turned—will be the Insurance Act." Here is an important gentleman of considerable experience, the secretary of the Lancashire and Cheshire Working Men's Federation. He said—
"Nothing had exercised so great an influence against the Liberal Party as the Insurance Act, to which was attributed the Unionist successes at by-elections";
and so it goes on, one organ after another and one statesman amongst the Opposition after another, all speaking with the same effect, until we come to Mr. Bonar Law himself who used this phrase only last year:
"Mr. Asquith said, and I agree with him, that the by-elections had not been fought on Home Rule, or the issues before the House of Commons."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Altrincham!
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Marquess specially wishes me to refer to Altrineham I will try to oblige. Here is a quotation from The Times of May 30 this year—
"It is practically certain that the Insurance Act agitation was the chief factor in Mr. Hamilton's striking success; but it was not the only one."
and so, my Lords, I could go on.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: What of the other one, Home Rule?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There were several more, no doubt. But the noble Marquess's chief organs of the Press say it is chiefly the Insurance Act, and I am sure the noble Marquess would not wish to contradict the Leader of his Party.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think Mr. Hamilton made Home Rule one of the leading planks of his platform on that occasion.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am afraid the noble Marquess must settle that with Mr. Bonar Law. I will not interfere in a domestic question of that kind. The noble Marquess mentioned twenty-four by-elections. I am afraid my figures may refer to an earlier date, but I take the 9th of June this year. Up to that time there had been twenty-three by-elections, at two of which there was no Liberal candidate at all; but in the twenty-one remaining by-elections the votes which bad been given for Home Rule candidates were 121,000, and the votes which were given for the Unionist candidates were only 105,000. In those circumstances I venture to say that it is not difficult for noble Lords opposite to fall into the mistake of attributing too much influence to the speeches and the agitation made on behalf of the Unionist Party in Ireland.
But as the noble Marquess is again in his place., let me turn back to the other point, the point of the question of Ulster and the General Election, of which, in his absence, I ventured to say it was not only an important declaration but a different declaration, as I understood it, from that which has yet been made by the Party opposite. The noble Marquess used terms urging upon His Majesty's Government to have a General Election, He said that if we did have a General Election and the result was in favour of His Majesty's Government "we shall govern ourselves accordingly." And he went on to say, "If the intensity of our opposition is affected, it stands to reason that the opposition of Ulster will be affected too." I do not suppose I attribute too much importance to that in saying that I understood him to say that in the event of a General Election returning a Home Rule Government to power the Opposition would withdraw their hostility to the Home Rule Bill. But, my Lords, that is very different from the message which Mr. Bonar Law sent on Saturday last to Belfast. I quote from The Times of this morning. In his speech Sir Edward Carson said—
"Mr Bonar Law gave him this message, that, so far as he was concerned and speaking on the part of the whole Unionist Party, in the present circumstances, whatever steps they might feel compelled to take, whether they were constitutional or whether in the long run they were unconstitutional, they had the whole of the Unionist Party under his leadership behind them."
Nothing about the General Election in that.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl rather slurred over the words. "in the present circumstances."
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Those words do not appear in the resolution submitted to the meeting moved by the Marquess of Londonderry.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is a most valuable contribution to the discussion if the words "in the present circumstances are to be taken to mean that after a General Election Mr. Bonar Law and others will withdraw their support from the Ulster Members. Then, indeed, a new stage in the controversy has been arrived at. But that is a different position from that taken up by the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, in to-night's debate. He said that nothing but the force of arms would persuade them to agree to the passage of the Home Rule Bill. And I am bound to say I think it would have been fairer to Ulster if the words "in the present circumstances" had been explained to them as meaning that if a General Election took place and the Liberal Government were returned the support of the Unionist Party would be withdrawn from them. That is not, at the present moment at any rate, the idea of the position of the Ulster Members themselves. I shall venture to give your Lordships a series of quotations from them. They were asked whether they would advise Ulster to submit if the Home Rule Bill is approved by the country after a General Election. Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, K.C., said he believed. Ulster would reject the advice, if given, "unless the Bill be very different from the present one." Captain Craig said "he would never advise Ulster to submit to Mr. John Redmond." Mr. Moore, also an M.P., said that "in his opinion no British Party had a right to sell Ulster while ten men held rifles." And so on with one important person after another. I would also venture to quote Mr. Walter Long, in whose statement again, there was no mention of a General Election. In the course of a statement which was issued to the Press on the Parliament Act and which appears in The Times of June 7 this year, Mr. Walter Long said—
"It must not be thought that I am suggesting that, whatever the result of an election may be, the people of Ulster and the Unionists of Ireland will assent to Home Rule."

945
I think that is remarkable. He added—
"They will never do this, and any Government which determines deliberately to force upon Ireland a measure in any way similar to the present one must face this fact and be prepared to deal with it. In my humble opinion Ulster is right, and, as I have frequently said in Parliament and outside, she has my sympathy and will have my support."
Then we understand that Mr. Walter Long will not have the support of the Opposition if a General Election has taken place and the result is to place a Home Rule Government in power in this country. I venture to say that the debate which has taken place this evening has justified itself if it has made perfectly plain to the people of this country that that is now the attitude of the Opposition and that the words "in the present circumstances" in the message to Ulster meant that if a General Election took place that support would be withdrawn.
There were one or two other points referred to by the noble Marquess opposite. He seemed to think if the Second Reading had been accepted by your Lordships' House this afternoon, that then, the principle having been accepted, it would be impossible for your Lordships' House at a later period to deal with this Bill as you would wish. I confess I do not share that opinion. I have no hope that the noble Marquess would call me in to draw an Amendment, but I can imagine that it would be possible to draw up an Amendment—a reasonable Amendment—to the Second Reading of this Bill, in which, while this House held itself free to reject the Bill on a further occasion, it expressed the desire, by going into Committee and making those Amendments it thought proper, to expose what in its opinion were the improprieties and impossibilities of this Bill. I do not think such a step as that would have in any way bound this House to accept the Bill or give it a Third Reading. But, as I say, I have no expectation that the noble Marquess will call me into consultation in that way, because of a subsequent phrase in his speech in which he alluded to the debate which took place earlier in the year on this same Bill, and referred to the fact that two, or at the most three, Cabinet Ministers had taken part in that debate. I know that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack took part in the debate; I remember it was introduced by the Lord Privy Seal, and wound up
946
by the Lord President of the Council, and I have a painful recollection of having addressed the House myself. Therefore at, any rate, four Cabinet Ministers addressed the House on that occasion: and no doubt when we four meet in the privacy of our room we shall consult as to which speech it was that has entirely faded from the recollection of the noble Marquess. At any rate we shall be free to point out that it is not only one speech which has faded from the recollection of the noble Marquess, but half the second speech, if not the whole of it.
There was in a later passage of the noble Marquess's speech a desire expressed to see the rest of the constitutional proposals which His Majesty's Government were anxious to introduce with regard to the constitution of this House. It was very flattering to His Majesty's Government that there should be this anxiety on the part of noble Lords opposite to see that Bill. I only hope that when they do see it their welcome to it will be as warm as their desire is to see it on the present occasion. I confess, however, that have some doubt upon that point. I am afraid that their desire to see it to-day may, when they actually see it, be changed into a welcome less warm than that which the noble Marquess seemed ready to give it to-day.
Apart from what has been said with regard to the Parliament Act, most of this discussion has turned upon the treatment of Ulster. I am not anxious to refer to other arguments which have been addressed, not to this House but to audiences of His Majesty's subjects, referring to the readiness of some loyal subjects of His Majesty the King to transfer themselves to the rule of a foreign power. No doubt the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, will dissociate himself entirely from that desire on the part of some of those with whom he acts in Ireland; and I will not either say anything upon the gross personal attacks which have been made upon His Majesty the King.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Who made attacks on the King?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I certainly have the quotations. I have a number of them. There is Mr. Hamilton [2020;] and there is Sir John Ballentine.
[†] See Earl BEAUCHAMP'S explanation at commencement of succeeding day's sitting.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Who is he?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am not anxious—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: When an assertion like that is made I think it ought to be qualified. I have taken part in all the demonstrations in connection with Ulster and have never heard any attack made upon the King. All I say is that the King has no more loyal subjects than the men of Ulster. When a noble Lord makes a statement like that, he should substantiate it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I said the noble Marquess would dissociate himself from that; and if he reads the Manchester Guardian he will see what was said by Mr. Hamilton on the point.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Who is Mr. Hamilton?
A NOBLE LORD: Quote it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Who is he?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: He wrote to the Manchester Guardian.
A NOBLE LORD: Is he a Radical?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Is he a Nationalist?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I want it to be made perfectly clear that anything I have to say upon this subject is at the wish of noble Lords opposite. There was Sir John Ballentine at Ballymena, who said—
"They only pledged their loyalty to His Majesty King George as long as he remained Protestant. But if lie came to Derry followed or headed with the Harp without the Crown there would be thirteen apprentice boys to be found who would again close the gates."
Then there is the other reference, which I am really most unwilling to read, but it comes from an Orange Lodge near Belfast, which noble Lords can see in the Manchester Guardian of the 26th of May, and I really hope that reference will satisfy them. If that does not I will give yet another. At the meeting of the
948
Londonderry Orangemen Captain Watt, J.P., is reported in the Belfast News Letter to have said—
"It had been said they wanted another King William III. Well, let them take care that the present King is not to be another King James, but he would ask them to give King George a chance before they came to any decision."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Are we to understand that those are the passages which the noble Earl relies upon for his statement that some people have made gross personal attacks upon His Majesty the King?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have given the noble Marquess the reference in the Manchester Guardian, and I had hoped that that would have been sufficient. It is with the very greatest reluctance that I read anything of the kind, because I think it is desirable that no further publication should be given to this than is necessary. I would prefer, if the noble Marquess would allow me, to hand him over this quotation, which I am quite ready to read but which I think it is undesirable I should read. It is entirely at the disposal of the noble Marquess if at any time he wishes to see it; but I think he will agree with me, when he has read these observations, that, no further publication should be given to them than can possibly be helped. And I venture to call every member of this House to witness that these quotations which I have read have been dragged from me with the greatest reluctance, after a passing reference to them.
Now I turn to the question of Ulster and to the answer made to this House by Londonderry after this House had rejected the Second Reading of this Bill. Ulster now returns to the House of Commons 17 Nationalists to 16 Unionists for that Province. The noble Marquess told us that one of the reasons why Ulster objected to the Home Rule Bill was that she knew from experience what she had to expect from the Nationalists of Ireland. I confess opinions on such a question will naturally differ, but we have plenty of authority for saying that there are a great many precedents showing that there need be no fear of what might be the result. There is a Mr. Grubb, who is in business in Tipperary, and who has been chairman of the Tipperary County Council. He testifies to the effect that he has lived all

949
his life in the district, and he is sixty-seven years of age; that he could not remember any acts of intolerance by Roman Catholics towards Protestants; that in the district Protestants had been elected to posts carrying considerable salaries; and he gives other testimony to the same effect. Further, it was only at the end of last week there was a letter in The Times from Mr. Bullock, in which he bore testimony to the general goodwill with which he is received by his Roman Catholic neighbours. I am not sure that one could say the same thing of the conduct of sonic of the Belfast public authorities with regard to Roman Catholics.
But really what happens is that this question, so far as Ulster is concerned, narrows itself down to one of whether religious persecution is possible in the British Empire in the twentieth century. Is there any instance of religions persecution in Western Europe since at any rate the days of Louis XIV? But I would remind noble Lords opposite that those persecutions in the time of Louis XIV or Charles V were really instigated by Governments; and it is inconceivable to imagine that there should be to-day religious persecutions which are not instigated by Governments. And if the suggestion is that these religious persecutions are to take place at the instance of any Government, let us at any rate remember who will he the people who will be responsible for them. Whoever may be Prime Minister in Ireland, whether it is Mr. Redmond or Sir Edward Carson, he must be a man trained in the imperial Parliament here, a man who belongs to the twentieth century and not one who belongs to the fifteenth or tenth century. I think that disposes at once in plain terms of the proposition as being really unthinkable to-day. At any rate, I am entitled to remind your Lordships that the watchword of the Liberal Government for many years past has been Civil and Religious Liberty, and if they thought there was any probability of that liberty being violated they would not support this Bill as unanimously and as passionately as they have done during the last twenty-five years.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down said that the country had given the Government a direct authority for this Bill. As
950
to that I am only going to make the statement which the noble Marquess made in moving the Amendment before the House, that in four election addresses of the Prime Minister the question of Home Rule was not mentioned in any way. As to the statement which the noble Earl made with regard to attacks upon His Majesty the King, I must remind him that he dragged in that matter and that he made a most extraordinary statement, backed up by extracts from the Manchester Guardian of sayings by people of no authority in the country and of whom we should take no notice. I think the observations of the noble Earl on this point deserve only a most contemptuous reference on my part, considering the position the noble Earl occupies. The noble Marquess who brought in this Bill said that the Amendment was founded on the objections of Ulster. But surely there are a great many other people who object to this Bill besides those who live in Ulster. There are the Unionists of the South and West of Ireland who have objected, and consistently objected, to this Bill. Then we have heard, in an excellent speech from Lord Willoughby de Broke, that there are many other people outside that little place in Ryder-street, which he mentioned, who object to the Bill.
I take strong exception to what the noble Marquess said when he introduced the Bill. The whole of the discussions of this Bill in another place have been reduced to a perfect farce; they have been absolutely useless. With the Parliament Act in force Bills are introduced into the House of Commons, and with the aid of the kangaroo closure they are passed and sent up to the House of Lords for the express purpose of being rejected. They are eventually to be passed into law, we are told, by an automatic process. What I feel with regard to this matter is that the people of the United Kingdom are not governed by Parliament but by the Cabinet, who are kept in hand by the phalanx the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, mentioned in his speech. I think that is an intolerable yoke. The electors of this country hardly realise that by an automatic process a Bill, or Bills, vital to our Constitution will be passed into law. There is to be no appeal to the country no matter what the Bill is, as long as there is a working majority in the House of Commons.

951
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House mentioned a number of Bills which Mr. Gladstone's Parliament passed when it came into power in 1868. He said there was no question then of going to the country. But I must remind him that on two Home Rule Bills they had to go to the country, and the result was given in a very definite manner. There was then a clear expression of the will of the country. In March last at the Hotel Cecil Mr. John Redmond obligingly disclosed the intention of the Government by describing the two or three steps of this Bill as an automatic process; and I feel that the whole matter is a tacit understanding between the Government and the Nationalist Party. The Government say, "Keep us going and we can give you Home Rule." "All right," say the Nationalists, "and in return we will help you to pass your other Bills." This arrangement, my Lords, is worked for all it is worth. You have only to glance at the Divisions in the House of Commons in this and the last session to see the truth of what I say. Is it any wonder, then, that those who understand the whole of this arrangement should denounce it, and that Ulster should be arming and drilling at the present moment to resist a measure brought in and forced upon them in such a way?
The Prime Minister gave a promise that there should be full opportunity for discussion in the House of Lords; but this discussion is absolutely valueless, for we know perfectly well that whatever changes we made in this Bill could not be accepted while the Irish Party dominate the situation. As we know, there has been a new stage introduced into the procedure in the House of Commons, and that is the Suggestion Stage, and the suggestions are to be sent up to our House to deal with. But it must be noticed in the case of this most important Bill to give a Parliament to Ireland there was no Suggestion Stage at all. Not a comma has been allowed to be altered in this Bill, which reaches us in exactly the same condition as we dealt with it last year.
Now as to the Bill itself. I think myself, and many Irishmen think, that it is a bad Bill. It is not a settlement of the question. It makes for friction, and the two Parliaments, the one in England and the one in Ireland, must always and con-
952
tinually be at loggerheads. And there is another thing that has not been touched upon in this debate. Instead of Ireland taking part in the advancement of this great Empire, she will stagnate. Her Parliament will be occupied with business more akin to the working of a parish pump than the expansion of trade and Empire, and I feel myself, as an Irishman who takes a great interest in the affairs of the country, that we are being degraded by being offered such a Home Rule Bill as this which has been forced upon us. The financial provisions of the Bill will cause everlasting friction between the two countries, because the Imperial Parliament will collect the Customs and Excise and dole out certain sums to Ireland. And what have we to offer when we want to borrow money to carry on public works? We have no security to offer whatsoever. If the Irish Parliament imposes taxes it will be a super-tax over and above the Imperial taxes, and this will be perfectly intolerable. I have always maintained, and I stated it publicly at the time of the Financial Relations Committee, that Ireland is taxed beyond her taxable capacity. There is every likelihood that Imperial taxation will increase. We shall have to bear that; and if we want money for ourselves to carry on our own affairs we shall have to be taxed over and above that.
To me it is most extraordinary, and I am sure it is thought so by many noble Lords from Ireland and others, that not one of the Nationalist Party has explained, extolled, or even mentioned the provisions of this Bill to the Irish people. They are absolutely in the dark with regard to what this Bill contains. There is a sort of sentiment, I admit, which has been fostered for years and years, which says "We want Home Rule"; but they do not know what is in this Bill, and there will be a rude awakening when they do arrive at it. This measure was very well described by Mr. T. W. Russell, the Government's most faithful friend, when he said in Dublin in February last that the Bill would do to begin with. That is practically true. There is no finality in this Bill. You think that by it you are going to settle the Irish question, but that is not the opinion of others besides those who are in the Nationalist Party in the House of Commons; it is not the opinion of their supporters in Ireland. I will give you one instance of that. Professor Kettle, speak-

953
ing at a lecture given to the members of the Young Irish branch of the United Irish League at the Mansion House, Dublin, on April 4, said the Bill was "a transition Bill." and they should deliberately face and accept sacrifices and speed onus far as they might the transition period.
My Lords, you are not closing a chapter of Irish grievances. You are opening another one of Irish trouble even more serious than before, and at a time when my country is quiet, when we have never known such prosperity, when the land question is on its way to settlement, or was on its high road to settlement but for that Bill which unsettled it. At this time you come down on us with this Bill which the Irish people know nothing about and force it on us. Is it unnatural that those who have some knowledge of the Bill should resist it to the very utmost? You have not even had the moral courage to get rid of the Irish Members entirely at Westminster. You will have forty-two of them remaining there; and you may be sure that in future there will be no question of Nationalists and Unionists in that Party. When they want anything for Ireland they will vote solidly, especially when it is a matter of getting more money from this country. In my opinion I hose Irish Members will he a perpetual thorn in the side of any Government. I should like to say one word as to this Parliament which is to be set up in Ireland. I do not anticipate, and I do not wish to say anything about, religious persecution in Ireland. Like Lord Clonbrock I live amongst my Roman Catholic tenants and have never had any trouble whatsoever with them, even during the worst times. But you must remember, my Lords, and I address myself particularly to the Front Bench opposite—that the future Irish Parliament will be a Roman Catholic Parliament. Roman Catholics will dominate the situation, and when it comes to the giving of appointments or the exercising of any patronage which the Ministers of that Parliament will have, we may take it for granted that it will be made perfectly clear that "No Protestants need apply."
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Why?
THE EARL OF MAYO: You ask me why? We have a fairly good experience on that question with regard to the Local Government Act in Ireland. I think three
954
Protestants are elected on the local bodies out of I forget how many members of the county councils.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Out of over 300 members in the whole of Munster and Connaught.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Of over 300 members in the Provinces of Munster and Connaught, only three Protestants were elected.
A NOBLE LORD: How many Catholics are there elected in Ulster?
THE EARL OF MAYO: I have no doubt they do the same thing there. But I am talking of the Irish Parliament, which is a much more serious affair. Our only experience so far is of these county councils. I myself put up for my county council when the Local Government Act came into force, but I had not the smallest chance. I then put up for the district council, and they had a meeting on the side of the road and said to me, "You would not join such a small thing as this?" "Oh, yes," I said, "I will put up." They said, "If you say you are a Home Ruler you will be elected." I said I could not say that, and that settled the matter as far as I was concerned; and then a reverend gentleman gave his parishioners the word and I was not elected. I maintain, no matter what you say, that there are only two parties in Ireland—the Roman Catholic Party and the Protestant Party—and those will be the two parties if there is a Parliament in Ireland, and the Catholics will be supreme. I only mention this as a fact, and a very prominent fact, when we come to talk of the government of Ireland. I wish to say this in conclusion, that I have been very much heartened by the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I feel that we have friends over here and I feel that we want friends, because the minority in the South and West are left certainly without very much protection in this matter. I gladly give my vote fog the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess.
EARL GREY: At this late hour I do not propose to occupy your Lordships more than a few moments; but I desire to make one or two remarks in consequence of the speeches made by the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading and by the

955
noble Earl who spoke last from the Government Bench. I hope the noble Earl will not think that I am wanting in respect towards him if I say that his speech is a melancholy illustration of the way in which Party politicians are led by appearances and not by facts. The noble Earl actually seemed to believe that because Londonderry returned a Nationalist at the recent by-election there was no life or seriousness in the Ulster question. There are two landmarks plainly discernible in the misty outlook before us. They are these: First, that the four counties of Ulster will not have this Home Rule Bill; secondly, that the public opinion of this country will never allow any Government, however strong, to force this Bill upon the acceptance of the Ulster people.
I had, before the noble Earl's speech begun to think that this Bill in itself was practically a dead measure. I hold it to be a very very bad Bill, and that the more it is understood and explained the more patent will it be that it violates every principle of constitutional freedom such as I have always believed, up to now, it was the chief pride of the Liberal Party to support. But the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in a tone of melancholy optimism, told us that it took two parties to make a war. That, coming after the Prime Minister's nodding of the head and the Prime, Minister's and Mr. Birrell's speeches led me to believe that the noble Marquess agreed with them that it would be impossible for his Government to endeavour to force this Bill upon the acceptance of the Ulster people. But after the speech of the noble Earl I do not feel quite so certain. The noble Earl, in answer to Lord Chelmsford, on whose admirable speech the House is to be congratulated, said there was not a Legislature of Australia that would not pass a Resolution for the Home Rule Bill. I can quite understand that. But is there a single Legislature in Australia that understands this Home Rule Bill?
The noble Marquess and the noble Earl are agreed in this, that the Ulster people are resisting this proposal, not on any ennobling principle, but, as I think was said, simply from a bigoted, narrow hatred of other religions. I do not believe that that is the only reason why Ulster is opposed to Home Rule. You may regret religious bigotry, you may regret
956
the belief that exists among Orangemen that their neck is going to be placed under the heel of the Roman Catholic priests, but you must recognise the fact that that belief does exist and has to be dealt with by statesmen. The reason why I do not hesitate to call this a very bad Bill, a Bill which no Liberal ought to support, is this. It violates in its own terms the cardinal principle of the Bill, which aims at giving large communities living tinder exceptional conditions autonomous rights over their own affairs. This Bill does not do anything of the sort for Ulster. Ulster now enjoys powers of local self-Government such as are given to it by this Parliament. Under the Bill Ulster is not going to have any control over its local affairs. You are taking from Ulster her autonomous rights and giving Dublin the right to govern Ulster in the management of her own local affairs. I know enough about Canada to assert that if you were to tell the people of Quebec that they would be governed in their local affairs by Ontario, or, on the other hand, if you were to tell the people of Ontario that their local affairs were to be governed by Quebec, you would have a state of things there which would tax all the ingenuity of His Majesty's Canadian Government.
What does this Bill do in addition? At the same time that it places the people of the four counties of Ulster, so far as their local affairs are concerned, under the control of Dublin, it inflicts this great wrong upon them—it robs them of the protection to which they are entitled in this Parliament. Under this Bill you are reducing the representation of Ireland by 50 per cent. below the amount to which it is entitled by population. The noble Marquess rather chaffed the Unionist Party because of their views upon the question of the representation of Ireland, and I regret that his views received some support from the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Earl does not want to have any Irish representatives in Parliament. I think he is in an almost unique position if he desires anything so extremely impossible or contrary to the public interest. The noble Marquess says "What do the Unionist Party want? Do you want 103 Members, or do you want 43 Members?" I will tell you what Unionists want, if I may venture for a moment to speak as a Unionist. We want an Imperial Parliament with a number of

957
representatives from Ireland in proportion to the population, on the principle of equality with other parts of the United Kingdom.
The noble Marquess pointed out that Sir Edward Carson had declared that the predominant partner had a majority, and that the representatives of England were opposed to this Bill. "What fine Unionism is this," says the noble Marquess. "Fancy boasting of your Unionism and yet attaching so much importance to one part of the United Kingdom and having no regard to the others." If I may again give utterance to what I believe to be a sound Unionist principle, I say that Unionists believe that every vote should have an equal value; but if I look at the representation of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland I find this, that there is no part of the United Kingdom where the electors are so faithfully represented as they are in England. When I go to Scotland I find that, under your principle of representing local majorities only and not endeavouring to represent the whole population, one Radical vote is equal to four Unionist ones. When I go to Wales I find that one Radical vote is equal to six Unionist votes; and when I go to the South-west of Ireland, where the Unionists number one-fourth, or certainly one-fifth, of the total electors, I find there has not been for the last quarter of a century a single Unionist representative.
One reason why I support with all my heart the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition is that I do not believe that this Parliament is a faithful representation of the electoral body of the United Kingdom, and I feel convinced that great mischief will ensue if, without full knowledge that yon have the majority of the people behind you, you endeavour to force this Bill upon the people of Ireland. I agree with the noble Earl who spoke last that there is no finality in this Bill. If there is no finality in this Bill it is an injustice to Ireland. Fancy, when the noble Earl has to pay a tax levied on him by the Imperial Parliament and there are only forty-two Irish Members in the House of Commons—and he wants none—can you conceive anything tending greater to discontent and agitation than the fact that the Imperial Parliament in which the great Irish people were represented by 50 per cent. less than their proper measure is endeavouring to force
958
odious taxes upon a people who do not wish to pay them?
THE EARL OF MAYO: I only said that the present Government had not the moral courage to get rid of the Irish Members.
EARL GREY: I hope that means that the noble Earl has no desire to get rid of the Irish Members. It is desirable, in the interests of Ireland as well as of the United Kingdom and of the Empire, that Ireland should be represented in the Imperial Parliament in proportion to her population. I say there is no finality in this Bill. As the late Lord Ashbourne would have said, "What a fine sentence this would be for a green placard: The under representation of the Irish in the House of Commons is not justice to Ireland and is not justice to England." Then this Bill, I venture to contend, rests upon a purely wrong basis. It is based on a separate nationality. How can you safeguard a measure which is based on the national requirements of Ireland alone? I do not see how you can avoid tending towards separation and possible disruption. What we want is a Bill dealing with the wrongs of Ireland based on the requirements of the United Kingdom, based on a measure of devolution to which the noble Marquess referred in a manner which made me cherish the hope that a large measure of devolution for some parts of the. United Kingdom might be adopted as the policy of the Unionist Party.
The noble Lord (Lord Chelmsford) appeared to think that all forms of Home Rule were necessarily wrong. I hope we may be able to convert him from this most erroneous view. This home Rule Bill is detestably and deplorably wrong. But there may be other forms of Home Rule which may be as right as this Bill is wrong. The noble Lord's experience in Australia, I dare say, has caused him to believe, as my experience in Canada has led me to believe, that the application of the Federal principle to the United Kingdom is a perfectly fair and just policy. What does it do? First of all, there is absolute finality about it. Secondly, you establish a central Government with absolute power over every part of the United Kingdom; and while you delegate to your subordinate Legislatures powers to manage their own local affairs, you keep, certainly according to the precedents in Canada, power in the Federal Parliament. I am sure the noble

959
Lord will be a supporter of me in this, that the Federal solution involves the necessity of a Second Chamber. Now, I have been waiting for a long time to see the Party opposite supplement the promise in regard to the Second Chamber which is contained in the Preamble of the Parliament Act. There has not been a sign of it, and I do not know when we may expect to see it; but if we have the Federal solution it involves the establishment of a Second Chamber which shall be a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. For that reason alone I commend it to my noble friend.
What is the position to-day in this country? You have absolutely no check, no safeguard, upon the excesses of a lopsided and unbalanced House of Commons. There is no other country of which that can be said. The Federal solution gives you a safeguard in the establishment of a Second Chamber, and probably an additional safeguard in the establishment of a Supreme Court. Then it removes congestion; and some people hope that it may settle the woman question by leaving them to deal with their own affairs, but not giving them the franchise for the Imperial Parliament which has to settle all questions of defence. Then I would also point out that if you were to settle the Irish question you would strengthen your land party in Parliament. What is the weakness in England to-day? It is that you have got an urban party with a power far in excess of the rural party. Settle the Irish question, and you will find that the greatest supporters of a rural party in England will be the Catholics, the Celtic representatives, that come from the South and West of Ireland.
I am encouraged to hope from the noble Marquess's speech that we may be on the eve of new developments. I feel so certain that this Bill never can become law, or, if it becomes law, will never become operative, that I find it difficult to convince myself that the Government are really determined to push themselves further and more deeply into an impossible position. What are you going to do? The noble Earl wanted to know what the Unionist Party were going to do after the next election. We want to know what His Majesty's Government are going to do before the next election. Are they going
960
to withdraw this Bill? Let them recognise they have made a very bad investment; let them face their loss and tear up their Bill, and make a new approach on lines that would conduce more to the freedom and benefit of Ireland. I sincerely hope they may be able to do something of the sort. There have been suggestions of a conference and compromise. Why do not His Majesty's Government appoint a Commission forthwith to look into the matter in order to know what the facts are in the event, at some future date, of applying the Federal solution, which is the best solution of our constitutional trouble? Let them withdraw this Bill, and give hope to Ireland that there is a measure pending which will enable us to obtain, by the general consent of all Parties, a settlement which will lead to the prosperity and welfare of that country.
The further debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

FORGERY (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
Report of Amendment which stands appointed for this day put off till Tomorrow.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PLURAL VOTING BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday, the 24 th instant (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Crewe)). (No. 121.)
House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Three o'clock.