Sitting of 10 March 1913

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER reported His Majesty's Speech, and read it to the House, as followeth:—

Summary of Day
The Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of. Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet 10th March, 1913, in the third year in the reign of King George V., was opened by His Majesty in person.
The SPEAKER (Right Hon. James William Lowther)took the Chair at Two of the clock.
The GENTLEMAN USHER of the Black Rod (Admiral Sir H. F. STEPHENSON) was announced.
Addressing Mr. SPEAKER, Black Rod said: The King commands this Honourable House to attend immediately at the House of Peers to hear His Majesty's Gracious Speech read.
Mr. SPEAKER, accompanied by the PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. H. H. ASQUITH), Right Hon. A. BONAR Law (Leader of the Opposition), and other Members, went to the House of Lords.
On their return, the Sitting of the House was suspended until Four of the clock.
The Sitting was resumed at Four of the clock.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Major Robert Chance Alexander M'Calmont, for county of Antrim (East Antrim Division); Sir Henry Fleming Hibbert, knight, for North Lancashire (Chorley Division).

PRIVATE BILLS.
The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective. Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

Aberystwyth Corporation.

Arigna Valley Railway.

Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square).

Barry Railway.

Bradford Corporation.

Brighton Corporation.

Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council.

Cambrian Railways.

Cardiff Railway.

Central London Railway.

City and South London Railway.

Colne Corporation.

3

Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation.

Easthourne Corporation.

Ebbw Vale Water.

Ely Valley Gas and Electricity.

Governesses Benevolent Institution.

Grays and Tilbury Gas.

Great Eastern Railway.

Halkyn District Mines Drainage.

Hastings Tramways.

Hove Corporation.

Huddersfield Corporation.

Ipswich Dock.

Isle of Wight Central Railway (Godshill Transfer).

Leeds Corporation.

Leicester Corporation.

Limerick harbour Commissioners.

Llantrisant Gas.

London and South Western Railway.

London Electric Railway.

Metropolitan District Railway.

Metropolitan Railway.

Metropolitan Water Board.

Morley Corporation.

North Eastern Railway.

Northampton Corporation Water.

Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory).

Page Estates.

Port Talbot Railway and Docks.

Porthcawl and District Gas and Electricity.

Reading Corporation.

Redcar, Coatham, Marske, and Saltburn Gas.

Rochford Rural District Council.

Slough Gas.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation.

South Staffordshire Mond Gas.

South Staffordshire Water.

Swansea Harbour.

Tynemouth Gas.

United District Gas.

West Hampshire Water.

Wimbledon and Sutton Railway.

Worthing Gas.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of
4
Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bills should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

Edinburgh Corporation.

Greenock Harbour (Constitution, etc.)

Greenock Port and Harbours.

Leith Harbour and Docks.

Lothian Railways.

North British Railway.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SESSIONAL ORDERS.

  ELECTIONS.
  Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return for that place; and if anything shall come in question touching the return or election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double returns do withdraw till the returns are determined.
  Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost: severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.

  WITNESSES.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any witness in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime or misdemeanor; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.
  VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
  Ordered, That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.
  Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
  OUTLAWRIES BILL.
  "For the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  JOURNAL.
  Ordered, That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last Session to the end of the present Session, with an Index thereto, be printed.
  Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, G.C.B. K.C.S.I., C.I.E., the Clerk of this House.
  Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by such person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other person do presume to print the same.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
  Estimates presented for the year 1913–14, with Explanation of Differences [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 1]
  Copy presented of Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1913–14 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (COMPARATIVE STATEMENT).
  Copy presented of Comparative Statement of Pauperism and Cost of the relief of the Poor in certain years from 1848–9 to 1911–12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING.
  Copy presented of Memorandum of the Local Government Board relative to the operation of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, and the earlier Housing Acts as amended by that Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES ACT, 1907.
  Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 11th February, 1913, transferring certain properties from Trustees to the Worcester County Association [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (ESTIMATES).
  Estimate presented for Civil Services for the year ending 31st March, 1914, with Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 2.]
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 23rd January, 1913; Mr. Lardner]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 3.]
  GREEK LOAN.
  Account presented up to 31st December, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 4.]
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Accounts presented for the year ended 21st December, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 5.]
  DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
  Account presented of the Receipts and Disbursements of the Duchy of Cornwall for the year ended 31st December, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 6.]
  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to 5th January, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 7.]
  TROPICAL DISEASES RESEARCH FUND.
  Copy presented of Report of the Advisory Committee for the Tropical Diseases Research Fund for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (POST OFFICE).
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
  Copy of Fifth Schedule (superseding Schedules previously submitted to Parliament), containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER reported His Majesty's Speech, and read it to the House, as followeth:—

HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
To-day being the fiftieth anniversary of the marriage of My parents, I cannot forgo the opportunity of expressing for My dear Mother and Myself Our grateful sense of the devoted affection of the nation, which it has been Her happiness to enjoy for so many years, and which remains to support and console Her in Her abiding sorrow.
My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
In December last an armistice was arranged between the belligerent Governments in South-East Europe. They chose London as the place in which to conduct their negotiations for a peace, and I welcomed the Delegates who were sent for that purpose, and gave to them every facility that was in My power. I much regret that, owing to their failure to come to an agreement, the war still continues.
The possible developments of the war and the changes that must result from it cannot be without interest for the Great Powers who are neutral and were parties to the Treaty of Berlin. All these Powers earnestly desire to prevent the war from spreading, and to sec it terminated as soon as possible.
My Government have, especially by means of the Ambassadors in London, kept in close touch and co-operation with the other Powers in the endeavours, in which all have shared, to preserve concerted view and action., and to establish agreement on all points on which differences might arise between any of them.
In this a large measure of success has been achieved. Agreement has been reached in principle on matters of the greatest importance, and though some points are still under discussion, I am hopeful that
10
the consultations between the Powers with enable them not only to secure a complete understanding amongst themselves, but to exercise a beneficent influence in hastening the conclusion of the war.
My Government will continue to co-operate with the other Powers with the most earnest desire to secure the peace of Europe.
During last year the Prime Minister of My Dominion of Canada and several of his colleagues visited this country in order to confer with My Ministers here on matters of common interest, especially those relating to Naval Defence.
The Minister for Defence of My Dominion of New Zealand has lately arrived for a similar purpose.
I am confident that such an exchange of views between members of its responsible Governments will promote the solidarity of the Empire. The recent gift of a battleship by the Malay States, the ready consent of the New Zealand Government to the retention in, the North Sea fleet of the battleship contributed by them, the steady progress towards the establishment of the Australian fleet, and the discussions now proceeding in the Canadian Parliament on matters of defence testify to the Universal desire within the Empire for the maintenance of common safety.
In My Indian Empire, on the 23rd December, at the ceremony of the State Entry into Delhi, a wicked attempt was made on the life of My Governor-General and Viceroy. Through the mercy of Divine Providence the plot failed in its full intent, but I deeply regret that innocent lives were sacrificed, and that the Viceroy was gravely wounded. The fortitude of the Viceroy and Lady Hardinge and the disciplined courage of all the officers of Government have My warmest admiration. I gratefully acknowledge the expressions of sympathetic loyalty which the crime has evoked from the Ruling Chiefs and from all classes of My Indian subjects.
My Commissioners appointed to report on the requirements of the public service in India have commenced their labours, and have taken evidence at various Provincial centres in India with regard to the Indian Civil Service and the Provincial Civil Services.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
The Estimates for the service of the ensuing year will be laid before you without delay. I commend them to your favourable consideration with the more confidence in view of the sustained prosperity which, as reflected in the statistics of trade and of employment, I rejoice to see that My people continue to enjoy.
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
The attention of Parliament will again be asked to the measures in regard to which there was disagreement between the two Houses last Session.
In view of your arduous labours during the past year the further legislation which you will be invited to consider will necessarily be restricted within narrow limits.
A measure will be brought forward to facilitate the progress and secure the completion of Land Purchase in lreland.
You will be asked to authorise a guarantee from the Imperial Exchequer of a loan by the Government of the Soudan for ensuring the prosperity of that territory and the development therein of the industry of cotton-growing.
You will be invited to give renewed consideration to proposals for the better care and control of the feeble-minded, and for the further restriction of the industrial employment of children.
A Bill will be introduced for the prevention of plural voting at Parliamentary elections.
Proposals will be submitted to you for the development of a national system of education.
Your labours upon these and all other matters I humbly commend to the blessing of Almighty God.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
Mr. GODFREY COLLINS (who wore Court Dress): I rise to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

The honour has been entrusted to me to move the reply to the Gracious Speech. No one could be more conscious of his own shortcomings in performing this duty than I, but, Sir, having received an early training in the Royal Navy, I obey orders. Only a short experience in the House of Commons is necessary to reveal to each new Member that this House, although the most critical, is yet the most generous Assembly in the world, and I venture to ask for a large share of that latter quality while performing this honourable but difficult task. I am, however, also encouraged by the honour conferred upon the Constituency which I represent, and the West of Scotland, of which it forms a part—that keen, hard-working community where the throb of the piston and the sound of the hammer in the shipyards are heard day and night. The opening sentence in the Gracious Speech touches a sympathetic chord in the heart of the nation. All Members will have read of the enthusiastic welcome accorded fifty years ago to the Princess Alexandra of Denmark on her first arrival in London as the Royal Bride-elect of the then Prince of Wales. Over the long span of intervening years the nation has grown to love her, not only for her gracious self, but also for her deeds of kindness as Princess and Queen, and now, in her abiding sorrow, the sympathy of the nation surrounds and supports the solitary figure of the widowed Queen Mother.
The gracious Speech reminds us, in a short, but pregnant sentence, that our relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly—a statement fraught with hope to every home in this country. The dominating desire of democracy is freedom from international disputes. Capital and labour are thus diverted from the area and wastage of war, and flow freely into

13
the useful channels of productive enterprise, while progressive legislation, dealing with the problems at home, can only be concentrated upon and passed in times of peace; but, Sir, amid all the changes of the international situation, the grouping and regrouping of Powers, the rise and fall of nation, the ambitions and weaknesses of rulers and statesmen, and the passions and prejudices of peoples, not only has peace been maintained, but our national self-respect and honour have been upheld, without which there can be no enduring peace. We are reminded that some other nations have been less fortunate. In the Near East the stress of conflict and strife of battle have taken the place of the voice of reason and mutual confidence. In these Islands Delegates of the Powers worked together to find a settlement leading to a lasting peace within these troubled areas. Unfortunately the negotiations fell through, and war has been resumed. All parties in this House are anxious to see peace restored on a firm basis. Not only in this country, but throughout the Empire deepest satisfaction prevailed for the tribute paid to our country when London was chosen as the meeting place of the Delegates.
We note with satisfaction that all the Powers not only earnestly desire to circumscribe the area of conflict, but hasten the arrival of peace, and we all rejoice that some considerable measure of success has already been achieved. The difficulty of settling industrial disputes, where the interests of only two parties are concerned, brings home to us the great difficulties which must have arisen when the conflicting interests are so varied and complicated. Before I pass from this subject, perhaps I may be permitted to say, with the concurrence of this House, that the unfailing patience and far-sighted judgment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must have contributed in no small degree to such measure of success as has already attended the negotiations of the Representatives of the Great Powers. During this difficult period, may I not add, this House has shown a studied moderation worthy of its best traditions. The Gracious Speech recalls to us the helping hand of our Dominions for naval defence. A well-known writer, who has frequently travelled round the world, once wrote that "whether the wind blew from the North or from the South, from the East or from the West, it brought tidings of deeds of valour and heroism enacted under the British flag";
14
is it not also true to say that, whether from the North or from the South, from the East or from the West, our Dominions bring substantial tokens of affection and loyalty to the Motherland.
Turning to our Indian Empire, we are reminded of the Commission which is now studying the conditions which should animate and govern the Indian Civil Service. The problem of associating the educated classes of the Indian community with the Government of that great Empire has baffled statesmen in the past owing to the difficulty of grafting Western ideas on to the apparently unchanging East. But, Sir, the successful experience of associating, in some degree, the peoples of India in their legislative and provincial Assemblies, with British rule, encourages us in the hope that the Commissioners may solve the intricate problem, especially when we recall that one of the glories of the British race is their characteristic ability to associate, at the opportune moment, the native peoples of a country with the administration under which they live. Coming to matters at home, this House will note that the Estimates will be laid before it without delay. The House, rightly interpreting the feeling of the whole nation, is always ready to authorise expenditure, not for foreign adventure, but to maintain our Imperial strength and defence of our sea-girt shores and Island home. This country has always had a warm place in its heart for the Naval Service and its long list of heroes, the last of whom formed that gallant band who lost their lives in the Antarctic regions. The burden indeed is heavy—it exacts its toll from the hard-won earnings of capital and labour, but the country has never wavered in making the necessary sacrifices for the maintenance of our Navy at sufficient strength, provided that prudence characterises the demand and economy and efficiency is attained.
Turning to Home Affairs, disagreement still exists between the two Houses in regard to certain Bills. The present position of those Bills, which are to be considered again by Parliament reminds me of a play now being performed in London, well known to every Parliamentarian, which measures progress by three milestones. The first milestone in the career of these Bills has taken long to reach and pass. We start our march towards the second milestone to-day, and perhaps even those who differ from me as to the wisdom of the march may join with me in the hope

15
that it may not take so long to reach. Speaking for myself, I am convinced by the time we reach the third milestone many will wonder why we did not complete the journey long ago.
Included in the Bills to be reconsidered is the Scottish Temperance Bill. Here, Sir, I tread on thin ice, but my fellow-countrymen—dour and determined though they are—have shown remarkable patience in waiting for many years for this Bill to be passed into law, I still hope, with the consent of all parties. The closing passage of the Gracious Speech refers to the English educational system. I do not profess to understand that system, but speaking as a Scotch Member—and in this my fellow Scotch Members will agree with me—I earnestly hope that the proposed changes may make the English educational system more nearly equal to our high standard in Scotland. I thank the House most sincerely for their courtesy and attention. I have endeavoured to avoid a controversial spirit according to the unwritten rules of this House, the traditional honour of which is surely that all business accomplished in this Assembly should bring glory and honour to our King and peace and prosperity to our country.
Mr. FRANCIS McLAREN (who also wore Court Dress): It is with diffidence that I rise to second the Address of thanks to His Majesty for His most Gracious Speech, and indeed I would venture to make a claim for that generous indulgence which the House usually accords to those who have this honourable, though difficult, duty to perform; and indeed, Mr. Speaker, as the youngest and least distinguished Member of this House, I make a special appeal to hon. Members of greater eloquence and Parliamentary experience than myself for a double measure of consideration. The Gracious Speech from the Throne, which hon. Members had the privilege of hearing read by the King himself, moved the House by its reference to Queen Alexandra. I am sure the House welcomes this opportunity of tendering to Her Majesty its respectful congratulations and the assurance of its loyalty and of its devoted affection. We are delighted to be reminded in so happy a way of those days long ago when she came in the spring as a bride to London. Ever since the people have loved her first as Princess and then as Queen; and now, by her care and charity to the unfortunate, she is enshrined even deeper
16
in the hearts of the nation. We were only waiting for an opportunity such as this to show her our sympathy and our respectful love.
The Address I have the honour to second is one of those constitutional links which bind together Sovereign, Lords, and Commons, and it will finally go forth as the unanimous action of the whole House and an expression of loyalty to their Majesties themselves. Indeed, an expression of that loyalty is found in that part of the Gracious Speech which deals with our Overseas Dominions. Reference is made to the visit of the Prime Minister of Canada with his colleagues last year to confer on the subject of Naval Defence, and a Minister from New Zealand is now with us for the same purpose of joint counsel. It is with feelings of gratification that the House will observe this growing desire of our Overseas Dominions to take a greater part in the deliberations of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The House will note with pleasure that the rulers and the people of the Malay States have made the splendid contribution of a first-class armoured cruiser. That generous offer has aroused immense satisfaction throughout the whole of the British Empire, and is a contribution worthy of their loyalty. There is a cordial reference to the "Dreadnought" "New Zealand," which is now on its way to the country whose patriotic gift it was. That battle cruiser will be doubly useful, for the reason that it may not be retained permanently on the China Seas, but will be at the disposal of the Admiralty in the North Sea or in whatsoever tactical theatre it may be of the greatest service to the Empire. With regard to Canada, I think I may, without presumption, voice the feelings of every Member of this House, and say that we appreciate the generous intentions of the Canadian people. I am confident that these new Colonial battleships will be used, not for the making of war, but for the maintenance of peace, and, as a nephew of John Bright, perhaps I may be allowed to quote his words:—
"The purpose of the Fleet should be one of defence and not of defiance."
I pray that may be the part allotted to these new ships, but, at any rate, these contributions of our Empire will show the world that if any other Power were ever to challenge our supremacy on the high seas we should have behind us the whole taxable resources of the British Empire. A moving reference is made in the Gracious

17
Speech to the attempt on the life of the Viceroy of India and the courage which he displayed on that occasion. By the mercy of Providence the attack failed and his life was spared. The indignation that has been expressed in every quarter of India against the outrage has demonstrated the sympathy and loyalty of His Majesty's Indian subjects. Mention, too, is made in the Gracious Speech that the Imperial Exchequer will guarantee a loan for the encouragement of cotton growing in the Soudan. Experiments have abundantly proved that the Soudan is not only the finest cotton growing country in the whole of the British Empire, but, what is more imoprtant, that it can grow that sort of cotton Lancashire requires. This is a subject of vital importance to the textile North, and it is essential that the millions engaged in and dependent on the cotton industry should no longer be at the mercy of bad seasons in India or North America. If the shortage of raw material is to be provided Lancashire must be placed above the hazards of speculation and of climate. This loan will develop the resources of the Soudan under British guidance in a way which will ensure the more permanent prosperity of the cotton industry. I am sure the House will welcome this evidence of cordial co-operation between the Government and the commercial community.
Turning our attention homewards, His Majesty tells us that a measure will shortly be introduced for the abolition of plural voting. I venture to hope that measure will no longer be regarded as controversial. That hope at first sight might appear illusory, but I found myself on the ground that when in 1888 by the County Councils Act the Conservative party made their great extension of local government this principle was embodied in their measure. Further, the House will remember that when the question of a Referendum was discussed it was unanimously acknowledged that wealth ought to confer no additional voting power, but that every citizen should vote once and once only. I venture to express the hope as a private Member that the Government will proceed with their plans for the simplification of the register and the cheapening of registration; and I also trust that by common consent an agreement may be come to for the more equitable redistribution of electoral areas based, of course, not on grounds of party advantage, but on distribution of population.
18
Mention is made in the Gracious Speech that certain measures failed to become law owing to an unfortunate disagreement between the two Houses. A measure which occupied the greater part of Parliamentary time and which has absorbed so much of public interest will be reintroduced in the forthcoming Session. I do not know whether the House would wish again to hear the 6,000 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT that were delivered on the Home Rule Bill or to take a part in a further 231 Divisions, but for my part I venture to express the hope, not only on grounds of self-defence but in view of the general desire for a shorter Parliamentary Session, that the House may adopt some proposal for their curtailment of discussion. If such a proceeding should appeal to the House, while it would be of advantage to the House, it would be of no disadvantage to the measures themselves, for the reason that the abrupt action of another place has deprived us here of the opportunity of knowing what improvements they might consider advantageous. I am most anxious not to break the immemorial custom that on these occasions all controversy should be avoided, but it is not easy to deal with these controversial questions in a non-controversial spirit. Perhaps in one respect I am more fortunate than the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Sir H. Verney), who moved the Address last year, in that, whereas on that occasion the reference to Home Rule was only acceptable to Members on this side of the House and Members of the Nationalist party, now the information we are given that Parliament is to complete the work of Irish Land Purchase will give pleasure in every quarter of the House, and the reference which is made to Home Rule in the Speech will now be welcome even by a majority of the Members from Ulster itself.
It would be presumptions of me to express the opinions held on this side of the House, but it seems to me that just as in the case of Ireland so with regard to Wales the Government is not only justified, but bound to resubmit their Welsh Church Bill, for the Parliamentary representatives from Wales will tell us in a majority of ten to one that their constituents demand the reintroduction of this measure. Indeed, nothing is more striking than the emphatic and overwhelming way in which the Welsh and Irish people have reiterated their demand for generations. Another subject of very great

19
importance, His Majesty tells us, will be dealt with in the coming Session, and the House will be glad to hear that our efforts last Session to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-Minded, will not be wasted. That decision will give pleasure in every quarter of the House with a few exceptions, and I am delighted that Parliament is to devote its attention to the distressing case of the mentally deficient. This is not a party question but a National question. We, on this side of the House, have the happy experience—as in the case of the White Slave Traffic Bill of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee)—how effectively both sides of this House can co-operate, and I venture to think when the House acts as a whole its credit and authority with the country is at its highest. It only remains for me to thank hon. Members for the patient way in which they have listened to me, and, trusting that I have not unduly trespassed on the time of the House, I beg to second the Address.
Mr. BONAR LAW: It required the ceremonial that is usual on these occasions, and of which some of us were witnesses this afternoon, to enable us to realise that we are really beginning to-day the business of a new Session. The interval has perhaps been long enough to give some of us physical rest, but it has not been long enough to give us mental rest. That is bad, I think, for all the Members of the House of Commons. It is bad even for the Opposition, whose duty is to criticise. But it is far worse for the Government, which has to carry on the business of the country, and for the great body of permanent officials on whom every Government depends. They have had, and could have, no time for reflection or consideration. They come back to the new Session, unless the right hon. Gentlemen whom I see before me are more than human, with exhausted and jaded minds; and among the many other evils of the method which the Government have thought it necessary to adopt in the conduct of business, this, I think, is one of the greatest and the most serious for the Government. I listened with real pleasure to the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address. It is customary under any circumstances—it is one of our unwritten traditions—that the Leader of
20
the Opposition should praise those speeches. I am glad again this year to be able to do it without any arrière pensée, and to say—and I believe every Member of the House will agree with me—that we have listened with satisfaction to the way in which those speeches have been made. As both hon. Gentlemen pointed out, it is not an easy task. Their duty, in the first place, is to be not too controversial, a duty which both of them fulfilled; and, in the second place, to try to make their speeches interesting; and I think we may say that that has been done, as far as it was possible under such circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address reminded us that he had served in His Majesty's Navy, and he said that there he had learned to obey. I venture to say that from that point of view the training of the last two years, under the successive Whips of the Government, has been much more effective than any which he received in the Navy. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address won, I think, the sympathy of every Member of the House by his ingenuousness and hopefulness. Some of the hopes which he gave utterance to will not I fear stand the stress of time, and I am afraid I cannot join with him in that hopefulness. But one thing he did mention, and which, indeed, I already knew, is I am sure of interest to the House. Last year the Address was seconded by an hon. Member who was the grandson of one of the greatest Parliamentarians who ever took his place in the House of Commons. The hon. Member has told us that he is the nephew of a Member of this House who was I think the greatest orator of his day, and of whom, so far as my experience goes at least, I can say this, that his are almost the only speeches of the old days which it is still possible for the modern politician to read with interest. Now I join with both hon. Gentlemen in the allusions which they have made to the jubilee of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Alexandra. The sentence in which that reference is made in the Speech from the Throne is so direct and simple that I think it must touch the heart of every one who reads it, and I shall certainly say nothing, for anything I could say would only deduct from the impressiveness of the way in which that sympathy is expressed on behalf of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address spoke of the subject of Foreign Affairs, and in everything he said I think we on

21
this side of the House, indeed all Members of the House, will agree.
The Speech has a longer reference to Foreign Affairs than has been usual of recent years. That is, of course, inevitable. But, though there are a great many sentences, I think the Prime Minister will agree we do not get much information. I hope, therefore, it may be possible for him, without detriment to the public service, to give some further information to the House as to the events connected with the Near East. I am sure, in any case, all Members of the House would especially welcome, if it were possible, some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the war now going on is likely to be speedily determined. War is always, I think, a calamity, though very often an unavoidable calamity. But it seems to me that this war is specially deplorable for this reason, because, so far as I can judge, although I have no special means of information, the result of this war can have no appreciable effect upon the terms of settlement when the time of peace comes. I hope, therefore, and I am sure the whole House hopes, that the time is not far distant when peace will be restored to those regions. There are some other points in connection with foreign affairs on which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some further information. The House will remember that on the present. Foreign Secretary undertaking his office, a fear was expressed that a Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons might be found to have a difficult and practically impossible position on account of the facility with which he might be bombarded on the floor of the House. We all know that no Foreign Secretary who has ever held office in this country has ever had a freer hand, or has ever been subjected to less criticism from the Opposition, than has been the case with the present Foreign Secretary. That was, of course, a deliberate policy, consistently carried out by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), and I have only been too glad during the short time in which I have filled his post to follow his example in that respect. I feel sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will realise that that is no reason why any information which could be given ought not to be given to the House of Commons. Take, for instance, events in Tripoli. That is now over. No Papers have been laid before the House, and I think it would be desirable, if possible, that the House should have some
22
information as to what occurred at that time and our connection with it.
The House also, I am sure, is very anxious about the position in Persia. That is not, like the last subject to which I referred, a question which is not any longer a live one, and it is very likely that reticence may be not only desirable but necessary. It is a long time since we had information on the subject, and I am sure the House will desire to know what the position in Southern Persia especially is, and what is the position now of the Indian regiments, which, the House will remember, went there and were cooped up in peculiar circumstances. Indeed, the position there is so grave that I am quite sure that any information which the Government can give will be gladly welcomed by the House of Commons. The next subject referred to by the hon. Gentleman who spoke was the assistance of the Oversea Dominions in the defence of the Empire. What was said by them I am sure the House, or almost the whole House, is ill entire agreement, and I have nothing to add to it except perhaps to repeat what I said once before in a speech in the House of Commons, that in my opinion one good out of the evil of the constant increase of armaments throughout the world, one advantage, is that the pressure from the outside is tending to weld the British Empire more closely together. That has been the result, and everyone in this House and in this country must rejoice in the knowledge that the Dominions of the Crown, with so much alacrity, have shown themselves ready to share in the burdens of defence. I venture to hope that the movement towards closer union which has come as a result of consulting them about defence will in many ways and with the utmost rapidity go further and come to a still closer union than that which has existed in the past. Though the Government speak of the assistance of the Dominions towards our defence, I was surprised not to find in the Speech any reference to what the Government themselves are doing in the same direction. I think that was surprising. The conditions are not what we should like to see them abroad, and I do not think there is any Member on that bench, and least of all the Secretary of State for War, who is satisfied with the condition of our land forces, and I think it would have been a good thing if there had been some reference in the Speech to show that the Government do realise what

23
the position is and are ready to face the difficulty and overcome the difficulty.
That brings me to the interesting way in which the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address told us that the Estimates would soon be laid before us. They will. And I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us exactly in what way the necessary financial provisions are going to he carried out. The time is short, and I should like to know whether, when the Address has been voted, the whole of our time is to be taken for the Government, and whether a Guillotine Resolution or something of that kind will be necessary to get through the financial business. I need not say that we recognise that the law must be complied with, and that no effort on this side of the House will be made to prevent the necessary business being carried through, but at the same time, as the result of the pressure which was put upon us last Session and the delay in our reassembling it is perfectly evident that it is impossible that there can be any adequate discussion before the end of the financial year of the great problems which arise in connection with these Estimates. Certainly there never was a time in the memory of any Member of this House when it was more necessary that there should be a complete and careful examination of our defences by sea, on land, and, not least important, in the air, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself will recognise that the time before the end of the financial year is not adequate and that other opportunities must be given us later on to adequately discuss those great subjects. Now before I come to the legislation which is proposed, I notice a reference in the Speech to the continued prosperity of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see my reading of it is not inaccurate, and I regard it as a challenge against any change in our fiscal system. If that is the intention of the Speech, which is doubtful; if it is the view of the hon. Members of the House, I think I may be excused if I put before them some general considerations which should be taken into account in regard to that matter. There is great prosperity, everyone admits it, greater than has existed in this country for many years, and greater, I am afraid, than we can hope will last for many years. But that prosperity is not confined to this country. It is world-wide,
24
and judged by any test which it is possible for me to apply to it, or for anyone to apply to it, our share in that world-wide prosperity is not greater, but, on the contrary, is less than that which is enjoyed by other countries. I do not think that is disputable. Take for instance the point referred to in the Speech, our statistics of trade. Judging by that test, there was a great increase last year, both in our imports and exports, but taking the imports of domestic produce, it will be found that the increase in Germany, and, I believe in the United States, although I am not sure of that, but the increase in Germany was greater, not only in percentage, but in actual volume than the increase in the United Kingdom. The Board of Trade statistics deal only with foreign trade, and that is always, in every country, much less important than the home trade. The best test of growth therefore is the growth of our total production. Of this there are very few means of getting any information, but there is one, and that is in connection with the iron trade. What do we find in regard to that? I find—these are the only figures I have looked into to-day in connection with the King's Speech—that in 1905, the year when the present Government came into office, our production of raw iron, which is, of course, the test of the whole of the iron trade, was 9.6 million tons. In 1911–I believe the figures are out for last year, but I have not seen them—it was stationary 9.5. On the other hand, in Germany in the first year the production was 10.7 million tons, and in the last year it had risen to 15.3 million tons, that is to say, while our production had been stationary, that of Germany had increased by nearly 50 per cent. If you take any other test you will find precisely the same thing. Unemployment is low as shown by our statistics published by the Board of Trade, but it is higher than it is in Germany under similar conditions.
5.0 P.M.
There is another factor I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind in this connection, that is the factor of emigration. Thirty years ago or thereabouts, there was very heavy emigration from Germany; to-day there is none. From the United Kingdom emigration is now going on at a higher rate than almost ever before, and during the seven years that this Government have been in office, a million and a half of our people have left our shores to seek employment elsewhere. I ask hon.

25
Gentlemen to put to themselves this question: what would have been the state of employment here if the outlet for this surplus population had not been available in other parts of the world? I will not go in that subject at any length, but I would remind them of another thing. There has been, as we all know, a great rise in the cost of living. That is universal; it applies to the whole world. But there is something which does not apply to the rest of the world, that is wages. During the last twelve years there has been almost no increase—there was none at all until two years ago—in wages in this country, and it is therefore a simple fact to say that our wage-earning classes, taking the rate of wages in combination with the cost of necessaries, are not as well off as they were twelve years ago. I venture to say—I have made some examination into it, although not to-day—that the same statement could not be made with truth of Germany, of France, of the United States, or of any one of our Colonies. In every one of them there has been a rise in wages at least commensurate with the increased cost of living. I think, therefore, it is very rash to conclude that because we still have a share, and a large share, of the growing trade of the world, that when our share to-day is smaller than that of other countries with a different system, therefore it is our fiscal system which is responsible for securing that share.
Now I come to the legislation which is promised us for the present Session. There is to be a Bill to facilitate and complete land purchase. The hon. Member who seconded the Address is quite right in saying that this is a change or a proposal which will be welcomed at all events by those on this side of the House. I agree, indeed, with the Chief Secretary who told us, at least I think so—whether I am right or not, it is true—he told us I think that the completion of land purchase is far more important for Ireland than Home Rule. It undoubtedly is. Now that the Nationalist party, as we judge from the sentence in the King's Speech, is ready to facilitate land purchase, the difficulty is not legislative but financial. All that. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to give us, if he can, in outline, some idea of the steps which are to be taken in order to carry out this very desirable object. One of the hon. Members, I forget which, referred to the proposal to guarantee a loan for cotton-growing in the Soudan. I have certainly no criticism to offer on that
26
proposal, though I should like a little more information about it. The difficulty here, of course, is also financial. There is not much difference between guaranteeing a loan and lending the money, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise. In this case there is not only the object which we all desire to see carried out, if it can be done, of developing the Soudan, but, as the hon. Member who spoke last pointed out, if this experiment succeeds it is of direct advantage to the United Kingdom itself, for certainly, in my opinion, the great cotton industry, the greatest industry by far in this country, can never be in the position in which we should like to see it so long as it is dependent entirely, or almost entirely, for its supplies of raw material on foreign countries. I therefore welcome this proposal, but I hope that before long the Government will tell us exactly what the extent of it is, what is to be the amount of the loan, and what is the extent of the growth of cotton that we may anticipate as the result of this scheme. We all approve of this proposal, but while it is very desirable to develop production in the Soudan, and indirectly to help a great industry in this country, it is desirable also to develop production, in the United Kingdom. Therefore I hope that the Government, with their interest in the Soudan, will not forget the United Kingdom. There is one industry to which I attach a great and perhaps, though I do not think so, an exaggerated importance, that is the beet sugar industry. I have thought for a long time that the Government of this country ought long ago to have done something to try to establish that industry. I remember that the Prime Minister, on the occasion of a Debate in connection with the Sugar Convention, expressed his sympathy with this object. I think it is precisely the kind of industry which is now necessary in this country, and I hope the Government will tell us that they are prepared to do something to help in establishing this industry in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address told us that we were to have a Plural Voting Bill, and he ventured to express the hope, on very inadequate reasons as it seemed to me, that it would be regarded as non-controversial. It is a very old friend. I am not going to waste much time in talking about it now. We all understand it. The Government say that plural voting is an anomaly. That may be so, but it is not the only anomaly. It is not even the chief

27
anomaly, even by their own admission, for I remember on the occasion of the withdrawal of the Suffrage Bill, at the end of last Session, that the Prime Minister said Redistribution was even more important than that Bill. This is an anomaly, as they think, which is against the interests of the Radical party. They immediately propose to remove that anomaly, but do not dream for a moment of touching other anomalies which may possibly be found to be in the interests of the Radical party. They will try to carry it. We shall try to oppose it, and it is a good distance yet from becoming the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address spoke of the Education Bill. He began with a sentence in which he said he did not understand the education system of England. I hoped he was going to explain that he understood the proposals of His Majesty's Government. That is, for the moment, a much more interesting conundrum to me. What are these proposals? I suppose they are part of what was described as a colossal scheme, alluded to by the Lord Chancellor in a recent speech. In the Speech from the Throne we are told:
"Proposals will be submitted to you for the development of a national system of education."
That language is quite as vague and is almost as high flown as the speech of the Lord Chancellor in which he referred to the subject. What does it mean? When I read the speech of the Lord Chancellor I thought it looked as if a friendly duel were going on between him and the other Chancellor to see whether land or education should be the first great work of the Government. Judging by the King's Speech, the Chancellor in another place has won, for there is a reference to education here, and there is none to the land proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. But I do not think we should draw inferences too hastily. The Chancellor we have in this House is pretty determined, and will not easily be beaten by a colleague. I think, perhaps, there is an explanation. It is possible—I hope it is the case—that the education proposals are intended to benefit education. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer means his land proposals to benefit the people on the land, but that is not his only object. His other object is, I have no doubt, to get a good cry before the next election, and from that point of view it is not desirable that
28
it should be tabled too soon. There might be examination; there might be criticism; and it is probable, therefore, that the victory of the Chancellor in another place is more apparent than real. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred to the Bill for the Feeble-Minded. Here it is: "Proposals for the carrying out of a Bill for the Feeble-Minded and a Bill for limiting further the use of children in industrial life." That is the contribution which, under the Parliament Act, the Government are able to make to the cause of social reform. That is the whole of it. There is no reference to housing, which is admittedly not only one of the subjects which ought to be dealt with, but a subject on which there is so much general agreement throughout the country that an attempt to deal with it on sane lines could be made without arousing any of the bitterness of party controversy. There is another omission which seems to me stranger. In my view the real problems with which statesmen, not only in this country, but in other countries as well, will have to face in the near future are labour problems. This Government has had its full share of labour unrest and the troubles arising from labour unrest. We have been saved, and I am sure everyone is thankful, from what looked like another outbreak of it the other day. On the occasion of the last strike—the dock strike—the Government were asked to interfere in it. They did not, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Government, came down to us and said, We are going to deal with the whole subject, and, more than that—I wrote down his words this morning—
"The Government have come to the conclusion that it will be necessary to deal with the whole problem and to deal with it in the immediate future."
What has become of that? Problems of that kind can find no place and find neither time nor energy from the Government, which can only use its Parliament Act for purposes which, I believe, are destructive. It can find no time to deal with those great questions which ought to be dealt with and which benefit the whole people of this country.
That brings me, in conclusion, to the final legislative proposal of the Government. It is put in a very modest paragraph:—
"The attention of Parliament will again be asked to the measures in regard to which there was disagreement between the two Houses."

29
In this connection what seems to me most remarkable in the King's Speech is not what it contains, but what it omits. There is, again, no reference to that obligation, which does not brook delay, of carrying out the Preamble of the Parliament Act, and by not including it in the programme of this Session the Government have openly abandoned the only argument on which they excuse their delay in not dealing with it simultaneously with the relations between the two Houses. They told us then that they could not deal with reform of the Second Chamber till they had obtained the lever which the Parliament Act would give them. Now, what do they do? They have given up the lever. Even if they introduce a Bill next year, they cannot use the Parliament Act to carry it through, because there is no time before another election. [Interruption.] I see now that when it suits them hon. Gentlemen are willing to admit that the Parliament Act will work after another election, but when we pointed out to them that that is a reason, before making some of the great proposals which they are making, to submit them to an election, they laughed the idea to scorn. I say, therefore, that by postponing this for another Session, if it ever comes, the Government are practically telling us that they have no intention of seriously carrying out that proposal. The Bill on which they went to the country and won the election contains just as definitely the determination to deal with this subject as to deal with the relations between the two Houses. They won votes from men who do not believe in Single-Chamber government by holding out the belief that there would not be Single-Chamber government, and now they are attempting to carry through their proposals, which, if there ever is to be a Second Chamber, should be applied to them, without carrying out the pledge which they gave at the election.
We have had experience of one Session—and I think it is enough—of the Parliament Act. I do not believe there is any Member of this House, in whatever quarter he sits, who is satisfied with the result of that experience. It has not only destroyed absolutely the Second Chamber—of course, that was intended—but it has done something more. It has, for the time being, just as effectively destroyed the House of Commons as the House of Lords. The whole of our business last Session was carried on under conditions of stress such as are impossible to human
30
endurance, and under conditions which, at the time the Parliament Bill was going through, the Prime Minister told us explicitly the Government would not adopt in connection with that measure. Practically the whole of our business was done under the guillotine, and everyone knows that once the guillotine is set up, interest in debate largely dies away, and it is not too much to say that during last Session there has been less interest in Debates in this House, and less interest taken in the House of Commons outside, than has ever been the experience of any man who is sitting here. The result of the Parliament Act has been to concentrate all power absolutely in the hands of one despotic body—the Cabinet of the day. They are not only the Executive Government, but they are the legislative body as well, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address was perfectly justified when he said he would like still further to see debate curtailed. Why not? Why have any debate when the whole principle on which business was carried out last Session was that the Cabinet would make up their mind and decide on the legislation, and that we were to register their decrees whatever they might be?
That has been the result of the Parliament Act in its first Session. What is it going to be in the second? It is quite possible—I think more than probable—that the Government will keep together their majority in this House in order to carry these Bills through the House of Commons a second time. I think that is more than probable. But what has happened? The Parliament Act, as we all know, was adopted for one purpose only—to carry Home Rule—and as soon as that is out of the way the Government, I dare-say, will begin considering reform of the Second Chamber. It was carried with that object alone. How is Home Rule going to be carried? I have no doubt there will be an Amendment on this subject to the Address when we can go into it more in detail, but I would remind the House of this now, that all the time that we have been debating, with little interest in this House and no interest, outside it, the question of Home Rule—while all that was a sham, something real was happening elsewhere. The opposition to this Bill, as everyone who has any knowledge of the facts knows, is steadily hardening in the North-East of Ireland, and not merely is the opposition to it hardening, but the

31
determination to resist it and the organisation of the means by which it will be resisted. That is a fact. What are the Government going to do? They are attempting to do something which certainly was never attempted in any country by any Government in the world. In the name of self-government, above all things, they are going to force upon a great homogeneous community local autonomy by the sword, for it can be enforced in no other way. Is that possible? And they are going to try to force it when, as we believe, the majority of the people of this country are against them. I admit we have no proof of that, but we know that the Government are doing it without having obtained the sanction of the people of this country. Of that there is no doubt. I do not believe that the Government, will really go that length. If they do, they are drifting to a disaster the magnitude of which no one can exaggerate.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): There is one point on which I am glad to find myself—I hope I shall develop more than one—in hearty agreement with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and that is in the graceful, but I think, not exaggerated tribute which he paid to the admirable manner in which my two hon. Friends behind me discharged their peculiarly difficulty and responsible duty. The Mover of the Address showed not only discretion in his selection of topics, but singular felicity in the manner in which he handled them, and my hon. Friend the Seconder did not need the apology which he made for himself on the ground that he was the youngest Member upon this side of the House. He has in him more than one strain of old Parliamentary blood, and he showed himself, as we shall all agree, worthy to maintain and continue the traditions which he has been fortunate enough to inherit. Nothing could have been better than the manner in which my two hon. Friends referred to the topic which comes in the forefront of the Gracious Speech from the Throne and which strikes a note which will find an echo, not only within the walls of Parliament but throughout the length and breadth of the country. The function of Royalty in these days, in constitutional countries such as ours, is a singularly onerous one. As we shall all agree, it has never been discharged with more perfect constitutional propriety or in a manner which has endeared the occupants of the
32
Throne more closely to the hearts and affections of the great mass of the people than by our beloved Queen Alexandra. Some of us—and I am one of them—are old enough to remember the day fifty years ago when Her marriage to the late King Edward took place. One of the most vivid reminiscences of my boyhood, not in London, but a more remote part of the country, is the universal expectations and hopes which were entertained by all classes of the people as to the results of the union which opened under such auspicious circumstances. These expectations have been more than realised during the last fifty years, and the House of Commons as the mouthpiece of the country tenders to Her Majesty to-day its most respectful homage and affection.
The right hon. Gentleman referred in language and in a tone of which I can make no complaint to the references in the Speech to foreign affairs, and in particular to the problems which have arisen from the war in the near East, and he invited me, as he was well entitled to do, to speak with a little more explicitness than is possible in the more or less formal phraseology of the Speech from the Throne as to the past course and the present condition of our dealings with these affairs. The House will understand that even now I am obliged to use, to a certain extent, language of reserve, but so far as it is possible to do so, consistently with the great interests which are still more or less hanging in the balance, I will speak with the utmost candour and freedom. So far as the Great Powers are concerned, when the war broke out they found themselves compelled to deal with it as it affected the system, the creation and maintenance of which they were all parties to—the European system founded by the Treaty of Berlin, and except in so far as the war affects that system the Great Powers as such were not directly interested in it. But the deliberations which have been going on between the Ambassadors here in London, under the Presidency of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, have been mainly, if not, I believe, exclusively, directed to these considerations. I am glad to say that as the result of these deliberations, though they have not yet reached their final stage, is, that an agreement has been reached in regard to two vitally important points. The first is as regards the Adriatic littoral and the Servian economic

33
access to it by an international railway. That may now be regarded as a settled matter.
The next matter is—and this has proved in practice to be a more thorny question—as regards not the principle, but the delimitation of the boundaries of an autonomous Albania under European guarantee. In principle I am glad to say the Powers are unanimous in accepting that autonomous Albania so guaranteed. As regards the Western boundary, which is the Adriatic littoral, of course no difficulty arises, but as regards the Northern, Eastern and Southern frontiers of the new autonomous Albania, discussions have made it clear that agreement on only one or two more points, and those not the most vital, is required in order to secure the complete concord of the Great Powers. It is true that agreement on the points that have been settled is necessarily and properly conditional on agreement on the whole, but it is substantially true that the points which still remain are few, and in our view, and, I believe, in the view of the Great Powers, cannot be regarded as in any way vital. Therefore, I think the House will agree with me that considerable success has attended the method of joint deliberation. I now turn to another aspect of the matter which affects the belligerents themselves. Turkey has agreed to accept the mediation of the six Powers, and we are at present waiting to hear, and I earnestly trust and hope we may receive, a favourable answer from the Allies whether they are prepared to do the same. A further matter which arose in an acute form at a comparatively late stage in the recent negotiations was the relative position and claims of Roumania and Bulgaria, and I am happy to say that there also both of these States are in process of availing themselves of the mediation of the Great Powers to overcome the differences between them.
Our own part, the part of Great Britain, in all these matters, from the beginning up to the present moment, has been, and will continue to be to the end, to work for peace and agreement. The diplomatic grouping of the Powers has remained unaltered. Neither with France nor Russia are our relations less cordial or intimate than they were before. We retain, and intend to retain, these friendships. The change that has taken place, so far as there has been a change, is this: While each group, if I may use the phrase, remains unimpaired in relation to
34
its own members, the relations between the groups themselves have become increasingly cordial. Those Powers whose interests—and I include ourselves among them—are less directly affected by changes in the Near East have co-operated earnestly to find a path of agreement for all. That has been the outstanding feature, and it is a very agreeable one, in recent diplomatic history. In this matter we have worked with a single-minded desire with Germany. That co-operation has not only made the course of diplomacy, if I may use the expression, more pleasant, but it has, we trust and believe, inspired a mutual confidence which will continue between the two great nations. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, all this has been greatly faciliated by the meetings of the Ambassadors in London, and I perhaps may be allowed to join in the tribute paid by one of my hon. Friends, which I am sure would not be dissented from by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to the extraordinary, I might almost say unexampled, patience, resolution, determination, and sagacity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We have regarded these meetings of the Ambassadors in London as a mark of confidence on the part of the other Governments, and we have endeavoured to respond to the best of our power to the responsible trust placed in us. That confidence has been amply justified by the loyal and conciliatory spirit shown by the distinguished representatives of those Great Powers in all the matters with which they have had to deal. I think that is as much as I can properly say at this moment with regard to our foreign policy.
As regards Tripoli, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, suggested that we should produce Papers. Perhaps he will allow me to give a little further consideration to that matter before I make a definite answer. In regard to Persia, there was, as the House may remember, a short Debate some few weeks ago, and in regard to that question another Blue Book will be presented in the course of the next few weeks, which will show the present aspect of matters there. For the moment, in view of the situation in Southern Persia, I would rather not say more than that the Government are fully alive to the many difficulties of the questions which present themselves in this quarter. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a paragraph in the Speech in which His Majesty hails the

35
co-operation of our Great Dominions in the work of common Imperial Defence, and I entirely agree with him that, whatever we may think as outsiders of the increase of armaments which has taken place, and is taking place, in the other countries of the world, yet from our own Imperial point of view there can be no doubt that it has had, I will not say a compensating effect, but has tended to weld together and consolidate the feeling in all parts of the Empire that we must act together as one united body for the preservation of those interests in which not only the Mother-country but all the outlying parts of the Empire are equally concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman, I will not say complained, but referred to the fact that no mention was made in the Gracious Speech as to what we were doing, or intended to do, ourselves. It would, I think, be entirely contrary to precedent for any such statement to be made in that particular manner, but when my two right hon. Friends come, as they will in the course of a few days, to present the Army and Navy Estimates for the consideration of the House for the coming year, the House will receive the fullest and most explicit information on that subject as to the intentions and plans of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the time to be given to the consideration of these Estimates. It will be necessary, I am afraid, in order to comply with the law to follow the precedents set up on previous occasions—the last occasion, I think, was in the last Session of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member in 1905–and by Resolution to expedite the proceedings so that the necessary Votes may be taken, and the Consolidated Fund Bill passed before the expiration of the financial year; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House if it is necessary in order to comply with the law to seem to hurry these really preliminary stages of the discussion, that will not be at the expense of the time which the House will reasonably require, and will be given afterwards, for the discussion of the proposals of the Government in all necessary details.
The right hon. Gentleman fell foul of what I would have thought the most innocent passage that possibly could have been put into the Speech, because it is the mere enunciation of a platitude in the Gracious
36
Speech to the effect that the Estimates, whatever their size, may be the more acceptable because the country was enjoying practically in all classes and trades a period of very unusual prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman saw the cloven hoof in the passage, and he seems to think that a challenge is thrown out to those who question the wisdom and appropriateness of our existing fiscal system. I do not know, I am sure, at this moment what precise fiscal system it is proposed to substitute for that which at present prevails. I look for my latest information on the subject to the newspapers to-day. I find that a by-election is taking place. By-elections have their use as indications of public opinion, and they are often misinterpreted. I find that a by-election is going on in Westmorland, and that the selected candidate of the party opposite has declared himself a strong Free Trader and in favour of the maintenance of this fiscal system from which we are supposed to be suffering, and also I think he is in favour of the Insurance Act [HON. MEMBERS: "And Home Rule."] He seems to be a gentleman of broad mind because he is also in favour of a settlement of Home Rule by agreement. I really think in those circumstances I may be excused at this moment, at any rate until some Amendment is taken which states in explicit and definite terms what is the rival fiscal system, the alternative fiscal policy which is to be commended to the country by the united authority of the Opposition, from making any further reference to this portion of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I will, however, take note in passing that I listened with some astonishment to one remark—a remark with which I entirely agree, for I have been making it myself for the last ten years—namely, that you ought to judge of the prosperity of the country and the real position of its trade by looking at its home production, looking to the home market and not merely to its foreign market, because I do remember a time, though memories are very short of course in these days, when the most distinguished representative of the only alternative fiscal policy with which I am acquainted declared that exports were the real test, and that by the growth or diminution of exports you were to judge whether or not your trade was in a progressive or a stagnant condition. That is, at any rate, one of the theories which we now find repudiated on authority.

37
I now come to the right hon. Gentleman's remark on the programme of legislation, the very modest one which is outlined in the Speech from the Throne. He did not refer to the statement which was there made of the grounds for asking Parliament to undertake so comparatively light a task, for they are grounds which I believe commend themselves to the reason and judgment of the vast majority of the House of Commons in whatever quarter they sit, namely, that after the arduous labours of the Session, prolonged to something like thirteen months, we really could not with any due regard, I will not say to the convenience of Members of the House of Commons, but to the best interests of the public service, offer a programme of legislation to Parliament which would involve the strenuous labours of another autumn Session. And if there are things omitted, as I believe there are, from the programme of legislation outlined in the speech, to which the Government attach the greatest importance, it is for that reason, and no other, that the omission has taken place. I will deal with it very rapidly. Let me say, first, that I do not think it would be convenient, and in accordance with precedent, to make this the occasion for, even in the most general language, indicating what are going to be the provisions of the various Bills which are promised in the Speech, such as the Irish Land Purchase Bill or even the Bill for guaranteeing a loan for the Soudan, though I may say in regard to that that the maximum amount which it is proposed you will be asked to guarantee is £3,000,000. Of course, it is not proposed that these £3,000,000 will be advanced immediately, but only by instalments when required, and I do not believe that this is a guarantee that will throw any real liability of any sort or kind upon the English taxpayer, because I believe that the resources of the Soudan and the prospects of this particular development afford ample security for the repayment of the loan.
With regard to Plural Voting, the right hon. Gentleman asked us why select plural voting and plural voting alone among the various electoral anomalies which exist, particularly during the present year, and he referred to a statement of mine to which I entirely adhere, that redistribution is a matter of equal importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Greater."] Did I say greater? Let it be which you please; I do not mind.
38
Redistribution, however, is a very complex and difficult matter, and a matter which I hope will be settled by general agreement, and it is a matter which has been simplified to some extent, at any rate, or it will be simplified, if the Irish Government Bill passes. One of the great obstacles to redistribution which have hitherto stood in the path of a fair and equitable system of redistribution has been the problem presented by Ireland. That was the only passage of his speech in which the right hon. Gentleman departed from the spirit of urbanity which I am glad to recognise if I do not always experience it. He suggested, as a plausible explanation of the course taken by the Government, that we were acting from party motives; that plural voting would take from the owners of property, whereas redistribution simply would not. There I entirely differ from him. Regarding the thing from the point of view of party interest and party expediency, I do not believe that any body of men suffers so much as we do from the present system of distribution of seats. I see no reason myself why we should not be able eventually before this Parliament is over to come to a settlement by general agreement.
I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the language which he used in reference to education. He is quite welcome to indulge in his fancy picture of an imaginary conflict between my two right hon. Friends who hold different Chancellorships in the Government, and to draw the conclusions which he has drawn, that while temporary victory may go to one, the permanent victory may possibly go to the other. I know nothing of that. All I know is—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) beside me will agree with me—that nobody is more heartily in sympathy than he with the proposals in regard to education. Then came the sting of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He asked us why we have omitted certain things from our programme. With regard to labour, he quoted an assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I well remember and to which I entirely subscribe. But surely he must know that legislation to be successful, prudently framed, and likely to attain its result, having regard to these delicate matters, requires infinite care and deliberation. [Laughter.] I do not know why that should be a matter for laughter. The right hon. Gentleman may have some specific in his pocket which he is capable

39
of producing. If he will do so, no one will be more grateful than His Majesty's Government. We did as we said we should do. We sent one of our ablest permanent officials—Sir George Askwith—to Canada. He made a most exhaustive examination and very valuable report upon the operation of the Act which is in operation in that Dominion. The result is both negative and positive; but further investigations of the same kind have to be made and continued, and nothing can be more prejudicial to the right settlement of these delicate and difficult problems than premature and half-thought-out proposals in matters so vitally affecting all the best interests of the country, and it is for that reason, and not because we do not regard these matters as urgent and important, that we are not prepared at this moment to submit legislative proposals.
I now come to what the right hon. Gentleman regards as the most formidable indictment. He asks, What becomes of the Preamble to the Parliament Act? Why are there no proposals of the kind in the King's Speech? And if they are not found in the King's Speech this year, is it not the clearest evidence of the fact that none are really intended at all? I wonder how many people who talk about the Preamble to the Parliament Act have ever read it? I am going to read it to the House, and I do not think that there is anything in our Statute Book which is so badly remembered and so little understood, although it is an Act which is perfectly plain. It reads:—
"Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament."
That is what the Parliament Act did.
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation, and whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the power of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords."
And then the enactment follows. It is understood by everybody at the time when
40
the Act was passed and at the General Election which preceded the passing of it, that the building up of a new Second Chamber is a very desirable thing and will take time.
Viscount HELMSLEY: A twin Bill.
6.0 P.M.
The PRIME MINISTER: Whoever talked about a twin Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Loreburn."] It is quite evident that twins are generally supposed to be people who are born at or about the same time, and Lord Loreburn is too good a physiologist and too good a lawyer to have suggested that such a Bill could be a twin Bill in the literal acceptation of the term, because this Preamble clearly indicates that it is providing for a state of things which is to intervene between the erection of a new Second Chamber and a definition of the relations of that new Second Chamber to the other, and yet apparently, according to the conception of the right hon. Gentleman and a large number of his followers opposite, we were never to use the Parliament Act at all; we were to proceed at once to the reconstruction of the Second Chamber, and therefore the whole time spent on the elaboration of this measure and the whole of the General Election at which it was submitted to the people of this country were to be absolutely thrown away. A more grotesque proposition I have never heard. The Parliament Act was approved by the people because it was intended to be used, and it was intended to be used, as everybody knows, and as no one was more careful to point out than the right hon. Gentleman himself, exactly in the way in which it has been used. I say that, of course, as an historical fact, but, at the same time, I fully recognise the urgency and importance of carrying out the intention expressed in this Preamble.
Earl WINTERTON: Oh!
The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord might express his scepticism more courteously. We recognise the importance of carrying out the intention in the most careful way. Not only are we under a distinct obligation to fulfil this intention, but we have the strongest possible interest in doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does anybody think it is to our interest as a Parliamentary party to postpone the reconstitution of the Second Chamber? Look at what is happening in the House of Lords. I do not want to develop this in

41
a controversial spirit at all; but contrast what happened in 1912 with what happened exactly ten years before, in 1902. I want you to realise how vitally important it is to us that this promise contained in the Preamble should be fulfilled effectively and without avoidable delay. In 1902 an Education Bill was introduced into this House which had never been submitted to the electors. The electors never anticipated an education measure of so revolutionary a character, destroying the school boards, quartering the denominational schools upon the rates, upsetting our educational system from top to bottom, as was introduced and carried through this House. It was a revolutionary Education Bill which had never been submitted to, and never approved by, the people. What did the House of Lords do? It passed it. It not only gave it a Second Reading, but passed it without substantial amendment, except I think one, which made it more reactionary than it was when it left the floor of this House. Then what happened in 1912–what has happened to the Irish Government Bill? The right hon. Gentleman has constantly told us that we concealed from the electorate our intention to introduce a Home Rule Bill. He told us this afternoon, in a moment of candour and of plain speaking, that the sole object of the Parliament Act was to get the Home Rule Bill for Ireland through. That certainly was one of the objects of the Parliament Act and it was made perfectly clear to the electorate.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no.
The PRIME MINISTER: It was not the right hon. Gentleman's fault if it was not. The Home Rule Bill went to the House of Lords, and no one will dispute at any rate that the subject was before the country for a great many years, unlike the Education Bill of 1902, and, then, when it went to the House of Lords, they refused it even a Second Reading. They did not propose Amendments, and they did not suggest alterations; they did not try to make it a more palatable measure to Ulster or to other interests concerned. They rejected it sans phrase, and yet it is supposed that we are interested in opposing the reconstruction of the House of Lords and the substitution for it of a Second Chamber which shall not be the partisan of a particular political interest, but which shall apply something like judicial consideration to measures brought before it. There is no party in this country which has a
42
stronger and more direct interest in the fulfilment of the intentions embodied in the Preamble of the Parliament Act than we have. I am sorry to have been betrayed so far, on the first night of the Session, into a controversial matter, but, with that exception, I acknowledge very gladly and very frankly the reasonable criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I can assure him we shall endeavour without any avoidable delay, both in regard to the Estimates and also with regard to the progress of legislation, to take the House of Commons into our fullest confidence.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman made reference to foreign affairs, and there is one aspect of them, of not so controversial a character as others, on which I should like to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are generally believed—I speak with the utmost diffidence in regard to allegations which may not be well founded—to have entered into an arrangement, or to speak more accurately, to have given assurances, which in the contingency of a great European war would involve heavy military obligations on this country. We do not suspect the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary of pursuing anything but a pacific foreign policy, and we are far from saying that their policy is in any way an aggressive one; but certainly we believe, if the stories current are true, the policy, if it is not to be regarded as an aggressive one, is adventurous.
The PRIME MINISTER: Will the Noble Lord define a little more definitely what he means?
Lord HUGH CECIL: I am only anxious not to use words which will convey anything but perfectly fair criticism in a matter of this sort, and any ambiguity in what I have said is due to the fact that I do not wish to go beyond the necessities of the case.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not complain.
Lord HUGH CECIL: There is a very general belief that this country is under an obligation, not a treaty obligation, but an obligation arising out of an assurance given by the Ministry in the course of diplomatic negotiations, to send a very large armed force out of this country to operate in Europe. That is the general

43
belief. It would be very presumptuous of anyone who has not access to all the facts in the possession of the Government—
The PRIME MINISTER: I ought to say that it is not true.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I am very glad to have elicited that explanation. It is certainly widely believed that the Government have engaged in a military policy of an adventurous kind, and I certainly think, if that is right, that it would involve very important considerations when you come to consider what are the military resources of this country. We shall have a debate on that point. It is impossible, as the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was fond of emphasising, to judge of the military policy of this or any country, unless you enter into the understandings or obligations involved by its foreign policy. It is quite impossible for this House fully to criticise the military policy of the Government unless they know, at any rate, what it is the Government expect the Army to do. It certainly would follow that if you were prepared, as no recent Government has attempted to be prepared, to take an important military part in the early stages of a great European war upon the Continent, the military preparations of other Governments, and of this Government in the earlier years of its tenure of office, were not sufficient. Let me add that I am not indicating or hinting that we ought to have compulsory military service. There is no one who dislikes compulsory military service in any shape or form more than I do, and I should never be convinced in its favour by any argument excepting that which showed it to be urgently necessary for the protection of the country. It is a matter for very grave consideration, if we are getting into a position in which obligations become binding upon us, whether the voluntary system will ultimately bear the strain. I do not believe any Government will adopt a compulsory military service unless the case is strong enough to be brought about by general consent. But what we have to be afraid of is that we will get into such a position that the military obligations of this country may become so heavy that the voluntary system may break down. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for War may be able to co-ordinate the foreign policy and the military policy in order to show how the military policy and
44
foreign policy fit together—how far the military resources of the country are really sufficient to carry out the obligations thrown upon those resources by the foreign policy of the Government. I think that is a matter of very great importance. The rest of the Prime Minister's speech was in part necessarily controversial, and upon that I may be permitted to say one word. He loudly claimed, I think three times over, in his speech that no assurances had been given by the Government which they did not propose in the future to carry. I sometimes think that years hence the Prime Minister will retire from office still adhering to assurances which still remain to be carried out.
The PRIME MINISTER: Which of them?
Lord HUGH CECIL: All those three mentioned at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It is not only in respect of the Parliament Act that the position is regrettable. We are to have a Plural Voting Bill. We were told last Session that it would not be possible for the Government to again introduce a franchise proposal, or again to allow the House to incorporate an Amendment dealing with Women Suffrage into that measure. Since we last discussed that matter the question of Women Suffrage has been greatly discussed in the country, and people are profoundly dissatisfied that no alternative is now offered.
The PRIME MINISTERmade an observation which was inaudible.
Lord HUGH CECIL: It was uttered, if not by the right hon. Gentleman, by several of his leading colleagues, and was the pledge of the whole Government, though those to whom the pledge was given are not satisfied. I do not think the Government ought ever to have given that pledge; I do not think it is a pledge which it was desirable that a Government, deeply divided on Women Suffrage, should give. But they did give it, and, whether a desirable pledge or not, it is a pledge certainly carrying with it a great obligation on them, a great obligation of honour. Observe how they are going to deal with the franchise question, as to which they have two obligations. They have an obligation of interest for dealing with plural voting, and they have an obligation of honour of including in the Franchise Bill the opportunity for putting in Women Suffrage. They propose fully to meet the obligation

45
of interest, and they propose to deal with the obligation of honour by a composition. I think that is unfortunate, and particularly unfortunate in a Government which has dealt with other assurances as the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with other assurances by which the Parliament Act was passed. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Preamble and read it out to us, but he did not tell us that when he was supporting the Parliament Bill he said that the reform of the Second Chamber was an obligation of honour the meeting of which did not brook delay, but it has brooked delay. Observe how many Bills are now before it—
The PRIME MINISTER: I said in the same speech, if not in the same sentence, in the present Parliament.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Yes, but the present Parliament is now growing old. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Its absolute limit of time is five years, and it has now entered into its third year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only half way."] No Parliament in modern times and no Parliament for hundreds of years has reached its full effluxion of time. This Parliament is now middle-aged, and when one reaches middle age one is often cut off by sudden illness. In the midst of life we are in death, and no Parliament, any more than any individual, can be sure how long its life will last. Observe how many Bills have been put in front of this obligation of honour which did not brook delay. There is not only the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, in respect of which the Government were probably acting under pressure which was not to be resisted, but when not under duress, and when they were perfectly free, they passed the Insurance Act, and in that time they might easily have passed a Bill reforming the Second Chamber. They are now going to pass a Plural Voting and an Education Bill, and they could easily pass a Bill reforming the Second Chamber in the time occupied by those Bills. So that even apart from Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment, this obligation of honour, which did not brook delay, ranks, as I reckon, sixth, at least sixth, and probably much lower than sixth. I will only make one comment as to that. I observe that the people who praise the Government generally and the Prime Minister, refer to their scrupulous fulfilment of their pledges. That seems to me to be infelicitous. Everyone has his strong points and his weak points. There
46
have been eminent leaders who have not been, as the Prime Minister is, very brilliant Parliamentary speakers. There was Sir Stafford Northcote and the late Mr. W. H. Smith, who made no representations to oratory, but whose grounds of confidence were founded on straightforward public character. If I were undertaking to sing the praises of the Prime Minister I should speak a great deal about his brilliant public speaking, but very little about his elevated sense of political honour. I think, therefore, that it is a pity that these cases should go so far, one on the top of the other, to depreciate the value of Ministerial assurances. Ministerial assurances are part of Parliamentary currency. If they go down in value the whole system of Parliament begins to be affected very much as if currency in depreciated trade gets out of order.
The right hon. Gentleman has commented severely on the supposed hesitations of the Unionist party. I believe those hesitations exist only in the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. We are, I believe, perfectly united in the struggle we are making against the Administration and its proposals; we are also profoundly convinced that if we could get the popular verdict on either of the two Bills which the House of Lords rejected last Session, we should certainly win on that popular verdict. But the true answer to the right hon. Gentleman and his elaborate sophistications on the subject of Home Rule being before the country at the last election, is this: That he could pass Home Rule to-morrow if he would consent to refer it to the people, and if he would add a single Clause referring it to the people before it became an Act. With that Clause it would pass through both Houses. Precisely because the Government and the Nationalist Members think the popular verdict would be hostile, they would not have that Clause. That is the true accusation against the Government. Whatever language was used by hon. Members or right hon. Members on this side in criticism on the subject of Home Rule at the last election, the plain fact is that the Government dare not submit Home Rule to the arbitration of the people. If they did so dare to do, it would be far the shortest way out of the difficulty, and they need never have gone through the struggle on the Parliament Act, and they could have passed that Bill by consent if they had been prepared to submit the Bill

47
to the people. That is the answer to all these statements as to whether the Bill was or was not before the people at the last General Election. It was not, and the Government know as well as the Opposition that they would not consent to it now. We, at any rate, have a very plain duty to perform. We resist Home Rule to the utmost, both because it is unfair to the minority to be handed over to their enemies and because it creates two nations within the area of the United Kingdom. That last is, I believe, the most serious danger of the two, and one which, in process of time, if Home Rule ever were to pass, would be found to be fraught with danger and weakness to this country. Other countries have tampered with the question of nationality and have endeavoured to unite in a single political unit separate national organisms. If we cannot unite in a single nationality, the least weakness is to be found in total separation. We are persuaded that England and Ireland, under the Legislative Union, were welding into one whole, and their history shows that they were growing closer and closer. That good work has been interfered with, though we do not believe it to be destroyed, and all the resources the remaining powers of Parliament can give, and all the resources of opposition in this country and in Ulster, will be well used to prevent this Bill passing into law. We shall not think, as hon. Members opposite fondly hope, of any proposals of compromise or of settlement. Our attitude is still that the Legislative Union is the foundation of the greatness of this country, and by that Union we shall adhere to the end.
Mr. JAMES PARKER: With regard to what the Noble Lord has said about Home Rule and the electors of this country, I think the electorate are tired of hearing the question discussed, and if that question could be put before the electors I have not the slightest doubt as to what the country would do. It is almost impossible, however, to put Home Rule before the electorate in the sense of the proposals of any particular Bill, hon. Gentlemen manage so to confuse the issues. With regard to the Speech from the Throne, it is important rather for what is not included in it than for what is included in it, and so far I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I must also admit, in fairness, that there is not a Member of any party in
48
this House or any permanent official in any of the Departments but feels that to have twelve-month Sessions year by year is almost beyond the physical endurance, at any rate of those Members of the House who really work at their own business. Therefore, I think we may as well be candid with ourselves and with the country in regard to this matter, and I think possibly it is to the advantage of future legislation that there should be a short Session on this occasion. I do not intend to speak on the question of foreign policy at all. I claim to know very little about that subject, and I fancy very often that many of the people who do talk about it in this House are in a very similar position. At any rate, I will have the common sense to leave it alone. As to the second point raised in the Speech, I do hold certain views with regard to the question embodied in that Clause of the Speech which deals with the defence of the Empire. It has been said here this afternoon, in the course of the Debate, that the dangers to which the Empire has been subjected have brought the constituent parts of the Empire together in a way that nothing has ever done before. I cannot help feeling that one would wish it was something else that brought the constituent parts of the Empire together rather than the continued desire to increase armaments. I do not think, for instance, that the Malay States is such a very rich nation that the people there can afford, without terrible sacrifices, so far as the poor people of that country are concerned, to present battleships to this Empire. I do not claim to know of the matter at first hand, but were I a resident in that particular country I have no doubt I should know of an enormous amount of poverty pressing on people in the way in which we are familiar in this country, and poverty of a kind that needs the attention of the Government there rather than the spending of their money on battleships to assist in the defence of the Empire.
I wish to say one word very carefully with regard to the Canadian proposals. I feel that there is something more embodied in those proposals than the more taking of a share in the defence of the Empire. If I understand them aright, they go almost to the root of the control by this House of expenditure upon Imperial Defence. There is embodied in those proposals a certain suggestion which, if carried out on the lines put forward by the Press of this country, means

49
that a Committee outside this House and not in any way concerned with the speeches that may be made or with the votes that may be cast here, will have a determining voice in the foreign policy of this country, and this House will so far lose the power which it now possesses of bringing Ministers to book with regard to the various proposals put forward. Therefore, if we are to have battleships given or provided for by different portions of the Empire, I would prefer—I speak only for myself in this matter—that it should be on the Australian and New Zealand lines rather than by the method suggested by Canada. Passing to matters within our own country, I notice that the Speech refers to the sustained prosperity reflected in the statistics of the trade of the nation. I agree as to the sustained prosperity if it is to be judged by the tremendous increase in imports and exports, or by the tremendous increase in the income of the nation as a whole. But that prosperity has not been shared in by the class to which I belong, and which is the first interest that I represent in this House. It has been stated, and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in this matter, that for the ten years preceding the last two years there has been comparatively no increase in the wages of the workers, although there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living; and even the increases which have been obtained during the last few years are by no means commensurate with the increased prosperity which the country has been enjoying.
I submit that there is nothing in this Speech which goes down to the root of that question in any shape or form. The Speech does not in any way touch those problems which are vital to the prosperity of the working classes of the country and which we as a party are anxious should be dealt with. I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who drew attention to the fact that a promise was made on the part of the Government some time ago that there should be brought forward this year legislation dealing with the great amount of labour unrest in the country. There is one very good way of reducing that unrest without any legislation at all, and that is for those who are obtaining the chief advantage of the tremendous increase of wealth to distribute it more evenly amongst those in our own country by whose labour it is created. With regard to the proposal for granting or guaranteeing a loan to the Egyptian Government for the growing of cotton. I person-
50
ally would rather vote for such a loan than for the granting of money for the building of battleships or the increase of armaments. I do not think that any Member on these benches will oppose that loan, because we believe that anything which goes to increase the productivity of any part of the Empire and is to the advantage of one of the largest industries of the nation is all to the good. But some of us would carry the principle much further. We believe that the Government might do a great deal to promote the productivity of land in the United Kingdom itself. We think, for instance, that money would be most effectively spent in this country on bringing into cultivation land which is now out of cultivation, some of it land which previously was cultivated and some of it which possibly has never been cultivated. We believe that that would be a real economic reform which the Government might wisely carry out.
Another proposal in the King's Speech has reference to the care and control of the feeble-minded. Here, again, I submit the House is dealing with a terrible effect which it sees to exist throughout the land, but is closing its eyes to the causes of that effect. It may be necessary for us immediately to pass legislation dealing with this problem; but when is this House going to set itself to consider the causes? Have Members ever thought that poverty, low wages, bad housing, and the terrible stress of modern life have something to do with feeble-minded children being brought into the world? Is the House prepared to consider these causes and to face them, as well as to bring forward remedial measures for the care and control of the feeble-minded after they have been created? These are just a few momentary criticisms of the legislative proposals in the King's Speech. Speaking for myself, I say candidly that I am glad we are not to have a long Session. But I believe that even in this short Session, given willingness on the part of the House, it would be possible to bring forward legislation that would materially improve the general condition of the people; and, though the Government have not included it in the Speech from the Throne, I trust that my hon. Friends will divide the House upon a carefully drafted Amendment putting forward proposals which we believe would go to the root of things, succeed ultimately in making a better distribution of the wealth created by labour, and bring about a real social reform for the people as a whole.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I am grateful to the Government, and especially to the Prime Minister, for making good in the Speech from the Throne, the promise made on the occasion of an Amendment of mine to the Government of Ireland Bill, that they would introduce this Session a Bill for the completion of Land Purchase in Ireland. I sincerely hope that that Bill will realise the remarkable assurance in the King's Speech, that it will secure the completion of Land Purchase in Ireland, and that we shall not be landed again in the series of blunders and mischances which led to the practical repeal of the Act of 1903. I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not respond sufficiently to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition to tell us whether there is any truth in the rumours that the contemplated measure will be a mere subsidiary departmental arrangement, concerned chiefly or solely with the Treasury rate of interest or with the value of the stock. If those rumours are correct I am afraid that the Government are preparing for themselves a considerable degree of disappointment in Ireland. The party behind me have led their followers to believe that no measure of Land Purchase which is not compulsory as against the landlords can be satisfactory. Unquestionably the great mass of Irish farmers have got it into their heads that there is some extraordinary virtue in the blessed word "compulsion" as applied to landlords, and if there be no compulsion widespread will be the disappointment and reaction. I see that a revolt has already commenced in one portion of the country. I do not at all share that view of compulsion. Compulsion, of course, there must be before Land Purchase can be completed; but I venture to say that in the first instance at all events the compulsion must be upon the Treasury to carry out the solemn treaty that was entered into with Ireland in 1903. If the Act of that year had only been allowed to go ahead unchecked I believe there are hardly any landlords in the whole country, except one or two lunatics like Lord Clanricarde, who would not by this time have closed with the terms offered them by their tenants if they could have had some guarantee that they would get the price of their property from the Treasury. The President of the Board of Agriculture admitted in this House that it was in order to save the Treasury that the finance of the Act of 1903 was repealed. It may have saved
52
the Treasury some petty sum, but it has killed Land Purchase over half the country for the past five years, and also made a very unpleasant addition to the long list of broken treaties with which history has to reproach England in her dealings with Ireland. I hope there will be no repetition of that shabby policy of penny wisdom and pound foolishness.
I wish also that the Prime Minister had been able to give us some assurance that before finally framing their Bill the Government would in some manner consult the two parties principally concerned. All the world now admits and nobody knows better than the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture that the extraordinary success of the Act of 1903 was the result of an agreement between landlords and tenants, and could never have been secured otherwise. There is no real reason why a similar agreement should not be arrived at under present circumstances, if certain of our Friends from Ireland can only clear themselves from that extraordinary antipathy to anything bearing the name of a conference. So far as I know up to the present—and this is a point on which I should like to have some information from the Government—the Government have done nothing whatever to bring about any such similar agreement. As my knowledge goes, they have taken nobody into consultation except their own political partisans. Apparently—I hope I will be contradicted—but apparently they are proceeding on the principle on which all Irish legislation for the past couple of years has been conducted, the principle of boycotting, of leaving absolutely out of consultation, more than one-quarter of the entire representation of Ireland—Nationalists as well as Unionists. That was what they did in 1909. The result was an Act which this House is now in this Session to be called upon to recast.
I earnestly hope that that fatal mistake will not be repeated. If it is, the result will most certainly be disappointment, failure, and abortiveness in Ireland. I do not, of course, for a moment expect that on an occasion of this kind, and at this stage, anything like a detailed statement of the nature of the Bill. But I do think that in a matter of such magnitude to Ireland we should at least be informed how soon we may expect that the Bill will be introduced. I would like to know also whether or not it is true that the Bill will be a mere Departmental arrangement, which would make it impossible for us to

53
discuss such vital questions as the question of future tenants, or town tenants, or of the provision of some compassionate allowance for those meritorious cases of evicted tenants which remain still undisposed of. When you remember that the present system, the present double and mutually destructive system of mixed rent fixing and of land puchase has cost you—or rather has cost us—over four hundred thousand pounds a year, I really would entreat the representatives of the Government, for heaven's sake, to make a clean sweep of the difficulty this time in the interests of genuine economy, as well as in the best interests of Ireland.
Another matter on which I should like to offer some observations—as this is perhaps the only opportunity one may immediately have for doing so—is this: I am glad to notice that the Speech from the Throne contains no mention of any intention to introduce an amending Insurance Bill for the purpose of bringing medical benefit into force into Ireland. I am sorry that none of the Members of the Cabinet have done us the honour to assist at this Debate, and I do not know whether or not the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture will be in a position to answer any Irish questions on behalf of the Government. If he is not, I think it somewhat of a scandal that we should commence the Session without anybody even to offer a reply on matters of so extremely great importance to Ireland—and perhaps of some importance to this House as well. I want to know whether the omission of this subject from the Speech from the Throne means that the Government have no intention of forcing legislation upon the subject this Session through the House of Commons. The reason the matter is so urgent is that there is a Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is at this moment actively at work in Ireland. It is a Committee which by its constitution is open to the gravest suspicion and distrust. I will not at this moment go into my reasons for saying so, beyond mentioning the fact that the majority of that Committee are directly, personally, and officially interested in insurance, and the other fact that the Committee does not contain a single M.P. or non-official representative from the whole of the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught.
There is another reason why it becomes urgent that we should know what the Government are about. This Committee has been attempting to hustle this question
54
through in what I do not hesitate to say is a most partisan spirit, making a rush for two days to Belfast, for two days to Dublin, and for a couple of hours on one day to Cork, in the meantime absolutely shutting out and refusing to hear the representatives of the county councils or any representatives from the agricultural community in Ireland. What I want to point out is that ever since a few weeks ago I suggested that the housing of the poorest of the poor in the Irish cities and towns would be far the best use, even from the health insurance point of view, of any Grant-in-Aid which would be the Irish equivalent of the £1,800,000 which we Irishmen, as well as you, provide for Great Britain—ever since that, time there has been a strong and a growing feeling all over Ireland that whatever Treasury Grant-in-Aid may be available, in the first instance, at all events, it would be far best applied through the Agricultural Labourers Act to the slums of the cities and towns of Ireland. Let me point out this further as a reason why there is no hurry whatever about any further insurance legislation to Ireland. We are confidently assured that we shall have an Irish Parliament sitting next year. If that Parliament is to have any power of dealing with anything, the problem of Poor Law reform will be the very first reform that will be tackled. I submit it would be a monstrous thing at this period from the sitting of an Irish Parliament to take that matter out of the hands of that Parliament by appropriating funds which alone can finance such a reform as that and applying them to bolstering up an Act which, apart from the cities and a few manufacturing towns, is, practically speaking, a dead letter in Ireland.
Recollect, we have not the slightest objection to medical benefit being extended to any particular approved society in Ireland which is ready to pay the additional 1½d. a week for the luxury. But we totally object to its being forced upon the people who do not want it. We object, above all, that the only fund that in our time, so far as I can see, that will make it possible to build labourers' cottages in the towns and villages of Ireland to be let for anything from 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week, being confiscated and the money appropriated to an Act which, outside the towns, three-fourths of Ireland objects to. It was precipitancy which led you to forcing this Act upon Ireland, and led the party who sit behind me into taking action which I

55
understand they are now very anxious to reverse. There can be no reason why anybody with any confidence in the future of Ireland should not, at all events, wait for twelve months, and see what that time and experience will tell us. I do hope we shall have some plain assurance from the Government that they have no intention of rushing or passing any legislation on the subject for Ireland this Session. If they have, undoubtedly there are some of us who will feel it our duty to resist it by every possible means, both within this House and outside. I trust we shall have some answer from the Treasury Bench to the representations we have made in these matters of very considerable importance to Ireland, and that there will be no repetition of the policy of either ignoring our questions or only answering in part.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. LEIF JONES: My purpose in rising is to touch upon one point which is mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, and one question which is not. The point which is in the Speech has reference to the Estimates, and I confess the matter fills me with some alarm. I notice, in the first place, that the time-honoured phrase about the Estimates being framed with due regard to economy seems to have permanently disappeared from the language of the Speech from the Throne. For myself, I think it is a very wise thing, even though in practice it was somewhat departed from, that economy should at least be promised in the Estimates presented to the House. I would suggest that in future years we might revert to the old form. If the omission in the words referring to economy troubles me, still more ominous are the words that follow. For not only is not anything said about economy in the framing of the Estimates, but following words point out that the nation is very rich. These two sentences taken together make me fear that the Estimates when we do see them will be very disappointing to those of use who came into this House pledged to economy, and with a desire, if possible, to reduce the Estimates presented. As it is not possible to go into details on that point to-day we must wait until we see the Estimates. But I am bound to say the phrases in His Majesty's Gracious Speech do suggest that there will be real work for economists in the Session before us. The point which is not in the King's Speech is a point of legislation which I think a good many people in this country did hope
56
to see in the legislative programme for this Session. Though I recognise what has been said by almost every speaker in this Debate of the difficulty of a long and protracted Session after the thirteen months through which we have just gone, it is impossible for me not to give expression to the disappointment which I feel, and which will be felt by a very large number of people in this country, that there is no reference in the Speech to a measure of temperance reform for England and Wales. I am not criticising the items of legislation which are included in the King's Speech. I recognise the value of the claims of Irish land purchase, and I recognise that the other measures referred to are measures of importance, and as such they will have my support, but I cannot but regret that the important social reform which was dealt with by the Licensing Bill of 1908 finds no place in the programme of this Session. The Government have all along pledged themselves to this reform. They have fully recognised the importance and the urgency of dealing with the question. When they came into power in 1906 they came into power pledged to undo and reverse the Licensing Act of 1904. The Prime Minister to-day referred to the Education Act of 1902, which, he said, was an educational revolution carried through without authority from the country. I think the Licensing Act of 1904 was a revolution carried out without any authority from the country. At the very time when it was passed, the Leader of the Liberal party in this House, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and also the present Prime Minister, declared that they would not accept the Act of 1904 as a permanent part of the legislation of this country, but at the very first opportunity they would reverse that Act. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's own words were that he would, at the earliest opportunity, pluck the evil out of the Act of 1904. So strong was it felt that the Government were pledged to that cause, that when there was no reference in the King's Speech of 1906 to this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham commented strongly upon it. He called it a curious omission, and he said that he had looked through a great number of the addresses of Liberal Members, and "I find," said the right hon. Gentleman, "that temperance has a prominent place in all of them." That was in 1906. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman replying on

57
that debate accepted to the full the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had made, and said he believed that temperance was the key stone, or the corner stone, of the edifice of the prosperity of this country, and that the sole reason for not bringing in a Bill in that Session was that there was not time to deal with it. It was in the King's Speech of 1907, and again in 1908. In 1908 we had a Bill to deal with it.
What I want to point out to the House in that connection is this, that it was not easy to find time for a Temperance Reform Bill then. It was necessary to have an Autumn Session in that year, and I submit that the question is not less important to-day than it was then. Though I shrink from inflicting harder labours upon the Members of this House, still I think the promise of legislation ought to be fulfilled, and I think that the Government ought to have done its best to pass this measure in the present Session. The Government cannot plead that they have in any way fulfilled the pledges made by the mere introduction and carrying through this House of the Bill of 1908. After that Bill had been destroyed in another place, under circumstances with which all Members here are familiar, the Prime Minister was entertained at dinner by his followers at the National Liberal Club, and he invited his followers on that occasion not to pursue temperance reform or social reform until they had dealt with the constitution of the House of Lords and settled the relations which were to exist between that House and this House. A few weeks later he met a deputation, representative of the temperance parties in this country, and, repeating to them what he had said in regard to the uselessness of introducing temperance legislation so long as the House of Lords retained its then power, he used certain words, which I will read to the House, because they sum up the case I have to present, and I think they justify me, and justify the temperanec workers in this country, in expecting the Government to proceed with their proposals for licensing reform.
The deputation was representative of practically the whole of the organised temperance forces of this country, and the Prime Minister told them that the Government had not abated by one jot their interest or their determination in regard to this matter, and when the time came, which would not be far distant, when they joined issue and came into the open field,
58
there was no measure in regard to which they would appeal more confidently to the people of the country than a measure of temperance reform. He said it would be in the forefront of the controversy, and if the people decided that controversy by saying that they would be masters in their own house he did not doubt that one of the first fruits of victory would be that that measure would take its place upon the Statute Book. I would emphasise the words of the Prime Minister, "the first fruits of victory," and it is because of those words that I am here to-day asking that among the early legislative measures of the Government should be a measure of temperance reform. The temperance workers in the country accepted the advice which the Prime Minister gave them for two reasons. The first reason was that they felt with him that it was hopeless to proceed with drastic temperance reform so long as the House of Lords retained its power. But an even greater reason for the patience of the temperance workers was that they felt confidence in the Prime Minister as the Leader of the Government. They were grateful to him for what he had done in regard to the Bill of 1908, and they were confident that he would take the earliest possible opportunity of reintroducing that measure, with the necessary alterations in consequence of the Budget, and carry it into law. For two elections they helped the Government.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: There was a majority against them in 1910.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Baronet opposite says the Government did not have a majority at the election of 1910. I do not know how he makes that out. It is quite certain that in regard to dealing with the House of Lords they had a majority in 1910, both in January and again in December. At both of these elections the organised weight of the temperance workers in this country was thrown into the scale on the side of the Government because of the declaration which had been made by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government. It has sometimes been said that a temperance Bill has been rendered unnecessary by the passing of the Budget of 1909. Comparatively heavy taxation was laid upon the trade by that Budget. I supported that Budget, but I never supported it or the licensing proposals in it as any alternative for the temperance parts of the Licensing Bill of 1908. There is nothing in this taxation of the

59
trade which can take the place of those reforms which the temperance forces of this country are asking for. The taxation laid on the trade has been passed on to the consumers in the country, and it has brought a certain amount of money into the Exchequer. To some extent it has tended to check the consumption of liquor, and from that point of view I welcome it. But the consumers have paid all the taxation that was put upon the liquor trade by the Budget of 1909, and far more than the taxation that was put upon the trade.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I wish they had.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Baronet dissents; he ought to know as well as anybody that the consumers who have continued to consume have paid the tax. It is not so easy to get at the figures in regard to spirits as it is in regard to beer, but I will trouble the House with a few figures in regard to beer which will prove the well-established rule laid down in the Papers issued by the Government that every tax upon beer results in a diminished special gravity of the beer—that is to say, it results in the addition of more water to the beer which is sold to the public.
Sir G. YOUNGER: If the public drink more water, you ought to be satisfied.
Mr. LEIF JONES: From one point of view, the more water consumed and the less alcohol the better I am pleased; but I am dealing with the question whether the trade has suffered by the taxation imposed in the Budget of 1909. The House perhaps is not familiar with the process. The tax is laid upon the standard barrels of beer—that is to say, a barrel of beer to a standard of specific gravity. The beer is sold at a lower specific gravity than that on which it is taxed. I have here some figures which the hon. Baronet (Sir George Younger) will find it difficult to shake. In the year ending 31st March, 1900, for every thousand standard barrels of beer on which the tax was paid I find that the brewers sold in this country 1,007.3 barrels, which means that 7.3 additional barrels of water were sold to the public.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Seven decimal three barrels of water? Do you mean that?
Mr. LEIF JONES: Yes, that was the amount of additional water in every thousand barrels of beer sold. A war tax of a shilling was put on in 1900, with the
60
result that the bulk of the barrels became 1,023.6, meaning that 23.6 barrels cost the brewers nothing. In 1902 it had risen to 1,035.4; in 1909, 1,016.2–the House will see that the water goes on being added. In the Budget of 1909 threepence per barrel Licence Duty was put on, and in the next year the figure had jumped up to 1,058.6 barrels for every 1,000 barrels on which the tax was paid, so that while they paid tax on 1,000 barrels, the trade were selling to the public 1,058.6 barrels.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Has the hon. Gentleman got figures to show whether or not they were charging the same price for the beer? There is a greater desire for a cheaper and lighter beer.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The result is this, that in extra water alone—I do not complain of the consumption of water as such—the trade have sold to the public of this country 13,500,000 barrels of beer, and, as the whole of the extra beer taxes have only amounted to about £19,000,000, I think it will be seen that the trade have passed on to the consumer pretty successfully the whole of the taxes placed upon them. There is, as I have previously pointed out, nothing in this taxation which is any remedy for the evils of drink, for which we require temperance legislation. The need for temperance legislation is as great as ever it was. It is just, as great as when Mr. Gladstone declared that this question was ripe for immediate settlement. It is as urgent as it was in 1906 when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman pledged himself to deal with it, and as urgent as it was in 1908 when the Government endeavoured to deal with it. I ask, therefore, that there will be no more delay on the part of the Government in bringing in their Bill on this subject. I do not, of course, undervalue the legislation which the Government have promised to introduce, but we cannot afford to lose time in this matter. While the present system goes on new generations are growing up, and are being sacrificed under the present bad conditions under which drink is being sold. It is time we had the legislation for which I am asking. The people are asking for it and the Government have promised it, and I think the time has now come when that promise should be fulfilled.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I wish to offer a word of welcome to the last item in the Gracious Speech which deals with

61
the development of a national system of education. I regret that the Mover of the Address had to confess entire ignorance upon the subject of education, and that the Seconder made no reference to it, because this question appears to represent th chief Government measure of the Session upon which we have just entered. The state of education at the present moment is one of chaos throughout the country. The work of the local education authorities, which is often very much misrepresented in this House and the country, has been for some years entirely paralysed through the lack of sufficient funds to carry on the work which they are being pressed to do by the Board of Education and the country. I do not know what these education proposals are, even in outline, but I am certain that no proposals for dealing effectively with education from a national standpoint will be of the smallest use, or can be effectively carried into operation unless a very large Grant is made from the Imperial Exchequer towards the cost of what has been repeatedly admitted by Royal Commissions to be a national service. Speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association and the numerous local education authorities which it represents, I should like to say that I hope that this is going to be a real measure of education and not, as has been the case with many Bills with a similar title, a Religious Squabbles Bill. These religious squabbles which have formed the basis of so many Education Bills in this House, have seriously retarded the progress of education, and have prevented us founding our education on a really sound and unified basis. I am rather inquisitive to know what has happened to the long promised measure for the relief of the local ratepayer. I had hoped that in the Gracious Speech from the Throne we should have had some indication that the grievances of the ratepayer would be dealt with in the course of the present Session. Two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted in this House that those grievances were urgent, and he promised that they would receive his early attention. The right hon. Gentleman appointed a Departmental Committee to consider the relations between Imperial and local taxation. He explicity stated that their sittings would be short, and that they would report at the earliest possible date. That report is not yet forthcoming, and the Government proposals for easing the too heavy burdens of the local rate-payers are not presented to the House—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I understand that there is going to be an Amendment on this subject.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I am aware of that, but the arrival in the House of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was too strong a temptation for me to resist referring to the matter. I was referring more specifically to the great question of national education which the Government are now bound to deal with, and which cannot be effectively dealt with without a large Grant from the Imperial Exchequer. We must all admit that compared with other leading countries in Europe, or at any rate with our chief continental commercial rivals, we are getting very much into the background in the matter of progress in commercial education calculated to best fit our workers to carry on successfully their work in those industries in which we suffer most from foreign competition. It is common knowledge that the classes in both our elementary and secondary schools are far too large to ensure a really useful education to the students. I should like to go further and say that I do not think that our teachers are as well qualified as they should be for the work they are asked to do, and particularly that practical side of education to which so much encouragement is being given in other countries, and which is leading to such valuable results here, where emphasis is being laid upon it. As regards the remuneration of the teachers, taking into account the high cost of living and the very great and responsible work which the elementary school teachers of this country are asked to do, and the importance of maintaining their social position in the community amongst which they live, I think their salaries are much too small. The male head teachers' salaries do not average £200 per year, and the salaries of the women head teachers do not average even £150 per year. Compared with the salaries given to other persons in a similar walk of life who are not carrying on nearly such important national work those salaries are too small for these national workers, and I hope that in the new scheme of national education some consideration will be given to the matter.
There is another matter which I hope will be covered by this Bill, and that is the enormous importance of continuous education beyond the early age at which as a rule education in this country comes to an end. We spend an enormous sum, derived largely

63
from the rates, upon elementary education in this country—I think the amount is something like £25,000,000 a year. Do we get full benefit for that expenditure? I think we waste a very large proportion of that money in preparing children for an education which in fact they never receive, because we remove them from the school at the very age in which in other classes of life true education begins, and at that plastic age when education becomes a real factor and an important basis for work in after life. We have been told that we might with advantage assimilate our system to that prevailing in Scotland. The chief feature of Scottish education in which the Scottish people may be deemed to excel is the system of semi-compulsory continuation classes. I hope, whether by continuation schools or otherwise, the education of our children will not cease at the age of thirteen or fourteen years, and I trust that we shall be able to train the future workers of this country out of the public exchequer to the age of sixteen or seventeen years. I hope we shall be able to carry public opinion with us in this matter, and prevail upon the parents of the children not to be reluctant in allowing their children to receive what is, after all, the greatest asset that the nation can possibly confer upon them. This is a matter which ought to receive special attention from the Government. I cannot conceive how the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite can advocate the claims of Free Trade, if they want to maintain the position of our industries amongst the industries of the world, unless they are prepared to properly equip our children, and thereby protect them in a true and effective sense against the effects of foreign competition, from which they are insufficiently protected at the present time. I am sorry that neither the Government, nor the Mover or the Seconder of the Address have vouchsafed any detailed information with regard to the Government education scheme, but if something like £5,000,000 per annum is forthcoming—and I do not believe that anything less will be of any real value—for the advancement of education, I am sure every local education authority throughout the Kingdom will, regardless of party preference, give a hearty support to the proposals of the Government relating to education.
I wish to associate myself with the expressions of regret which have fallen from these benches and from the Labour
64
Benches that something like £3,000,000 is going to be spent for the development of cotton growing in the Soudan while nothing is proposed to be spent upon the development of agricultural land in this country. An opportunity in this respect has come to the front in the matter of the cultivation of sugar beet, a nascent industry which even Free Traders will find it consistent with their fiscal principles to support. Here is an industry which has been shown to be capable of producing all the sugar that we require in this country, amounting to over 2,000,000 tons a year, and valued at £26,500,000, and will give most remunerative employment to the workers upon agricultural land in many parts of the country, notably in the Eastern and South-Eastern counties. It will also provide good wages for those employed in the factories where the beet is converted into sugar, and at the same time it will be of inestimable value to those small holders for the artificial creation of which the Government are so largely responsible. There is no crop with the possible exception of flax which is so well suited to the activities of the small holder as that of sugar beet cultivation, and for that reason if for no other, desiring as I do to see a larger number of small occupiers of agricultural land in this country profitably employed, I should like to have had some promise of Government support towards the important new industry of sugar cultivation in this country.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I only rise to answer one point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones). I am not going to re-echo the hon. Member's complaint that there is no mention of a Licensing Bill in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. I have a distinct recollection of the 1908 measure, and an equally distinct recollection that after the General Election there was not a majority for that measure in this House. I also remember that the Budget supervened upon the licensing measure, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not decently impose his taxation upon the trade if the 1908 measure had been passed. The hon. Member said that he did not accept as any reason for not bringing in a similar licensing reform the statement that the brewer had been heavily taxed as he had been able to secure the whole of the taxation placed upon him by reducing the gravity of the beer. He went back to the dark ages when he talked about the gravity being

65
above the standard. The difference in the standard since the Budget, as a matter of fact, is very small indeed. The hon. Gentleman is one of those unfortunate people who get hold of one side of the case and do not get hold of the whole of the argument. Somebody puts some figures in his hand, and he thinks he has sufficient argument in those figures, but in taking the gravity he entirely forgets the question of price. He ought to be entirely satisfied with the situation as he tells us it is, because the public drink a much lighter article. When they wanted a stronger article the specific gravity was higher, and now they want a lighter article it is lower. The price used to be about 70s. per barrel as an average, but it is now about 45s. per barrel. Therefore, the whole structure he built upon the figures he gave falls to the ground.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is characteristic that whereas an answer is given immediately with regard to the question of a loan for the encouragement of cotton-growing in the Soudan, no information has been given to my hon. Friend (Mr. W. O'Brien), who asked a question with regard to Land Purchase in Ireland. This loan to the Soudan shows that to speak of this or any section as a Free Trade party is the merest sham. I do not believe there is a single Free Trader in the Government or in the House of Commons, and I am glad to think so. This £3,000,000 loan to the Soudan is really intended as a bounty for Lancashire, and it is intended to get Lancashire votes. I am not at all against it, but I think it puts an end to the pretence of Free Trade. Last year one or two millions were given to some other part of the tropical area in exactly the same spirit. These are all bounties, and they are all dead in the teeth of your pretence of Free Trade. So far as sugar beet is concerned, my hon. Friend above the Gangway (Mr. C. Bathurst) has not done the Prime Minister justice, because in one of the most remarkable speeches that has ever proceeded from him, he about six months ago frankly advocated bounties as regards sugar beet, and I think he even suggested them for tobacco. If I am contradicted about tobacco I will not persist in that, but I entirely decline to believe this is a Free Trade Government or a Free Trade House of Commons. It is only a question of degree between the two parties, and each will do exactly what they think suits them.
66
My hon. Friend has put two or three questions with regard to land purchase to which I think we are entitled to an answer. He has pointed out that because you refused to take opinions in Ireland your Bill of five years ago has fallen flat and lamentably failed, and he asks whether you propose to take both sides, landlords and tenants, into your confidence, or whether you propose to throw down a scheme ready made in the Treasury and fashioned on the Treasury model, or whether you intend to propose a scheme and expect it to go through by general consultation with all the interested parties. The Government, having had the lesson of five or six years ago with regard to that Bill, will, I hope, while having abstained from decorating the Treasury Bench during my hon. Friend's speech, at least do him the justice of studying his observations, and, instead of committing themselves after listening only to one side of the question, a policy which has landed them in a morass in regard to this question, will take a general survey, and only bring in their Bill when it is likely to come into effectual operation. I think we have a serious ground of quarrel with the Government. The Prime Minister has stated this is to be a comparatively short Session, and that matter of too controversial a kind is not to be crowded into it. We all welcome that, and, if the Government will adhere to that proposal, we shall be found to give them cordial support in every effort to limit the duration of the Session; but, if they deliberately fling a brand of discord into our proceedings, then we shall take a general interest in all that goes on.
This is as remarkable a proceeding as was ever exposed in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, yielding to pressure from one side, has now in operation in Ireland dealing with the Insurance Act what is called a Treasury Committee. I do not know what a Treasury Committee is; it is new to me. We know what a Parliamentary Committee is; we have heard of a Departmental Committee, and we have heard both of a Royal Commission and of a Viceregal Commission; but I have never known such a body to be appointed in Ireland as is now roaming through certain congested areas of that country, areas where they think they will get evidence suitable to themselves. The Commission is a packed Commission. It was never heard of or suggested until the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), without notice, asked the

67
Chancellor of the Exchequer what was to be done on this particular subject. "Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, "the Government have made up their minds to appoint a Committee, consisting of Lord Ashby St. Ledgers (Chairman), Dr. T. J. Stafford (Medical Commissioner of the Local Government Board of Ireland), Dr. W. J. Maguire (Medical Commissioner of the National Health Insurance Commission, Ireland), Mr. J. Devlin, M.P., Mr. H. T. Barrie, M.P., Mr. Lardner, M.P., Mr. J. A. Glynn (Chairman of National Health Insurance Commission, Ireland), Mr. W. L. Micks (Commissioner of the Congested Districts Board), Mr. J. S. Bradbury (principal Clerk at the Treasury). Why should all that have been done behind the backs of the House of Commons? Why should the right hon. Gentleman have selected three Members of Parliament representing one province in Ireland alone—one Conservative Member and two Nationalist Members? Ireland, after all, has four provinces, important as Ulster is, and I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman selected the names of three Members confined to a single province. The money has to be found by the taxpayers of the entire country, and they are entitled to voice their opinions upon it. Employers of labour in the other provinces are concerned, and, except for securing an ad hoc verdict or a verdict of a packed tribunal, no Gentleman in his senses would have dreamed of appointing that Commission. Its verdict, to use a well-known phrase, will go forth without authority and come back without respect. Nobody will care three straws what its opinion is. You can judge of its opinion in advance from the conduct of its proceedings. I have never read such browbeating of witnesses or such partisanship on the part of a Chairman. I never heard of Lord Ashby St. Ledgers before I read of his name in this connection. I suppose he came over with William the Conqueror.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: He was Mr. Ivor Guest.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: All I know is that he is a Member of the House of Lords. I want to know what were his Qualifications for sitting on this Commission. I have dealt with the three Members of Parliament, all belonging to the one province, where there might naturally be some feeling in favour of an extension of medical
68
benefit. What are we to say of the other gentlemen? They are almost without exception connected with officialism in Ireland, and mostly with insurance. It should be remembered you are dealing with a question where the ratepayers of Ireland provide medical benefit already under the Medical Charities Act, and that so far as Ireland goes, defective as in some respects the system may be, medical benefit has endured for three-quarters of a century. Other branches of workhouse reform have been dealt with by Royal Commission, but without debate and without a single question the right hon. Gentleman suddenly sprung this proposal upon the House for dealing with this matter. It is, to my mind, partisanship run mad. I wish to say that the Prime Minister treats Irish questions in a very different spirit from some of his colleagues. I am glad to recognise that. He shows courtesy, he shows consideration, he shows a willingness to listen, and above all he shows that good temper which should distinguish any man in the position which he has the honour to fill. I am glad to recognise that spirit, and it is only bare justice I should say so. That is not the spirit shown by some of his colleagues.
There seems to be a notion on the part of some Gentlemen that if you say one word of criticism of any Member of the Cabinet you are committing some crime, or that you are touching the Ark of the Covenant. It is as if you committed some act of desecration. The Government, however, exist in this House for the purpose of being criticised, and we do expect when we ask for information, as my hon. Friend has done in temperate language, that even on the first day of the Session some reasonable reply will he given. I say we ought to have a pledge that just as the Chief Secretary dropped the Compulsory Notification Clause out of the Tuberculosis Bill last Session, because he said Home Rule was in the offing, something of the same kind will be done here. Although compulsory notification is the law in Scotland, Wales, and England, he dropped it out because it was said that an Irish Parliament could deal with the question. If an Irish Parliament be in the immediate offing, as suggested, would it not be a monstrous thing, on the Report of a partisan Commission, whose composition has never been debated in this House, and with regard to a question in which already some provision is made under the Medical Charities system, and as to which the

69
bishops of Ireland, who, after all, may be reasonably supposed, even by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to have an interest in their frocks, are not satisfied that that question should be hastily dealt with and should not be remitted over to that happy day in May next year when we are told that Home Rule is at last to come into existence. An Irish song says, "Oh! my heart is weary waiting for the May," and next year in May we are told we shall have Home Rule. The hon. Member for Waterford has distinctly so stated. Having waited for three-quarters of a century for the reform of this question of medical benefit, surely we can wait for another twelve months. Surely there is no necessity for asking Lord Ashby St. Ledger to go over with a tearing, raging programme through Ireland, clubbing the witnesses who come before him, for that is what it amounts to. He had the assistance of the Member for West Belfast, and the proceedings read to me like those of the "Baton Convention" on the land question about five years ago—a Convention to discuss the Land Bill which is now proved to be a failure, and where anybody who said a word to suggest that the Bill would prove a failure had his head tapped with a baton. That was a very effective way of promoting legislation.
Lord Ashby St. Ledgers seems in the course of his travels to have cut from some hedge an excellent specimen of a blackthorn, and every witness who comes out who suggests anything of the nature that there are two sides to the question is asked, "You represent capital, I presume?" or, "Do you represent capital or
70
labour?" I notice one gentleman whose name is very familiar in the city of Cork, Mr. Dominick Daly, said he represented the Diocesan Health Society of St. Finbarr with 13,000 members. These gentlemen, who spent four hours in Cork, asked him did he represent capital or labour, and he said he represented the Diocesan Society. This Commission also suppressed the evidence of a prominent man who was connected with the county council (Mr. O'Mahony), a man of large experience and a great merchant. They refused to hear him and sailed away, but in three or four weeks we shall have a Report presented to this House, at the expense of the taxpayers, explaining the urgency of this question of a settlement of the medical benefit. I denounce this system—it is preposterous. It has never been heard of before—this system of rushing legislation. If any attempt is made to rush legislation through the House on evidence from a packed Commission, we will resist the legislation of the Government, and we will meet it with every form of opposition which is open to us.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate accordingly adjourned till To-morrow (Tuesday).
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
House adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eight of the clock.

  Labour Exchanges (Official Salaries).
  Labour Exchanges (Official Salaries).

THE KING'S SPEECH.
THE KING, being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"To-day being the fiftieth anniversary of the marriage of My parents, I cannot forgo the opportunity of expressing for My dear Mother and Myself Our grateful sense of the devoted affection of the nation, which it has been Her happiness to enjoy for so many years, and which remains to support and console Her in Her abiding sorrow.
My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"In December last an armistice was arranged between the belligerent Governments in South-East Europe. They chose London as the place in which to
2
conduct their negotiations for a peace, and I welcomed the Delegates who were sent for that purpose and gave to them every facility that was in My power. I much regret that, owing to their failure to come to an agreement, the war still continues.
"The possible developments of the war and the changes that must result from it cannot be without interest for the Great Powers who are neutral and were parties to the Treaty of Berlin. All these Powers earnestly desire to prevent the war from spreading and to see it terminated as soon as possible.
"My Government have, especially by means of the Ambassadors in London, kept in close touch and co-operation with the other Powers in the endeavours, in which all have shared, to preserve concerted view and action, and to establish agreement on all points on which differences might arise between any of them.
"In this a large measure of success has been achieved. Agreement has been reached in principle on matters of the greatest importance, and though some points are still under discussion, I am hopeful that the consultations between the Powers will enable them not only to

3
secure a complete understanding amongst themselves, but to exercise a beneficent influence in hastening the conclusion of the war.
"My Government will continue to co-operate with the other Powers with the most earnest desire to secure the peace of Europe.
"During last year the Prime Minister of My Dominion of Canada and several of his colleagues visited this country in order to confer with My Ministers here on matters of common interest, especially those relating to Naval Defence.
"The Minister for Defence of My Dominion of New Zealand has lately arrived for a similar purpose.
"I am confident that such an exchange of views between members of its responsible Governments will promote the solidarity of the Empire. The recent gift of a battleship by the Malay States, the ready consent of the New Zealand Government to the retention in the North Sea fleet of the battleship contributed by them, the steady progress towards the establishment of the Australian fleet, and the discussions now proceeding in the Canadian Parliament on matters of defence testify to the Universal desire within the Empire for the maintenance of common safety.
"In My Indian Empire, on the 23rd December, at the ceremony of the State Entry into Delhi, a wicked attempt was made on the life of My Governor-General and Viceroy. Through the mercy of Divine, Providence the plot failed in its full intent, but I deeply regret that innocent lives were sacrificed and that the Viceroy was gravely wounded. The fortitude of the Viceroy and Lady Hardinge and the disciplined courage of all the officers of Government have My warmest admiration. I gratefully acknowledge the expressions of sympathetic loyalty which the crime has evoked from the Ruling Chiefs and from all classes of My Indian subjects.
"My Commissioners appointed to report on the requirements of the public service in India have commenced their labours, and have taken evidence at various Provincial centres in India with regard to the Indian Civil Service and the Provincial Civil Services.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the service of the ensuing year will be laid before you without delay. I commend them to your favourable consideration with the more confidence in view of the sustained prosperity which, as reflected in the statistics of trade and of employment, I rejoice to see that My people continue to enjoy.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"The attention of Parliament will again be asked to the measures in regard to which there was disagreement between the two Houses last Session.
"In view of your arduous labours during the past year the further legislation which you will be invited to consider will necessarily be restricted within narrow limits.
"A measure will be brought forward to facilitate the progress and secure the completion of Land Purchase in Ireland.
"You will be asked to authorise a guarantee from the Imperial Exchequer of a loan by the Government of the Soudan for ensuring the prosperity of that territory and the development therein of the industry of cotton-growing.
"You will be invited to give renewed consideration to proposals for the better care and control of the feeble-minded and for the further restriction of the industrial employment of children.
"A Bill will be introduced for the prevention of plural voting at Parliamentary elections.
"Proposals will be submitted to you for the development of a national system of education.
"Your labours upon these and all other matters I humbly commend to the blessing of Almighty God."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LORD ROCHDALE.
Sir George KEMP, Knight, having been created Baron Rochdale of Rochdale in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Marquess of ABERCORN (D. Abercorn)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and returns electing the Viscount Bangor a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the Lord Headley, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1a.
ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
*LORD ABERCONWAY: My Lords, in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for his gracious Speech from the Throne, I trust that I may receive that consideration which this House habitually accords to an inexperienced member in the performance of a task which must necessarily he one of difficulty. This day is remarkable for the fact, which his gracious Majesty has been pleased to emphasise, that it is the fiftieth anniversary of the marriage of his parents, and no language could be more touching than that in the passage in which His Majesty calls the attention of Parliament to this event. May I be permitted to say that while the thought of this anniversary is and must be uppermost in the minds of the people at this moment, no words could give that thought better expression than those which His Majesty has been pleased to use. The memory of the late King Edward VII will never fade in this generation, and in generations to come he will hold the highest place among the Sovereigns of this kingdom as a Monarch of wide-reaching influence
6
which he always used for the good of the people over whom he reigned. Happily for us the Queen Mother is still in our midst, and ready, as in the past, to adorn by her gracious presence and to help by her enthusiasm every movement for the moral and physical uplifting of the people. The interests of the sick and the afflicted she has always taken under her charge, and the great medical charities of this country owe more to her than perhaps to any individual in past and present times. Her life has always been in harmony with the instincts of our race, and the people of this country have always regarded her as their own. They have rejoiced in her joys; they have grieved over her sorrows. Fifty years ago she came to this country as a young Princess to share the life of the Heir Apparent. The occasion touched the nation's sentiment. Her arrival created a surging wave of enthusiasm which many of us can even now remember, and that wave has never receded. Queen Alexandra is held now in the same respect and affection as on the day when she first landed on our shores. The passage in His Majesty's Speech to which I refer will touch a chord of sympathy in the hearts of the people, but it is not too much to say that their feelings of respect and affection have already been spontaneously expressed by all classes and in all the organs of public opinion irrespective of party or of creed.
The Speech from the Throne emphasises the friendly relations which exist between this country and other Powers, and I venture to think that the space which has been given in His Majesty's Speech to this subject and the tone in which the statement is made will create the greatest possible satisfaction, not only in this country, but throughout Europe. Our policy in regard to European affairs has always in recent times been a disinterested one, and we are glad to note that this fact has been recognised by the belligerent States in the Balkans and that during the armistice they chose London as the place where the negotiations for peace were to proceed. His Majesty gave the delegates a cordial welcome, and if he is obliged to express disappointment at the failure of the negotiations, which led to a temporary renewal of the war, we are to-day perhaps in a position to hope that what has happened in the last few days may lead to further negotiations and ultimately a final peace. His Majesty refers to the

7
fact that a change in the map of Europe must take place and to the developments to which this war must necessarily give rise. But we all feel satisfaction in thinking that the Powers remain neutral in this controversy. We are told that the Treaty of Berlin is still in force, and though some doubts have recently been cast upon the effective existence of that Treaty we are led to believe that there is in that Treaty a living and firm basis for combined action, and we rejoice to learn from the Speech that there is a unanimous desire for the termination of the war. Some emphasis has been given to the fact that the Ambassadors of the Powers met in London, and that fact alone, I venture to say, has given to Europe a confidence which perhaps might not have been otherwise felt; and now that we are told that this confidence has led up to certain action and that the great Powers are agreed on all questions of principle, we need not have many misgivings as to differences which may still exist in regard to details. The large measure of success that has been already assured leads us to hope that these matters of detail will not present many difficulties, and that the hideous nightmare of a European war, which has overshadowed the nations of the world for the last two years, may finally melt away in the sense of a common agreement amongst the great nations of Europe to settle these Near Eastern questions in a friendly way.
I ought to say how deeply many of us in this country appreciate the conciliatory attitude of Germany during these recent months; and when one considers the feeling that has existed among certain sections of the people of this country and perhaps among certain sections of persons in the German Empire, one cannot but recognise that the Emperor William has shown a friendliness to this country which ought to remove all grounds of jealousy. I believe that the relations between the German Government and the British Government never were on a better footing than they are to-day; and knowing, as I happen to do, both France and Germany well, I know how distasteful to the great mass of the inhabitants of those great countries is the idea of war. Defensive forces do not necessarily mean war; the great increase in our Navy does not mean war; and considering the views expressed in His Majesty's Speech on foreign affairs I think we may rest assured
8
that these great increases of armaments are more for defensive than for offensive purposes.
I think we are entitled to congratulate Sir Edward Grey, our Foreign Secretary, on the success which he has achieved. He is, I suppose, the doyen of the Foreign Ministers of Europe; a man of great experience, of calm judgment, and, as events have shown, a man enjoying the confidence of the European Powers. The fact that London was chosen for the meetings of the Ambassadors is proof enough of that, and when we think of the long years in which he has conducted our foreign policy, quietly, unobtrusively, with unswerving honesty, with ability, and with success, I feel that the time has come when a few words of congratulation might be offered to him. And at the same time I-should like to express my sense of the value to this country of the attitude of His Majesty's Opposition in foreign affairs. For many years past, although they have been opposed to His Majesty's Government on many vital points of principle, the Opposition have given an unswerving support to the policy of the Foreign Office. When we look back upon what used to happen twenty-five, thirty, and forty years ago, when foreign affairs formed the battleground of Parties in the House of Commons and also in this House, we cannot but congratulate ourselves that this change has come over public feeling, and that in future we may believe that national defence and national policy will be regarded as outside the limits of Party discussion.
The gracious Speech from the Throne has afforded us some indication of the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Colonial affairs. Reference has been made to the visit of the Canadian Premier to this country and to the visit of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and it has been pointed out with great force that these visits have inaugurated, so to speak, or taken part in the inauguration of, a great common defensive policy between the Mother Country and the Colonies. It is Imperial unity in the most concrete form. For fifty years past in our Colonial Empire we have been sowing the seed which is now fructifying, and we are going to reap the harvest. Fifty years ago our fathers were rather averse to our Colonies; they were not valued then. Our Colonies have asked for our sons; they have asked for our

9
money, invested in commercial undertakings; and with those two conditions generously supplied by this country they have developed into nations which have great and dominant future before them. They have asked for nothing more from us. On the contrary, they are giving out of their taxes large units for our national defence; and students of politics must recognise that they show, in their relations to the Mother Country the very highest type of democratic statecraft. They are free and independent States in all but name; yet they are animated by the strongest devotion to the King, to the Flag, and to the central authority of Parliament. When your Lordships, recollect that there are no less than twenty-eight Colonial Parliaments, free and independent Legislatures, bound to this great Parliament by nothing but the tie of loyalty and affection, you will agree, I think, that we have a spectacle such as the world has never seen before, and one which must add enormously to the prestige of this Empire both in commerce and in matters of defence.
The Speech from the Throne refers to Indian affairs. On that subject I will only say that I am sure this House most heartily reciprocates the expression of regret that a native miscreant should have made the attack upon the Viceroy which we all deplore. But we are assured that that attack does not in any way represent a general feeling of sedition in India, and that the Princes and the peoples of India still continue loyal to the Imperial Raj, perhaps even more so than they were many years ago.
I turn to another paragraph in the Speech which is of the highest importance—the paragraph referring to the sustained prosperity of this country as reflected in the statistics of trade and employment. When one embarks on the subject of trade and employment one is apt to think of lists of figures which, however interesting in themselves, are not in any sense of general interest. Your Lordships are, of course, aware that the foreign trade of this country during the past twelve months has exceeded anything that the world has ever known. We have a colossal foreign exchange in manufactured articles, in raw materials, and in finance; and owing to the unrestricted facilities of our foreign trade our
10
Colonies are able to take the fullest advantage of all we have to offer them, and they give to us markets in which we are easily first. During the last two or three years we have had another most interesting set of figures presented to us—I refer to the figures under the Census of Production Act, which we have never had before. We used to know about our foreign trade, but now we know how much is consumed in this country, and that appears to me one of the most valuable indications of our social strength. The census of production for last year shows an immense development in our leading industries—in coal-mining, iron-making, steel-making, shipbuilding, cotton, and worsted; in fact, in every trade on which the people of this country depend. Owing to the enormous demand that there now is for manufactured articles it is almost impossible to get delivery of the materials necessary for the developments which are being undertaken by some of our great corporations. The magnitude of the figures is so great that they can hardly be realised. It is computed that the total manufactures of this country amount to something like £2,000,000,000 per annum. This is an almost incredible sum. It means about £6,000,000 per day, of which, as your Lordships are aware, we export about one-fifth to the Colonies and to foreign countries.
The result of all this is that employment was never better than it is at this moment. The fact is, you cannot get sufficient workmen in the skilled trades. There are noble Lords in this House who are owners of collieries, of steel works, and of shipyards who could employ thousands and thousands of highly paid workmen to-day if those workmen could be found. Collieries are working short time, not because there is less demand for coal, but because there are insufficient miners. It is the same with the shipbuilding yards, and there is no doubt that His Majesty's ships are delayed in their construction simply because, whatever wages you offer, you cannot get enough skilled men to carry out these contracts. That, I venture to think, is a very satisfactory state of things for the working classes, but I hope the day will come when the whole question of wages will be considered from a national point of view, and that there will be a levelling up of wages instead of a levelling down, and that many of the underpaid trades will receive greater consideration. Women's wages are

11
far too low economically, and the wages of agricultural labourers are far too low. I heard with interest a debate which took place in this House some months ago on a Bill introduced by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, dealing with labourers' cottages, in which some very forcible remarks were made on this point, leading me to hope that this House would not be averse, perhaps, to taking the lead one of these days in doing something to ameliorate the lot of the agricultural labourer.
The fact is that with higher prices labour troubles are sure to come. The cost of living is getting greater every day for the poor. Labour cannot rest content. The working classes demand better conditions of living. Rents are higher because municipal regulations, many of them very absurd, increase the cost of house-building, and make it impossible to build houses economically for the poor. Then there are the amusements which the working classes demand, and the little luxuries which are at their hand. Then you have the standard set by the richer classes. I do not speak of the disgusting displays of wealth in other parts of the world, of which we read in the newspapers, but there is daily brought before the poorer classes of this country a standard of living in which they naturally desire to share. They have better education; they read newspapers, and take a pride in their homes; all these are facts which must lead to a demand for higher pay. Indeed, there is little chance of the price of raw materials and food stuffs going down. But I venture to think that, like all other economic questions, the equilibrium of wages and prices will assert itself provided Parliament does not arbitrarily interfere, but at the same time by legislation affords such conditions as would enable the poorer classes to reap their fair share of the prosperity of the country.
Reference has been made to the Home Rule Bill and to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. All I desire to say regarding those measures is that when this House again is invited to deal with these subjects I hope for a more pacific understanding between the two branches of the Legislature. I know that noble Lords opposite hold very strong views which I am the last man in the world to wish to criticise on an
12
occasion of this kind, but, as one sees in the tone of the recent debates, they do recognise the right of the Party on this side of the House to the realisation of their legislative ideals, and while modifications may very justly be required by this House, and may possibly be accepted by the other House, there seems to be no reason why there should not be restored to this country that legislative co-operation which, after all, must be the ideal of all statesmen. A feeling of injustice on either side cannot promote a nation's welfare, and that is, perhaps, one reason why there has been recently fresh demands for an extension of the franchise. I observe that His Majesty's Government do not propose to extend the franchise. They propose merely to pass a Bill for abolishing plural voting, which, after all, is a moderate measure however much it may be disliked in some quarters. Our present franchise is a peculiar one. It is not logical. Whatever may be said for a franchise based upon wealth or education, the forty-shilling freehold franchise certainly does not base itself on any logical theory. A man with £1,000 can buy ten forty-shilling qualifications in ten different counties, while a man who is worth £1,000,000 and has a big place in one county, owning perhaps half the land there, has only one vote. Experience has shown that the basis of the franchise does not assist one Party materially more than the other. At one time one Party gets the upper hand, and at another time the other Party does. I look upon this measure rather as one affecting particular constituencies in redressing what many people in those constituencies feel to be the injustice of importing a large number of voters who have very little connection with the constituency in which they cast their votes.
Reference is made in the Speech to legislation on education. We know that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has been recently expressing very fully considered opinions on this subject. Personally I should hope that the time is coming when we might lift education out of sectarian controversy and devote ourselves to establishing some great national system of co-ordinate education, by which there might be erected a ladder, so to speak, upon which a boy could ascend from the elementary school to the University. We are in this country behind Scotland and Wales in education. Here elementary school

13
education ends at the age of fourteen; in Scotland it does not end until the age of sixteen. Why should not boys in England be able to climb the ladder a little higher and qualify themselves for secondary schools, of which there is a great dearth in England? In the matter of secondary education we are probably behind all other countries, and I rejoice to think that His Majesty's Government are going to turn their attention to this great question. We want to do away with the idea of caste in education—that a boy because he has been educated at a public elementary school is not to be considered fit for the higher employment in the Civil Service, or that education is to be a matter of social importance rather than of intellectual importance. I venture to hope, whether or not legislation will be proceeded with during this session, that we shall at all events see laid on the Table of Parliament some proposals of His Majesty's Government which will lead to a better state of things.
It is obvious that we are not to have very much legislation this session, and I think we all feel thankful for that prospect. We have had a great strain in Parliamentary work for the last two or three years, and I doubt whether the country can digest too many legislative projects at one time. I feel, and I believe everybody feels, that full consideration should be given to all changes, but that when those changes have been considered in the Press and in Parliament for years, perhaps for half a generation, they should then be promptly given effect to by legislation. We cannot say that the Government have been laggards in this respect. They have worked up to a final point a great many questions which have been simmering, so to speak, for the last twenty-five years, and when as we hope this session some great Constitutional matters will be disposed of, it will then be time for both Parties to co-operate in social reforms. We have had fine examples of that co-operation of late years. In the Old Age Pensions Act and in the Insurance Act both Parties to a large extent cooperated, and I feel that, while Party government is probably the most successful form of government, it ought to be the aim of each House of the Legislature and of every statesman to prove that the higher interests of the people are above mere Party consideration. I beg to move.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: My Lords, in rising to second the Address I should like to associate myself with all that has fallen from my noble friend with regard to Her Majesty Queen Alexandra, and I should like to add, on my own account, a hope that Her Majesty may long be spared to grace her great position and to continue that beneficent work for the happiness of the people with which she has been associated for so many years for the benefit of all alike, whether of high or low degree. I do not propose to follow my noble friend in his discourse either about foreign or Colonial politics. I associate myself with almost all that he said in these respects. Further, I should like to associate myself with him in what he has said about the dastardly attack that was made upon Lord Hardinge in India. It would almost seem—it is a melancholy fact—that the privilege of Western civilisation carries with it also its penalties; but at the same time it is a satisfaction to feel that the horror that was experienced in this country in regard to that attack upon the Viceroy was voiced also in India by those great ruling Chiefs upon whose loyalty the stability of our rule in India so largely rests, and that the sympathy of the people of that country was extended in full measure to Lord Hardinge.
It may be said by some that this act was the result of our over-educating the natives of India in Western civilisation, but I think we must all feel that we have to justify our rule of India, and that that rule can only be justified by our doing what we can towards the enlightenment and the progress of the people of that country. We passed only a short time ago a great measure, which will always redound to the credit of the noble Viscount the President of the Council, which gave a greater share in self-government in India to the natives of that country, and we are glad to see in the gracious Speech from the Throne to-day that a Royal Commission has been appointed to investigate the whole question of the Civil Service in India. We are aware that there has been considerable discontent among native Civil servants of that country with their position. They have felt that they have not had so large a share as they thought was their due in the possibility of rising to greater position in that Service; and if now this Commission can show any way by which their natural aspirations can be met; while at the same time maintaining

15
the predominance of Europeans in the greatest positions, which is requisite to our rule, the whole of this country as well as of India will be pleased at such a result.
I turn to another part of our great Dominions—to the Soudan. Coming as I do from the North, and being interested largely in those great industrial centres which would benefit, I congratulate the Government most heartily on the grant that it proposes to guarantee for the development of the Soudan in general, and in particular for the development of the growth of cotton. The growth of cotton in the Soudan is not in an experimental stage; it has passed far beyond that. We know that there are vast fields there, millions of acres, which are capable of growing crops of very high class cotton. That we should find new sources of supply is of the greatest interest to Lancashire and the surrounding districts, which are interested directly or indirectly in the cotton trade. The great source of the world's supply has been America, but that supply is being utilised so much more freely in other parts besides England that Lancashire has long felt that new supplies of cotton were essential to the welfare of that industry, and we welcome this attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to help Lancashire in this respect. At the same time I personally should not feel justified in giving my support to a measure which guaranteed this money at the expense of the British taxpayer were it not that I felt that in greater measure still this will be an act of the greatest benefit to the Soudan itself. Any one who has read, as I have read for some years past, the annual reports that are sent home by our Civil Servants on the position of the Soudan must have been greatly struck by the growth of that country. We all know in what a terrible state of devastation it was left after the time of the Mahdi and those who succeeded him; but the great improvement that has taken place and the remarkable growth of the population of the country since it has again come under civilised rule must cause astonishment to the rest of the world. There are many who have felt, and perhaps still feel, that we were largely responsible for the devastation which fell upon that country in the past. To such I am sure it will be a source of great satisfaction to feel that we are now doing all we can to restore peace and plenty to that unhappy country.
16
Coming to home affairs, I think there can be no question that the most popular sentence in the gracious Speech will be that which tells us that in view of our arduous labours during the past year the further legislation which Parliament will be invited to consider will necessarily be restricted within narrow limits. But in spite of that there are some measures of considerable importance to come first before the House of Commons and then before your Lordships' House. You will not be surprised to hear that those measures to which my noble friend has alluded, the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, are to occupy again some time. I do not propose to discuss those Bills. They are of a very controversial character, and this is not the occasion for a controversial speech. But I would say this, that the great majority of the representatives of those two countries in the House of Commons were in favour of those measures, and we have no reason to believe that since the rejection of those two Bills by your Lordships' House they have altered their views in the smallest degree. For myself I regret that the Bills were thrown out last session on Second Reading. If a compromise had been desired, it does appear to me that a discussion of those measures in Committee would have been of the greatest value. My Lords, some of you say that this House is powerless now. I think I have heard it said by some noble Lords opposite that this House is now of little use. I am not surprised at the chagrin which some of you feel that you no longer occupy that commanding position as against the House of Commons that you used to hold; but it must be remembered that this House itself, by making suggestions for reform, has shown that that state of things could not continue, and you have recognised with the other House that this House must occupy more than it has done in the past the position of a revising Chamber.
If I am right in believing that this House must occupy more the position of a revising Chamber such as exists in most other countries, I should like to observe—and I do it with all respect to your Lordships—that it does appear to me that the time has come for altering the principle of rejecting a Bill on Second Reading if you object to it. If you do that, under present conditions it is impossible that the Bill can be discussed in all its details and suggestions

17
made for improving it. It seems to me—and I say it with all deference—that instead of dealing with the principle on Second Reading, it would be far more satisfactory in the case of these great Bills in future if they were allowed a Second Reading and were then considered in Committee in all their details. Then if the House was not satisfied with the Bill after it had passed through Committee it could be rejected on Third Reading. Even as the House is now, I cannot help feeling that it has great influence in the country, both by discussion and by its power to delay. I deplore that we lost the whole of last session for the purposes of discussion of the details of those two Bills by the fact that they were thrown out on Second Reading. For instance, there is undoubtedly some division of opinion on the amount of the endowments of the Church that were to be left to the Church in the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. In the case of the Home Rule Bill there were noble Lords who expressed doubts as to whether the North-East part of Ulster ought not to be dealt with differently under that Bill. It would have been of the greatest value, in my opinion, if those questions had been thoroughly discussed and suggestions made as to how they were to be dealt with, and if those suggestions had gone before the country; because, if suggestions of that sort went before the country and the country backed the House of Lords in the line it had taken, any one who has been in the House of Commons knows that that House would very readily come round to the view of the country as expressed in the House of Lords.
I am sure that noble Lords from Ireland will have been delighted to hear that there is to be an extension of land purchase in Ireland. The more owners there are in that country the greater will be the stability of the State. I am sure there has been no indisposition on the part of the Government to deal with this question. The real difficulty has been that the rate of interest on money has risen so greatly. That is a difficulty which was not foreseen at the time of the passing of the Wyndham Act. The rising of the rate of interest on money has coincided with the great drop in the value of Consols, and until now I believe the Irish Government have not seen their way to go further with land purchase without putting a tax upon the taxpayers of this country greater than they thought
18
they were justified in doing. If the Government can now facilitate in any way the conclusion of land purchase, all parties—the landowner, the tenant, and the State—will be benefited. We have heard that we are to have a measure for the prevention of plural voting. I will not pretend that I think that measure will be popular in your Lordships' House. It is very controversial, and I do not say anything about it further than this, that it does appear to me, if you have once given up the position that a man is to have votes according to the amount of his property, that the only logical conclusion you can come to is that each man should have one vote and one vote only.
We are to have a measure dealing with that terrible question of the feeble minded. This is a measure which is long overdue. Any one who has assisted in the administration of justice or in the administration of the Poor-law in this country is well aware how many cases both of poverty and of crime arise among these unfortunate victims of ill-health. Presumably the Bill will follow somewhat on the lines of the Bill of last session, amended, no doubt, in the light of the criticisms in Grand Committee in the House of Commons. This problem is of two kinds. You have, first of all, to deal with the living, and you also have to deal, if you can, with the limitation of the reproduction of this species. You can do a great deal to cultivate the intellect of these people, possibly even in some cases to cure them. You can do a good deal by placing these poor wretches amongst better surroundings. But, after all, the greatest problem is that of limiting the reproduction of the unfit. Much can be done, no doubt, by segregation. When one reflects that this is an evil which is unfortunately increasing in this country and is sapping the vitality of the race, I am not sure that even stronger measures would not be justified; but I fully recognise that the sentiment of the country is not sufficiently advanced for that, and that it would be difficult to go far ahead of public sentiment in this matter. That being so, I should be grateful, as I am sure everybody would, for any measure which would help to solve this difficult problem.
A few words on the subject of education. The announcement that the Government are to deal with education is a momentous one. The noble and learned Viscount on

19
the Woolsack told us, in the interesting speech which he delivered at Manchester about two months ago, that the most urgent of the great social problems to be taken up was this question of education. It is a common-place that education in this country is chaotic. We all know the want of co-ordination that exists in elementary, secondary, and advanced education. The fact is that education has not sufficiently interested the people, and therefore it has not sufficiently interested the leaders of the people. It is undoubtedly, as the Lord Chancellor said, a colossal undertaking. It will require all the force of the nation behind it to get adequate results. But, my Lords, the competition of nations grows, and it rests with us in those circumstances to appeal to all to raise the intellectual level of our people. It will be costly, but it will be to a large extent a productive expenditure. We have only to look at the wonderful growth and prosperity of Germany in the last twenty years, which is largely owing, I believe, to their much more perfect system of education, to see what can be done by educating a nation. It will to a certain extent also be economical, for it has always been found that the more you educate a people the less crime, the less poverty, the less drunkenness there is, I am sure it will be satisfactory to a large part of the population to know, as we have heard from the Lord Chancellor, that the cost of these changes is not to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers. That, I am sure, will be the gilding of the pill. And if it is also possible for the Government to find a solution of the religious difficulty, which I am sure they desire to do and we hope they will be able to do, one of the very greatest difficulties will be removed from the course of education in this country, and the nation will rejoice and be glad. In conclusion I would thank your Lordships for the great courtesy you have extended to me in the somewhat too lengthy remarks that I have made to you, and I would express the hope that the legislative and administrative work of this session, foretold in His Majesty's gracious Speech, may add to the prosperity and the welfare of His Majesty and of his people both in this country and in his Dominions beyond the seas.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne.—(Lord Aberconway.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is usual upon these occasions for the Leader of the Opposition, in tones indicative of various degrees of conviction, to offer, on behalf of those who sit around him, his congratulations to the noble Lords to whom has been entrusted the extremely delicate task of moving and seconding the Address. I fancy the practice dates back to a period when that duty habitually fell to the lot of comparatively junior and inexperienced members of this House, and I feel that upon this occasion I should be guilty of something like an impertinence if I were to offer our congratulations or any words of encouragement to noble Lords whose experience of public affairs has been as long and as varied as that of the two noble Lords who addressed us just now. Both of them have sat in the House of Commons, and both have had other and various experiences of public life, but I am sure they will permit me to say that we listened to their speeches with much interest and with the hope that they will find it convenient to take a frequent part in our debates. One thought crossed my mind as I listened to them. Both of them owe their promotion to this House to distinguished services rendered to the public and to their Party. I wonder whether, after their recent experience of the way in which this House is now treated, they would maintain that their reward was really worth its face value. I wonder whether it may not sometimes have occurred to them that they have, like the hero of a well-known story, strayed into "the wrong paradise."
My Lords, I come to the gracious Speech from the Throne. In the first paragraph His Majesty reminds us that tins is the anniversary of a day ever memorable in the annals of our history—the day upon which his late Majesty was united to a Princess who for half a century, first as Princess of Wales, then as Queen Consort, and more lately as Queen Mother, has occupied a unique place in the hearts of the British people. There has been no joy and no sorrow of ours in which Queen Alexandra has not taken a sympathetic part, and it is something that His Majesty should be able to tell us that in her great sorrow she has found some support and some consolation from the devoted affection of our people.
We heard with more than usual satisfaction the announcement that His Majesty's relations with other Powers are of a

21
friendly description. The condition of affairs in many parts of the world is so critical that it is indeed matter for congratulation that his Majesty should be able to use these words. It is, however, impossible to read the sentences which follow without realising that there may still be cause for anxiety. We find it stated that time war still continues. There is a reference to "possible developments." There is the intimation that there are some points which are still unsettled. My Lords, in these circumstances it is most satisfactory that we should also be told that a large measure of success has already been achieved, and that His Majesty is hopeful of a complete understanding between the Great Powers. I venture to associate myself with what was said just now by the noble Lord who moved in reference to the part which has been taken by His Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I was also glad to hear his admission that, so far as these questions of foreign policy were concerned, His Majesty's Government had no reason to complain of the manner in which they had been treated by the Opposition.
When I venture to offer my congratulations to His Majesty's Government upon the measure of success which has attended them, I do so, of course, with certain reservations, because we are indeed very much in the dark as to what His Majesty's Government have been about during the last few months in connection with these most important international issues. They have not been over-generous to us in the matter of laying Papers on the Table. That is, perhaps, to some extent inevitable, but the fact remains that we have been told very little. And yet, my Lords, how greatly these events move us! We cannot be indifferent to what is happening in the Balkan Peninsula. Many feelings rise in our minds. We are witnessing a complete transformation of South-Eastern Europe. We see the wrecking of a fabric in the maintenance of which we have ourselves been largely concerned. We hope that from these events may emerge a happier state of things for these long-suffering regions. We also, I think many of us, have a certain feeling of sympathy for an old ally who has fallen upon evil days—an ally whose troops have in their day, under good leadership, fought with a gallantry and devotion for which no praise could be too strong, and who are the co-religionists of a great body of His Majesty's loyal subjects in India. And last of all, there is I am
22
sure in all our minds a feeling of intense compassion for dm millions of blameless people to whom these events have brought countless sufferings not only from war, but from pestilence, famine, and the loss of house and home.
And yet so far as our information in regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government is concerned, I do not believe that we have officially been told anything since the memorable occasion upon which they associated themselves with the other Great Powers in intimating to the belligerents that they would view with disfavour any attempt at a modification of the territorial status quo. That warning has become a little obsolete. I have no desire to press for information where information cannot with propriety be given. But are there not some chapters of recent political history which are now more or less closed and about which we might be told a little more than we have been told yet? I am under the impression, for example, that we have never been given any Papers about the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was a transaction which affected the obligations of those who were signatories of the Berlin Treaty, to which reference is made in the Speech, and I cannot conceive why Papers should not have been laid on the Table on that subject. Then there is the case of Tripoli, which is another chapter that one may, I suppose, regard as more or less concluded. We have, however, had no Papers about Tripoli.
But there is another country about which I must express a hope that we shall be vouchsafed some further information—I mean Persia. We have had no Papers for nearly a year—I think since the month of April last year. But events have been moving very fast in Persia since that time. We have had some conversations in this House, but we have been quite unable to elicit from His Majesty's Government anything like a full and complete account of the policy which they are following. I am well aware of the inherent difficulties of the Persian case. We are led in conflicting directions by different sets of considerations. On the one hand there is our feeling with regard to our interests in the Persian Gulf, for which we have made great sacrifices in the past, and in Southern Persia. On the other hand, I quite understand the reluctance of His Majesty's Government to involve themselves in what might be

23
described as an adventurous policy in any part of Persia; but my fear is that between these two sets of considerations we shall end by having no policy at all. There are two Persian questions as to which we should like further information. Both of them have already been referred to in this House. There is the question of railways in Southern Persia. When pressed the other day on the subject of a railway from Mohammeral to Khoramabad the noble Viscount told us that His Majesty's Government took a lively interest in that project and that "active negotiations" were in progress. I rather hope that we may be told, if not to-night at any rate on an early occasion, something as to the result of those active negotiations. The other matter to which I refer is the episode of Shiraz. A noble friend of mine who is in the House this evening pointed out some time ago that a well-known Indian regiment was virtually imprisoned in Shiraz. Then came the deplorable murder of Captain Eckford, and, by the way, it has been announced within the last few hours that the wife of the Belgian Consul at Bushire has been murdered, which shows what a state Persia is getting into.
When we raised this question the noble Marquess who leads the House admitted the great gravity of the murder of Captain Eckford, and the representative of the Foreign Office in the House of Commons went even further, because he announced that the case was one in which it was essential that punishment should be meted out. He went on to say that the season of the year was unfavourable, but he indicated that what was hoped was that in the spring the Persian Government would take the punitive measures which the circumstances required. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will be able to tell us whether that matter has advanced any further. I trust, however, that the noble Marquess will allow me to explain that I raise this question not because I wish to press His Majesty's Government to entangle themselves in a policy of adventure in Southern Persia, but because my fear is that if an Indian regiment is allowed to remain virtually imprisoned in a Persian town and if the murder of an English officer remains unpunished, we may find ourselves, in spite of ourselves, committed to a policy involving sacrifices which we would all of us very much sooner avoid.
Now, my Lords, I pass to the paragraphs of the Speech in which His Majesty deals
24
with the visit of the Colonial Ministers to London and the conferences which took place with regard to naval defence. Those are paragraphs which we all read with pride and satisfaction. These conferences will help to knit the Empire together, and the sacrifices which the Dominions are ready to make with the object of sharing the burden of naval defence with us, will bring a valuable accession of strength to the Empire at a moment when such an accession seems to me to be greatly needed. But may I in passing express my surprise that when these references are made to the efforts which are being made by the great Dominions in the interests of the safety of the Empire, not one word is said as to any efforts which His Majesty's Government may be making for the purpose of securing the safety of the Empire and rendering it easier for them to meet their international obligations. We never open a newspaper without reading of portentous increases in the armaments and navies of the Great Powers and of the new perils which the discovery of aerial navigation is likely to bring to this country. Considering the amount of public attention which is being concentrated upon these matters, I must say that I should have thought that some word of reference to them might have found a place in His Majesty's Speech.
Then, my Lords, I come to the paragraph in which reference is made to the abominable attempt upon the life of the Viceroy of India. I am sure that every member of this House shares the admiration which His Majesty is pleased to express at the conduct of the Viceroy and Lady Hardinge upon that occasion. One can scarcely conceive a more terrible ordeal; nor I think can one conceive that any man or any woman could have stood the test with greater courage and dignity than the Viceroy of India and the lady whom His Majesty has honoured by special mention in the Speech from the Throne.
I pass on to that part of the Speech which deals with the present Parliamentary situation. We have now had some experience of public life under the Parliament Act, and I should like to ask whether any one, even on the other side of the House, can lay his hand on his heart and say that he is really satisfied with that experience. Parliament has now sat for seventeen out of

25
twenty-six months, and the result, I take upon myself to say, is heart-breaking fur any one who believes in free institutions and in representative government. Can any of us recall a time when public opinion in this country was more completely wearied, confused, and demoralised than it is at the present time? This atmosphere of despair and indifference may suit the Whips and the wirepullers of the Party opposite, but it is a national misfortune when the calculations of the Government of the day are based, as they are now, on the prevalence of these feelings. I venture to contrast the expectations which were held out to us and the realities with which we have had to cope. What was the promise? That we should have full discussions extending over three sessions of Parliament and over two years, with full interchanges of views between the two Parties, each side contributing what it could to the solution of great difficulties—interchanges from which would emerge some conclusion, in which, no doubt, the views of the stronger Party would prevail, but which nevertheless would take into account also the views of the weaker Party. That was the promise. What has been the performance so far as this House is concerned? Inside of six weeks, at the fag end of a session prolonged far into the second year, we have been called upon to deal with two Bills of vital importance—the Bill dealing with home Rule for Ireland and the Bill dealing with the Establishment of part of the Church of England. And but for a mere accident we should have had a third Bill of almost equal importance revolutionising the franchise, and perhaps doubling or more than doubling the number of persons entitled to a vote.
We have had other measures which are fresh in your Lordships' recollection and on which I need not dwell. What room has there been in these circumstances for that give and take to which we were bidden to look forward, for that consultation which was to be so frequent, for the exercise of that revision which we were told was to be the special attribute of this House? The noble Lord who spoke second suggested to us that it would have been much better if we had gone into Committee on the Home Rule Bill and on the Welsh Bill. Supposing we had done so, what room would there have been within these narrow limits of time for the detailed examination of Bills containing hundreds of clauses and innumerable details of importance? The attempt
26
would have broken down entirely under the present dispensation. And do not let us forget—for that is the touch of irony with which the whole thing concludes—that at the end of the session which has just concluded the House of Commons adjourned on February 14 and came together one day only before prorogation to consider the whole of our Amendments, while this House was called together at an unusual hour on the very day of prorogation to bring the matter to a conclusion at a moment when the myrmidons of the noble Earl (the First Commissioner of Works) were waiting at the door for permission to come in and rearrange the furniture of the House for to-day's ceremony.
And what about the prospect of next session? Is any consolation to be derived from the contents of the Speech? We are to have, of course, the two great Bills with regard to which the two Houses of Parliament disagreed, and the Scottish Temperance Bill, which is included, I think most wrongly, in the same category. Remember that none of these Bills can be altered. They must, under the Parliament Act, come up to us as the same Bills, and therefore without any material change, as if no imperfections had been disclosed in those measures during their public discussion, as if there were no second thoughts to be taken into consideration, as if there were no signs of uneasiness and misgiving even among the supporters of the noble Marquess opposite.
Then we are promised new legislation. I need not take up your Lordships' time for long in discussing it. There is to be a Land Purchase Bill, which we shall await with hopeful feelings and with the conviction, shared we know by the Irish Secretary, that the settlement of this land purchase question is really of greater importance than Home Rule itself.
Then there is to be a measure for promoting the cotton-growing industry in the Soudan. I have no doubt that that is a very admirable and useful proposal, but I warn the noble Marquess that he will very likely hear something from persons interested, let us say, in the sugar beet industry in this country, or in the hop industry of Kent, who will ask why a few of the crumbs that are spread upon the

27
Soudanese table should not be allowed to reach them also. Of the Bill with regard to the care of the feeble-minded, I will only say that most of us greatly regretted that owing to Parliamentary exigencies that Bill had to be dropped in the session which has just concluded. With regard to plural voting, we are all of us fully prepared to discuss with noble Lords opposite the anomalies of the present electoral system, but we are inclined to take exception to the selection of this particular anomaly if it is to be dealt with without touching the even more important question of redistribution, which the Prime Minister quite lately admitted equally requires the consideration of Parliament.
Then I come to the last item in the list—"Proposals will be submitted for the development of a national system of education." That sentence is a somewhat enigmatical one. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us presently whether the word "proposals" has any significance. Does it mean a Bill or something other than a Bill? For information on this point we naturally turn to the memorable speech delivered by the Lord Chancellor in the city of Manchester in January last. That speech attracted a great deal of attention. Until the noble and learned Viscount delivered it most people were under the impression that His Majesty's Government had it in view to introduce this session land legislation of a very drastic character. The noble and learned Viscount came along and, so to speak, dethroned the land measure from its place in the Ministerial shop window, and put in its place the promise of a Bill dealing with education. The noble and learned Viscount on that occasion took the public into his confidence and told them what his idea of an Education Bill was. It was a bold and striking conception. He told us that the whole of our educational system, elementary, secondary, and higher, was in a chaotic condition, and that the scope of the necessary legislation would go even further than dealing with these three stages—that it would have to start from earliest childhood, from the cradle to the University. And he said, I think with great truth, that this was "a tremendous question," a "colossal undertaking," a task of "supreme importance." I agree with every word the noble and learned Viscount said on that occasion. And I trust he will not suppose that I desire in any sense to throw cold water upon any scheme which he
28
may have in his mind for what I think is usually called co-ordinating our educational system, the imperfection of which we all admit.
But what I want to call the attention of the House to is this. Where are you going to find room for a measure of that magnitude in the programme of this session? Remember that the Speech announces—and the sentiment was warmly applauded by both the noble Lords opposite—that the session is to be restricted within the narrowest limits. What I think His Majesty's Ministers meant when they put those words into the Sovereign's mouth was not so much that the session was to be restricted within the narrowest limits but that Parliamentary discussion and the opportunities given to this House should be restricted within the narrowest limits. The common interpretation placed upon this sentence in the Speech is that His Majesty's Government have it in view that the session should end some time in the month of August. At that rate we should be entitled to receive these Bills, I suppose, some time in the month of July at latest. Is it not evident that if you are to deal with the arrears that we are taking over from last year and also with this long string of measures, including a Plural Voting Bill, and a colossal Education Bill—is it not quite evident that, so far as this House is concerned, if we get these Bills at all we shall have the same undignified scramble that we have had in the last few days, and on a very much larger scale?
I have now said all that I desire to say with regard to what I find in the text of the Speech, but I wish to add half-a-dozen words with regard to one or two matters which are not mentioned in it. I am not going to take up your Lordships' time by dealing with omissions of second-rate importance. For example, I think I could find something to say as to the omission of any reference to the necessity of amending the Insurance Act. I thought it was universally conceded that our experience of the Insurance Act had disclosed very serious imperfections in that measure. I even think that the Prime Minister himself said with reference to a grant of money for which the House of Commons was asked in connection with Insurance that a Bill would be necessary in order to regularise the transaction. But I will not press that point further, There are, however, three

29
omissions which seem to me to be of first-rate importance. In the first place, there is no reference whatever in the Speech to the question of labour disputes. That question seems to me, of all the domestic problems which engage our attention at the present time, by far the most important. I will not again quote the words used by the noble and learned Viscount not long ago as to the danger to the public welfare of what I think he called "arterial" strikes. But since the noble and learned Viscount used those memorable words we have been within an ace of a labour dispute by the side of which other labour disputes would have paled into insignificance, a dispute which was only averted by the good sense exhibited by both sides, to which I gladly pay my tribute of respect. But remember that that dispute arose, not out of any great conflict between a large body of men asking for improved wages, or improved conditions, or shorter hours, and their employers, but our, of a personal dispute between a single individual and the directors of a single company; and yet if a strike had followed from that dispute it would have involved every railway in the country—even those whose sympathies were probably favourable to the dismissed guard—and it would have involved the whole community which would have suffered untold inconvenience and incalculable loses by the interruption of the usual facilities for travel. My Lords, is it not deplorable and scandalous that from such a cause the country should be threatened with such a calamity? The Lord Chancellor told us the other day that these questions were being considered by the Industrial Council, and he added, "We shall before long be in a position to say more." I hope, even if the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is not able to tell us anything this evening, he will at least be able to assure us that this matter is not being lost sight of. And permit me to add this. I observe that all those who have made these questions the object of their particular study are deeply convinced that if you are to have a reasonable settlement of them you should try to have it now while trade is, as we were told by the noble Lord who moved, extremely good and when, consequently, there is every desire to avoid a rupture between Capital and Labour.
I pass to the second omission on which I touched a moment ago—the absence of any proposals with regard to land legis-
30
lation. And that in spite of the somewhat flamboyant statements to which we have lately listened as to the demerits of the feudal system and the hard lot of those who are affected by it. His Majesty's Government were probably wise in their generation when they determined to let this question alone for the moment. But then I make, if I may, two observations. In the first place, if they have not yet been able to formulate a land policy of their own, would it not be better to avoid holding out extravagant expectations to those who are interested in the land question? Would it not be better to avoid the use of immoderate language? Would it not be better to abstain from threatening the existing agricultural system until you have at any rate some idea of the kind of system that you want to put in its place? The second observation which I desire to make is of a different kind. While I realise that it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to bring in a large and controversial measure dealing with the land question this year, I would ask them whether it would not really be worth while for them to try to make a beginning, perhaps in consultation with those who do not as a rule agree with them with regard to political matters. The particular question which I think they might endeavour to look at from that point of view is the housing question, which all of us admit to be an urgent question at the present time. His Majesty's Government have their own Act—the Housing and Town Planning Act, which I think is doing some good, although it is operating very slowly so far as the agricultural districts are concerned. Then there are at least two Bills in the House of Commons, and there is another Bill which was introduced not long ago by my noble friend Lord Salisbury in this House. These represent different schools of thought, but they are not schools of thought which seem to me to he by any means irreconcilable. The object proposed is the same object, and it may be reached by more roads than one. This I can say with confidence, that if His Majesty's Government desire to approach this housing question in the spirit which I have indicated, far from experiencing obstruction on this side of the House, they would find a great deal of willing cooperation, and that inure especially in regard to the question of the provision Of sites for houses—a matter which many noble Lords on both sides of the Mouse may

31
be expected to know a good deal about. Such a scheme, if it were framed at all, could surely be framed without prejudice to any more ambitious projects which His Majesty's Ministers may have at the back of their minds. What we want is to get the houses, and if we are to do that we must think a little more about getting houses and a little less about getting votes.
I come to the third omission to which I wish to call attention. I feel sure that most of your Lordships must have noticed it. The gracious Speech contains no single word of reference to the most urgent problem of all—the question of constitutional reform. Of course, it must be obvious to us that the tactics which find favour on the Government side of the House render it impossible for them to undertake so serious a question. But my Lords, we have a right to remind you that you are pledged to the hilt to deal with this question. We have not forgotten your statement that the question of the constitution of the House of Lords is indissoluble from the question of its powers. We have not forgotten your references to that twin Bill which has never seen the light, or your statements that you desire "a complete settlement" of this matter, that it would not brook delay, and that you hoped to effect it within the lifetime of the present Parliament. You are, however, in no hurry to amend the Parliamentary machine because it suits your hook that it should remain out of gear. Once repaired, no Radical Government will be able to tamper, as you have tampered, with the Union, the Church, or the franchise. You desire—perhaps it is natural—to make hay while the sun shines. But when the crop is gathered, remember that the lifetime of the present Parliament within which you are pledged to deal with this matter will not be worth many months' purchase. I conclude that your prospects of paying the "debt of honour" are not good. I make no imputation against the noble Marquess opposite. I feel quite sure that he would like to pay the debt, and to pay it honourably, but circumstances are going to be too strong for him. His supporters know quite well that a reformed House of Lords means a strong House of Lords. That is the last thing which they desire. And that, my Lords; is the explanation of that last and most important omission to which I have ventured to call your Lordships' attention.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I can most cheerfully and candidly join with the noble Marquess opposite in what he said about my two noble friends who moved and seconded the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne, and to whose speeches we all listened with deep interest. As the noble Marquess pointed out, the mover and seconder of the Address on this occasion do not belong to the class of those who have sometimes been called upon to perform this duty, those who are complete novices to Parliamentary life and of small general experience. Both noble Lords have sat long in the House of Commons, have represented divisions of counties—Arcades ambo—and both of them are deeply interested in some of the great staple trades of the country. I also re-echo the hope of the noble Marquess that both will from time to time contribute to our discussions, though I certainly do not forget that my noble friend who spoke first took part, in forcible speeches, in both of the principal debates of the session which has just closed.
The first paragraph of the gracious Speech was heard by us all with sympathy. It is fifty years since Princess Alexandra of Denmark passed through the cheering streets of London on her first arrival in this country. Now Queen Alexandra can read her history in the nation's eyes, and to her in her irreparable loss has been extended by the whole country that sympathy which during her whole life here she has been so ready to extend to all those who have been in any kind of sorrow or suffering.
The noble Marquess opposite naturally said something on the subject of the war and of the relations of this country with foreign Powers. He realised, of course, that it would be quite impossible on an occasion like this to discuss in any form whatever what may be called the historical rights or wrongs of the war, or, indeed, at the present stage to say anything of its probable outcome. This country, indeed, has been able to entertain something like a general neutrality of sentiment as well as of attitude in the course of this struggle. Many, of course, maintain an historical sympathy with the small Christian nationalities of South-East Europe and remember the trials which in past years they have undergone. On the other hand, this country has never

33
been slow to recognise the particular virtues of the Turkish people, virtues which would be a lesson to many of the most advanced and civilised nations further West. Nor do we forget the vast body of the subjects of His Majesty who are bound to one of the combatants by the bond of Islam, constituting as it does an almost closer tie than any which exist elsewhere either of blood or of a common history. But, my Lords, when we look at the position of affairs as it now exists—and, as the noble Marquess very truly pointed out, we cannot speak of it in detail because the war is not yet over and certain points still remain unsettled between the parties concerned—we are able to rejoice that the Concert of Europe has not merely sprung into renewed life, but has proved genuinely active in the determination to maintain the peace of Europe. All the Great Powers throughout the discussions have been animated—there has never been any mistaking it—by the desire that peace should be fully maintained; and it is, I think, a matter of pride, as has been stated by one of my noble friends behind me, that this country should have been selected as the meeting place both of the delegates and of the Ambassadors chosen to represent the Great Powers on points of particular concern to them, feeling as we do that that involves the recognition that this country has maintained throughout an impartial attitude with no axe whatever to grind of its own, if I may use a common phrase, and also that the Powers of Europe and their representatives feel confidence in the intentions and the character of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The noble Marquess made it a matter of some complaint that the Foreign Office had been a little backward in laying Papers on the Table in relation to foreign affairs, and he implied that nothing whatever had been announced as to the views of His Majesty's Government for almost a year past. The noble Marquess will not have forgotten that, so far as the war is concerned, some observations were made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister at the Guildhall. But it is quite true, of course, that no Papers have been laid, and the noble Marquess will, I am sure, agree that none could very well have been laid in relation to a contest which is not yet closed. I note, however, that the noble Marquess mentioned the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also the Italian war in
34
Tripoli as two subjects on which no Papers have been laid. I will, of course, bring his observations to the notice of the Foreign Office.
Then the noble Marquess turned aside to say a word on the question of Persia. As regards Persia, I am able to say that before long we shall be able to lay further Papers which are now in hand; but, as the noble Marquess knows, and nobody better, the subject of Persia is one which involves many people besides ourselves, and therefore it is not always possible to lay Papers with that speed which may take place when it is a matter of simple inter-communication between two Powers. Therefore I shall say nothing at present on the question of Persian railways, although they have been occupying a great deal of our attention of late, attention which is not confined to the Foreign Office but also affects to some extent the Office over which I have the honour to preside. As regards the case of the Central India Horse at Shiraz, I am in great hopes that it will be possible to move that force from Shiraz in quite the immediate future. We are taking steps to bring that about. But as regards the question of a punitive expedition, I would simply say two things. In the first place, it has been our object to encourage and help the Persian Government in the matter of money to enable her to restore order on the Southern roads herself rather than to take the whole business out of her hands and endeavour to do it ourselves. The second point on which I wish to lay emphasis is this. It is quite true, when a murder such as that of Captain Eckford is committed, and apparently committed with complete impunity, that the credit or prestige, or whatever you wish to call it, of the British Government must suffer, or, at any rate, appear to suffer; but the disadvantages attaching to the sending of a great punitive expedition, which you may send but which it is not easy to remove, are so great that we have staved off as long as we can, and I hope in the long run we may succeed in staving off altogether, the sending of an expedition of that kind, because the possible outcome of a military expedition—which, speak of it how you may, involves something like a military occupation of the country—is so obscure and may be so dangerous that we desire to avoid it if we possibly can.
I need say little of the paragraph in the Speech which deals with the visits of the

35
Dominion Ministers and the steps that are being taken in the various parts of the Empire for naval co-operation. As the House knows, it is now some time past, it is the best part of four years, since communications have been taking place with a view to systematising the naval defence of the Empire. In the discussions which have taken place from time to time we have found that, while all the Dominions are animated by a similar spirit, they have taken different views, in some cases even opposite views, as to the methods by which that co-operation should be brought about. Some have been disposed to lay more stress than others upon the necessity of maintaining national control in the local sense over the contribution to the common Navy; but in every case, even among those with whom that view has been most paramount, there has been I am certain a full recognition of the fact that, however independent a Dominion Navy may be in its control and management, yet it is and must be, if the time ever comes when the Navies have to work side by side, on a different footing from the Navy of an allied Power, however close and intimate such an alliance might be.
The noble Marquess spoke in terms with which we all cordially agree of the outrage committed on the Viceroy and Lady Hardinge at Delhi, and of the splendid intrepidity which was shown both by them and by others who were immediately concerned. It certainly seemed to us all at the time that the steady completion of the day's work and the holding of the Durbar just as it was mapped out on the programme was an incident worthy of the courage and constancy of those who govern India, and was an index of the whole spirit in which the government of India is and ought to be carried on. The outburst of sympathy all over India was very striking. People of all classes and of every creed united in deploring the event, and the tribute which the women of India have combined in paying to Lady Hardinge, whose conduct on that dreadful occasion moved their admiration, has been almost universal. Literally from the first moment the Viceroy determined, and he has held to that determination ever since, that this event ought to show and need show no necessity whatever for any modification in the spirit or in the methods by which Britain governs India. While, of course, such crime must be put down if necessary with peculiar severity, there is no reason why its existence
36
should cause any pause or change in the hopes which we all entertain of the advance of India, either morally or materially, or, so far as may be, politically. One is struck almost more, I think, by the insensate stupidity of an outrage of this kind than by its actual criminality. Even if such an attempt had been successful, even if the unhappily successful attempts on the lives of minor officials, of which, as we know, there have been several in past years, were multiplied to any extent, how is it possible that those who inspire and those who commit such crimes, some of them people of education and of experience, should suppose that the Government of India would be affected in its essence by anything that they could do? How is it possible that they can imagine that outrages of that kind could bring about the revolution which they profess to desire?
The gracious Speech also alludes to the Royal Commission on the Indian Public Services which is now doing a part of its work in India. Upon that I desire to say a word, because there has been some misapprehension or misinterpretation in the public Press of the manner in which that Commission has been conducting its work. I have seen notices and articles in the newspapers which would cause a casual observer to suppose that the greater part of the time of the Commission had been taken up in a mere racial wrangle between those who, on the one side, desire to see the Indian Public Services almost monopolised by Englishmen, and, on the other hand, by those who desire to see them almost entirely manned by Indians. It was almost inevitable in a public inquiry of this kind that some discussion of the sort should take place, particularly in the preliminary stages of the inquiry; but, as so often happens, a quite undue prominence has been given in the Press to this particular side of the discussions, just as we notice in the report of a case in a Court of Law here that a jocular observation from the Bench or a wrangle between two learned counsel sometimes fills a column of the newspapers to the complete exclusion of an important discussion on a point of law which is of less general excitement to the public. The effect in this particular case has been that valuable facts and opinions elicited in the course of the inquiry have been far less reported than some of these discussions on the respective merits of Englishmen and of Indians when holding certain public offices in India. As regards

37
the inquiry as a whole, everybody will agree that the maintenance of the standard of that splendid service, the Indian Civil Service, and the question of the employment of Indians in different branches of the Service are two subjects demanding the closest scrutiny and deserving of the greatest care, in order not only that public opinion may be satisfied but also that the best possible results may be obtained. My noble friends behind me spoke in a highly informed manner of the prosperity which happily now attends almost every class of industry in this country. I need not dwell upon that.
I pass to the matter which was, I think, twice mentioned by the noble Marquess opposite—namely, the disagreement which took place between the two Houses in relation to some of our principal measures, and the intention which we have announced of introducing them once more during this session. It is, of course, our intention that those measures should be once more subjected, if the House wills it, to examination and discussion here. The extent to which that examination will take place and the length of the discussion rests, not with the Government, but with the majority in your Lordships' House. I confess I should have thought that any member of the Opposition, however much he may resent or regret the Parliament Act, would hesitate to imply, as the noble Marquess seemed to me very near implying, that in reality the power which this House has always had and which it has not got now, the sole power which was of value to it, was the power of rejecting off-hand measures, whatever they might be, passed through the House of Commons, but unpalatable, for one reason or another, to this House, leaving to the Government of the day the choice either of dropping them or of asking His Majesty to dissolve Parliament. It seems to me a strange commentary on the past history of this House that the loss of that power is spoken of as though it were the only thing that mattered, as the one thing which leaves this House helpless, defenceless, and useless, and without which it can hardly claim to be a Second Chamber at all.
Noble Lords opposite seem to forget that the Parliament Act, while it was, it is true, the beginning of a period, also came at the end of a period. It was the climax to a
38
long series of actions on the part of your Lordships' House which, in the opinion of the Government, supported by a majority in the House of Commons and by the country, had made the Parliamentary situation impossible. The noble Marquess speaks now of the political world, I suppose both in and out of Parliament, as being demoralised, and he asks what has become of all the promises we uttered when the Parliament Act was under discussion. It was the express intention of the Parliament Act that revision and delay should be the two powers left to this House. The length of the possible delay seems to have been overstated or wrongly estimated in some cases. It is, of course, open to any noble Lord to say, if he thinks so, that the delay provided by the Parliament Act is not enough; but so far as discussion and revision are concerned there is no reason whatever why the forecasts which were indicated at the time of the passing of the Parliament Act should not be completely fulfilled.
The noble Marquess held, I think, that it would have been of no use to go into Committee on either of the principal Bills which your Lordships rejected the other day on Second Reading. That, as I ventured to say at the time, was a matter for the majority of your Lordships' House to decide, for it was for you to say how you could best put your case before the country. But so far as the future is concerned, it is, I think, relevant to call attention to the fact that, although those Bills in coming up from another place in this session and next session must be in the same form, it is, of course, always possible for them to be amended here, and for the kind of discussion between the two Houses to take place which has taken place before when the two Houses have not at first agreed over Amendments of detail. In addition to that there is the power which, as noble Lords very well know, is to be found in subsection (4) of Section 2 of the Parliament Act by which the House of Commons, without inserting Amendments so as to make the Bill a different Bill, can place Amendments on the Paper, can suggest Amendments, which this House, if it thinks fit, may consider and add or not to the Bill as it desires. That, I think, is all that at this moment I need say on the question of the reappearance of the two great measures of last session.

39
The noble Marquess noted that we propose to bring in a measure, the importance of which he will no doubt realise as much as anybody, on the difficult question of Irish land purchase. It seems to me unavoidable that if we are to pass a measure for the further facilitation of land purchase it must be a measure, generally speaking, of an agreed kind. It would be vain, I think, for the Government to attempt to force through a controversial measure on such a matter, and I therefore hope that we shall be able to come together. If we can secure the final completion of Irish land purchase in the not very distant future the satisfaction will no doubt be equal on both sides of the House. The Bill, of course, must be partly, indeed largely, financial, but it cannot be wholly financial, because there are other respects in which the completion of the work must be dealt with. The fact is—and I think when the question comes to be examined you will all be disposed to recognise it—that the time has come when, if land purchase is to be actually completed, in conjunction with the fresh financial terms which the Bill will, of course, provide, there will have to be a measure of general compulsion put forward for the consideration of Parliament, and I sincerely hope that it will appear in a form in which both Houses and both Parties will agree that it ought to pass.
I need not dwell on, the question of cotton growing in the Soudan, of which my noble friend Lord Ashton spoke. The noble Marquess rather ominously reminded us that those who are interested in the growth of sugar-beet in this country might regard with a somewhat jealous eye the provision of large sums of money, even by way of loan, for the purpose of growing cotton in a part of the world which cannot even be described as an actual dependency of the British Empire. The noble Marquess would surely admit that there is nothing which concerns us more than the regular maintenance and development of the supply of cotton, and if we have not hitherto been able to exhibit similar enthusiasm about the cultivation of beetroot in this country that is mainly, if not solely, due to the fact that the cultivation of beetroot has been from time to time set before us as a simple and easy method of introducing a protective system on behalf of sugar growers in this country, and therefore the care, we cannot help feeling, has been less for beet-
40
root than for the possibility of somehow or other introducing what is known as Tariff Reform. The noble Marquess was accurate in thinking that the measure which was proposed last session with regard to the mentally deficient will be reintroduced in the light of the discussions which have taken place in Parliament during the past session and of the further inquiries which have been made.
The allusion to the industrial employment of children which the Speech contains and the restrictions which that should undergo refer to a side of the subject which your Lordships may be aware was touched upon in a Bill introduced in another place by Mr. Beck dealing with street trading and founded upon the Report of a Committee which was printed, I think, early in the year 1910. The subject is a rather more delicate and difficult one than might appear, because the earnings of the children of the very poor are, of course, liable to be affected by it, and it may seem hard to interfere in cases of great poverty with those small earnings. But of two things we feel certain—that so far as street trading can be shown to be actually demoralising to the children themselves, and so far as it can be proved to close the avenues to further employment when the children are grown up, street trading ought to be most carefully limited and safeguarded.
The noble Marquess mentioned the plural voting measure. We all remember the fate which the Plural Voting Bill which was associated with my right hon. friend the present Colonial Secretary met with in this House in the year 1906. The question has always been an interesting one, and we look forward almost with excitement to know what the fate of the plural voting measure will be when it comes in the course of the ensuing session before this House, because it has always been the boast of this House that when a measure once rejected here has received the imprimatur of a subsequent. General Election this House is not merely willing, but positively eager to pass it. It is quite true that neither of the two General Elections which have taken place since 1906 can be said to have turned mainly on the question of plural voting.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It would not be easy to conceive a General Election which was exclusively confined to this single question and therefore I do not know whether noble Lords, when it appears, will argue that the Plural Voting Bill has not received the approval of the country. I do not know whether the noble Earl who cheered just now, who, as we know, is one of the great evangelists of the referendum, would like to submit this question to a popular referendum. I am no friend of plural voting or of the referendum, but if I were both I should be inclined to think that the measure would be one upon which a referendum might perhaps be hardly fair. I am, as I say, no friend of plural voting, but I think it would get harder measure under a referendum than it would under an ordinary system of Parliamentary election. However that may be, we shall await with some interest and even excitement the attitude of noble Lords opposite when the plural voting measure puts in its appearance in the course of this session. The noble Marquess seemed almost to taunt us with an indifference to redistribution in this connection. It is quite clear that no general system of electoral reform could possibly be adopted in this country without a practically concurrent measure of redistribution. That we fully and frankly admit. If no Reform Bill were intended, in our view plural voting ought ever to be abolished; but so far as redistribution is concerned, we certainly in no way deny that as soon as the whole question is touched that must form part of it.
Then I come to the sentence in the Speech relating to the development of a national system of education. The noble Marquess asked what was the precise meaning of the word "proposals" in this connection. I can tell the noble Marquess that it is certainly not our intention to endeavour to force through Parliament in this session a vast measure dealing with national education. But in view of what has fallen from the Prime Minister, and also in view of the observations made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack at Manchester in the beginning of January, which were the sequel to a close inquiry into the subject, it is, as we think, right for us to place the country in possession of the general lines of our intentions during the current session, although I do not suppose that we shall be able to proceed very far
42
towards making them part of the law of the country. Your Lordships are all familiar with the various attempts which we have made since we came into office at the end of 1905 to deal with the machinery—which operated, as we thought, in some respects unfairly—created by the Act passed by the Party opposite in 1902. Now we feel that if we are to tackle the question again we must begin to paint with a somewhat bolder brush on a larger canvas than we could attempt to do before. Administration, of course, can do a great deal. I venture to think that it has been doing much more than is realised by most of those who do not follow what is happening all over the country. For instance, in the matter of rural schools, some of your Lordships I have no doubt have seen the reports of the education committees of the counties in which you live, which show whit a marked progress has been made in many parts of England in more nearly fitting rural schools to the needs of the children and to the prospects of the life which at any rate a great many of them will probably lead when they grow up.
But if we are to paint on a larger canvas, it is, of course, true that there will be a heavy cost which will have to be met, and that is one of the considerations which we shall have to bear in mind throughout. But, we have not embarked on the consideration of the question without counting the cost or without realising that it will be necessary to provide from national funds more than is provided at present towards the cost of education. My noble friend who moved the Address used the familiar phrase of the ladder of education up the rungs of which the individual boy or girl ought to be helped to pass from the ground to the highest story. I have always myself thought that the metaphor of the ladder erred somewhat in discriminating between those different rungs—that is to say, between the different classes of schools, primary, or secondary, on the way up to the college or the University—and that a somewhat better metaphor would be found in the expression of an inclined plane rather than a ladder, which seems to connote abrupt changes. I have always felt that we have somewhat suffered in this country from the belief that the separate schools—elementary schools, secondary schools, and colleges—were quite different and almost watertight things,

43
whereas the one kind of education ought Lither to merge into the other by almost imperceptible gradients.
For there is not only the case of the brilliant boy of small beginnings who is to be helped to climb from rung to rung of the ladder until he has reached the top. Ever since there has been history at all the most brilliant boys, and girls too, in some cases, have risen from the humblest beginnings to the highest positions. All through the Middle Ages and in modern history you can find cases where some of them have sat on Thrones or have climbed the whole pathway up to the Chair of St. Peter. Therefore the really brilliant child of genius will always, I believe, however defective your general system of education may be, take care of himself or of herself. But the object of a great national system of education is surely to fit each individual, so far as it can, for the apt place of that individual, which need not necessarily be a high place, and which need not involve the very highest forms of education. If you send a ploughboy to a University, you do not perform a kind of conjuring trick and turn him into something quite different. Some ploughboys always have found their way to the Universities. What you want is a system which, without fuss and without special efforts of selection, will enable a certain proportion of all classes to rise to the very top, and all the other members of those classes to obtain that kind of education, which may not be a very advanced one, for which they individually are fitted. Then we have also to think of the physical needs of the children. Physical education of children from one point of view, as we had occasion to notice the other day, may be a subject of controversy, though I think it is a thousand pities that it should be; but we shall all agree that the physical education of children, not merely of children at elementary schools but of the young generally, is one of the objects which we certainly must bear in mind.
Then there is the question of the supply, selection, and payment of teachers, one of the most important sides, as I think your Lordships will agree, of the whole matter. If we are to construct anything in the nature of a general system of education we must bear all these things in mind. We must not allow any one side of the subject
44
to assume an importance out of its real proportion; in fact, we must engage in the task of co-ordination—an expression which has become almost a slang word and is therefore looked upon with suspicion by some, but it represents in a general way what we desire to bring about. We are not without hope that if we can look thus at the question as a whole, the religious controversies which have attached to our education, and which, though, as we in this House have every reason to know, they are most real and most deeply held, yet have bulked too large in the consideration of the whole question, may find a better chance of accommodation by being considered as part of a great whole than if they are taken, as we have hitherto tried to take them, in connection with a single branch of the subject. I think we may venture to hope that the larger survey will lead us to put these questions into their proper proportion and their real place, and if we can do that we shall be, I am sure, nearer to a settlement of them than we ever yet have been.
That, my Lords, concludes all I have to say about the Speech itself; but the noble Marquess before he sat down mentioned one or two subjects which he considered, like the Roman busts, conspicuous by their absence. He was disposed at first to blame us for not having said something about labour disputes. I can assure him that the Departments specially concerned with these matters have them perpetually before their minds, and, of course, they are a subject, if not of perpetual preoccupation and anxiety, at least of continual and serious thought to His Majesty's Government as a whole. But the forecasts in the Speech deal as a rule with forthcoming legislation, and we certainly have not been of the opinion that it is possible to deal with labour disputes, or the possibility of them, by any heroic kind of legislation. We have looked more to the maintenance of rational administration than to anything which can be done by passing Acts of Parliament, and that, I think, must be the excuse, and whether the noble Marquess would admit it or not must be our reason, for not having mentioned the subject in His Majesty's Speech today.
Then the noble Marquess pointed out that we were holding out no hope of any land

45
legislation. He seemed to wonder, after what he had read, that no announcement was forthcoming in His Majesty's Speech of any Bill on the subject. I am afraid that the noble Marquess and his friends have been paying too much attention to what has been said in some of the newspapers on the supposed land programme of His Majesty's Government. I have myself read with great interest some of the statements that have been made, but I cannot say they have been confirmed in all instances by the previous knowledge of our acts or intentions which I may happen to possess. It is, of course, true that our English land system, capable as I think it is from many points of view of a tolerably complete defence, yet does possess its defects, and it possesses not merely theoretical defects but also the possibility of the existence of serious abuses, in certain cases. Those of us who are acquainted with its working know that it is a delicate and a difficult matter to touch the English land system, because it might not be difficult, in endeavouring to patch here or to repair there, to bring the whole structure down with a run, to the loss and inconvenience of a great many people not all of them owners of land themselves.
The rural housing question is one, no doubt, of great difficulty. All I can say is that I shall not be surprised if, when the various inquiries that have been made by different people on the subject are systematised and known, it is found to be a more urgent question than some of us have hitherto been aware of. What the remedy may be is a large question. Whether it will be found expedient to proceed in any way on the lines of the Irish Labourers Acts, the success of which we know has been marked in certain respects but which may not be altogether fitted to our quite different English land system, is a subject upon which I will not express an opinion. But I note the observation made by the noble Marquess to the effect that if those representing the Government who are specially concerned with the matter would confer with or consult members of the Party of the noble Marquess opposite, such consultation would be gladly given from the opposite side of the House, and that in the opinion of noble Lords opposite it might be useful. I am quite certain that I may say on behalf of the Government that we should welcome any contributions made with a knowledge of the subject by people of experience,
46
whether in the form of the introduction of Bills such as that brought in the other day by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, or in any other more private manner. I do not know that I can usefully say any more than that I shall be very glad if the noble Marquess's suggestion leads to any result.
The last point raised by the noble Marquess was with regard to constitutional reform and the reform of this House. I can assure the noble Marquess that we are not at all unmindful of the pledge which we gave that this matter would have to be dealt with during the lifetime of the present Parliament, and we have been and are, some of us who have had most experience of these particular topics, giving the closest possible attention and the fullest consideration that we can to the subject. Noble Lords opposite know from their own experience and from the remarkable differences of opinion—I do not at all say this by way of taunt, but merely as a statement of fact—which emerged during the discussions that took place on the reform of this House during the last two or three years, the great difficulty and complexity of the question; but I can assure the noble Marquess in all seriousness that we are giving close attention to it, and that we are using such brains as we have to the best of our ability in endeavouring to set before the country what we consider to be a reasonable and possible reform to constitute a Second Chamber which shall be a permanent element Of stability in our Constitution. I think I have now dealt with the various points raised by the noble Marquess, and I have nothing further to add, except to express the hope that the noble Marquess will not prove to be quite accurate when he seems to expect that the coming session may be a crowded and a hurried one. On the contrary, I hope that there will be time, in the spirit of what my noble friend who seconded the Address said, to consider the details here of some of the great measures which we shall once more set before your Lordships, and I do not think it will be found that time will be wanting if your Lordships desire so to consider them.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) appointed nemine dissentiente to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE LATE EMPEROR OF JAPAN.
The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that he had received from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a notification that, on the 5th ultimo, both Houses of the Imperial Japanese Diet adopted unanimously a resolution expressing their sincere appreciation of the kind sympathy manifested in the Address voted by the House of Lords on the occasion of the death of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Aberystwyth Corporation.

Barry Railway.

Barry Urban District Council.

Belfast Corporation.

Bishop's Waltham Water.

Blyth and Cowpen Gas.

Bournemouth Gas and Water.

Bradford Corporation.

Brighton Corporation.

Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council.

Brumby and Frodingham Urban District Council.

Cambrian Railways.

Cardiff Railway.

Central London Railway.

Chesterfield Corporation Railless Traction.

48

City and South London Railway.

Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power.

Colne Corporation.

Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation.

Coventry Corporation.

Crowborough District Gas and Electricity.

Derby Corporation.

Dover Graving Dock.

Dover Harbour.

Eastbourne Corporation.

East Ham Corporation.

Ebbw Vale Water.

Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours.

Folkestone, Sandgate and Hythe Railless Traction.

Governesses Benevolent Institution.

Grays and Tilbury Gas.

Great Eastern Railway.

Great Northern Railway.

Great Western Railway.

Halkyn District Mines Drainage.

Harrow and Stanmore Gas.

Hastings Tramways.

Heathfield and District Water.

Herne Bay Gas and Electricity.

Hove Corporation.

Huddersfield Corporation.

Hull and Barnsley Railway.

Humber Commercial Railway and Dock.

Ipswich Dock.

Isle of Wight Central Railway (Godshill Transfer).

Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.

Leicester Corporation.

Limerick Harbour Commissioners.

Liverpool Corporation.

Llantrisant Gas.

London and South Western Railway.

London County Council (Lambeth Bridge).

London Electric Railway.

Lymm Urban District Council.

Manchester Royal Exchange.

Metropolitan District Railway.

Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Railless Traction).

Metropolitan Railway.

Metropolitan Water Board.

Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Railless Traction).

Mid Kent and East Kent District Water.

Morley Corporation.

Mynyddislwyn Urban District Council.

North Eastern Railway.

Northampton Corporation Water.

Northern Counties Electricity Supply.

49

Northern Junction Railway.

Nottingham Corporation.

Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory).

Page Estates.

Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board.

Port Talbot Railway and Docks.

Porthcawl and District Gas and Electricity.

Reading Corporation.

Redcar, Coatham, Marske and Saltburn Gas.

Rhondda Tramways (Railless Traction).

Rockford Rural District Council (Transfer of Waterworks).

Slough Gas.

Southampton Harbour.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation.

Southgate Urban District Council.

Southport Corporation.

South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating).

South Staffordshire Water.

Swanage Urban District Water.

Swansea Harbour.

Titchfield District Gas.

Tottenham and Edmonton Gas.

Tynemouth Gas.

United District Gas.

West Bridgford Urban District Council.

West Bromwich Corporation.

West Hampshire Water.

Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Rail-less Electric Traction.

50

Westgate and Birchington Gas and Electricity.

Westminster Hospital.

Wimbledon and Sutton Railway.

Windermere Urban District Council (Gas and Water).

Worthing Gas.

York Corporation.

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:

Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square).

City of London (Celluloid Regulations).

Ely Valley Gas and Electricity.

Leeds Corporation.

London County Council (General Powers).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TERRITORIAL FORCES BALLOT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to put the Ballot in force in respect of the Territorial Forces—Was presented by the Lord Monckton (V. Galway); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 1)
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.