Sitting of 6 July 1927

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Conway Extension) Bill [Lords].
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hove Extension) Bill [Lords].
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (New Sarum Extension) Bill [Lords].
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Newcastle-under-Lyme Extension) Bill [Lords].
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wokingham Extension) Bill [Lords].
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords].
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords].
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: I beg to move,
  "That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended."
  HON. MEMBERS: Object!
  Sir N. MOORE: This is a pro forma Motion, which is usually introduced at this time of the year. As a result of the congestion of business, it is necessary to reduce the quorum from five to three, in order to prevent the delay which very often arises as a result of that condition.
  HON. MEMBERS: Object!
  Further consideration deferred until To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA

    GENEVA CONVERSATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to his conversations at Geneva on certain matters affecting Russia?
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now prepared to make a statement to the House of Commons as to discussions between the Minister and the representatives of other European Powers at Geneva relative to the question of Russia?
    Mr. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether any representative of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, or Japan brought forward any proposals in the recent public or private meetings and conversations at Geneva for a joint conference with Russia; and, if so, whether the proposals were opposed or supported by Great Britain;
    (2) whether, during the recent meeting of the Council at Geneva, the representatives of the States which are parties to the Locarno Agreement held any discussions as to their policy towards Russia; and whether he can make a statement to the House on this subject?
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of their relations with Russia was discussed during the recent meeting of the Council at Geneva by the representatives of the States which are parties to the Locarno Agreement; and whether he can give the House any information as to the conclusions that were reached?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): On the invitation of some of the representatives at the meeting of the six Powers, I gave an explanation of our reasons for breaking off diplomatic relations with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and explained British policy as already

    1237
    publicly stated in the House when we debated the matter. Similar explanations of their own policy were given by some of the other Ministers present. No proposals were made by anyone for a joint conference with Russia, nor for any joint action in regard to Russia. Circumstances vary in different countries, and each Government must pursue the policy best adapted to its own interests.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman talks of a meeting of the six Powers, will he explain just what that means? Did he not go to Geneva for the Council meetings of the League of Nations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I went to Geneva for the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations. No question in relation to Russia was discussed at the Council of the League, and I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question to refer to conversations which took place at the meeting summoned by me at the request of representatives of other Powers who were at Geneva, and in which France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Japan and Great Britain were represented.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Six Powers as if this was a new Council of Europe. Is it in future to be the practice to call these particular Powers together under the cloak of meetings of the Council of the League?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is, I think, one of the advantages of the frequentation of the League by the representatives of Powers of many nations, that it gives them an opportunity to talk quite apart from the meetings of the Council, but there is no occasion for any friend of the League or of the Council to take up these meetings of individual Powers. There were a great number of meetings. One meeting was held in my room, and that is the meeting to which I have referred. It comprised the Powers represented in the Council of Ambassadors in Paris, and the German Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? In the first place, did he take this opportunity of disabusing the minds of those other nations of the idea that we were attempting to form any sort of bloc
    1238
    against Russia; and, secondly, has he taken the opportunity of conveying the substance of his conversations at Geneva on this question to the United States Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have not thought it necessary to repeat the conversations winch were held at Geneva to the United States Government. With regard to the first part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I did not find it necessary to use the opportunity to disabuse their minds of that impression, for they did not entertain it; but I confirmed the impression which they had already formed, and which is correct, that we had never attempted to do anything of the kind.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true or not that representations were made by him to the German representatives urging that, if they would discontinue their Government credit scheme to German-Russian trading operations, it might be possible to accommodate German aspirations with reference to the Rhineland?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I should very much like to know, if the hon. Member would communicate with me privately, upon what possible foundation he bases that question. There is not a word of truth in it.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the "Times'' reports of these Conferences and conversations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: To my recollection I have not seen anything in any report in the "Times" to justify such an assumption as that.

    PASSPORTS.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if arrangements have now been completed with the Norwegian Government whereby British subjects may apply for visas to passports for Russia.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As the German Government and not the Norwegian Government have undertaken the care of Soviet interests in this country, it is for the German and not for the Norwegian authorities to grant visas for Russia. The position is as stated in the

    1239
    reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 27th of June.

  CHINA.

    SITUATION.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any change in the situation in China since his last statement; and will he give the House full particulars of the present position?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reports that I have received during the past week show that Yen Hsi-Shan, the Military Governor of Shansi, has moved a force of six divisions eastward from Taiyuan fu, apparently as a threat against Chang Tso-lin. Sun Chuan Fang, the bulk of whose troops are concentrated along the Shantung Railway, has moved a force of 20,000 men to Yenchow, on the Tient-sin-Pukow Railway. On the 30th June, a Russian armoured train, operating from this town, re-captured Lincheng from the Southern armies. At Kaomi, on the Tsingtao Railway, one of Sun Chuan Fang's commanders, has declared his independence and hoisted the Nationalist flag. The Fengtien troops are reported to have advanced along the Peking-Hankow Railway and to have crossed the Yellow River, the railway between Cheng-chow and Loyang is reported to have been cut. Feng Yu-hsiang has retired to Loyang. At the end of June, Feng Yuhsiang sent a telegram to Hankow stating that the extremist section there had outlived its usefulness and might retire to a well-earned rest. General Galin, the Bolshevik adviser to the Wuhan Administration, is making a show of compliance with this order, but is reported to be making preparations for the defence of Hankow, for which he claims to have sufficient forces. In the event of defeat, he states that he undertakes that there will be nothing left in Hankow to make its capture worth while. On the 1st July, a British steamer travelling from Shanghai to Hankow was fired at from Hwangchow, about 70 miles below Hankow, and three Chinese passengers were wounded. The following day an American destroyer was fired on at the same place. The military autho
    1240
    rities both at Hankow and Nanking disclaim responsibility for the troops responsible for this attack.
    Colonel DAY: Are we withdrawing any of the British troops that are in China now, in view of the easier situation?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As announced already in the Press, the Indian Brigade is being withdrawn from Shanghai. It is no longer required, in consequence of the reinforcements which have arrived.

    NEW ADMINISTRATION, PEKING.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the new Government which has been set up by Marshal Chang Tso-lin in Peking; and how many provinces of China recognise the authority of this Government?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the new administration recently set up in Peking by Marshal Chang Tso-lin is the same as it was towards the preceding administration. Recognition as the Government of China has not been accorded to it, but it is dealt with as a local administration. This administration exercises some degree of authority over the three provinces of Manchuria, Chihli, the greater part of Shantung and a portion of Honan.

    FRENCH SETTLEMENT, SHANGHAI.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Chinese soldiers of the Nationalist Army are permitted freely to enter the French concession at Shanghai; and whether a similar permission is now granted in the international settlement?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information showing that any Chinese soldiers are permitted freely to enter the French Settlement at Shanghai. As regards the International Settlement the position remains as stated in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) on 4th April last.

    INDEMNITY FUND.
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sum is now available in the China

    1241
    Indemnity Fund; and whether he will see his way, after consultation with the advisory committee, to use this sum to compensate British nationals robbed at Hankow, Nanking, and other places in China?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. G. Peto) on 19th May. Owing to further payments the total fund must now amount to nearly £2,000,000. The advisory committee, having submitted their recommendations, can hardly be expected to revise them in favour of an entirely different policy.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that the decision regarding the use of this money rests with the Secretary of State in consultation with the advisory committee?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is true the Secretary of State acts in consultation with the advisory committee, but it is laid down very strictly in the Act of Parliament how the funds are to be used.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is not the wording of the Act that the money can be applied to educational or other purposes, and would not the suggested application come under the designation "other purposes"?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: According to the best legal advice we have been able to obtain it cannot be used for purposes such as the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that the situation has changed since the Act was passed, and will he not recommend introducing amending legislation so as to cover this kind of case?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Questions regarding new legislation should be put on the Paper.

    HANKOW MUNICIPAL DEBENTURES.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the payment of interest recently made in respect of the Hankow municipal debentures was made in depreciated currency; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the new Mixed Council at Hankow has paid the interest, due on 30th June, on the municipal bonds issued by the Council of the former British Concession at Hankow?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Acting British Consul-General at Hankow reports that the interest on the debentures is being paid in tael cheques drawn on the Central Bank, and that these cheques are cashed by the bank in its own notes at an arbitrary rate of 71 tael cents to the dollar. As the Central Bank's notes are at a discount of 40 to 50 per cent. vis-a-vis silver currency, debenture holders lose accordingly. The question as to what action should be taken is now under consideration.
    Mr. LOOKER: May we have an assurance that the Government will take any steps that are necessary to ensure that the proper obligations with regard to this interest are fulfilled?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to go further than I have said. The matter is under consideration.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TREATIES REGISTERED).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all treaties concluded since 1919 between States members of the League of Nations have been registered with the secretariat of the League under Article 18 of the Covenant; and, if not, which treaties have not been so registered?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any treaties concluded since 1919 between States members of the League of Nations have not been registered with the secretariat of the League, but I cannot speak with absolute confidence for all treaties completed by other Powers.

  GERMANY.

    OCCUPIED TERRITORY.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to give any date for the termination of the occupation by the Allies of the occupied German territory; and whether the matter has been, or is being, discussed at Geneva?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of fixing a date for the termination of the occupation of the Rhineland by Allied troops was not discussed at Geneva. The circumstances in which the Rhineland is to be evacuated are, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, laid down in Articles 428 to 431 of the Treaty of Versailles.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that nine years after the Armistice would be a good time at which to terminate this military occupation, and that it would make Europe feel that a peace atmosphere has been reached? Does he not think that that would be a proper subject for discussion at Geneva?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by discussing it at Geneva at this time; and, as it was not raised by anyone else, I suppose that other people were of the same opinion.

    FORTIFICATIONS, EAST PRUSSIA.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the fortifications in East Prussia have been demolished to the satisfaction of the Military Control Commission?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member will be aware from the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on 30th June, an invitation was recently conveyed by the competent German authority for one or two of the Allied military experts who remained in Berlin attached to their respective Embassies after the withdrawal of the Military Commission of Control last January, to accompany him on a tour of inspection of those fortifications on Germany's eastern frontier, the demolition of which was agreed upon between the German Government and the Allied Governments concerned early in the year. This visit has not yet been completed, and I am accordingly not in a position to make any announcement regarding the demolition of the works in question.

    PERSIA (BRITISH PRIVILEGES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the reply to the Government of Persia on the question of the capitulations has been decided upon; and, if so, what is the nature of the reply?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A reply has not yet been sent to the Persian Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In case of failure to reach agreement, will the matter be referred to the League of Nations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is too hypothetical a question to answer.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    TORPEDO FACTORY, GREENOCK.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the pressure of work at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory at Greenock, and that some of the departments, such as the engineers, are divided into day and night shifts, but that the blacksmiths are not so divided but working excessive overtime; and whether, with a view of absorbing unemployed blacksmiths, he will divide the blacksmiths' work into day and night shifts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): It was not considered that it was in the interest either of economy or efficiency to introduce night shifts for the blacksmiths in view of the time that would have been required to train the new entrants. It is anticipated that the overtime will cease in a month's time.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is there no private factory now in existence to which some of this work can be transferred?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that there are unemployed blacksmiths in the neighbourhood, could not the hon. Gentleman consider giving them a temporary job until the work is overtaken?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We must consider what is the most efficient and economic way of working. It is for that reason that we did not take on more blacksmiths than we have done. We have taken on as many as we possibly could.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of the amount of work to be done not being finished, will the Minister be prepared then to consider putting on an extra shift?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In a month's time, if the work is not finished, there may be a different situation, but I cannot give the undertaking the hon. Member suggests, because until the time comes, it would be premature.
    Mr. HARDIE: Are we to take it that it is more efficient to give extra work to a man who has done eight or nine hours, rather than take on a fresh man who can do it better?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It takes some time to train blacksmiths to do this particular work.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "EREBUS" AND "CARYSFORT."
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the reason for the decision of the Admiralty to transfer from the monitor "Erebus" to the cruiser "Carysfort" the duty of ship of the senior officer, Reserve Fleet, at Devonport, and to re-commission the "Erebus" for service as a cadet training ship and turret-drill ship for the port?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMExperience since the sale of His Majesty's Ship "Thunderer" has shown that His Majesty's Ship "Erebus" is inadequate to carry out the duties of ship of the Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet, Devonport, in addition to those of Training Ship for Special Entry Cadets and Turret Drill His Majesty's Ship "Carysfort" was therefore commissioned to take over the duties of Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet, from His Majesty's Ship "Erebus."

    ELECTRICAL ARTIFICER BRANCH.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of candidates who presented themselves for direct entry into His Majesty's Navy as electrical artificers during the last financial year, the number rejected on medical grounds, the number rejected on account of failure to pass trade test, and the number actually entered?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 256 candidates presented themselves, of whom 135 were rejected medically and 44 failed the trade test; 77 being finally entered. In addition to these numbers, however, other candidates presented themselves but were rejected at Recruiting Offices as
    1246
    educationally unfit, or as suffering from some obvious defect. Records of these are not available.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is the intention of the Admiralty to put into operation the provisions contained in an Order in Council, dated 7th November, 1921, which institutes two branches to supersede the existing electrical artificer branch; how will this affect the promotion and advancement of the present officers and ratings; whether any increase in personnel is anticipated; and whether it is intended that ultimately the engineering officers will take over the electrical section of the torpedo schools?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement on this matter, which is still under consideration.

    PASSENGER AEROPLANES (FORCED LANDINGS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has received any reports during the previous 12 months of passenger-carrying aeroplanes that have been compelled to make a forced landing in Great Britain owing to lack of petrol; and whether any persons have been injured?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Forced landings are not notifiable to the Air Ministry under Regulation unless they involve death or injury to any person or serious structural damage to the aircraft. The only forced landing during the last 12 months due to lack of petrol and notifiable under the above Regulation was one at Westerham on 27th June, 1927, when one passenger was very slightly cut by broken glass.
    Colonel DAY: Where did that aeroplane start from that had to make a forced landing?
    Sir S. HOARE: It was a machine flying from Paris to Croydon.

    EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether, in regard to the negotiations with the employers'

    1247
    associations in regard to conditions of labour, he can state with what associations contact has taken place during the last three months; the nature of the conditions which were discussed; whether discussions took place on the same subjects with the trade unions; and whether in any cases the employers' associations and the trade unions met together for such discussions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): In the discharge of the responsibility placed upon the Ministry by the Conciliation Act and Industrial Courts Act, and otherwise, officers of my Department frequently have occasion to confer formally or informally with representatives of associations both of employers and of workmen, sometimes separately and sometimes together. It is hardly possible, even if it were desirable, to enumerate the meetings of this kind which have taken place, but if the hon. Member will tell me what particular negotiations he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider what information I can properly give him about them.
    Mr. PALING: Have any of the talks that have taken place been in the nature of applications for reduced wages or increased hours from employers?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I could not answer that unless the hon. Member gives me particulars of the discussions he has in mind. Discussions are constantly taking place on a variety of subjects.
    Mr. PALING: Are there any applications from employers asking for a reduction in wages or an increase of hours?

    NUMBERS of men and women on the registers of certain Employment Exchanges at 25th July. 1926 and 28th March, 1927, respectively.

    —

    25th July, 1926.

    28th March, 1927.

    Men.

    Women.

    Total.

    Men.

    Women,

    Total.

    West Ham*

    12,430

    1,921

    14,351

    10,217

    1,512

    11,730

    East Ham

    2,218

    430

    2,648

    1,779

    356

    2,135

    Leyton and Walthamstow

    4,402

    1,091

    5,493

    3,622

    656

    4,278

    Total

    19,050

    3,442

    22,492

    15,618

    2,525

    18,143

    * Figures relate to Canning Town and Stratford Employment Exchanges.

    Separate figures for Woodford are not available.

    Mr. BETTERTON: I could not answer that without notice.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Edward Richards, 39, Llanover Street, Abercarn (Mon.), has been refused unemployment benefit on the ground that he had not been employed to a reasonable extent in an insurable occupation two years immediately preceding the date of application for benefit, and that since 26th July, 1924, Richards has been employed 96 weeks in Abercarn and Lydney tinworks; and will he have this case investigated with a view to paying benefit to this unemployed tin-worker?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made into this case and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of men and women that were registering at West. Ham, East Ham, Walthamstow, Leyton, and Woodford Employment Exchanges on 20th July, 1926, and the number that were registering at the same Exchanges on the last day in March, 1927?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he can state the total number of persons in Scotland who have been refused benefit last year because of the income test as applied in the Act of 1925?
    Mr. BETTERTON: In the twelve months ended 10th January, 1927, 23,024 applications for extended benefit were recommended for disallowance by local committees in Scotland on the ground that the family income was deemed to be sufficient to provide for the applicants concerned. I am unable to give the number of separate individuals included in this figure.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (DIVISION SIGNAL, CLOCK TOWER).
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if any decision has been arrived at with reference to the petition signed by 326 Members of this House requesting that a coloured light be displayed from the top of the Clock Tower to signalise to Members approaching the House of Commons when a Division is in progress?
    Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY(for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): My right hon. Friend is impressed by the number of signatures to the petition handed by the hon. Member to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but regrets that no funds are available for carrying out his suggestion, apart from which he feels that no expenditure is justified at the present time except on absolutely essential services.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the cost of maintenance would be?
    Sir G. HENNESSY: No.
    Mr. SEXTON: Would it not be possible to illuminate the intelligence of benighted Members?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman ascertain whether the hon. Member and his 325 followers are willing to pay for this change?
    Mr. RADFORD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the very unfortunate mistaken impression that has been caused throughout the country that hon. Members are not attending to their duties in the evening?
    Colonel DAY: In view of the widespread demand for this light as shown by the petition which contains 326 signatures of Members of this House, will the hon. and gallant Member ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will erect the light if the small expense of putting it up is defrayed?
    Sir G. HENNESSY: I will readily put the hon. Gentleman's views before my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that where you have a single current you can have a double lamp fixed in order to provide a red light or a white light taking the same amount of current as the existing white light? Whether it is good or bad the answer given is not an answer to the question.

  SCOTLAND.

    SMALLHOLDINGS, GARSCADDEN.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to the Board of Agriculture of the smallholding scheme for ex-service men at Garscadden; why the scheme was abandoned; and what sum, if any, the present landlord paid for improvements effected on the land during its occupancy by the Board of Agriculture?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): It is assumed that the hon. Member refers to a scheme under which 12 new holdings were formed by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on the farm of Boghouse on the Garscadden estate. The estimated gross cost of this scheme, including loans to the holders for building purposes, is £10,117. The scheme has not been abandoned. In the circumstances the last part of the question does not appear to arise.

    OFFENCES AGAINST YOUNG PERSONS.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Committee on Offences

    1251
    against Young Persons; and whether he proposes to take any action, legislative or administrative, on this subject in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the hon. Member refers to the Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences against Children and Young Persons in Scotland. As indicated in a reply which I gave to a question on the 29th March by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. R. W. Smith), I have already taken action on recommendations of the Committee which did not require legislation. As regards those which would require legislation, I propose to await the Report of the Scottish Committee on Young Offenders, which is now sitting, in order that the two Reports may be considered together.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the major portion of the complaints are due to the housing conditions? If you take the West End of Glasgow—and I am speaking of my experience of Glasgow and of what I know—is it not a fact that it is confined entirely to the East End of Glasgow, where the housing conditions are such as to permit these things to happen?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should be discussed on the Estimates.

    AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES (SALARIES AND PENSIONS).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked Secretary of State for Scotland whether the county staffs and advisory staffs of the Scottish agricultural colleges have been admitted to the teachers' superannuation scheme; and whether financial provision has been made to permit their past service to be taken into account in connection with superannuation benefits?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question actuarial inquiry is at present in progress, and until this is completed I cannot make any pronouncement as to whether financial provision will be made for taking into account past service for superannuation benefits.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the
    1252
    Scottish agricultural colleges have yet accepted and made arrangements for giving effect to the principle of increased grants from local sources towards their upkeep; and whether the recommendations of the Constable Committee with regard to the salaries of the staffs of these colleges have yet been put into operation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Scottish agricultural colleges have accepted the principle that increased grants should be obtained by them from local sources in order that the annual contributions from public funds may be progressively reduced. I understand that, the colleges are endeavouring to arrange with the local authorities concerned with a view to implementing this agreement. In these circumstances, I am hopeful that such arrangements will be made and that revision of the salaries of the staffs of the colleges as from 1st April, 1926, will be effected at an early date.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that at least one of these colleges has actually made the arrangements to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and in the case of that particular college surely the arrangements for granting the Constable scales of pay may now be carried into effect without waiting for the other two colleges where the arrangements are not so far advanced?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it would be most undesirable if steps were taken like this in one case and not in all.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Have not some of these men been waiting now for three years, and have we not now this Report of the Constable Committee supporting their case?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have said, I hope it will be settled at an early date, and, as I have repeatedly explained, there will be no detriment to the individuals concerned as soon as an agreement is reached.

    PRISON OFFICERS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that prison officers are being compelled to retire at the age of 55 though they may apply to be allowed to continue their service; and whether this retiral age of 55 is apart from the physical fitness of the officer concerned?
    Sir J. GIlMOUR: Under the Superannuation (Prison Officers) Act, 1919, as applied by administrative Order, subordinate prison officers in Scotland are able to retire with a pension at the age of 55. This privilege carries with it the corresponding liability to be called on to retire by the head of the Department at any time after reaching the pensionable age of 55. The case of each subordinate officer is accordingly reviewed by the Prison Commissioners for Scotland when he reaches the age of 55 and periodically thereafter, and a decision is taken as to whether, in the interests of the service, the officer's services should be continued. The physical fitness of an officer is an important, but not the only, consideration.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no general rule made by his Department compelling retirement at the age of 55, and that each case is decided separately?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Each case is considered on its merits.

    NECESSITOUS SCHOOL CHILDREN (PROVISION OF MEALS).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount spent on feeding necessitous school children in Glasgow and Scotland, respectively, during last year, and the corresponding figures for the previous year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In the returns made to the Department the expenditure by education authorities on feeding necessitous school children is not given separately from that on clothing. The nett amounts spent for both services in the year ended 15th May, 1926, were £53,660 for the whole of Scotland and £29,656 for Glasgow. The expenditure last year for Glasgow was £34,940 but this figure is subject to adjustment on audit. I regret that in the absence of complete returns from education authorities, I am not yet in a position to give last year's figure for the whole of Scotland. No particulars are available as to the corresponding expenditure of parish councils, since the records and accounts kept by these councils make no apportionment of aliment, as between adults and younger persons.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken in Glasgow to get new schools built to replace the schools which have been condemned?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member is aware that the whole question of school supply in Glasgow is at present under discussion between the education authority and the Department. I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Member a complete account of the steps taken by the authority to increase the supply and to discontinue the use of unsuitable buildings.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been under consideration for years and that we have been waiting for a, report, and can he state when he is likely to give us any satisfaction with regard to negotiations between the authorities and himself?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the hon. Member knows this is a very large and difficult problem. The discussions are going on and I am certain there will be no avoidable delay.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been on this question for over a year now and the thing seems to be no nearer the end than it was before. Can the right hon. Gentleman state when—this Session or at the beginning of the next Session—there will be any statement?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot commit myself definitely to a date, but I think it may be possible to make a statement next Session.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Suppose we say next century.

    WOMAN'S DEATH, INVERGOWRIE.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his inquiries into the case of a girl reported to have been drowned, whose body was found at Invergowrie on 12th June; why the body was conveyed to the grave on a common lorry covered by sacking or tarpaulin, having been left till burial in an old shed; whether the cause of death was ascertained by a post-mortem examination;

    1255
    whether there is any evidence suggesting that the girl was under the influence of drink or drugged; why a photograph was not taken; and whether the police description gave details about the condition of her teeth, whether artificial or natural, and the value of her rings, if any?
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a girl was found drowned at Invergowrie on 12th June, her body kept in an outhouse for a week, and then buried unidentified and without being photographed; and whether he is satisfied that all proper and possible steps have been taken by the authorities?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I will answer these questions together.
    I have obtained information on the points raised in the questions. I am informed that the body of the woman concerned was found on 12th June on the foreshore at Invergowrie and was removed by the police to an unoccupied lockfast shed and examined by a doctor who certified that death was due to drowning. The shed, according to my information, was suitable for the purposes of safety and decency and also for purposes of identification. A description of the body and clothing was given by the police to the Press reporters and appeared in the newspapers. I am informed that the description did not give details about the teeth, which were natural and in good condition, but that it did refer to a ring worn by the deceased. A number of persons viewed the body but failed to identify it. The case was reported by the police to the Procurator-Fiscal, who reached the opinion that the case was one of suicide, and that there was nothing suspicions about it.
    A post-mortem examination in the form of dissection was not considered necessary. There was no evidence suggesting that the woman was under the influence of drink or had been drugged. A photograph was not taken because in the opinion of the police such a photograph would have been of no use for identification purposes in this case. After the Procurator-Fiscal was satisfied that there were no suspicious circumstances, the body was handed over to the sanitary authorities and buried on 16th June with
    1256
    the authority of a direction by a Justice of the Peace in accordance with Section 69, Sub-section (1), of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. I am informed that the body was conveyed to the grave in a plain black coffin carried on a lorry and covered with an ordinary van cover. I see no reason for holding that proper steps were not taken in this case, but I think that the general question of taking a photograph for purposes of subsequent identification merits further consideration, and I propose to examine that question further in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I ask whether the Lord Advocate is considering the representations which have been made to him on this matter by leading public authorities in the district?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes. The Lord Advocate has been in communication with the Procurator-Fiscal on this matter.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the body was not removed to the nearest mortuary instead of being kept in this old shed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware as to whether it was possible to remove the body to the nearest mortuary. I have made particular inquiries as to the arrangements made and as to the suitability of the place to which the body was taken, and I am quite satisfied.

  HOUSING.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses, other than those built of stone, brick, or concrete, have been erected this year in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am endeavouring to obtain the information asked for and I shall communicate with the hon. Member after the inquiries, which are now being made, have been completed.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if in view of the Report of the condition of unsanitary houses in Glasgow, he will consider the introduction of legislation to make it illegal for property owners to take rent for houses which have been declared unfit for human habitation by the sanitary authorities?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Local authorities already have statutory powers to deal with houses unfit for human habitation either by requiring the owners to make them habitable or by closing and demolishing them. In the circumstances I am not prepared to consider the introduction of further legislation on the subject.
    Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the fact that there are so many of these houses in Glasgow which are in such a deplorable condition, as is indicated in the Report of the Scottish Department itself, does the Minister not see the importance of keeping people from making profit out of these terrible houses?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Power is already given to local authorities to deal with this problem.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of the local authorities not playing a human part, is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to step in?

    RENT RESTRICTION ACTS.
    Commander WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the Report adopted by the London County Council on the subject of the Rent Restriction Acts, in which it was recommended that the Acts should be continued for a further period of one year; and whether he is yet in a position to announce the proposals of the Government in this matter?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the Report to which the hon. Member refers, and I have carefully considered the recommendations which it contains. I may state that representations on the subject have been made to me from various quarters, and I have received a number of suggestions for the Amendment of the Rent Restriction Acts, some of which merit careful consideration. In view, however, of the difficulty of finding time during the present Session for an amending Bill, it is proposed to provide for the continuance for one year of the Rent Restriction Acts in their present form by including them in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, as was recommended in the Report of the London County Council.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will any special consideration be given to the owners of one house property?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the present Act is to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuation Bill, it must be without amendment.

    MINES DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL INSPECTOR).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary for Mines the name and qualifications of the new medical inspector to the Mines Department; what experience he has had of miners' nystagmus cases; and whether or not he is capable of dealing with the growing number of cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in miners working in deep pits, and mentioned in the recent Report of the Industrial Fatigue Board?
    Sir G. HENNESSY: I have been asked to reply. The appointment has not yet been made. Applications are being received, and in selecting the most suitable candidate full consideration will be given to the matters mentioned by the hon. Member.

    WEST HAM GUARDIANS (LOAN REPAYMENT).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the reason why the West Ham Poor Law Guardians only allow, as shown in the White Paper, for the sum of £138,000 for principal and interest on loans for the half-year ending 30th September, 1927, in the place of £328,363, as shown in his statement on Monday, 6th July, 1925; if he is aware that if the guardians had been called upon to pay the full amount in the same way as the old board of guardians an extra rate of 6d. in the £ would be required to meet the full repayment; and if he intends calling for the full amount to be repaid for 1927?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total sum in respect of principal and interest which would have been due by the guardians for the half-year to 30th September, 1927, under the original terms of the advances was £198,550 and not £328,563 which was the total sum payable for the whole year 1926–27 on the advances made up to 6th July, 1925, when the statement to which the hon. Member refers was given to him. In order to meet the guardians' desire to avoid borrowing and at the same time to allow the present ratepayers to benefit to some small extent from the

    1259
    considerable economies which the guardians have been able to effect, the Goschen Committee recommended a temporary postponement of the instalment of principal due at September, 1926, and March, 1927, and the payment of at least £138,000 in respect of principal and interest in the half-year to September, 1927. The Committee propose to discuss with the guardians before the beginning of each half-year the provision to be made for the repayment of the advances in the half-year and they contemplate that the sum to be repaid will increase in future half-years without recourse to further borrowing.
    As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that while the present board have avoided all borrowing to meet expenditure incurred by them and have also made some reduction in their rate precepts, the old board borrowed to meet current expenditure, including payments for principal and interest, in the year 1925–26, £650,000, and in the half-year to March, 1926, they paid in respect of principal and interest, £125,116 only as against £138,000 which will be paid by the present guardians for the current half-year.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Minister of Health whether he does not think, if the present board of guardians are saving hundreds of thousands of pounds as is reported, that they should meet their obligations every half year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are certainly showing a considerable improvement on the practice of the old guardians as they are no longer borrowing fresh money, and they have been able to reduce the precepts on the rating authority. In these circumstances, it seems to me that it would be quite a proper thing that some consideration should be given in the way of postponing the repayment of principal which otherwise would have to be met by Parliament.
    Mr. THORNE: Surely the Minister knows that when these particular gentlemen were installed as Poor Law Commissioners £300,000 was handed over to them to go on with, and I should like to ask whether the reason for the postponement of the payment of principal and interest
    1260
    is to wait until the new Bill comes into operation so that those who are ordered to pay now will not be called upon to pay then?

    AGRICULTURE (CO-OPERATION).
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps, if any, are being taken by his Department to promote cooperation among smallholders and farmers?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Experience has shown that agricultural co-operation, if it is to succeed in this country, must be a movement by farmers for farmers and that it must spring from within the industry and not be imposed upon it by the Ministry. My Department does, however, aid a certain amount of educational work conducted by agricultural colleges and county councils, and it frequently assists producers' co-operative undertakings with information and technical advice; in addition, facilities are available by means of which co-operative marketing organisations may be granted long-term loans on generous terms to facilitate the acquisition of premises, plant and equipment. Where financial assistance is necessary and can properly be given, I am also ready, in other ways, to help co-operative marketing organisations that are prepared to undertake, as a commercial proposition, the grading and packing of produce on approved lines, or to carry out other marketing reforms.
    Major COLFOX: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the agricultural community would be more likely to turn their attention to co-operation if all political parties would refrain from holding out a false hope that there is a political solution of their problem?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman advise the compilers of the market reports to refrain from advising farmers to rely upon protective measures under the Merchandise Marks Art?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think the compilers of those reports take any action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Will the Minister of Agriculture draw the atten

    1261
    tion of farmers to the few isolated instances where co-operation is at the present time working with great success in this country and where it has actually helped farmers—I can give him one or two cases—to carry over the present bad time?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The marketing reports I think contain the kind of information to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is the educational side of the Ministry's administration emphasising the importance of co-operation on every occasion?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We are doing all we can.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the attempts at co-operation among farmers have failed owing to the lack of some higher guidance, and is there anything he can do to provide this guidance and assist in getting this necessary co-operation?

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Postmaster-General if he can now state the loss on the telegraphs, on the basis of the commercial accounts, during the year ended 31st March last and how much of it accrued in connection with press telegrams?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The commercial accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1927, are not yet ready, but it is anticipated that the deficit on the telegraph service will be £1,400,000 approximately. The proportion of the loss attributable to press telegrams has not yet been determined, but there is no reason to suppose that there will be any appreciable variation from the figures for 1925–26, when the loss was estimated at about £210,000.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Has there been no increase in the charges for press telegrams, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Daily Mail" has advocated an increase in those charges on the ground that there is no reason
    1262
    why the public should be saddled with this loss?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There has been no increase in the charges for press telegrams since the last Act was passed some years ago. My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that changes can be made only by legislation, and I am not convinced that an increase of the rates on press telegrams would minimise the loss unless the increase was so large as to be impracticable.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a great many more press telegrams were sent last year than in the previous year?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not say without notice, but I think the tendency is the other way.

    STAFF (RECRUITMENT).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Postmaster-General at what ages young people, boys and girls, are recruited for the postal service; what branches of the postal service are open to young persons between the ages of 14 and 18; is cognisance now taken of the increasing number of young persons whom it is desired to retain in central schools and other senior schools until they have completed a four-year course at the age of 15 plus; and, if so, what are the appropriate openings in the postal service for ex-central school boys and girls of the age of 15 or 15 plus?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The upper limits of age for entry as boy messenger and girl probationer are 14½ and 15, respectively. For young persons retained at school beyond the age of 15 the following posts are open: Clerical class, writing assistant, sorting assistant, sorting clerk and telegraphist, telephonist, youth-in-training (Engineering Department) and probationary inspector (Engineering Department). The clerical class and the writing assistant class are common to the Civil Service. In fixing, the age limits for the various posts, due consideration is given to the school leaving age.
    Mr. HARRIS: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Education as to the most suitable ages for entering the Post Office service? There are developments taking place.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will consult my right hon. Friend.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
    Sir J. POWERasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken for the enforcement of Section 1 of the Merchandise Marks Act, so that it may be made fully effective from the commencement?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): A memorandum explaining the requirements of the Section, which was drawn up in consultation with the Customs, was published in the Board of Trade Journal for 5th May. Nearly 10,000 copies of this memorandum have been distributed both directly and through representative bodies such as the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Association of Retail Distributors, and in this way and as a result of an extensive correspondence with a large number of firms and associations, I am satisfied that the requirements of the Section are now widely known.
    Mr. RILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Regulation is having the effect of driving trade out of this country and curtailing employment?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: That is rather a wide question to arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable confusion still in the minds of traders about Section 1, and will the Board of Trade reconsider the matter with a view to applying the Section only in cases where a British trade mark has been applied to an imported article?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The hon. Member has asked me two questions. I cannot say anything about policy. As to lack of information, if the hon. Member will bring to my notice any case where that exists, I shall be glad to look into it.

    PORTUGUESE VESSELS (IMPORT DUTY REBATE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is
    1264
    aware that the Portuguese Government is granting a special rebate of 10 per cent. off the duty on all imported goods carried in Portuguese vessels; and whether, in view of the commercial treaties existing between this country and Portugal, any protest against this rebate has been made to the Portuguese Government in the interest of British shipping?
    Major CARVERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the duty on edible vegetable oils is now £25 per ton from this country to Portugal, and that the Portuguese Government is granting a special rebate of 10 per cent. off the duty on all imported goods carried in Portuguese vessels; and, in view of the effect on export business from Hull, where the bulk of this class of oil is produced, will he approach the Portuguese Government with the view of having this duty modified?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The rebate is granted under a Portuguese Decree of 22nd November, 1921. As the Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty of 1914 secured, not national, but only most-favoured-nation treatment for British shipping, there are no treaty grounds on which a protest to the Portuguese Government could be based. His Majesty's Government, however; protested against the rebate on general grounds in 1921, but without avail. The Portuguese import duty on edible vegetable oils was increased as from 15th November last to about £25 per ton from £2 10s. per ton, and representations against this increase were made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Lisbon in December last and again in May, but, unfortunately, without success.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the matter to be allowed to rest at this point? Are we to be content only with these representations, of which, apparently, no notice is taken?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Notice has been taken and representations have been made.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No notice was taken by the Portuguese Government. Are there no further steps that we are taking in the matter?
    Major CARVER: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Decree of the Portuguese Government is crippling the export trade of Hull and employment there, and as we understand that Portugal is our oldest ally will he not bring some pressure to bear on that country and ask the Portuguese to look upon this matter in a more friendly way?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am aware that this decision of the Portuguese Government is operating unfavourably to the port of Hull in certain directions, but, as I have explained, the Government have made representations to the Portuguese Government, which raised this duty on oil for the protection of its own olive oil industry.

    INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state which of the signatory Powers to the International Opium Convention of February, 1925, have deposited ratifications of that convention; whether that convention is now in force; and, if not, whether he can say when it is likely to become operative?
    Sir G. HENNESSY: I understand that since the replies given to the hon. Member on the 14th February and 17th November last, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Poland have ratified the Convention. As stated in the reply of the 17th November, the Convention cannot come into force until the requisite number of ratifications prescribed in Article 36 have been deposited. His Majesty's Government have done their best to urge ratification by the other signatories.

    NEWFOUNDLAND POWER AND PAPER COMPANY (GUARANTEE).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the guarantee by the British Government, under the Trade Facilities Act, towards the construction and equipment of the Cornerbrook, Newfoundland, paper and pulp work; whether the negotiations for the sale of the works to an American combine has been completed;
    1266
    and what is the likelihood of the British Government receiving back the full amount of its outlay on these works?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): His Majesty's Government guaranteed in 1922 under the Trade Facilities Acts the payment of interest and principal in respect of £2,000,000 "A" debentures of the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company. As regards the negotiations for sale by the company of their property, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my Noble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury on the 28th June. The hon. Member will observe that this transaction was a guarantee of the service of certain securities of a commercial firm. His Majesty's Government have not at present been involved in any outlay.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: When these advances are made to these people, is there no safeguard in the guarantee that the concern will not be transferred out of the control of British owners?
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not understand the hon. and gallant Member.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: When these sums are guaranteed by the British Government, is there no safeguard in the guarantee to ensure that the property will not be transferred to foreign hands?
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer the question in that form without notice. Of course, we have control over the securities.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: May I ask whether this £2,000,000 is a first charge on the property and whether the £2,000,000 is guaranteed by the British taxpayer and the taxpayer of Newfoundland?
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not say anything with regard to the taxpayer in Newfoundland. My hon. Friend knows very well the conditions of the Trade Facilities Act. These are "A" debentures, which are a first charge. We guarantee the principal and interest of these debentures.
    Sir F. WISE: Are there any other debentures to be put in front of the "A" debentures?
    Mr. McNEILL: Not that I am aware of, but I would like notice of the question if my hon. Friend wants a precise answer.
    Colonel GRETTON: Is the guarantee of the British Government to be continued to a foreign combine?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have already said, in answer to former questions, that negotiations are going on, and it is impossible at present to make any statement with regard to those negotiations. The question put to me by my right hon. and gallant Friend might involve what are the terms of the negotiations.

    AGENCIES AND REGISTRIES BILL,
    "to make provision with respect to certain agencies and registries; and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Mr. ROSE; supported by Mrs. Philipson, Sir Walter de Frece, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Hayday, Major sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Kidd; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 25th July, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:
Bristol Water Bill
Smethwick Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Rabbits and Rooks Bill [Lords],
That they request that the Commons will be pleased to give leave to Sir Charles Wilson, a Member of their House, to attend, in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships in the present Session of Parliament on the Rabbits and Rooks Bill. [Lords.]

RABBITS AND ROOKS BILL [Lords].
So much of the Lords Message as requests the attendance of Sir Charles Wilson considered;
And, Sir Charles Wilson having consented, leave given.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BILLS REPORTED.
Isle of Wight Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords],
Gainsborough Bridge Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Peterborough Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Fleetwood Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

    VOTE OF CENSURE.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move,
    "That this House regrets that the Government has put forward a scheme for fundamental changes in the House of Lords which gerrymanders the constitution in the interests of the Conservative party, deprives the House of Commons of that control over finance which it has possessed for generations, entrenches the House of Lords, on a hereditary basis, more firmly against the people's will than for centuries past, and, in defiance of every precedent of modern times, robs the electors of power to deal with the House of Lords; and this House declares that it will be an outrage on the constitution to force such proposals through Parliament without a mandate from the people."
    The Prime Minister and the Government will require no explanation of why this Resolution has had to be put on the Paper. On 20th June, the Lord Chancellor in another place made a speech which, since then, I think has eclipsed the major part of our political interests. It was a speech which bore all the traces of official instruction and inspiration. It was a speech which, we were informed, had been delivered after full reflection. We were told the proposals made by the Lord Chancellor had, first of all, been produced by a Committee of the Cabinet, and, having been produced and considered by that Committee, had been discussed by the Cabinet, and that what the Lord Chancellor was saying and proposing and announcing was practically on the instructions and with the knowledge of the Cabinet. Two other Ministers took part in that Debate. One of them went the length of saying that not only were those proposals the result of a Cabinet decision, but that that decision had been carried still further, and that before this Parliament came to an end those proposals should be embodied in a Bill and carried through both Houses.
    There was no doubt at all as to what was in the minds of the Government and the Lord Chancellor and others on the 20th day of June. Some things have hap
    1280
    pened since. There has been a serious revolt on the benches behind the Prime Minister. I have had various figures supplied to me, and according to those figures—I shall take them on the authority given to me—80 Members have shown hostility, 103 have shown such lukewarm interest in supporting the Government that that interest amounts to a warning, that if they are pushed a little further they will cease to do it altogether, and 14 have endorsed the fully-considered proposals of the Cabinet regarding the Second Chamber. As soon as my hon. and right hon. Friends read the speech of 20th June, they thought the Government would do the only decent and appropriate thing and give this House an opportunity of considering what was happening. The proposals made in the other place very seriously curtailed the privileges of this House. They made fundamental alterations in the structure of the Constitution, and there is no doubt they entrenched upon the Royal Prerogative.
    My colleagues and certainly myself are old-fashioned enough to believe that the first place—not the second place, but the first place—where an announcement like that should be made is the House of Commons. They assumed—I was not in it—that the Prime Minister and the Government had probably overlooked that fact, possibly through pressure. At any rate, they were charitably inclined and they were prepared to let the matter alone provided that, as soon as they approached the Government, the Government would say to them, "Certainly, we desire to give the House of Commons every opportunity for discussion." Contrary to that, they found that the Government were very anxious that there should be no discussion at all in the House of Commons, and when the Government were asked to make a statement in the way that statements have been made before—to inform the House what they proposed doing, to enable us to have a discussion, and on that discussion to make up our minds about what policy we should pursue—the Opposition was denied that right and, I venture to say, that on that occasion it was not the Opposition, it was the House of Commons that was denied it. Therefore, the only alternative open to us was the one that we have taken, the alternative of moving a Vote of Censure.

    1281
    I do not think a Vote of Censure is the appropriate method in such circumstances, and we have only adopted that method because hon. Members opposite as well as those sitting on this side, but for that Motion being put down in that form, and in that form only, would have no opportunity of discussing the speech of the Lord Chancellor. Various Amendments have been put down. I am now told none of these Amendments will be moved. The Government cannot get a united vote except upon a negation. There is not a single proposal that can be brought forward in this House by the Government themselves or by any section of their following, regarding a Second Chamber that can have a united Tory vote behind it. Therefore, they have adopted the expedient of saying, "Let us have no Amendments; let us have no declaration at all so far as the House of Commons is concerned, but let us unite our divided party and go into the same Lobby against a Vote of Censure"—as, of course, hon. Members are in loyalty bound to do. The Government say, "Let us raise this question of fundamental and primitive party loyalty upon a Resolution, the form of which we have forced the Opposition to adopt, and on which we, have declined to allow the House of Commons to discuss the Constitution of this country after it has been discussed for two or three days in the House of Lords, and at 11 o'clock at night after the Opposition has moved, you will come into the Lobby with us—a united following upon nothing except that you do not want your Government to be censured."
    I do not care about the Division to-night, and I do not care about the figures, but I do care about the discussion that is going to take place. The proposal which has been made is going to change seriously and, I sincerely think, for the worse—perhaps hon. Members do not agree with me—the political temper of this country. I think it is going to change the confidence that outsiders have in Parliament. I think it is going to re-orientate our political minds, and, this is certain, it will continue to influence politics long after those of us who are on the stage to-day have ceased to play any part in mundane affairs. I therefore think, whatever Division Lobby hon. and right hon. Gentlemen find themselves in to-night, we ought to use the opportunity
    1282
    of this discussion to make perfectly plain how we stand regarding this proposal or similar proposals.
    Now what are the proposals? They are threefold. They limit the constitutional privileges of individual peers and thereby limit the prerogative of the Crown. The power to appoint a peer will no longer carry with it the privileges that it carries with it at the present moment. The second thing is that they fix the membership of the House of Lords, and they thereby establish for ever the ascendancy of the House of Lords over this House, and the House of Lords, which is to enjoy that ascendancy, is one which is firmly based upon the hereditary principle. The hereditary principle is enshrined in our Constitution, and not only enshrined in it, but is abstracted from the democratic principle in that Constitution and made absolutely independent of it. The third point is that the Government propose to deprive this House of its hard-won right to be the sole authority on the disposal of national finance. If madness is a mark of the favour of the gods, this Government is peculiarly endowed by that blessing.
    Let us see in Parliamentary terms what the working of that Constitution means. First of all, whoever is in office, the Tories are in power. I am not at all sure but that the Prime Minister, in so far as he has agreed to this, has agreed to it with a great sense of relief. So long as he remains the head of the Government, he, as indeed is the case with everybody who is in that position, has an exceedingly difficult job, an exceedingly worrying, troublesome job. He proposes to give up that job, perhaps, to transfer himself over here, and while he sits here, in the place that I now occupy, he is still the ruling authority in the country. It really is a most attractive and most enviable proposition from the point of view of a Tory Prime Minister. We have heard, with an air of superiority and with either a breathed or an unbreathed prayer of thanksgiving that we were born happy British children, that in foreign countries, when they want to secure that a certain party shall remain in office after a General Election, they send soldiers to guard the ballot boxes and prevent Oppositions and supporters of Oppositions placing

    1283
    their ballot papers in the ballot boxes. We hear of other countries that stuff ballot boxes. The representatives of the party in power come in with their pockets stuffed with ballot papers made out, which are conveniently placed into the ballot boxes in order to keep them in power.
    We have here a far better method. I wish, if they want to keep in power, they would send soldiers down to guard the ballot boxes. It is a good, old, honest, straightforward way of doing it. I wish they would try to stuff the ballot boxes, but no, what they do is this: They say, "There is a key position in the Constitution, and we do not care what happens in the ballot boxes in future. General Elections are to be mere farces. There are King, Lords, Commons. If we give the Lords a position which makes them more powerful politically than the King and more powerful politically than the Commons, and if we capture the Lords, then we are safe. We will let the Liberals, we will let the Socialists, we will let the Labour party, individually or collectively, go to the ballot boxes, have their propaganda, spend thousands upon thousands of pounds in General Elections, get public opinion converted in their favour and against us. What does it matter to us? We will go to an election, and we will have a majority in the House of Lords who will see to it that our work and our policy prevail."
    There is no Prime Minister, there is no man of any self-respect, who would undertake the arduous and thankless duties of being a Prime Minister and of being personally responsible for the Government of this country, who would sit where the Prime Minister is now sitting and be in a position of not being able to guarantee that what he and his colleagues desire to be done, because they believe it ought to be done in the national interest, should be done—who would sit there and feel that up there there is a permanent Tory bloc, charged, not with looking after national affairs, but with looking after Tory affairs. There is not a man of any self-respect, with any ability to carry out the responsibilities imposed upon that office, who would sit in that place, because he would feel that he was being
    1284
    made a mere fool of and that, instead of a working Constitution, he had to deal with a machine which condemned him to failure before he began his work.
    4.0 p.m.
    Another Parliamentary point, another historical point, a point which is well worth looking back upon, so that Ministers and those who support them may know exactly what they are doing. The point is one for which this House has stood—sometimes against one element in the Constitution and sometimes another—that no power within the Constitution is going to be able to decree its dissolution except itself. We have had fights against the monarchs, but that has now gone. It is the result of very important fights that we have taken that power from the Sovereign, who used to be able to summon his Ministers one morning and say, "Thank you very much for what you have done, but I will be very much obliged if you will hand in your seals, because I have decided that somebody else shall take them." That has gone. Hon. Members opposite, however, say that what this House would not take from the hands of a Sovereign, it is going to take from the hands of a few Peers. The idea that all that a progressive Minister has to do, when the other place, the reconstructed other place, stands in his way is to go to the country—what does it mean? That is exactly what the Monarchs used to do. They never acted in their own interest; of course not. They always acted in the interests of the country, and that which the House of Commons did not tolerate, and will not tolerate now, the Government propose should be exercised by the Peers, because, forsooth, the representatives of 700 gentlemen drawn from one set of interests, and one social class, are to decree in respect of this, that and the other thing, that the House of Commons is for the time being exceeding its authority, and is not in step with the public opinion that sent it there. No, we shall not surrender to them the right to dissolve us when they think fit. We know how they would exercise it. To-day we have a Second Chamber, the House of Lords, which claims to be an impartial authority, and which, according to those Debates—the reference we can make to them must be somewhat limited—is prepared to take on

    1285
    this job. Why not take it on next week? They have got a very good chance. They have now got a Bill before them which, I am perfectly certain, had we an impartial Second Chamber, would not be passed. I admit that I have, over and over again, been inclined to agree that, as a purely academical proposition, as a proposition one likes to work out at one's own fireside, at one's own desk, writing on sheets of foolscap, discussing all sort of proposals for constitution building, a most attractive problem is, could we fit into our Constitution some sort of mechanical device so that if and when a Government democratically elected for a constitutional period of years—now five—nevertheless in the interval should be guilty of some step which was obviously contrary to the will of the nation—could we fit into our Constitution some sort of supplementary brake which would mean that the Government acting in that way within five years of office should be compelled to go to the country?
    It is a most enticing proposition. I am not prepared to discuss it; it would only be wasting the time of the House to do so. But whatever answer you give to that, whether you say you can or cannot do it, one thing that you cannot do is to make that brake of little pieces of mechanism of a purely partisan description. The Government propose to make this brake out of people, some of them the most admirable and worthy men, mixed just as we ourselves are, but all of one interest, and that interest a Tory interest. Supposing we were in this position. Supposing we had a majority of 200. Whether we had a majority in the country or not, we will leave out of account. But supposing I and my colleagues were in this position, that we had 200 good, loyal men behind us, and we said we believe in a Second Chamber, we believe in creating something that will guard the country against a Government that is abusing its power, but that the mechanism for that is not to be found in the raw material of the Peerage, but it has got to be found in the raw material of trade union general secretaries. Why not? They are men of experience, men who have come up from the ranks. I will undertake to say that if it is an alternative between the Peerage and trade union general secretaries, we will
    1286
    put up a far better case, and that none of the obvious objections to our proposal are special to our proposal, but are shared by our proposal and the proposal of the Government. That is the position, and if the Prime Minister would only use his imagination, and put himself in other people's shoes, imagine what he would feel if he were the leader, not of the Tory party, which is going to get that power, but the parties which are fighting to get public opinion in their favour, and when they succeed in the country, find themselves in such a position, then he will understand why we regard his proposals in the way we do. The very worst type of Second Chamber is the type based on heredity.
    There is a third point I want to make from the point of view of the working of these proposals, and from the point of view of Parliamentary genius and of requirement. This act of the right hon. Gentleman's Government is a purely revolutionary act. It is the act of a revolutionary junta. I have read the Debates in the other place, and I have read various speeches that have been made outside. A speech on Saturday was an illuminating speech in which the Secretary of State for War displayed the red light. For the purpose of this argument, I am not going to say anything about their having no mandate at the General Election. I am not going to say anything about their having no support now. What I do say is that no Government, placed as this Government is, can, except by a revolutionary act, divide the Constitution into two absolutely watertight compartments from the point of view of Parliamentary working, and then place the House of Lords, the new Second Chamber, in a position quite independent of the country, and do that by a purely temporary Parliamentary majority. It cannot be done, and nobody knows better than the Prime Minister himself that his action is the action of a temporary majority making permanent changes, without our consent, without Parliamentary consent, without any attempt being made to get a national agreement upon it, but using his Parliamentary majority to effect a change in the Constitution which is to be permanent, and which, when made, cannot be unmade in the same way that it is being

    1287
    made. If that be not revolution, I do not know what is. We have always been accustomed to talk of our Constitution being a constitution of balancing power. Now the essential condition of a balanced constitution is that one party or the other should in the background have the power to solve a deadlock.
    That no longer exists. There is no power now in the constitution—neither the Sovereign, nor the Lords, nor the Commons has the power now to solve a situation which arises on account of a breakdown owing to a lack of the balance of the constitution. The right hon. Gentleman is destroying the balance of constitution, and he is creating a constitution with a deadlock right at the centre. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will very seriously concern himself with those points before this Bill, which, we assume, he is going to force through, is produced, because it certainly means that as soon as he leaves off, he puts his successor in the unfortunate position that he is responsible for adopting some such device as withholding Supply, or some other revolutionary act in order to undo a revolutionary act which the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating.
    There is one other point which I would submit with great seriousness and deference to the whole House, and that is, why is this being done now? I am told that the Labour party has arisen, that the Labour party throws a shadow of possible revolution, that we may go too far and too fast, and so on. I do not believe it and I do not believe those who use the argument believe it. No country has ever yet gone too fast without having been compelled, first of all, to go too slow, without in some cases, as it is to-day, being compelled to go too fast backwards. I doubt very much whether all the Prime Minister's historical reading will enable him to produce a single case of a country, that from contentment and confidence in its Government, that from a feeling of security that whoever is in office legislation is always more or less in its hands, that if it disagrees with what is being done it can always put a check on it—I would be very delighted indeed if he would tell me of a country in that condition which indulged in revolution as a pastime. But I will
    1288
    tell him of scores of countries which have Tory Governments, with rigged constitutions in their own favour, that blocked progress, that went back, that deprived the common people of their rights and privileges, and that then went into revolution.
    The problem I put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Who is to blame for that revolution? The men who appear to be the leaders of the revolution, or the men who were at the head of the Tory Government who created it? That is going to happen. That is what is happening now. If there is any danger in this country now, it is not that we are going too fast, but that we are going too slow. The right hon. Gentleman knows it. Take the history of his own party. For 40 years the Unionist party opposed Home Rule for Ireland. For 40 years we were told that Home Rule for Ireland was going to disrupt this country, was going to smash us, and for 40 years they ruled as a Tory Unionist party in order to prevent Home Rule for Ireland. They then underwent one of the most disgraceful surrenders that any party in this country has ever undergone. For 40 years the name of the party "Unionist" has shown that in their thoughts it was a most important thing to fight for and defend! At the end of the time they had to surrender, not because there was a Coalition, but because they were compelled to. I am bound to confess that if I could ever do anything to get a change made—a necessary and effective change made—before I was compelled to do so I should consider I was doing a very great public service. Those people who, are always standing back, those people who are always seeing red, those people who are always objecting to change, those people who never get fears or nightmares of worse prospects for the world, they are the people who, by going too slow, create revolutions and compel successive generations to go too fast.
    Take the question of coal. Nothing done; they are too slow. If there be any trouble, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is responsible for it. All those opportunities lost; too slow. Your Trade Union Bill; too far back. That is where the danger lies, and, instead of talking about creating a Constitution which will prevent this country from going too fast, you would be far better

    1289
    employed if you were trying to create a Constitution that would oil the wheels of both industry and politics in order to enable the country to go faster than it is going. Therefore, under present circumstances and under present inspirations, it is not the pace that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen object to. They are not afraid of revolutions; they are afraid of ideas. What they want is to create a sort of Vatican Council that will look after the Faith. They do not want to protect themselves against these large evils. They want to be able to criticise every little "tuppenny halfpenny" pamphlet that comes out in the form of a Bill and condemn it or circulate it. They are far more interested in preventing town councils running omnibuses, and they want to create a Constitution which will enable them to stop that. But to stop a revolution or to stop large tendencies—they are not afraid of revolution; they are afraid of reform.
    There is no case for this change at all. There was not even a case in regard to a Money Bill. I hope I am not out of place, or in any way out of order, in reflecting upon the fact that the only definite case that was brought up as being a possible dereliction in the application of your authority, Mr. Speaker, in settling what was a Money Bill, was occasioned by a blunder, a stupid blunder. Because two Bills had the same title it was assumed by one of those City gentlemen that they must also have the same contents. There has been no case made out even in favour of this Joint Committee for Money Bills. As regards this proposal for a Money Bill Committee I say this. I do not care whether your Committee is going to have Mr. Speaker as Chairman with a casting vote or Mr. Speaker with an absolute right of decision over and independent of his colleagues. This House, and this House alone, is the only authority that has any business to interfere with finance.
    When a Constitution is ripe for change two things happen. The country is interested and the country is agitated before we are. That is not the case now. The next point is that when the Constitution is changed the country supplies the initiative for change. I have read speeches by people who profess to be great constitutional historians and lawyers, talking about the British Con
    1290
    stitution, and that they are all protected this way and that way. Would the right hon. Gentleman, or anybody who is going to speak following him, tell me now or henceforth of a single case of a Constitution having been made by a party majority? Will he tell me of a single case of a Constitution being imposed upon a country without an election or without a referendum? What is more, will he tell me of a single case of a Constitution that has once been written, with all its safeguards, with its First Chambers and its Second Chambers, and so on, that cannot be changed by a direct vote of the people themselves? Why, there is none such. The proposal of the Government is not a constitutional proposal; it is a makeshift, a temporary revolutionary proposal occasioned by the flutter that is in their minds as the result of by-elections. It is really nothing more. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh as much as they like, but it is nothing more. If any of the right hon. Gentlemen whom I have the greatest pleasure in seeing opposite me, and whom I always admire, believed that they had another five years of office, the Lord Chancellor would never have been instructed by the Cabinet or permitted by the Cabinet to make the statement that he made in the House of Lords. No; never was there a constitutional proposal made with less justification or less excuse than this proposal. Never was there a constitutional change made that was more patently a partisan move and not a constitutional one. For these reasons, I move the Resolution which is down in my name.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): May I express to the right hon. Gentleman the great pleasure which I have in seeing him in his place again and the pleasure of all those behind me? I hope very much he may soon be restored to complete good health. This matter, which we are going to debate to-day, must be approached from a slightly different angle, according to whether one's speech is in support of the Vote of Censure or against it. The only observation I would make at this moment on the Motion is that I am interested to see that the word "gerrymander" has now the high authority of His Majesty's Opposition, as it now appears in their form of

    1291
    Motion. The only comfort I derive from that fact is that, if my memory serves me rightly, that most distinguished gentleman, Mr. Gerry Elbridge, was not really guilty of the sin to which his name has been attached. No, Sir, this question which we are discussing to-day, and which I am very glad to have the opportunity of discussing, is one to which certainly two parties—the Liberal party and our own party—have given a good deal of attention and, I think, also a good deal of examination has been given to it by Members of the party opposite. The reform of the House of Lords, whatever that phrase may mean, is explicit in the Parliament Act. We will leave for the moment what kind of reform, but reform is explicit, and I was peculiarly interested in that part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in which he dwelt for some moments on the attractive prospect which is opened up of trying to devise a better system of a Second Chamber than in his view exists to-day. It only makes me regret that he did not devote his great powers to-day in giving us some help in the problem which is before us. But he addressed himself to the question as if it were embodied in a Bill which was at this moment before the House of Commons.
    I do not want to take up more time to-day than I am obliged to because many hon. Members want to speak, but before I come to the proposals themselves I must make a few observations upon a Second Chamber as such and upon our own Second Chamber in this country. The necessity for a Second Chamber, I imagine, is felt by a great majority in this country. I think the reasons that make people feel that there is this necessity may be summed up perhaps in some of those reasons which were put forward by that extraordinarily able Report of the Bryce Committee, which was held during the War. The tendency during the last generation—and I am afraid it is a tendency which is bound to increase—is for each Government to bring forward more and more legislation. The work of this House tends to become congested. We have tried to meet it as far as we can in recent years by the device of upstairs Committees, which has been adopted more by previous Governments than by this, and by what I fear has been the necessary curtailment of De
    1292
    bates in this House, and by the use of the Closure by compartments and measures of that kind. The necessary result of that has been undoubtedly that a mass of legislation within the last decade, or perhaps more, has gone up to the other place in such a condition that examination and emendation is absolutely necessary, not only for the sake of the legislation itself but for the sake of the particular Government that may be in charge of these Measures, who find that in the hurry of legislation in this House they have left out Amendments of their own which they deem to be essential to the framing of the Bills.
    Arising similarly out of congestion of business a Second Chamber is of great value for the introduction of Bills of a more or less non-controversial character which the Government yet desire to pass, and in that Chamber they can be so shaped, examined and framed that when they come down to this House there remains but little work to be done upon them, and the Government of the day find themselves able, without unduly trespassing upon the time of this House, to increase the mass product of their legislation.
    Then there comes a third point, which I was interested to find was touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a point, of course, which has always been made with regard to Second Chamber. In some quarters it is made with, perhaps, some exaggeration; certainly an exaggerated view compared with the one which I hold myself. In some quarters, on the other hand, perhaps on the left wing of the party opposite, they may not feel any necessity at all for that point which was alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition, and that is, the interposition of so much delay, and only so much, as may be needed to enable the national opinion to be given when a government brings in proposals of a very novel kind which have not been adequately before the country or examined lay the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Trade Unions Bill."]—and on which a very great difference of opinion exists: in other words, where opinion may be said to be more or less evenly divided.
    There is yet one more function which a Second Chamber performs with the greatest efficiency, and that is to give

    1293
    the country the opportunity of having full and free discussion on matters of great public interest, such as foreign policy, for which it is often difficult, especially at this time of the Session to provide time in the House of Commons, and where those matters may be discussed without the fear that an unhappy division may bring the life of the Government to an end. Those are great advantages, because when people with knowledge are enabled to speak freely, without the fear of being compromised by such a division, you are then apt to get the very kernel of the truth. So far as the position of our Second Chamber goes, I think there will be general agreement amongst all parties, and not only amongst all parties, but amongst Members of both Houses of Parliament. There can be nowadays, no question of a Second Chamber, whether it be called the House of Lords, or whatever it may be called, or whatever form it may take at any time in the future, becoming a really effective rival of this Chamber. I want the House to bear that in mind at this point, because I may have something to say about it later.
    There can be no power in a Second Chamber in this country to make or unmake Ministries, and there can be no equal rights in finance. These points have been long established in this country, both by custom and by tradition. Constitutionally, the Executive of this country depends, first and last, on the support of this House, and of this House alone. I am quite sure that everyone in this House would agree with one point that was touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition, that it is not a good thing that we should gradually have evolved a position in this country where the Second Chamber contains such a large majority of one school of thought. It was not always so, by any means. I do not propose to take up time this afternoon in tracing the steps that have led to the present state of things, but that is the present state of things, and it is one that does not make for the strength of the Constitution.
    I want at this point to say a word on the question of what is, shortly, termed the Speaker's veto. That question has been examined by the Bryce Committee, by the Coalition Government and by our Government, and I think there has been
    1294
    a feeling amongst all those who have examined this question and, so far as I know, the view has been shared, I do not say wholly by all parties, but I think amongst all parties, that it does throw a most difficult and invidious task upon that great officer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, to be the sole arbiter between the two Houses as to what is and what is not a Financial Bill. Of some Bills, of course, anyone can see in a moment whether or not it is a purely Financial Bill, but there may easily be Bills which, while purporting to deal only with the raising of money and the spending of money, may have effects in action, both industrially, commercially, socially, and politically of far greater importance than the effects that will arise from the actual finance.
    The Bryce Committee, a very representative Committee, representing all parties in, I think, 1916 or 1917, tried for a long time to find some definition which would describe such Bills and be able to differentiate between them, and they wanted to find a definition so clear and succinct that they could embody it in a Statute, if necessary. They failed to find that definition. It is an extremely difficult thing to do, but, at the same time, they expressed the view, with which I certainly agree, that the examination of all cases of doubt which have arisen showed difficulties, and I think this would be so in any case, which, it would appear, could be resolved in a comparatively short space of time round a table by about a dozen practical experienced men of goodwill, and such a body would be a Standing Joint Committee; a body which, in one shape or another, has been put forward by each Committee, to whatever party it belonged, that has examined this subject. The duty of that Committee might well be, as was suggested in the Bryce Committee, and as we have suggested, as I shall point out further on, to consider not only the professed purpose but the underlying purpose of the legislation, and to report which of its Clauses, if any, are strictly financial, and therefore only to be dealt with by the House of Commons, and which of its Clauses, if any, should be put in a category remoter from pure finance, and which might be dealt with in another place. But in any case, and let there be no mistake about

    1295
    this, there can be no question of finance being initiated in another place, nor of a charge being increased.
    I want to speak for a few moments on the question of the elective principle. I want to do that because that, as I shall show, is the main difference, if not the only difference, at any rate the only difference of importance, between the proposals of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and those put forward by the Lord Chancellor the other day.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated dissent.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If my memory serves me aright, and I apologise to the hon. Member if I am at fault, the elective principle was one which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was inclined to favour.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Never.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have read so much of what the hon. Member has written that I apologise if I am confused and have made a mistake. The elective principle is an extraordinarily plausible one, at first sight, for a Second Chamber. There are, undoubtedly, a number of Members in this House who believe that that would be by far the best way in which to attempt the reform of the Second Chamber in this country. The elective principle was mentioned in the preamble of the Parliament Act, and the elective principle was among the proposals put forward by Lord Peel in another place five years ago. But the moment you come to election for a Second Chamber you are immediately faced with this problem. I said five minutes ago, and I believe it commanded assent, that in no case could we contemplate a Second Chamber which would be a rival of this House. There is no question, in my mind, that the shortest way to find a rival of this House would be to set up an elective Chamber along the passage. There is no answer to the argument when they say to you, "Our mandate is the same as yours," and I always feel the danger of the same long struggle between two elected Chambers that we have had in times past between the elected and the non-elected.
    1296
    So far as finance is concerned, I believe that, ultimately, the result of having an elected Second Chamber would be that the supremacy of this House would be imperilled, and that the utmost we could hope for would be that the two Houses would end by being of equal authority.
    There is another difficulty. Every proposal that has been made for reform of the Second Chamber has included limitation of numbers. For effective purposes the Chamber has always been made considerably smaller than this one. That would mean, in election, the constituencies would be far greater, and it would lead to considerably increased expense for those who fought them, and while the whole tendency to-day is to make it easier for men, whatever their means, to come into public life, that, I think, would or might tend to make it more difficult. Moreover, no scheme has been drawn up, that I am aware of, by any of the people who have considered this matter that does not make the tenure of a seat in an elected and reformed Second Chamber longer than the tenure in this Chamber, by providing definite periods for blocks of members to go out and new members to come in. It has always been felt that in making the longer term it would prevent that body from being so subject to violent changes of opinion that might sweep over the country and which, necessarily, would affect this House. If it so happens that that election gives a longer tenure to another place, the attraction of that other place to many of us with an election only once in eight or 12 years instead of once every three years, would, I think, draw many of us to it. Again, it has been suggested that the election, instead of being direct, should be by groups in this House—that has been put forward—or by local authorities, but the principle of election, it seems to me, is the same, and, whether you have the election by groups or parties in this House, or by local authorities, or directly, as we are elected, you never can get away from the fact that the power of elected Chambers must tend to become equal; and there is no question that an elected Second Chamber would never rest until it found itself, certainly not in an inferior position to this

    1297
    Chamber, and it might even find itself ultimately in a stronger position, as in the case of the Senate of the United States of America.
    I do not think any scheme that has been brought forward yet has entirely omitted the hereditary element. The proportion may be small, but I cannot recall at the moment any scheme that entirely omitted that. The reason for that is not far to seek. In this country we do think a good deal of continuity in our institutions and whatever may be said against the hereditary system as it exists to-day in another place, there is no historical student who would not feel regret if the link were completely severed between that Chamber at the other end of the corridor and the Great Council which was still functioning in this country before the Norman Conquest. If that does not appeal to hon. Members let me remind them, if I may, that six centuries after that Great Council came into being—in the thirteenth century—the House of Commons was first formed to help that Council. The House of Commons would not have been called into existence had it not been that the fight for liberty in that century was won by that House, and if the hereditary element is to remain, I can see no fairer way, fairer to that House itself, than that they should select their own representatives in the same way as for so many years the Scottish and Irish peers have been selected from their own body.
    After those observations I wish to pass directly to the matter at issue to-day. The matter at issue to-day would never have been comprehensible if I had not touched on those various points which I have touched upon. To many hon. Members opposite this subject is a comparatively new one and is of little, or only of academic, interest. But it is a real subject to all Governments and it may well be that it is a subject that may have to engage the attention of a Government from the other side when it comes into power, just as it has engaged the attention of each Government that has held office since the Parliament Act. As far as this Government is concerned, I would remind the House of the pledges which have been given by this Government, not pledges as to detail, but pledges to make the attempt to deal with
    1298
    this question. The first pledge was given before the General Election, at Perth, a pledge was given in a speech of mine at Brighton only two years ago, and a pledge was given by me at a joint meeting of Members of both Houses, when I said that whatever the Government ultimately undertook to do they would do it in the lifetime of the present Parliament.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Was that a private or a public meeting?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was a private meeting but it was reported in the press, and I think there was no secret about the pledge at all. I wish to answer one question which many Members have, I am sure, put to themselves. Are the Government in this matter acting in a hurry? Have they considered this matter? I think that question deserves a reply. As far as I am concerned, and as far as the Cabinet is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition was quite wrong in his inference that this question had been hurried because we had not held all the seats at by-elections that we held at the General Election. Whatever Government had come into power at this time I think would have made an attempt to deal with this question. Have we been in a hurry? Let me compare our action with that of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I take that because that was the Government which put in its programme that it would attempt to deal with this question. I take it for two reasons. It was a Government which, whether it be popular to-day or not, contained an enormous amount of experience and ability, and, secondly, it was a Government that during the four years of its life had to deal with a large number of most difficult, most contentious and most troublesome questions, and yet that Government set up a Committee to investigate this question early in 1921, a Committee of the Cabinet, and it was in the summer of 1922, or 18 months afterwards, that the Cabinet authorised the introduction by Lord Peel of certain Resolutions in another place. That was in July, 1922. We set up our Cabinet Committee in June, 1925. It sent in its first Report to the Cabinet early in 1926 and the discussions did not last more than six months. It was immediately con

    1299
    sidered by the Cabinet, but last year, owing to other preoccupations it was early winter before the Cabinet could give their attention to this Report. They examined this Report thoroughly, exhaustively, and they amended it, and they sanctioned the introduction of certain proposals in another place about the middle of May.
    I give these dates to show the difficulty of this question. You often hear people say that this is a light task, but there is no more difficult and troublesome task, and it took nearly a year of work in the case of each of these two Governments, on the part of men of great experience and great ability, to arrive by a process of elimination at certain proposals. I will devote a few moments at this point to comparing the proposals. The fact that there is a family resemblance between the proposals does not arise out of our having copied the conclusions of the late Government. It shows that when any body of men are attempting to implement the pledge given so many years ago by Mr. Asquith—as he then was—there is a tendency by that process of elimination to arrive on examination at very much the same body of proposals. In regard to the Speaker's Veto the present Government proposals, which they put forward, were:
    "That the decision as to whether a Bill is, or is not, a Money Bill within the meaning of the Act, or is partly a Money Bill, and partly not, shall be determined by a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses and that Joint Standing Committee shall be composed of an equal number of Members of each House who shall choose their own Chairman. In coming to their decision the Joint Standing Committee shall henceforth have regard not only to the form but to the substance and effect of the Bill. Bills dealing with local rates shall not be deemed to be Money Bills and the House of Lords have power to deal with matters affecting the local rates."
    The Government of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs proposed this:
    "That while the House of Lords shall not amend or reject Money Bills, the decision whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, or is partly a Money Bill, shall be referred to the Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses, the decision of which shall be final. Joint Standing Committees shall be appointed at the beginning of each new Parliament and shall be composed of
    1300
    seven Members of each House of Parliament, in addition to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be ex-officio chairman of that Committee,"
    The point of the rates was not mentioned in the Coalition proposal. I do not know whether that question was considered or whether it was omitted inadvertently—I have no recollection of that—but the rates point was put in the form which I have read out as one of the conclusions of the Bryce Committee, and it occurs also in the same portion of the Report, if I remember rightly, as their recommendation regarding the Speaker's Veto. As far as the members of that Committee go, or whether the Speaker shall be Chairman or not, my own view is that those are matters of detail that might well be discussed. Then on the other point, about the Parliament Act itself, I should like to remind the House that the proposal put forward by Lord Cave—
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman as he has quoted that? The question surely is whether the House of Commons has got a majority of that Committee. Under the proposals of 1922 there was a distinct majority. Mr. Speaker was added to the seven Members of the Commons. In addition to that, he was in the Chair, and had a casting vote as such. That is very vital.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps what I have said will appear clearer when I have got a little further with what I have to say. I shall have some observations to make very soon which will make it clear. The proposals put forward by Lord Cave were:
    "The provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, by which Bills can be passed into law without the consent of the House of Lords during the course of a singe Parliament shall not apply to any Bill which alters the constitution or power of the House of Lords as set out in the Parliament Act and these Resolutions."
    The Coalition Government's proposal was this:
    "That the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, by which Bills can be passed into law without the consent of the House of Lords during the course of a single Parliament shall not apply to any Bill which alters or amends the constitution of the House of Lords as set out in those Resolu

    1301
    tions or which in any way changes the powers of the House of Lords as laid down in the Parliament Act and modified by these Resolutions."
    I cannot see the difference between these two. I need not waste any time in discussing the proposals of the two Governments regarding the composition of the House, except to say here that it was only after the most careful and lengthy examination of what we conceived would be the effect of admitting an elected portion to the Second Chamber that we finally rejected the idea of election and chose instead the principle of nomination. I wonder whether hon. Members recollect what was the complaint made in 1922 against the Government on the Resolutions which they introduced into the House of Lords. The complaint was that they were too nebulous, and yet I venture to think they were a little more precise than the Resolutions which Lord Cave introduced. No one has accused Lord Cave of being nebulous. Everyone has suddenly fastened on to the idea that a Bill will be presented next week in that form and passed into law.
    Let me remind the House again of what happened in 1922. It was a situation not unlike that of to-day. The Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, was simply peppered with questions from the benches opposite. When the hon. and gallant Member who represented Leith at that time, and whom we all miss so much from this House, was in his place, he raised exactly the point which has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition to-day. My right hon. Friend said:
    "I do not think we can enter into negotiations and produce a cut and dried scheme without reference to the discussion which is proceeding."
    I only give that to illustrate what went beforehand. Then he was asked this:
    "Does not the Prime Minister think that the House of Commons might be asked to co-operate, too?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In due course they will be asked."
    It was perfectly plain that had an unexpected sequence of events not occurred in the Autumn, this question would have come down as a live question into the House of Commons. What its fate would have been there it is impossible
    1302
    to say. There is also an interesting observation which was made by the Leader of the Liberal party in this House itself on 10th November, 1921. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir A. Boyd Carpenter) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George):
    "if it is the determination of the Government to introduce and carry a Bill to reform the Second Chamber during the coming Session, and, if so, will such a Measure take precedence of all other legislation?"
    The Prime Minister of that day answered:
    "The answer to the first part of the affirmative. I cannot state the order of precedence of Government business next year, but this Measure will be among the first to be taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1921; col. 591, Vol. 148.]
    I have one other quotation, and one only, because I am not very fond of quotations, but I want to give it because it bears on this question. That was also during the Debate in July, 1922. My noble colleague, Lord Birkenhead, who was then Lord Chancellor said, having produced those proposals, that the details would be infinitely difficult and infinitely controversial when the discussion was attempted in the House. That, of course, is true. The Leader of the Opposition made great play, and perfectly fair play, in his speech to-day, with the differences of opinion in our party on this question. Of course there are differences of opinion on this question. There always have been and there always will be, and if anything is to be done you can only get the greatest common measure of agreement before you can proceed. This is a genuine attempt, made after infinite labour, to implement not only the pledges of this Government, but the pledges of previous Governments. We offer them for criticism and for ventilation, both here and in the country, and we must be guided in framing legislation by due consideration of that criticism and the results of that ventilation. To treat a matter like this by moving a Vote of Censure is like heaving half a brick at us.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We were refused any other opportunity.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No Government that had not a certain amount of courage would have touched this subject at all. What Lord Birkenhead said the

    1303
    other day is perfectly true, that it is a Sisyphean task to roll this stone up the hill, and my only comfort is that if the worst happens and the stone rolls back there is no record of Sisyphus ever having been hurt. In the light of what we may learn from this Debate, what we have learned from the other place, and what we learn from our friends in the country, we shall hope to be able to produce that greatest common measure in a form practicable for legislation. If we fail, I doubt very much whether further attempts will be made in the near future; because until to-day I had feared that this question had been always considered to be too much in the vortex of the most controversial party politics to hope for any success from any conference between parties to achieve the end which I believe we all desire. I did feel a little encouragement from some words the Leader of the Opposition used, and yet the one thing which I feel is not of good augury is this: If and when a Government make an honest and bona fide attempt to deal with a most difficult question, which has baffled succeeding Governments for many years, and they are met not with any constructive proposals, not with any help, not with any promise of co-operation, but only with a Vote of Censure, it makes it impossible for the collective wisdom of this House ever to solve any of the great controversial questions of the day.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Prime Minister has entirely failed to meet the challenge which was issued to him by the Leader of the Opposition, and has not made any attempt to deal with one single point which the Leader of our party put to him to answer. He has made a speech which was rather in the nature of an academic essay, suitable to a debating society or a mutual improvement club, but not suitable to the House of Commons. He has made the speech of a man who wishes to avoid every practical question that he has been asked, the speech of a man in retreat, the speech of a beaten and discredited man, a speech which was received without one single cheer from all his supporters behind him. This speech, perhaps unconsciously, has drawn aside the veil which hides Cabinet discussions, and, for the first time in this Parliament, has allowed the people to watch how these Cabinet, decisions are
    1304
    reached. We see from that speech, comparing it with the speeches in another place, that Members of this Cabinet apparently come to decisions without knowing what these decisions are. They make pronouncements contradicting each other in public. The Government issue proposals which their supporters describe as those of Gadarene swine. They present a picture of muddle and incompetence and incoherence which has no parallel in recent years. The people are watching the picture which is being unfolded to them now, and I venture to say that at this moment the stock of the Government stands lower than it ever has done since the General Election, that never have they been regarded by the public outside with such general indifference, ridicule and contempt.
    The Prime Minister, as I have said, avoided answering practically every issue which these proposals Live raised; but on one point, and one point alone, he came down to particulars, and practically indicated that on one subject legislation would be considered by the Government. That was the proposal to take the power of deciding what is or is not a Money Bill out of the hands, of the Speaker of this House, and to hand it over to a Joint Committee consisting of equal numbers of Members of both Houses of Parliament. In another place, the Leader of the Liberal party there, Lord Beauchamp, gives his adherence to that proposal, and I gather that whether that adherence will or will not be made plain is being decided at this moment. That being so, it is necessary for us to state clearly now, and there is no further necessity for discussion, that that proposal will be most fiercely resisted by the Labour party; and we shall resist it, not only as Labour men, but as House of Commons men. For that reason I would venture, before proceeding to the right hon. Gentleman's other observations, to deal for a moment in detail with that proposal.
    What is the position? The argument that the Prime Minister has used is that this was an invidious task for Mr. Speaker to carry out, and that greater confidence in the general impartiality of the decision would be secured if it were handed over to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. In this case, the Speaker is not an authority deciding between the two Houses; everyone knows that that is not

    1305
    the case. All these conflicts are conflicts between political parties, and the issue between the Houses merely expresses that larger conflict behind. Here in this country, when it comes to a conflict between political parties, we have, by centuries of experience, gradually built up a great officer of State, who, while in politics, is above politics, whose absolute impartiality is one of the most unquestioned traditions of our Parliamentary system—the Speaker of the House of Commons—an office and a tradition which are regarded with admiration and astonishment that we could create it by all politically-minded men in every country in the world. The idea that by taking the decision on these political questions out of his hands, and handing it over to a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses, who from the very nature of the case will themselves have been engaged in a furious partisan fight on the very issue that they have to decide—the notion that in that way greater impartiality is going to be secured than from Mr. Speaker himself, shows, I say, a lack of common sense and an insincerity which indicates that the Prime Minister's proposal is not due to a desire to secure impartiality, but is due to a desire to secure a packed Committee upon which the Tory party will always predominate. And it will be a packed Committee, for reasons which I would like at this moment to explain.
    An equal number of members—seven is the number suggested—is to be chosen from each of the two Houses. So far as membership of this House is concerned, we in our party will undoubtedly, I presume, obtain our proportionate number; but half the membership of the other House is bound to be of a predominantly and overwhelmingly Conservative complexion, with the result that the Committee as a whole will have a Conservative majority. This means that, whatever the fortunes of politics may be, whatever the people may decide, however the Conservative party may be destroyed at the polls, they will, by the Prime Minister's one practical proposal this afternoon, at this pivotal point of the Constitution be always firmly entrenched in a Committee with a permanent Tory majority. The proposal before us is that the Speaker shall be dethroned, and that his place shall be taken by a party dodge.
    1306
    I come now to the main argument which the Prime Minister used. His argument was that powers such as these were necessary to a Second Chamber, because, without them, it would not be possible to elicit—I take his words—a national opinion when a Government had made proposals which were not agreed to by the country, and the function of the reformed House of Lords would be to ensure that the people's will had been achieved. That argument is a hallucination. There never has been a time when this House has been more closely watched by the public outside, and every one of us knows it. We live here and speak in a House whose walls are made of glass. Every one of our acts is being watched by millions of other people. If, in these circumstances, we pass fundamental legislation which is disliked by the people, it cannot be hidden from the people. The punishment of the Government that does it can be left to the people at the next Election, and the legislation, if necessary, can be repealed. But this proposal to take the House of Lords—an assembly of absentees, more than half the members of which never even take the trouble to appear in that House once in a Session, 150 of whom have not even taken the oath, an assembly which claims to read the feeling of the people when it has shown this week that it cannot read the feeling of its own party, an assembly which never has to stand face to face with any electorate—the argument that this unrepresentative assembly is needed in order to protect the people from the representatives whom they themselves elect, shows the grotesque absurdity of the whole structure upon which the Prime Minister relies.
    There is no doubt about the party at whom these proposals are aimed. They are aimed at the Labour party. We say that this whole doctrine, that, even though we win the victory in the constituencies, we are to be impeded in another place, is unconstitutional, is undemocratic, is mean, and is cowardly. The property of the party opposite, as to which hon. Members are afraid, in the politics of this country, has already protection and security enough. They have the newspapers; they have the wealth, so that at the last Election the average expenses of a Conservative candidate were more than twice the average expenses of every Labour can

    1307
    didate; they have the secret party funds, which are obtained by the sale of titles, by appealing to the wealth and vanity and vulgarity of the members of the Conservative party and by prostituting the prerogative of the Crown. They have all these advantages. On our side, all that we have is the voluntary zeal of our workers, the unpaid labour of countless thousands of poor men and the rising youth of the land. We say, with the advantages that the party opposite have, and the advantages that we have, that if, by these legitimate and honourable weapons, we win the victory in the constituencies, then we have as much right to have free and unimpeded passage for our legislation as the party opposite always claims for itself; and, if the Prime Minister ventures to introduce a Bill which robs us of that right, then that will be the issue of the next General Election, and hundreds of Members on the seats opposite will find that their places in this House will know them no more.
    I would now like to refer to the observations which the Prime Minister made with regard to the hereditary system, and with regard to the proposals which he explained for allowing the House of Lords to reconstitute itself. Let us see what this new House of Lords is, as pictured by the Prime Minister. I was amused, in listening to the Debates in another place, to find that the majority of the peers were afraid they were sacrificing too much. What are they sacrificing? They are sacrificing nothing. There are to be 350 members in the new House, and the vast majority, say, 250 to 300, are to be hereditary peers. But, of the present hereditary peerage, only about 250 ever take the trouble to attend. What are they sacrificing? There will still be plenty of room for every one of them who has ever paid for the petrol for his car to transport him to the House of Lords. I am told that a number of these peers attach great value to the right to sit in the House of Lords, although they never put in an appearance there, and that under these conditions there may be some loss in prestige as a consequence of these proposals. The only serious result of that, however, would be to diminish the price for which a peerage can be sold, and I am not surprised, in
    1308
    those circumstances, that, as is commonly known, the chief opposition to these proposals has come from the Chief Whip of the Conservative party.
    There is to be one other element in the House of Lords. A minority are to be nominated, and this is a part of the scheme in which I think we should take special interest, because it is introduced for our benefit. As the Secretary of State for War explained on Saturday, members are to be nominated by the Prime Minister, in order that Labour may have some representation in the House of Lords. These proposals show a lack of any sense of real touch with public affairs which is amazing. They are the most insolent and the most insulting part of the whole scheme. Suppose this Bill is passed during this Parliament: The Prime Minister will then proceed to select a number of Labour members, those whom he considers the most respectable, and they will be sent to the House of Lords, and there they will be expected to scout out Labour doctrines in order that the hereditary peers may then vote them down. We are to go there as a kind of pro to send up lobs for the gentlemen to hit at, allowed to dress in a pavilion in a separate room, because, if we were not, the public would stop the game. The Prime Minister has not yet made clear whether or not he intends to carry there proposals into law in the lifetime of this Parliament, and we affirm that if he does that it will be an outrage upon the Constitution, because for any such step he has not got a mandate from the people of this country. I listened very carefully to the argument by which he attempted to support his statement that a mandate had been furnished to him, and I listened to the three instances he gave. He mentioned a speech at Brighton, which I believe was delivered after the election. May I ask him was it after or before the election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I never spoke of mandates. I spoke of pledges.
    Mr. LEES-SMTH: Then I wish to know when was the pledge given—before or after the election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Both.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman then spoke of a meeting of

    1309
    Members of both Houses, which on inquiry was found to be a private meeting of his party. Finally, he referred to a pledge which he alleged was given at Perth, which I have read, and which consisted of a few vague and non-committal words uttered on the Saturday before the election took place, on the day of the publication of the Zinovieff letter and which were entirely ignored by the public because the Tory organisers came to the conclusion that Mr. Zinovieff was a better electoral asset than the Prime Minister.
    Let me examine the question of the mandate. What does a mandate mean? The last time the House of Lords was dealt with was by the Parliament Act of 1911, and before it was held right that that legislation should be passed there had to be held two General Elections within 10 months of each other, in one of which the House of Lords was the main issue and in the second of which the House of Lords was the only issue, and even after that the Conservative party were so unwilling to accept the result that when the Prime Minister stood at that Box and announced his intention of carrying his proposals into law he was shouted down by the Conservative party, the House was broken up in disorder and one of the Ministers who sits upon that bench hurled a copy of the Standing Orders across the Floor of the House of Commons and hit the present Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the dome of his head—a choice of targets which was the only redeeming feature of this shocking episode. That is what two General Elections show what is meant by a mandate when the party opposite used the word.
    The right hon. Gentleman claims that he has a mandate for these proposals from the people, when the events of the last few weeks have shown that he has not even a mandate from his own party. Let the country realise the lessons of this. The Conservative party and the House of Lords do not care about mandates, or about the will of the people, or about the constitution. They are, as has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, a revolutionary party who are now proposing a revolutionary Act. So long as they are on top they are all for defending the constitution, but immediately they have to play the part
    1310
    of the bottom dog they are ready to tear the constitution into pieces, as they showed in 1914, when they encouraged the Army to desert its allegiance to the Crown, and as they show by these proposals now. This new attack upon the constitution will be defeated. It will not be defeated by the Conservative party. It will be defeated by the passionate sense of freedom, which is still to be found in the hearts of the people.
    Mr. BUCHAN: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Opposition benches have presented a very simple argument. Some of us had hoped that the Leader of the Opposition, with his wide knowledge of history, his real flair for the past and his sense of its organic connection, might have offered certain constructive suggestions, or at any rate some acute criticisms. We have been disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who has just spoken, have given us precisely the kind of rhetoric that we were all so familiar with in 1910, chiefly on Liberal platforms, sharpened by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman leads a party the majority of whom not only reject the hereditary principle but object to any Second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to offer much in the way of reform if he altogether objects to the thing proposed to be reformed.
    The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to the Parliament Act. That is one of the two matters now before the House in this Debate. I do not suppose that any piece of legislation has ever had a more curious fate. It was the embarrassed Act of a deeply embarrassed Government brought in to meet an urgent electoral difficulty. The Liberal party for years had inscribed on its banner its intention to end or mend the House of Lords. The Parliament Act did not end it and did not mend it. It only introduced a hiatus in its working. By the confession of its own promoters it was imperfect. It was to be followed by a great measure of internal reform, and so balanced a mind and so wise a judgment as that of the then Sir Edward Grey described the policy as "Death, destruction and damnation."

    1311
    The Liberal Government did not implement their promise, and I think their apathy has turned out to be a blessing in disguise. The Parliament Act has been law now for 16 years. The crude facade is becoming mellowed by time, so that it looks almost like part of the old building. It has not been greatly used. It has scarely been used at all; but it remains a useful salve for anxious con sciences and a comfort to those restless, speculative souls who are always suspecting possible tyranny. I am inclined to think that the Parliament Act, this Measure begotten in haste and born in confusion, has turned out far better than its supporters ever dreamt. It has turned out far better than its Opponents imagined. I am sure it has turned out far better than any scheme of internal reform which was intended to supplement it. By a happy chance this admittedly crude Measure fell in with the natural evolutionary process of our institutions. There can be only two kinds of Second Chamber. Yon may have what is technically called a strong Second Chamber, with full powers of revision and rejection, and in a democracy like ours such a Second Chamber must necessarily be popularly elected. Or you may have a Second Chamber of the type that we have, which has been the result of the slow processes of time and not the work of a handful of constitution makers, a thing which I believe to be really representative but not directly elected by any popular vote. Such a Second Chamber must necessarily have its powers strictly limited. I believe that the Parliament Act has increased the prestige of the House of Lords, because it has done much to remove from it a certain atmosphere of popular suspicion.
    The second matter which is before the House in this Debate is the scheme of House of Lords reform which, about a fortnight ago, startled the breakfast tables of this country. It was promulgated by a distinguished member of His Majesty's Government. It was blessed at once by other distinguished members. It is true that as the days passed the benedictions became more tepid. Some of them, like inverted Balaams, came to bless and remained to deprecate and modify. That scheme went to the country blessed by high authority, and the ordinary man in the country could only come to one con
    1312
    clusion. He believed that, though it might not be the direct policy, the immediate policy, yet it represented the ideal of the Conservative party.
    The Prime Minister to-day has not sketched a detailed plan of reform. He has merely argued the case for reform. With the larger part of what he said, I am sure every Member on this side of the House is in full agreement. But I have one difficulty. If I understand him aright, he regards the scheme promulgated a fortnight ago as a reasonable basis for discussion. I desire to speak with all the modesty and deference which is fitting in one who is so new to the Debates in this House, but I would earnestly urge upon him the view that, before any serious, reform can be undertaken, the Lord Chancellor's scheme must be got out of the road. It seems to those who think with me, and they are not few, that that scheme cannot be a basis of discussion, because we regard it, not merely as inopportune, not merely as impracticable but as being definitely wrong and dangerous in principle, and a contradiction of the fundamentals of the Conservative creed.
    I see two main difficulties in the scheme. My first difficulty concerns the composition of the reformed House of Lords. The scheme proposed will, of course, not satisfy those who object to bi-cameral government altogether. It will not satisfy those who reject the hereditary principle. It is designed as a compromise, something to make the present system a little more logical, a little more defensible. I do not deny that, judged by a narrow academic logic, there are many anomalies in the House of Lords. But so there are in every one of our institutions. We have never objected to things anomalous and logically indefensible, provided they work. The House of Lords, as at present constituted, is not a mechanism which can easily be tinkered with. It is an institution, the result of the slow growth of time, and its merits are those acquired only by such an evolutionary process. Can it seriously be denied that our way of forming a Second Chamber is in practice more satisfactory than the nervous, jealous, irritable, self-conscious, insecure, and, because insecure, domineering Second Chambers which politicians in other countries have created out of the void?

    1313
    We are told that the hereditary principle is unpopular. I wonder if that is really so. In any case, Lord Cave's scheme does not get rid of the hereditary principle. It only skims the cream from it, the argument, apparently, being that while the peer who attends to his duties and whose name appears frequently in the Press is not unpopular, the honest man who rarely appears at Westminster is anathema to the British public. I wonder if what is called the backwoodsman is really unpopular with the ordinary man. He may be infrequent in his attendance on his Parliamentary duties, but he may be very close to the life of the country. No one who lives in a rural district can deny the amount of good public work often done, and the very real respect and popularity often gained by men who never appear in the House of Lords. They may not be intellectuals. Are they any the worse for that? Why should ambition mock their homely toil? They are not ardent politicians, but they commend themselves the more to a country, the large proportion of whose inhabitants are not ardent politicians.
    The House of Lords, as it stands today, seems to me a most remarkable repository of talent and knowledge. I see no objection to having a large reservoir of peers who very rarely appear at Westminster. The strength of the House of Lords is that it represents at present almost every interest, almost every avocation, almost every branch of knowledge, and, since its recent copious dilutions, almost every social grade. It is a most curious microcosm of the life of this country, and, therefore, it seems to me, to have admirable qualities for the work of revising and criticising. If the providence which watches over us has given us this kind of Second Chamber, why tamper with it? Why should we give up the creation of eight centuries in favour of the work of a few hurried and hustled gentlemen in the year 1927? I doubt very much if thereby you would increase its efficiency. I can imagine a House of Lords reformed on the most austere intellectual basis which would be far less efficient. It is notorious that there may be a dangerous collective un-
    1314
    wisdom, and a dense corporate stupidity in bodies, every member of which is a distinguished man.
    We are told that the present system is unfair to the Labour party, that the Labour party on their return to power will be embarrassed by finding in the House of Lords so few men who adhere to their political creed. I confess that the Labour party does not seem to me to be very grateful to the Government for its tender consideration for its welfare. In any case, that embarrassment would continue under Lord Cave's scheme. It seems to me that the embarrassment would continue and be inevitable in any Second Chamber, however constituted. Surely it would be better to put the onus on the Labour party of meeting this difficulty when they return to power. I have no doubt that they have in their ranks a number of patriots who would be willing to be sacrificial lambs on the altar of public duty. I hope they will not be too hasty in their disclaimers, for remember that political orientations do not endure for ever, and that the wheel of time moves fast. The Liberal party, when it was triumphant in this House, was embittered because it had so few Members in the House of Lords; but the time was to come—the time has come—when that great party is more adequately represented in the Upper than in the Lower Chamber. I can imagine that the day may yet come when the last supporters of a discredited, antiquated, and almost forgotten creed called Socialism will be a small group of Noble Lords deriving their titles from various spots in the Clyde valley.
    I see no practical advantage in the changes proposed under this head, and I see very real practical disadvantages. I strongly object to the principle which is behind it. It is an attempt to rationalise, to make more logical, to make less anomalous one of our institutions. But we have never worried about that question. The one question which our practical-minded people have always asked has been: Does it work? Hon. Members may remember the famous words of Edmund Burke:
    "The old building stands well enough, though part Gothic, part Grecian, part Chinese, till an attemept be made to square it into uniformity. Then, indeed, it may come down upon our heads altogether in much uniformity of ruin."

    1315
    If we once give in to the minor intellectual and attempt to rationalise our politics entirely, we may end in very deep waters. Take democracy, which is based, as we all agree, upon the doctrine of majority rule. Does anyone seriously argue in favour of what has been described as the plenary inspiration of the odd man? On a narrow logic, I can see an unanswerable case made out against democratic majority rule. It has been done to admiration by Signor Mussolini and his followers in Italy. Those of my Friends opposite who have toyed with the rather dreary literature published by the Bolshevist party before the Russian Revolution will remember with what acumen and sublety the followers of Lenin demolished the so-called democratic creed. I remain a democrat, because I do not think that that kind of argument matters. The British Empire from first to last has been illogical and anomalous, and if at any time we had attempted to make it a logical structure, we should have smashed it to pieces. The political genius of our countrymen lies in the fact that they can tolerate anomalies, that they can respect anomalies which are deep-rooted and close to the life of the country, and that they can make them work. The British Constitution seems to me like a pin-cushion, stuck full of the thin ends of wedges, which the common sense of our people has refrained from driving further in.
    6.0 p.m.
    My second difficulty is far more fundamental and far more important. The Lord Chancellor's scheme proposes to take the powers and composition of a reformed House of Lords altogether out of the Parliament Act. It proposes at the same time to abolish the power of the Crown to create Peers at the request of the Government of the day. That must happen. If you limit the number of Peers it is bound to happen. The result is that the House of Lords, on this scheme, will become a permanent and unchallengable corporation. I think that is a most dangerous doctrine. The proposal is not new in our history. Hon. Members will remember that it occurred in the Peerage Bill of 1718, a Whig Measure, which was defeated by the strong good sense of Sir Robert Walpole. What does it involve? It means that we
    1316
    take an important part of our Constitution and give it the rigidity of a written document, a thing which is not only repugnant to Conservatism but wholly alien to the tradition of our public life. What is the argument used in support of this startling change? It is the fear of some future revolutionary intention of some future Government. I do not belive that there is any worse cant talked in our public life to-day than this cant about revolution, whether it is used by those who hanker after it or by those who fear it. I have read catalogues of political enormities compiled by noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen which they envisage as possibilities of the future, and which this extraordinary proposal is designed to prevent. I am as credulous and as imaginative as most men, but my imagination and my credulity cannot rise to these apocalyptic heights. But suppose there was any such danger of revolution, how could any paper barrier prevent it? There will be no revolution, no constitutional revolution, in Britain until the great bulk of the British people resolutely desire it, and if that desire is ever present what Statute can bar the way?
    I have greatly trespassed on the patience of hon. Members, but, if I have not altogether exhausted the indulgence which this House grants to one addressing it for the first time, I ask leave to make one further and final remark. Up till the 17th century there was a doctrine very generally held in England, the doctrine that the true Sovereign was not the monarch, was not Parliament, but was what they called the law fundamental; those unwritten rules which hold society together and which can only be changed to society's destruction. That was the creed of great men—Sir Edward Coke, John Selden and Sir Walter Raleigh. After the Restoration it tended to fall into abeyance, when the doctrine of the legislative sovereignty of Parliament became the accepted creed. It disappeared, but it did not die. It is still sound doctrine; it is still the basis of our British polity. Just as there are certain things which no civilised country can do and yet retain its claim to civilisation, so there are certain things which Britain cannot do and remain Britain. That is the law fundamental; that is the true barrier against foolish and perilous change, the inherited political aptitude of our people, what our greatest political thinker

    1317
    described as the "ancient, inbred integrity, honesty, good nature and good humour of the people of Britain." I should be sorry indeed if in any fleeting moment of pedantry or of panic we were false to what is the first principle not only of the Conservative party but of the British Constitution.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I find myself specially fortunate that it has fallen to my lot to have the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member who has just sat down upon making so brilliant, so wise, and so eloquent a maiden speech. The hon. Member has charmed us many a time in our leisure hours, but he has not only charmed but enlightened us to-day in our business hours, and it is a real piece of good fortune to the House of Commons that he should have come here in time to deliver a speech so sagacious and so full of good counsel at a time which may well be the parting of the ways in the history of the British Parliament.
    The Prime Minister was good enough to say that he commended these proposals to examination and ventilation in the country. It is surely rather remarkable, when he is so anxious to secure ventilation for his project, that he denies an examination to the House of Commons whose rights and privileges are so fundamentally affected. He has put us in the position, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, of having to seek a Vote of Censure as the only means of expressing our repudiation of these proposals. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, that it is not the best means of securing an examination, but we had no other course open, and I am grateful to the Opposition for providing us with the one opportunity which enables us to examine these proposals in the House of Commons before they go to the country. The Prime Minister has given us a very summarised account of the history which preceded this project. I should like to add one or two episodes and instances which are vital to a consideration of the problem.
    I agree that you cannot examine any proposals that come before the House of Commons in this vital matter without also examining the history of previous efforts to settle the matter. Every previous
    1318
    effort to reform the House of Lords has come to grief. That is the one outstanding fact which ought to warn Governments not to touch the problem—I am including the Government of which I was the head, because that is part of the story. I will take, first, the Government of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I were Members, and I believe also that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was also a member—I mean the Campbell-Bannerman Government. The first attempt made by the Campbell-Bannerman Government to deal with the relations of the two Houses was the appointment of a Committee with a view to examining the whole problem. This Committee came to the decision and reported in favour of reform on the basis of a considerable reduction in the number of the members of the House of Lords. My recollection is that there was no introduction of the elective principle into that first recommendation of what is known as the Ripon Committee. There were to be certain nominations, and efforts were to be made to secure representation of various views.
    When that came before the Cabinet—I do not know whether it is a secret or nor—that very wise and sagacious old Scotsman, under whom I had the honour of serving as a Cabinet Minister for the first time, said "If you attempt to reform that Chamber you will fail. You will satisfy no one. Far and away the best plan is not to attempt anything in the nature of reform, but to do something in the way of adjusting the relations so as to secure the right of the Commons ultimately to prevail." And the project of the Parliament Act was entirely his advice. Everything that has happened since has confirmed the wisdom of the advice he gave us in 1906, and it is practically the advice given by another distinguished member of the same race to the House of Commons to-day. Repeated attempts have been made to reform; and in the Parliament Act there is a Preamble, not fairly quoted by Lord Birkenhead, which committed the Liberal Government of that day to a reform of the House of Lords not on a more popular basis but on a popular basis, which is a different thing. What happened then? We appointed Committee after Com

    1319
    mittee, that is Mr. Asquith, who was then the head of the Government, did, and various efforts were made.
    No project could be put together which commended itself to the judgment of any body of men who examined it. There were efforts to make a popular chamber, election by groups of Members of the House of Commons, election by municipalities, but after each attempt we came to the conclusion that it would only make things much worse. Now I come to the proposals quoted by the Prime Minister, the proposals of the Coalition Government of which I was the head. I would remind him that the first step we took was to appoint a purely non-party conference to examine it, and I think the Government should have taken that step before they brought forward these proposals. They should have made some effort to secure unanimity in this respect. The Committee which the Coalition Government set up contained representatives of every party. It contained representatives of the Conservative party, of the Independent Liberal party, of the Labour party and of the Nationalist party. It was presided over by Lord Bryce, and the recommendations of that Committee, which were the result of a conference between all parties, were practically unanimous. Lord Loreburn and Lord Sydenham were the only representatives who dissented.
    May I point out that the Prime Minister, following Lord Birkenhead—and I only want to say one word about this, but since the Prime Minister has raised it I am bound to put him right—said that they were practically the same as the present proposals. May I recall one fact. When those proposals were submitted to the House of Lords they were turned down with complete unanimity by the House of Peers. There was not an independent peer who got up and supported them. Lord Salisbury and all the peers who are now recommending these proposals were opposed to them. The present proposals, on the other hand, have received the same unanimous commendation from the House of Lords. If they were practically the same, the House of Lords did not think so at any rate. There was this vital difference, a matter of the greatest moment, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his
    1320
    speech—that when you came to the question of the determination of what a money Bill was, the House of Commons had a majority on that Committee. You may say that the House of Commons would not have appointed men all of one party, but, unless I am very much mistaken, I cannot conceive any Ministry letting that Joint Committee be appointed without having an assurance beforehand, after discussions with those responsible for the House of Lords, that they would have a, majority upon it. If they denied that, if they refused that, the only course for the House of Commons to take would be to appoint men who were all of one way of thinking, unless they ensured that they had a majority. That is a very important matter.
    What matters here is that we are perfectly satisfied with the present arrangement by which Mr. Speaker decides. I would point out that the Speaker of the House of Commons, at any rate in recent times, has never been a party appointment. The Speaker who has decided most of these questions was a Conservative. He was a Conservative, chosen by the Conservative party, and when the Liberals came into power they retained him in office. That is the course which has been adopted with regard to every Speaker, certainly during the last generation or two—that the Speaker of the House of Commons ceases to be a party nominee or a party functionary, and his business traditionally and historically has been to stand up for the liberties and rights of the House of Commons. He would have had to exercise that function of standing up for the liberties of the House of Commons had there been no Parliament Act. On questions of privilege, when the House of Lords exceeds its privilege, it is the Speaker of the House of Commons who declares that it is a breach of privilege. Therefore, he is there by virtue of the fact that he is "the champion of the rights of the Commons of England," to use the old phrase. That is Why he is there. If it were wise and he desired to have a Committee in order to assist him in coming to a conclusion upon very difficult matters, that is another question; but at any rate it is vital that upon that Committee the House of Commons should be in a majority, and that if there is finally a dispute between the nominees

    1321
    of the House of Lords and the Commons, to use the old phrase, "the will of the Commons shall prevail on questions of finance."
    That is why there is a vital difference between the 1922 proposals and the present proposals. May I point out another which the Prime Minister read very casually? Rates are excluded from the category of money Bills. Surely that is a very vital matter. It may be a key matter. I could refer to two or three other matters of vital difference, but the point I wish to make is this: Every effort which has been made up to the present to secure the reform of the Second Chamber has broken down. The Liberal Government of 1906 attempted it when it was fresh from the country. The Asquith Government applied itself assiduously to it. I have heard a good many taunts levelled at them, that they were breaking faith with Parliament. It was not true. I knew that at that moment there were committees considering the problem, and that they had been considering it for years. You could not come to a conclusion. We appointed a very able Committee under one of the greatest constitutional lawyers of this country or of Europe, Lord Bryce. It was a very able Committee. It made recommendations. Those recommendations are not accepted to-day by any party in the House. The Coalition Government attempted it; they compromised. It was taken to the House of Lords, and the Lords rejected it. That was dropped. What has happened to the right hon. Gentleman? He has put forward proposals. He has put forward proposals that were acceptable to all the peers who turned down the 1922 proposals. But he knows what has happened to his proposals. I do not know to-day whether we are at an inquest or an amputation, or whether we are sending the patient to the country so that he shall be able to endure an operation later on, but I do not believe that anyone here imagines that we shall see the Lord Chancellor's proposals again, put into the form Of a Bill. That shows that there is some inherent difficulty in the problem, and the sooner we face that fact the better.
    If the House of Commons will give me its patience, I will point out exactly what the difficulty is, having been a
    1322
    member of a great many Committees which have tried to solve the problem. If you choose a Second Chamber which is elected, I agree with the Prime Minister that it will have co-ordinate authority in the end; however you begin, it is bound to have co-ordinate authority with the House of Commons. A conflict between the two Houses under those conditions would paralyse business. I agree with everything that has been said about that. I do not believe it is possible for you to secure a Second Chamber which would have direct representation from the people of the country, with the right to resort to the same electorate, without imperilling the authority of this House in the end. Then you come to the other alternative of nomination. If it is nomination during the lifetime of a Parliament, that House is purely a replica of this House; it will be purely an executive committee nominated by the Government of the day. If, on the other hand, you have a nominated Chamber like that in Canada, where the nominations extend for 10 years, or I forget how many years, at any rate over two or three Parliaments—[HON. MEMBERS: "For life!"]—I was under the impression that there had been efforts to limit it, but if it is for a lifetime that makes it worse. What does that mean? It means that a Parliament and a Government, which has been dismissed by the electorate of a country, still governs, still has half the responsibility for government, and can thwart the will of the Chamber which has been chosen by the majority of the nation. I do not believe, therefore, that you are going to solve the problem by either of those two methods. That is why, whenever we came up against an effort to reform the House of Lords, it always broke down, and we fell back upon leaving this ramshackle thing in the place where it is. What I mean is, that it is not formed upon any conceivable principle at all, but, on the whole, it might work.
    Now I come to the third suggestion, that we should have a purely revising Chamber, a Chamber with powers of compelling reflection under the power of revision. That is all. That is the conclusion which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman came to in 1906—that that was the only possible method of solving this problem. He had nothing to do with

    1323
    the Preamble of the Parliament Act; the Parliament Act, as drafted in his day, did not include the Preamble, and if he had been there when the Act was drafted, he would not have assented to the Preamble, not because of any views he might have upon the Second Chamber, but because he knew perfectly well that in practice it would always break down. But if you are going to have a revising Chamber and a Chamber with powers of delaying and referring back a Measure for further consideration, it must have two qualifications. What are they? The first is that it must be a competent body. The second is that it must be an impartial body. Take the question of competence. I do not know how many peers the Prime Minister suggests should constitute his new House of Lords. I take only the declaration of Lord Salisbury. Lord Salisbury's declaration was that the majority must be hereditary peers. Quite frankly, are there 200 hereditary peers who, by training, by experience or by mind, have the necessary qualifications for revising legislation that is sent up from the House of Commons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Not 200, not 200 with the experience. You might have 50, but they would be a minority in the Chamber. After all, the hereditary principle, whatever may be said for it, is not a principle upon which you run business. In business the hereditary principle has the check of the Bankruptcy Laws, but here what is proposed is that the hereditary principle should have a guarantee and that the nation should run the risk of bankruptcy.
    I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last that the perils of revolution are exaggerated. They would come only if there were, as the Leader of the Opposition said, a constant denial of redress from the House of Lords of evils which the Commons of this country wanted to see remedied. But that is the danger of this particular proposal and I come, therefore, to the second point. What is essential is not merely that it should be competent; it should be impartial. I come to a statement made by a Minister. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was sent to a meeting of the National Union of Conservative Associations. He was sent there to quell
    1324
    the storm. He was launched like a coracle on to the waves, and I must say he received what was known then as "sympathetic support" from the waters. Nothing amazes one political party more than the kind of people who carry influence in another political party. However, the right hon. Gentleman was very successful and he quelled the storm, but he did so by means of a declaration to which I call the attention of the House, because it is vital and fundamental. He said it was essential to a strong House of Lords that it should represent fairly all views. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that all views should have equal representation, or that all parties should have an equal chance of stating their case, but that only one party should have a chance of securing a verdict? That is the test of reform.
    The test of reform is that it should be impartial. Will the Labour party or the Liberal party have the same chance, in proportion to the numbers which they represent in this country, of having their views and their case presented in the House of Lords, as the Conservative party, or does the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs mean this: "We will see that each of these parties have their advocates there. We will see they have the best and the choicest advocates they can pick, but the tribunal must be a packed one"? That is the real crux of the question of whether the desire for reform is genuine or not. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to reply later on, I would ask him what is his view with regard to that matter. Does he contemplate the possibility of the House of Lords deciding these questions with either a Labour or a Liberal majority? If you do not give an equal chance to every party, then any reform is a mockery and I say, quite frankly, I would far rather have the present system exactly as it is. After all it is an august scaffold upon which progressive Bills can deliver their last sentences.
    If we are going to send these proposals to the country for consideration and for ventilation, there are other things I should like to have ventilated even in the present system. You must not merely consider one side of the matter. I wonder how many Members of the House realise the extent to which even the present system is loaded against reform. If they

    1325
    are going to re-open the question—and it is they who are re-opening it and not those on this side of the House—it will have to be re-opened all round. See what it means. The Parliament Act never carried a Measure through without difficulty. Why? There is no doubt at all it is a tremendous handicap to have to carry your Bill through Parliament in a first Session, in a second Session and in a third Session. I cannot imagine Conservatives raising this question at all, and I say so in all sincerity. John Bright's proposition was, "One bite for the House of Lords." You have two. What does it mean? A Labour Parliament or a Liberal Parliament is a triennial Parliament. A Conservative Parliament is a quinquennial Parliament. The Prime Minister to-day has said, "I am going to send these things to the country to be examined. If my party agrees upon any proposition, then I shall legislate next year." That is substantially what he means. No Labour Prime Minister could say so in a fourth Session. No Liberal Prime Minister could say so. If a Conservative Prime Minister proposes it here, it goes through there. But in a fourth Session of Parliament neither a Labour nor a Liberal Prime Minister could propose anything except with the consent of the House of Lords.
    At the present moment it is a handicap. All those who were in the Parliament of 1910 know what a handicap it was. You had Sessions of Parliament cluttered with tasks that had already been accomplished in the previous Session. A Bill which had passed in one Session had to go through in a second Session. You could not put it through by a Resolution which only took one day. You had to give a certain amount of time to it. In the second Session you had to give a good deal of time. In the third Session you had to give less time, but still it occupied time. All that interferes with the work of the Liberal or Labour party. That is a handicap which at the present moment does not embarrass the Conservative Government at all. The Constitution, as it is now, with the Parliament Act, leans against reforming parties. The leaning tower of Pisa is not a model for a defensive stronghold, but the architect who proposes that it should lean still further in the same direction deserves to have rooms in the top storey. I am
    1326
    not sure which of them ought to occupy that flat. Judging from the newspapers, I am afraid my friend Lord Birkenhead would be somewhere about there. If you are going to re-open this question, as I say, it must be reopened all round. It is a handicap at the present moment, but I agree with the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) in thinking that the whole of this agitation, and the whole of the pressure behind it—whether behind this Government or the Asquith Government or the Coalition Government—is all based on a fundamental misconception of the character of our people. The idea that we are dealing with a revolutionary population that will suddenly, and without warning, come to the conclusion that it must pass some subversive legislation, is not consistent with the history of this country.
    May I point out what is happening. There are three parties in this House—at least three. I invite the attention of the House to this proposition. There are some of us who have been in politics a great many years, and there are some of us who have been engaged in trying to persuade the people of this country to accept great changes—whether Home Rule, or Protection or Socialism. Let me ask those who have been engaged in any one of those tasks whether they have found it very easy to persuade the people of this country to rush at the great changes which they were proposing, and which they were firmly convinced would bring inestimable benefits to the country? The Liberal party in the main has been responsible for most of the changes in the franchise. I mean the initial agitation came from them, but the actual accomplishment, the final coping stone, is to come from a Conservative Prime Minister. But it has taken 100 years of agitation to get as far as we have got. I will take Protection and I will take Socialism. Here are two great parties in the State with enormous influence, with great organisations, and both of them with the kind of prima facie case that appeals to the ordinary mind. The Protectionist party can point out the fact that, whereas our goods are not allowed into foreign countries, the goods of those particular countries have a free market here. They can point to the fact that industries are suffering. They have the advantage of the natural prejudice against foreigners. But how long has it

    1327
    taken them to get in as far as they have got? Eighty years. They have had two great leaders, one of them a great democratic leader, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, a man with exceptional gifts of persuading the democracy. No man of our generation had the same gift of appealing to a great popular jury. They had Mr. Disraeli, probably one of the most brilliant minds ever placed at the service of the State. For 80 years this has gone on, and they have not arrived yet, and this is in a country where there is a danger of sudden changes!
    Take my hon. Friends of the Labour party. I remember, 40 years ago, the Fabian Essays, written by very brilliant men. They were an extraordinarily attractive presentation of the case, and I remember the impression they made in this country. That is 40 years ago. They have, if they will allow me to say so, probably the most effective organisation in the country for presenting a case to popular audiences; they have means of training speakers possessed by neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party; they have their training in trade unions and otherwise; and yet, in spite of that, with a programme that has a great prima facie appeal—great unemployment, great inequalities in wealth, and the fact that they can point out, here and there, ghastly failures in the existing system—in spite of that, even last time, with an electorate four-fifths of which was working class—men working with their hands, I mean—they had only one-third of the electorate. Although I do not like to make predictions—I am too old an electioneering hand to draw conclusions from by-elections to-day as to what will happen two years hence—I would venture to predict that there will not be a majority at the next Election for a Socialist State. What does that mean? They have taken 40 or 50 years of perfect organisation and very skilful propaganda, and hon. Members opposite have taken 80 years, and they are going to have a Second Chamber to prevent the conservative people of this country, who move slowly, who hate moving at all—it is one of the difficulties of unemployment—they are going to manipulate the Second Chamber, raise a great Constitutional crisis, in addition to others which will be
    1328
    manufactured, in order to prevent this people, this headlong, impetuous people, from rushing into unconsidered changes. Utter nonsense!
    The vast majority of people do not want to change at all; they prefer to be left alone. Anybody who has tried to persuade them to change knows that perfectly well. But do not forget that, when they make up their minds to change, they resent intensely the people who prevent them doing so, and if, after years of consideration, they decide to act on the advice of hon. Members here, or there, or wherever they may sit, once they make up their minds, anybody who interferes with them will soon know it. I agree with the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. If the people of this country made up their minds to get a thing done, and you had a Second Chamber with all these safeguards, if you had a House of Lords with all these safeguards, they would just be scorched into cinder—every safeguard. But there is a danger, and I exemplify it by one illustration. The danger is, with a partisan assembly, especially if you increase its powers, that every time a change is proposed by either this party or that party, in the heat of controversy you get exaggerated language often used, and, what is still worse, exaggerated ideas formed, as to what the proposal is. That is not confined to one party, but applies to every party in the same way. What is the result? You will get this partisan assembly, especially if its interests are affected, saying. "Ah, this is subversive; this is dangerous; it is essential in the interests of the community that we should throw it out." The moment you do that, in order to avert an imaginary peril, you create a real one.
    I remember the Budget of 1909. I had a good deal to do with it. Let hon. Members opposite think what they like about those proposals. The merits have nothing to do with this particular argument which I am putting. Let them think, if they like, that it was a bad scheme, let them think it was an ineffective scheme, but let me point out what was said at the time by a very distinguished statesman. He said, "This is the end of property; it is the end of religion." I do not know where religion came in, except in the Death Duties. "In fact," he said, "it is the end of all things." He was against throwing it out,

    1329
    but his language incited others, less intelligent than himself, to reject it. What happened? They raised the most savage Constitutional conflict that I have seen in this country. I have been in many by-elections and General Elections, but I have never seen anything like the fierce passions that were roused in 1910, and had it not been that there were very moderate men in charge of it at that time, you might have had a real revolution, merely in order to prevent—no, it was done for a political purpose, there is no doubt at all; it was done in order to be able to force an issue on Tariff Reform. That is the danger of the partisan assembly, and, therefore, I hope that the Prime Minister, whatever he may do with others, will stop thinking about it altogether.
    It is a mistake. You are not going to have a division in this country between those who have and those who have not. There are three parties in this country, and they all contain representatives of those who possess property and of those who possess none. The Conservative party have men of wealth, and they have men living in great distress voting for them. The Labour party also have both classes, and if they continue making the very moderate speeches I have heard sometimes, they will probably have more and more men of property attaching themselves to them. It is the same with the Liberal party. You have not got a division of that kind. If you had, your paper Constitutions would be no good; they would be of no more use than the Constitution in Russia was when you had a conflict between those who were right down and those who seemed to have all the paper power behind them. If you are going to have a change, the old traditional right of the Commons of England to control finance must remain. The Prime Minister gave us, if I may say so, false history. It was not the Barons who won those liberties. What won the liberties of England was the fact that the Commons had the purse and that they insisted on having the power of it. That was the beginning of it; for that, they have fought for centuries, and if the Prime Minister goes on with these proposals, they will fight again for that power.
    Sir ROBERT SANDERS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Car
    1330
    narvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) devoted a large portion of his speech to showing the dangers of the present system, but concluded by advising this House and Government to do nothing to guard against those dangers. I want to deal first of all with a point that was made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) in regard to the Government having no mandate for dealing with this question. I do not complain of that phrase being put into the Motion. It is a cry that is always raised by an Opposition. As a matter of fact, I think a mandate means not a declaration by the persons who are supposed to seek it, but a declaration by those who send them to Parliament. The Conservative party have been giving this mandate to their representatives for years past. At every meeting that they have held they have always passed, and generally unanimously, a resolution urging the Ministers of the day to deal with this very question. But even if they had not, I maintain that this question of a mandate is really one of those elements in the British Constitution which has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Take the question, under a Conservative Prime Minister, of the repeal of the Corn Laws. That was done without any mandate, but when the party that repealed them had actually gone to the country and pledged itself to maintain them. Take another very great Constitutional question, namely, the question of woman's franchise. Not only had the Parliament which passed it no mandate on that subject, but at the election in which those Members were returned, I think it would have been found that the great majority of them had committed themselves against woman's suffrage.
    7.0 p.m.
    That is one case where there was a Conservative Prime Minister, and another case where there was a Liberal Prime Minister. The Labour party may say it does not apply to them. Had the Labour party when they were for a brief period in power any mandate from the country to guarantee a Russian loan? Yet that was what they proposed to do. Not only had they no mandate for it, but when they went to the country, I believe that there was nothing in the whole of their policy which did more towards bringing about their defeat than

    1331
    the fact that they were offering to guarantee that loan. You may talk about the Zinovieff letter, but that came so late that in many districts no one knew really anything about it. What did have an enormous effect upon most of the electors was the proposal of the Labour party to guarantee a loan to Russia. It may quite possibly be that a mandate from the electors is a very desirable feature of the constitution. I do not say it is not. I think myself that it is, but if you are going to admit that principle, you must have somebody to enforce it, and that is where I say the need of a Second Chamber comes in. It would be a desirable part of the Constitution if we had a Second Chamber strong enough to see that legislation of a heroic kind should not go through until the people had had a chance of pronouncing opinion upon it. In that form I admit the doctrine of the mandate, and I should be only too glad to see something done to carry it out.
    As to the proposals, I have been asked—because I am Chairman of the Committee in the House of Commons on the subject—if I have had anything to do with them. I want to say quite plainly that I have had nothing at all to do with them. They were an absolute surprise to me, and as great a surprise to my Noble Friend who introduced his Motion in another place, and to those other Noble Lords who were acting with him. It is quite untrue to state, as has been stated in some newspapers, that what hapened was a put-up job. My proposals on the subject, of whatever importance they are, would be quite different from the proposals which the Government have put forward. I heard what the Prime Minister said, and what was said in another place, as to the elective system. Personally, I would like to see the House of Lords indirectly elected. I believe that works well in France—no one ever mentions France when speaking of the Second Chamber—where, as a matter of fact, the Senate is one of the most useful and important parts of their legislative machinery. It has worked well in France, and it has always seemed to me, at all events, that the best solution of the problem—and it is a very difficult problem—is that we should have an elective Second Chamber, and when
    1332
    there is trouble between the two Houses, it should be settled by a referendum, and by appealing to the opinion of the country.
    I quite grant that you are not likely to get such proposals at present, but I do think it is a great thing that this matter should be brought prominently before the people of the country. I am not nervous of that in the least. I believe when this case is properly put before the people of the country, it will be more and more realised that our present system is indefensible, and that a rational scheme of reform would be brought about. I am ready to welcome this as rather a meagre instalment towards what we want.
    I see an Amendment on the Order Paper urging the necessity for agreement on the subject. Agreement on this subject I do not think you are ever likely to get. It is one of those subjects about which every man holds his own opinion, and the cocksureness as to the efficiency of the remedy is in inverse proportion to the age of the holder. I should be only too glad to see any measure of agreement on the subject, but my own opinion is that it is so hard to get those who are discussing this subject to discuss it really on its merits, and not simply on the question of how it would affect the chances at the next election. I believe the real reason why a good many people are afraid of it is that they are afraid there is great popular feeling against any such alteration as is proposed. I fought the 1910 election, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has just been speaking, on the question of the House of Lords rejecting his Budget, and I turned out the Liberal and got the largest majority that was ever obtained in that constituency under the old suffrage. From what I hear, the idea that there is any strong feeling in the country against the sort of proposals—I do not say in every detail—that the Government are making, is quite wrong. I do not think that in our party, at all events, they are likely to be in the very least unpopular.
    As to the proposals themselves, they are divided into two parts. The first is with regard to the provision as to Money Bills. There is the provision as to how a Money Bill should be dealt with, and the provision that rating should not be

    1333
    included under the category of Money Bills. Those proposals and the proposals for the constitution of the Committee which was to deal with that are all included in the Bryce Report—a Report which was agreed to by men of all parties. As to the composition of the House of Lords, possibly hon. Members, and especially hon. Members of my party, wish to see some 400 or 500 Peers remaining qualified at any time to take part in the Debates of the Second Chamber, but, as a matter of fact, never doing so. I think that is a futile proceeding, but if that be their view, I am not going to quarrel with hon. Members of my party.
    As to nomination, that is not a form of alteration in the constitution of the Second Chamber that I myself should advocate, but in the Bryce Committee, it was apparent to most of us, it was by nomination, or, as he called it, by selection, that Lord Bryce himself, with all his great authority, thought the best means of making an alteration in the composition of the Second Chamber could be found. One or two speakers, and especially the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan)—whose brilliant speech we were all so glad to hear—have urged upon the Government that it is much better to leave this question alone. I doubt it. I do not think the question can be left alone indefinitely. It has got to be dealt with sooner or later, and if it is going to be dealt with, I would very much sooner have it dealt with by a Conservative Government than by a Government of any other composition. It is bound to come on sooner or later, and it may possibly be sooner. If the Government drop this question altogether, I think it very possible they may find that some Bill which a Conservative Government send up may be rejected by the House of Lords, and a crisis may arise in that way. If it does not arise in that way, it is almost inevitable that it will happen if and when a Labour Government get into power. That, I think, is generally recognised. I want this question to be dealt with when it can be dealt with calmly and in a sensible manner. I do not want it dealt with by an ad hoc Measure, as a solution in a hurry to provide a way out of a crisis, which, I think, is sure to occur sooner or later.
    Mr. MOSLEY: It is probable that no speech made during the course of this Debate will be more welcome on these benches than the speech to which we have just listened, for the right hon. Baronet, with his customary acumen, has discovered that in these proposals the Conservative party has got an issue on which they can sweep the country. Long may he prosper in that view. My only hope is that he will persuade the Government that this is an issue which they may take to the electors with every prospect of success. But whatever the views of the right hon. Baronet may be, they afford a very strange contrast to the other speeches we have heard from those benches, including that of the Prime Minister.
    To the right hon. Baronet, the proposals now advanced are a feeble installment of Conservative policy. To the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), these proposals ought to be immediately withdrawn, as they were a fundamental contradiction of Conservative policy. In fact, we find the Conservative benches in a very strange condition on this occasion. When this Censure Motion was put on the Paper, we expected to be faced with a united army, an army in battle array, on the benches opposite in support of their proposals. In this Debate we have witnessed the ignoble retreat of a broken and divided party. What has happened since, with so much trumpeting and so much sounding of cymbals and brass in another place, these proposals were introduced? There has been a revolt in the Conservative ranks on an unparalleled scale. What the "Morning Post" described as a "Soviet" has intervened—a very respectable Soviet headed by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Plymouth. Another Ministerial organ has referred to this revolt as a "Y.M.C.A.," which, I understand, is a reverent tribute to the evangelical character of that group of young Conservatives, a distinguished Member of which I see sitting on the benches opposite, namely, the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills).
    Major HILLS: I have many advantages, but I am afraid I cannot claim that of youth.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Well, young Conservatives have perennial youth. Their credibility reaches to eternity. But whether this revolt be correctly described as a Soviet or a Y.M.C.A—and in moments of excitement Conservatism falls very easily into these minor confusions of terms—it has produced a most extraordinary effect on the Government. It is quite clear to anyone who reads the speeches in another place, to which I have devoted some study, that these were advanced as quite definite proposals, to which the Government were formally committed, and by which, Lord Birkenhead said, the Government were bound by every consideration of political pledge and of public honour.
    In the light of those declarations, what are we to make of the performance of the Prime Minister this afternoon? The Conservative party is suffering from internal convulsions, and the Prime Minister administered one of his well-known soporifics. I very much doubt whether it will work. He began by telling us that the Cabinet had sanctioned the proposals. He told us that a period of gestation amounting to no less than a year had previously taken place, that these proposals had been profoundly considered, and that they were produced as the considered judgment of the Government. Then what happened? He tells us he was very sad because these proposals, which had been considered for a year, are not regarded as entirely nebulous proposals. It is, apparently, the highest ambition of the Prime Minister to be regarded as nebulous. It used to be honesty; it is now nebulosity. Thus do we proceed on the triumphant path of Conservative government! Tonight he positively derided the suggestion that this Bill would be presented in the form of the proposals which the Cabinet considered. He said they were just tentative, nebulous proposals, thrown out in order to secure criticism and ventilation. I venture to believe that he will get all, and more, of the ventilation he requires. That ventilation will turn into a draught which will blow the Conservative party from power. Has there ever been a more miserable performance of this gelatine Government than that which we have witnessed this afternoon? After the pomp and circum
    1336
    stance of the Peers' Debate, the ignoble balancing trick of the Prime Minister and the precipitate retreat of his followers.
    This is no light and idle matter; these are pledges and commitments of the Conservative party. What were we informed by Lord Salisbury in another place? He told us, as the right hon. Baronet has just told us that a resolution was passed just before the last General Election by the National Union of Conservative Associations which, in the words of Lord Salisbury, went a great deal further than the modest proposals which are now laid before the country. In the view of Lord Salisbury even these proposals scarcely fulfil the commitments to the party. He was doubtful whether they were going far enough to fulfil their pledges. Now even these modest proposals are thrown over for all time, given to the wolves of the Soviet to be devoured. Lord Birkenhead was even more specific. Knowing the political integrity of Lord Birkenhead, knowing his personal character, who can doubt that this painful surrender will be followed by the resignation of Lord Birkenhead? Lord Birkenhead said:
    "I say that had it been honourably avoidable, had it been possible for us consistently with our pledges, our obligations and our duty to avoid or postpone this constitutional issue, I for one would gladly so have avoided and so have postponed it."
    This afternoon the Prime Minister's one concern about this constitutional issue was whether this stone of Sisyphus, when rolled up the hill, would roll back and do him any harm. Is this his conception of the honourable obligations to which the Conservative Government are giving execution? Lord Birkenhead addressed a positively impassioned appeal to his followers to live up to their obligations and their pledges. He said:
    "Are they quite sure that. … exposed to the risks which the Noble Duke"—
    of Northumberland
    "did not exaggerate"—
    he never does exaggerate
    "that it would have been possible for sane and prudent custodians of our public affairs, entitled by their public declarations to deal with this matter and expected by their supporters in the country to carry out these pledges, to let the years pass by and lay aside the opportunities of office with the admission that we had failed where were were most deeply committed?"

    1337
    It was not necessary for the years to pass by. Only nine days passed by before Lord Birkenhead wrote to the "Times" referring to the "late" proposals of the Government, and the Prime Minister admitted this afternoon, to use the language of Lord Birkenhead, that the Government were only too ready and too happy to fail where they were most deeply committed. We cannot feel surprised if the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken, and if the Duke of Northumberland whose well-known moderation was eulogised by Lord Birkenhead, should feel rather let down in this matter. In another place those debates formed a most admirable reflection of the Conservative mind. The Duke of Northumberland warned his party in the country of the danger which may be expected from letting this opportunity pass by. He referred to us on these benches as a whole party sympathising with a Power
    "founded on massacre and pillage of which even Attila and Tamerlane never dreamed."
    Those were the considerations, reinforcing the solemn pledges of his party, which led Lord Birkenhead to say that the Duke of Northumberland had not exaggerated, and that something must be done immediately. The Duke of Northumberland performed an even greater service for the Government. He vindicated the innocent character of these proposals by referring to the absolute necessity of a strong second Chamber in order to check
    "the vagaries, the follies, and, I may say, the iniquities of the Socialist party."
    Those are the expectations of their followers. What are the Government going to do about it? From the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon it seems they are prepared to break all their solemn pledges rather than risk execution without trial at the hands of the new Soviet in the ranks of their party. Since the Debate in the House of Lords what the Duke of Northumberland described as the old shibboleths of democracy have reasserted themselves, and I venture to say that these proposals are still-born, and are very unlikely to proceed further along the path of life. What is the position of Lord Birkenhead? That really must be one of the principal inquiries. Lord Birkenhead, who ever puts public principle
    1338
    before political expediency, a man who said that every consideration of pledge and of public honour bound him to this course, will at least proceed on the path ordained, and the resignation of Lord Birkenhead will be handed in to the Prime Minister this afternoon. His herioc resolve was expressed in a glowing peroration:
    "We have reached the clear conclusion that we are entitled and bound to carry this matter forward. I am not discouraged and I shall not be discouraged by Parliamentary criticisms here or elsewhere, for with no small experience of the feelings of this country I am satisfied that we have a quarrel here which we can carry to the issue and bar of public opinion."
    Nine days later he seems to have decided that this great quarrel was to get no further than the bar of the Carlton Club, with which, of course, Lord Birkenhead is not nearly so familiar. But whatever be the fate of the individual Ministers who are responsible for this egregious blunder, it appears that Conservatism is at length going to cry check to the downward path upon which it has embarked. Even hon. Members opposite, even Members of the young Conservative party, could not quite stomach that third stage in the glorious trilogy of their policy, two stages of which have already been completed. The first step in the policy of the present Government was to reduce the standards of the poor in the interests of the rich. The second stage was to remove the industrial weapon by which the working class could recover what they had lost. The third stage was to remove the political instrument which was their last hope; and only at that stage, when they saw that the final execution of their designs would bring disaster to the whole fabric of the State, is the Conservative party, or a substantial element of it, crying "Halt!" to the course upon which they are embarking.
    Can anybody who examines these proposals doubt for one moment that they would effectively rob the House of Commons, and the Labour party in particular, of any chance of carrying their major proposals through Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that the House of Lords would have no control over finance. That may be true, but they are to decide what finance is, and the person who settles what is finance has a fairly good control over

    1339
    the finance itself. In this proposal to interfere with the right of the House of Commons to deal with Money Bills, the Government are endeavouring to destroy a principle which has subsisted in this country since the year 1628. That is a point which has not been brought out in this Debate. So long ago as 1628 the power of the House of Commons to control finance was recognised by the omission of any reference to the House of Lords in the preamble of Money Bills. Ever since that date, with ever-increasing success, the authority of the House of Commons over financial matters and matters of taxation has been asserted, until finally it found statutory recognition in the Parliament Act. It is that historic right, extending over centuries, which the Government propose to vary in this legislation.
    What is their proposal? Their proposal is to alter the tribunal which decides what is a Money Bill, and, more than that, to alter the definition of a Money Bill. This Committee, composed of an equal number of representatives from both Houses, is, presumably, to be elected in accord with the proportional strength of parties. It is understood that with a House of Lords on an almost entirely hereditary basis the Conservative party will always have a larger majority in the House of Lords than any progressive party will have in this House. Consequently, if membership of that Committee is on a proportional basis in relation to the strength of parties, it would give Conservatism a permanent majority and a right to decide what is or is not a Money Bill. When we add to that the new definition which has been raised in these Debates, it is perfectly clear that any social legislation introduced by the Labour party would have no chance whatsoever of getting through under the two years' limit. Since the Lord's Debate we have a new definition of what is a Money Bill. The authority deciding what is a Money Bill is not only to look at the form of a Money Bill, which is precisely described in the present Parliament Act, but is also to look to the substance and the effect of a Money Bill. I trust and believe that the substance and effect of any Labour Budget will be to transfer purchasing power from the rich to the poor in some form or another, and I ask what chance has any Budget,
    1340
    the substance and effect of which is to tax the rich in the interests of the poor, of passing through a Committee composed in perpetuity of a majority of the Conservative party? It is perfectly clear that any social change in the direction of increased old age pensions, family allowances for mothers in respect of children, and any beneficent and far-reaching change which normally would be carried through under the auspices of a Budget as a Money Bill, would be checked and frustrated by this new provision which talks of substance and effect. It is a mockery, and this contention of the Prime Minister this afternoon that the position of the House of Commons would be quite safeguarded—
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: Has the Prime Minister done nothing for the widow in the last year or two?
    Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. Member for Oxford University (sir C. Oman) is only two years behind the time on this occasion; I have never known him so nearly up to date. The Act to which he alludes was passed two years ago. We are now referring to a Measure which was to have been passed next year. I am wrong; there was an interval of three years between the occasion which is troubling the mind of the hon. Member and the Measure we are now discussing. We will leave the eminent historian to consult with the eminent lecturer who sits beside him, as to the relative importance of something which happened two years ago and something which was due to happen next year. I hope they will resolve their doubts in due course and be enabled to illuminate this Debate with a disquisition not upon subjects two years old but upon the reform of the House of Lords, which we are now discussing.
    It is not necessary to delve far into this matter to show, as has already been done this afternoon with extraordinary force by several speakers, that if this proposal of the Government be carried out, it would place any progressive party absolutely at the mercy of a House of Lords superior alike to a Sovereign and the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said that he would not establish a House of Lords which was a rival of the House of Commons. We never suggested that he was doing anything of the kind. He is establishing a House of Lords actually superior to the House of Commons. The

    1341
    merits of this case need scarcely be argued further, when we see on the Government Benches a dismay and rout which has not been witnessed in the Conservative party since the famous occasion when the Coalition Government fell through a similar event. But perhaps the issue is still in doubt; it may still be in doubt. The Prime Minister may yet be captured by either of the contending sections, and upon that internal contest in the next few months in the Conservative party depends very weighty and grave issues in this country. Always in the party opposite there has been a section of opinion which in order to entrench privileges, in order to snatch advantages, which are always illusory when matched against the will of the nation, has been ready to risk even civil strife, even to risk the whole structure of the State in the pursuit of its illusion; but, happily, in the struggles of the last century there has been a section in that party, not quite so strong as it was, which was ready to intervene on the side of reason and compromise. That element, I believe, is now weakened, and the obscurantist element, as a general rule, has been strengthened, for the simple reason that the character of the Conservative party has changed. Aristocracy has given away to plutocracy. The hereditary Samurai who on more than one occasion Wellington led from the House of Lords in order to permit the passage of reform, have passed to the land of shadows. They, at least, had the grace and the wisdom to bow to the inevitable. They are gone. Mammon rules in their place: Mammon, stiff-necked, myopic, has never had the grace or the wisdom to bend. It may well rest with the party on these benches, to teach him how to break.
    Whatever be the issue of these events before this grave matter passes to its final proof, many of us will watch with interest and anxiety the struggle in the Conservative party, now proceeding, which may avert and stem grave disorder in this country. That struggle will be watched with interest by everybody who values our tradition of ordered progress. It will be watched with grave apprehension by everyone who recalls that in the past, in the stormy history of this land, quarrels very like this have passed beyond the arbitrament of reason to the decision of a sterner tribunal. That struggle in the Conservative party will be
    1342
    watched with solicitude by everyone who believes, as I do, or as I did believe, that we have passed beyond those primæval barbarities to an age in which the will of the people, driven by the urge of suffering, can find constitutional expression in social changes, vast but peaceable. I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that whatever happens and whatever their decision may be, those changes will come. They may come peaceably or they may come terribly, but come they will.
    You cannot erect a dam of obsolescent privilege across the current of human evolution. You may change the character, as their reactionary administration has striven to change it, but you cannot arrest the advance of the tide of progress. I for one believe and hope that this great movement will become, in due course, a river in a firm bed, a river capable of carrying on a calm and steady current the freights of human happiness; a river to which may be harnessed, in due course, all the energies of our now adolescent science to lift from mankind the burdens of poverty and toil; a river which shall carry forward in serenity and dignity the noble cargo of human aspirations. That may be a conception which it is in the power of hon. Members opposite to cheek or to frustrate. It is open to them with their little measures to dam, to thwart and to change the peaceful character of this great development. It is open to them to alter the course of that river, and in doing so to create a storm and tempest that will smash its way to triumph through the wreckage of things that are, a force more powerful in its reckless and turbulent might than all the wisdom and custom of the ages. I believe sincerely and intensely that upon this issue by their decision and possibly by their votes in the near future, they may determine these great events, and I ask them to believe that by one method or another, by one course or another, the principles which they now seek to destroy shall rule in this land.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I have listened with great interest to the whole of this Debate and I listened with pleasure, and with a greater sense of agreement than ever before, to the speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). What struck me most about that speech

    1343
    was the extraordinary atmospheric effect which different conditions have upon the right hon. Gentleman. I recollect that in a speech which he delivered a few days ago at Conway he said that he went down to Wales to witness the corona but all that he saw, I understand, was the shadow of the moon and the shadow of the moon combined with the Welsh mountains, and the clouds and the sea seem to have had an extraordinary effect upon him. He said that he spoke in parables, and after a long diatribe against the House of Lords he proved to his own satisfaction that the House of Lords were responsible for the Great War. That is a gross exaggeration, to put it in no stronger terms. To-day his tone was very different, and I welcome the change.
    The Vote of Censure which we have before us to-day is also couched in terms which are an exaggeration of the facts, and for that reason I think there will be no difficulty, whatever may be the opinion of various Members of the Conservative party, in recording our votes against the Vote of Censure. A good deal has been said this afternoon about the Constitution. Really, we have no Constitution in the true sense of the word, if we compare it with a written Constitution like that of the United States of America. I do not believe that a written Constitution is a real safeguard of this country. A written Constitution is too inelastic; there is no give and take in it. The only form of written Constitution which we have at this moment is the Parliament Act. I am not at all sure that far from removing us from any danger of violent upheaval in this country, a written Constitution would not actually Contribute to that end.
    In regard to the proposals which were adumbrated by the Lord Chancellor in another place, I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say to-day that they were put forward for criticism and ventilation. It is very difficult for any Member to take any strong action or any strong line against a Government of which he is a supporter, but I so firmly believe that if those proposals ever saw the light of day in the form of a Bill in this House, not only should I be compelled to speak against them but also to vote against them; and I am not speaking alone in this matter. It may be said that the House of Lords man for man is
    1344
    as good as this Chamber, or that any group in the House of Lords is as good as any group in this Chamber. It may be said that the House of Lords represents some of the best brains in the country. That is perfectly true. That is an argument for leaving things alone. I cannot subscribe to the idea that in the year 1927 if we are about to amend our Constitution we should maintain hereditary qualifications in order to obtain it. That appears to me to me impossible of admission. We know it cannot work, because you are going to make a brand new Constitution. That is really what it is. It is a brand new thing altogether, and therefore, I think, to preserve the hereditary qualification for membership of the House of Lords in this scheme is not one of its popular points.
    I think it is possible to get a measure of agreement with regard to one of these proposals put forward by the Government, and agreement on any change in the alteration of the Constitution is one of the first things to be aimed at. I think there could be a measure of agreement reached with regard to what is known as the Speaker's Veto as to what is a Money Bill and what is not. We know quite well, Sir, that you, the occupant of the Chair, would take advice and counsel and only after great thought and consideration would give a decision as to what is or is not a Money Bill. But the responsibility is in your office, and I do not think the Chair ought to be brought into party politics, or that the responsibility should rest on the Chair. I agree with what has been said in this connection by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that in any Committee that might be set up to advise on this matter this House ought to retain its privileges, and that any Committee set up for this purpose should be composed of Members of this House and this House only.
    One of the things that has struck me this afternoon is that I have not heard one Member on the other side say a single word about the abolition of the House of Lords. I cannot help thinking that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they made up their minds on their return to office to endeavour to use the Parliament Act to abolish the House of Lords, would find that there is a very strong feeling

    1345
    in the country in favour of a revised Second Chamber. I think they would value the feeling which prevails, and therefore I wish it were possible that all three parties in this House could combine in order to devise a scheme. It may seem to many of us at this moment hopeless, but I do not think for that reason we ought to give up trying, and with the good will of Parliament on all sides some Constitution for a revised Second Chamber could be devised.
    I heard the Prime Minister saying that an elected Second Chamber would have certain disadvantages. I agree with him. I do not care whether the Second Chamber is elected by county councils or groups in this House, the principle of election as applied to a Second Chamber is equally bad. The effect of having two elected Chambers must be a clash between them, a constant conflict of opinion which would certainly not conduce to better feeling between them or to the better conduct of the affairs of the country. I hope some way may be found to help us out of this difficulty, and I have come gradually to the conclusion that the only scheme, or rather the scheme which affords the smallest amount of objection, is a House constituted on the basis of nomination over a period of years that would gradually replace the present House of Lords. By gradually replacing the present Chamber, you will get that process of evolution which is so necessary to our national life, and by that means I think you would get the foundation of a Second Chamber in which the country would have confidence.
    I have spoken in this discussion and have made these suggestions, because I would like to make my position clear, and, while I feel that I can with perfect justice register my vote against this Vote of Censure, yet, as the Prime Minister said he wanted consideration and criticism of the Government supporters and desired to have them ventilated in debate, I think it is right that we should make our position perfectly clear. I only speak for myself, of course, but I think there are others here on this side of the House who would be prepared to agree with me. But if we have a Bill introduced into this House founded on the principles underlying the proposals announced in another place the other day I should be able to do nothing but oppose it.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I listened with very great attention to the Prime Minister's speech, as I am sure every member of the House did. I waited to the end of that speech in the hope of having some elucidation of the riddle with which this House is confronted. When the proposals were made in another place with regard to the reform, so-called, of the House of Lords, they were put forward on the authority of the Government. What we wanted to know this afternoon was whether the Prime Minister stood by those proposals and was prepared to defy the oncoming tide or whether he was inclined to withdraw them. All we heard at the end of the speech, however, was that those proposals were intended to elicit criticism and ventilation, and that any Bill that was drafted in connection with those proposals would take into account the criticism delivered in this House in debating them. We have heard varying opinions from the opposite side of the House, and I think it would be extremely interesting if every Member of the Government party expressed their opinions. That is not likely to happen, but we have on the Order Paper a large number of suggestions put down in the form of Amendments, and it is perfectly clear from these that there is in the party opposite the very widest divergence of opinion. The Prime Minister said that one of the things that justified those proposals in the form in which they were was the Preamble to the Parliament Act, and the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir H. Sanders), in the words of an Amendment which is on the Paper, congratulates the Government on their
    "tentative proposals to reform the House of Lords, thereby carrying out the pledge contained in the Preamble of the Parliament Act."
    The words of the Preamble of that Act have not been read in the House this afternoon, and therefore I venture to think it would be of some service to the House if I read the following sentence from that Preamble:
    "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 a hereditary basis."
    Now this scheme which has been put forward by the Government through Lord Cave the other day does not propose to substitute for the House of Lords a

    1347
    Second Chamber constituted on a popular basis instead of a hereditary basis. Instead of that, it proposes to put the hereditary basis more firmly and securely into the Constitution of the House of Lords, more securely than ever, and therefore it is quite ridiculous for the Prime Minister to say that he is merely carrying out a pledge given in the Parliament Act and for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells to congratulate him on those proposals for that reason.
    Whether it is desirable for this country to be governed by one or by two Chambers may be a matter of opinion, and whether it is desirable that the Second Chamber, if there be one, should be constituted on a hereditary or on a popular basis may also be a matter of opinion. But I think there can be no question that a Second Chamber predominantly based on the hereditary principle, and therefore with its roots in the past should not in this twentieth century have its powers increased and should not be entrenched in a more impregnable form than it has had for centuries. Yet, in fact, that is what is proposed to be done in this scheme put forward on behalf of the Government to-day. Under the present constitution of the other House, that House has certain powers of delay and revision of Measures sent to them, but under the Parliament Act these powers are subject to being abated at any time. What is the proposal submitted to us at the present time? It is that the powers of the House of Lords are not to be changed except with its own consent. It is commonly assumed that this means that the powers of the House of Lords should remain as at present. But it is nothing of the kind. A Labour Government, for instance, could not reduce those powers, but a Conservative Government would have the power to increase and extend the powers of the House of Lords. This is not a view which has arisen out of my own imagination. To show that that is possible, I can only refer to statements made in another place when those proposals were being outlined. It was made perfectly clear that many Members of the Conservative party were in favour of giving the House of Lords, not merely a suspensory veto during the life of Parliament, but a veto suspensory over a
    1348
    General Election. That being the position, it is not merely possible but likely that a Conservative Government in the future might extend the powers of the House of Lords.
    8.0 p.m.
    The objection we have to the proposals therefore is not only that the veto in its present form could never be reduced, but that when a Conservative Government was in office it might be greatly increased and extended. Over and above this, by these new proposals the Second Chamber is entrenched in a position very much stronger than it has ever been in before. By the removal of the prerogative of the Crown to create Peers to sit in the House of Lords, it would be rendered impossible for the will of the people to prevail by the constitutional methods which have been effectively employed by Governments of this country, not merely since the Parliament Act, but during a long period of our history. There would be no constitutional means of over-riding a hostile attitude on the part of the Second Chamber. It is a very dangerous thing to block constitutional means of reform. We have been discussing for a considerable time provisions which the Government alleged were intended to deal with the general strike, and the argument they used, and which was also used last year, was that the general strike was an improper method of attempting to carry out reform; that the workers need not use such a revolutionary method because in the Constitution of this country they have full power in their own hands. They have only, through the ballot box, to elect the Government of their choice, and the will of the people will be carried out. In this scheme for remodelling the House of Lords the Government would be taking away that constitutional means of redress. They would be blocking the normal path of reform and forcing the people to adopt one or other of revolutionary means. Therefore, whatever they may have been able to argue against the general strike in the past, they would not be able to make out that case to-day. One of the objects of this scheme is therefore to bridle the democracy, but the democracy of this country will never consent to be bridled in the way which this scheme would do.

    1349
    I now come to the control of Money Bills. It has been pointed out in this Debate that a great mistake was made in another place with regard to the Speaker's decisions on Money Bills. It was stated there that the Speaker had evidently so far failed to be accurate that, when dealing with the same Bill in two successive years, he had first refused to certify it and that afterwards he certified it as a Money Bill. That was the War Charges Validity Bill. Lord Cave, who made that statement, had afterwards to withdraw it and admit that it was entirely without foundation. The two Bills were essentially different, and the reason which prompted the Speaker in the first place not to certify was removed, and the Speaker was perfectly right on the second occasion in certifying it. But what has not been brought out in this Debate is another very interesting point, which shows the very great care which the Speaker has exercised, ever since the Parliament Act was carried, to see that his certificate with regard to Money Bills was only given on entirely proper grounds. There have been, I think, since that Act was carried, 15 Finance Bills carried through this House. It may be a great surprise to this House to learn that, out of those 15 Bills, no less than seven did not receive the certificate of the Speaker as being wholly Money Bills. That was true of all the Finance Bills during the War; it was true also of the Finance Bill of 1921 and of the Finance Bill of 1923, which represented the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister. It was true of the Finance Bill of 1924, which carried out the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). In addition to that, the Finance (No. 2) Bill of 1915, which was passed in the autumn of the first War year, was also not certified as a Money Bill.
    Thus half the Finance Bills since the Parliament Act came into operation have not been certified by the Speaker as Money Bills, and I think that completely disposes of the idea that the Speaker, when acting in his judicial capacity, is biased and is not a fit and proper person to exercise the jurisdiction which the Parliament Act gave him. He has been shown to have used the
    1350
    very greatest circumspection. We know, from our own experience, when an hon. Member is honoured by this House by being placed in the Chair in which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, sit at the present time that, from that date, as the whole history of the House of Commons has shown, he discards party bias and acts with the high sense of duty which the present Speaker has always shown. It is in consequence of that that we regard him with the veneration which has always been accorded to the Speaker of this House. It has now been suggested that the power to certify Money Bills should be taken away.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is proposed to take away the power from the Speaker and to give it to a Committee, The hon. Gentleman who spoke last suggested that this Committee should be a Committee consisting solely of Members of the House of Commons. The objection to that, it seems to me, is that you would be placing in the hands of a body of men who are necessarily biased by party views a judicial decision which does not properly belong to them. But that is not the proposal in the Government's scheme; the proposal is that it should be a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses, with equal numbers of both. The effect of that, as has already been pointed out by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) would be that there would be a permanent Conservative majority on that Standing Committee. If that Committee were to have the same purely judicial function to perform which is now exercised by the Speaker, it may be that, in spite of having a permanent Conservative majority, they would come to a perfectly sound and unbiased conclusion. But it is part of this scheme that the Committee should not have a judicial function; that they should be able to decide not merely upon the form of the Bill but as to the "substance and effect" of the Bill. That was what was said in another place. The Prime Minister to-day went further and said that there were money Bills which could be in the form of Money Bills but which, industrially, commercially and socially affected the life of the country, and that such Bills ought

    1351
    not to be classed as Money Bills. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation in saying that a Committee on which there would always be a party majority could not be relied upon to give a purely unbiased decision. I will go further and say that, inasmuch as these questions are largely decided by precedent, the whole position as to what was and what was not a Money Bill would change from time to time.
    What would, in effect, take place would be that the power of the House of Lords to interfere with Money Bills would broaden down from precedent to precedent, and the power of this House to decide for itself what was a Money Bill, and to decide the whole policy of the finance of this country, would dwindle down from precedent to precedent. It is because we take that view that we most strongly oppose this idea that the decisions as to Money Bills should be taken out of the hands of the Speaker and handed over to any such Committee as is proposed.
    I want to refer to the attitude which is taken up by other parties than our own. We had a very interesting speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), a speech which in its main attitude, I think, will find a great deal of support in this quarter of the House. But I could not help, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking and belabouring the proposals of the Government, having this reflection: Who was it that enabled the present Government to have a large majority at the present time? How does it come about that, with a minority of votes in the country, the present Government are put in a position of power, if they choose, to introduce and carry through this legislation? It was the right hon. Gentleman and his followers who made a pact with the followers of the present Government and thereby enabled them to come into power. In addition to that, there is the opposition from the ranks opposite. I was entranced, as many were, by the wonderful speech of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan). I hope it will not be very long before we hear him again. He exposed mercilessly the propositions of the Government in this scheme. We have had others, and, no
    1352
    doubt, before the Debate finishes, we shall have many more speeches from the Government side on the same lines; and I cannot help thinking that, although the Prime Minister did not say so in so many words, he will, before this Debate is over, recognise that his precious scheme is dead past resuscitation, that this little infant born into the light of publicity only a fortnight ago, has already passed away from this world. If that be so, I cannot help thinking that the most fitting epitaph which can be put upon its grave will be:
    "If I were so soon to be done for,
    I wonder what I was begun for."
    Mr. DUFF COOPER: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) attack the Leader of the Liberal party for having put this Government in office, and for having made a pact with this Government. That is not true. The Leader of the Liberal party never made a pact with the present Government, and is not responsible directly for their being in office. The only party with whom the Liberal party ever made a pact is the Socialist party, and the only Government they ever put in office was the Socialist Government. It really, therefore, comes rather ill from the Socialist party that they should taunt the right hon. Gentleman with making pacts.
    There was much else in the hon. Member's speech with which I find myself in considerable agreement. He dealt at some length with the various proposals of the Government for a new machinery for deciding what is a Money Bill, and he referred to the statements made by the Lord Chancellor in another place as to instances in which mistakes had been made by the present Speaker—statements which the Lord Chancellor had to withdraw the next morning, as he found that he had been utterly misinformed. Strangely enough, he gave one other instance. He also said that their Lordships would have liked very much to discuss the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, but that, owing to the action of the Speaker, they were denied that right. There, again, he was utterly misinformed: the Safeguarding of Industries Bill received the certificate of the Speaker, and there was nothing except their Lordships' disinclination, or, perhaps, pressure of work, that precluded them from discussing it.

    1353
    Another Member of the Government the other house used even stronger language with regard to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He said that over and over again wrong decisions had been given by Speakers, but he gave no instances at all, and, unlike the Lord Chancellor, he never withdrew those attacks on the Speaker. I must say that I think it is almost a breach of privilege that a Member of the Government in another place should make attacks upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, and, personally, I hope that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I believe, is to reply on behalf of the Government, speaks this evening, he will express regret on behalf of his colleagues that any such attack should be made by a Member of the Government on the Speaker of the House of Commons.
    As for the proposal itself that the Speaker should in future be one of a Committee—whether he is to be the Chairman of the Committee seems to be still undecided—I do not think that there is very much to be said against that proposal, but, on the other hand, I do not see that there is very much in its favour. The Speaker hitherto has carried out his office to the satisfaction of everyone. It is one of the least satisfactory symptoms of democracy that people are always anxious to shift responsibility from the individual on to a Committee. The love of Committees is one of the most dangerous penchants of democracy, in my view. It is false doctrine that a Committee does better than an individual, because, every time you increase the number of a body responsible for any decision, you diminish the sense of responsibility among the members of that body. When one man has to decide a question of this sort, whatever may be his political bias—and every man has a political bias at the bottom of his heart—he puts that entirely aside, because he thinks, "I shall be judged by this decision; everyone will watch it; my foes and my friends will be eager to find whether I have been absolutely impartial." If you have a Committee of five or six Members of one party and five or six Members of another party, each and all of them will naturally be biased by their party feeling. They will feel that any decision is a decision of the Committee, and that, therefore, no one
    1354
    will say that it is prejudiced; and, meanwhile, each will do the best he can for his own party point of view.
    For that reason I think it is better that this decision should be taken by the Speaker only. After all, he can be assisted now by two members from the Chairmen's Panel, and he also has his own professional assistants, permanent officials trained to this particular kind of work. This proposal means that he will have rather a larger Committee than before, but a larger Committee is not usually more useful or more expeditious than a small one. The work that the Speaker has to do in this connection often has to be done with great expedition. A Bill may be passed one night in this House, and may very probably have to be dealt with the next night in another place, and, therefore, the more quickly the work is done the better, and the smaller the Committee for the purpose the better. That, however, is one of the proposals of the Government which I think has met with the less criticism, and in which I think there is less harm, perhaps, than the others. The Prime Minister has said that he wishes to find out what the views of this Rouse and of the people in the country are with regard to these proposals. I, therefore, feel that we have been given a charter to say exactly what we think of the proposals without any disloyalty to the Government, and I intend to avail myself of that charter.
    In the first place, it should, in nay opinion, be a principle of Conservative policy not to destroy anything until you are sure that you are going to put something better in its place. Can we say that the new House of Lords which the Government propose to set up will be a better assembly than the present House of Lords? How is it going to be chosen? Of whom is it going to be composed? In the first place, it is to be a very much smaller House. You are going to get rid of the people who never go, and that, upon the face of it, will not make a very startling difference to the real constitution of the House of Lords. You are going to say, to those who never go, that, as a punishment, they shall never be allowed to go. It is as though boys were punished for non-attendance at school by being granted a perpetual holiday.

    1355
    You will then be left with the members of the House of Lords who now go there, and we are told-on all these matters we only have the authority of one Minister for each statement—we are told by one Minister that the number will be about 350, and that a large majority will be hereditary peers. Supposing that the hereditary peers were only a small majority-putting their number at, say, 180—that is about the number of those who usually attend the House of Lords at the present time, so that we might think, on the face of it, that it would be exactly the same. That, however, would be too hasty a conclusion to come to, for these members are to be elected by themselves from their own ranks. Can it be supposed that, if the election is free, if they have the right to vote for whom they wish—and it is no use allowing them to vote at all unless you give them that privilege—is it to be supposed that they will vote for a single representative of the Socialist party? Is it even certain that the small body which represents the Liberal party in the House of Lords will be returned intact? I believe, on the contrary, that, with a free vote, not a single Socialist or Liberal will be elected.
    How are you going to get over that difficulty? Various ways have been suggested. One of them is proportional representation. Proportional representation may be of some use in representing important minorities, but no system of election can possibly hope to represent a minority of 10 in a body of over 700. We might say that the number of hereditary Peers should bear some proportion to the respective numbers in this House, and, under that system, you would, perhaps, get all the present representatives of the Labour party and of the Liberal party returned; but it would be nonsense to say that they had been elected. They would not have been elected at all, but would, in fact, have been nominated. Then, having got rid of the backwoodsmen and the Liberals and Socialists, could it be said that you would have left even the cream of the Conservative party? I think there is room for considerable doubt as to that. In the first place, it is the truth that in any body of men, whether it be a trade union or a public school, whether it be the crew of a ship or an hereditary
    1356
    Chamber, there is a natural dislike of those who are of an original turn of mind, those who are individual in character, those who take their own line upon subjects on which other members of the community have very definite opinions. I think you would get in this re-elected House of Lords originality and independence stamped out. Hitherto one of the great advantages which has attached to that assembly is that every man who is a Member of it is free from that day forth. He does not have to worry about what his constituents will think. He does not have to think of the next General Election. He can take his own line and can speak and vote against his party if he wishes. Would it be the same? Those who still wish to be Members of the House would know that every time they spoke they were endangering their re-election. You would destroy one of the most important privileges of a Peer to-day, that is, his complete independence.
    That would be the first cause of diminishing even the merit of the Conservative Peers who would be left, but there is another and a more important one. We may suppose that under the new system a Peer will have the choice of sitting either in this House or in another place. How are we to suppose that the more energetic, the more interested in politics, the more eloquent, the more ambitious—how will they decide when that choice is offered them? How have they always decided in the past, because we have had examples of how the system works, and it has been referred to by those who defend the system that it has been tried and has worked very well in the case of the Scottish and the Irish Peers. I remember only one incident during my short acquaintance with politics when the Scottish Peers have come into prominence, and that was in connection with the famous Budget which has been mentioned to-night. One Scottish Peer voted, for the Budget and he was turned out at the next Election. What is the history of the Irish Peers? The Irish, who have always been more privileged than the Scotch, had a unique privilege. They made their union on very much better terms than Scotland, though the Scotsman is supposed to be good at bargaining. Their Peers were allowed to choose, and they can be elected to the House of

    1357
    Lords or to the House of Commons. We know even from our own experience how much the Peers who have sat in this Assembly have contributed to it. In the past there have been Prime Ministers from the Peerage of Ireland, Lord Palmerston and Lord Melbourne, either of whom might, if they had chosen, have sat in the House of Lords. What happened then will happen again, and you will get all the talent that exists in the Conservative party in the House of Lords to-day eager to sit in the House of Commons. The new House of Lords will be incontestably an inferior body to the present one, and yet it is proposed to give increased powers to this inferior body.
    Surely it is another axiom of Conservative policy that you should only reform when there is an urgent demand, when the abuse is so gross as to demand reform. Can it be true to maintain that that is the state of affairs at present? Can it be maintained that this Government has so much spare time on its hands that it should select this as a fitting moment to deal with so great a problem? The programme of the Government during the next year is full, and we believe all the Bills the Government intend to introduce during the corning year are Bills of great importance. We should not like to see a Clause in any one of them sacrificed in order to introduce a great constitutional reform. But much more than a Clause, more than a whole Bill will have to be sacrificed if this matter is to be dealt with. We have had examples lately enough to remind us of more urgent matters which await the attention of the Government. There is the Report issued only a few days ago on the conditions of housing in West-minister which will prove to the satisfaction of most people that there are houses in Westminster in greater need of reform than the House of Lords. It cannot be pretended that while the Conservative party is in office the House of Lords is a hindrance to good Government. On the contrary it is a great assistance. So long as this party is in power the House of Lords works smoothly, and so the need is not immediate. The need belongs to the future.
    The reasons given here and in another place for the reform have been many. The Secretary of State for India protested that he had no idea of setting up
    1358
    a House of Lords which would stand as a bulwark against revolution. His main solicitude was to be sure that the Socialist party was properly represented in that Chamber. Whether or not we can persuade ourselves that the Noble Lord has spent sleepness nights over the proper representations of his opponents in the Upper House, I should have thought no one in the Conservative party need worry himself particularly about the welfare of their opponents over a matter of this kind, especially as their good offices are not likely to be met with gratitude and, as a matter of fact, have been met with the volley of abuse that is contained in the Vote of Censure we are discussing. But even if they could be persuaded that it was for their own good that we were doing this, in order to help the Socialist party, even if that had been the intention, this proposed reform would not carry it out, because how are we going to make sure that the Socialist party is properly represented in future? The Prime Minister is to have the power of nomination, but the House need hardly be reminded that every Prime Minister has always had a power of nomination to the House of Lords. He has always had the power of nominating which of his political supporters he wished to take a seat in that House, and the Prime Minister of the Labour party when he was in office had the same power and exercised it as he thought good. The only difference would he that under the new scheme it would be in the power of the Prime Minister to select those of his political opponents whom he desired to sit in that place. Presumably he would consult with the Leader of the Opposition, but even in that case can it be maintained that that would really properly represent the other party, or any other party, in the House of Lords?
    But that is not the real reason. Even if it were the reason why this proposal is produced it is not the reason why it has found considerable support in certain quarters. That support come solely, if not entirely, from those who believe there is a great danger of revolution, and who think the only bulwark against revolution is to strengthen the Upper Chamber. That proposal will be applauded by many. Let us examine this danger of revolution. If a Government

    1359
    get into power, presumably they will endeavour to carry out the will of the people. Every Government has in the past, and we may presume that every Government will in the future, unless the time comes when we have a Bolshevik or a Fascist Government. If that time comes there will be a revolution indeed, but what use would the House of Lords be to stand up against a Lenin or a Mussolini? So long as we have a constitutional party working in a constitutional way they would endeavour to the best of their ability to carry out what they think is the will of the people. They may misinterpret it. There is always the danger of that. It is frequently done. We, for instance, thought we were carrying out the will of the people when we introduced the Trade Disputes Bill. I am still convinced we were. The Opposition, on the other hand, thought there would be such an outburst of indignation all over the country that it would sweep the Government away. It has been admitted even on those benches that they had been cruelly disappointed. They have found out that the feeling of the people on the subject is not at all what they imagined it to be.
    It is possible to find out the will of the people even without a General Election. Under the existing system, if the Upper House thinks the Government of the day has misinterpreted the will of the people they can delay legislation for two years. There is a great deal to be said for that arrangement. In two years, with the power of the Press and with the power of public meetings, it is possible to gauge public opinion, and the Government would be in a strong position at the end of those two years if they were still satisfied that they had sufficient strength of public opinion behind them to go on with their proposals. But if, on the other hand, the House of Lords were in a position that when they thought the proposal made was not in accordance with the will of the people, they could dissolve Parliament and put the question to the country, that question would never reach the people at all, because it would not be that question on which the General Election would take place. It would be a question whether the will of the House of Commons or the House of Lords was to pre
    1360
    vail. What the result of that question would be—the democracy against the herditary principle—I have very little doubt.
    At present the House of Lords works well, but once you get the hereditary principle up against the will of the democracy, there can be no two opinions as to which will prevail. The hereditary principle as it exists to-day is not interfering with the will of the democracy, even as it exists in the House of Lords. For that reason, the House of Lords is popular, and will remain popular. It might remain popular and continue to work under a Socialist Government. We had the other day in the House of Lords from one of those who speak for the Socialist party, and who held office during their period of power, a great tribute paid to the House of Lords. He said their work at that time would have been impossible if it had not been for the courtesy and for the policy and for the statesmanship pursued by members of the Upper House. That same policy may be pursued on another occasion. If it did not, then it would be for those in power at the time to find out a way in which they could escape from the difficulty.
    But it must not be supposed that the House of Lords is ever going to prevent a revolution. It is not to be supposed that the hereditary principle can ever win against the democratic principle. The democratic principle is what we are all pledged to in this country. It may fail. It has failed in many other countries, and it may fail here. I believe it is likely to succeed owing to the long political education and the sound political sense of the British people, but, at any rate, it is the duty of those who pay lip service to democracy on every platform to try to the last moment to make a success of it. If it fails we must look elsewhere for our salvation, but, meanwhile, let us use our utmost endeavours to make a success of democracy. You will not stop revolution by a veto. A veto has never stopped revolution in the past, but it has sometimes caused a revolution—and it may cause one in the future. There is only one way of preventing revolution, and that is by removing the causes of discontent. There is only one way of preventing a powerful political minority from eventu

    1361
    ally being returned to office and doing all they wish to do, and that is by defeating them at the polls. I can assure this Government that if when we next go to the polls we have to defend the principle of an hereditary legislature, the principle and the permanence of the hereditary Chamber, then the fight will be a hard one and the prospects and hopes of victory will be faint and few.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Prime Minister spoke of the labours of Sisyphus. I understand those labours were imposed on Sisyphus for crime. I would remind him—I am sorry he has gone out of the Chamber—that there was another criminal who was punished. That was Tantalus. Every time the cup was taken to his lips, it was dashed away and then, I believe, a bunch of grapes was lowered to his thirsty tongue, and it was raised just as he was about to seize the grapes. The Prime Minister might have thought of those unfortunate Tantali in this affair. There is the Earl of Birkenhead. Every time the prospect of a seat again in the House of Commons is held out to him, it is dashed away from him by his own colleagues on the benches opposite. He might think of the example of the Noble Lord, the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) and even myself, who one day may, absolutely against our will, be transferred to the other place. He might have seen our personal distress. I also, in addition to that, must register a little personal and political distress at the retreat of the Cabinet. I am sorry that the Conservative back benchers, all except the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and the little gang of last ditchers, have saved the Government from themselves. The Foreign Secretary has a story he tells sometimes, and it is worth repeating, of the Jew in Spain, who was condemned by the Inquisition to the stake. A vast crowd gathered. At the last moment a message was received to say that the Jew had recanted and the crowd cried out, "Stand fast, Moses." I wish I could say that to the Prime Minister, who is not in his place. I wish I could implore the Prime Minister to have the courage of his convictions and go on with the scheme announced by the Lord Chancellor, the Marquess of Salisbury and the
    1362
    Secretary for India in the Upper House as the considered opinion of the Government.
    To make the retreat and the scandal the greater, may I remind the House of the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When first this matter was raised from this side of the House, and we asked for time in which to discuss this affair, "Oh," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "we cannot find time. Our programme is full. We have other matters of importance to discuss. Of course, if the Opposition were to put down a Motion of Censure, then, naturally, the Government would give an opportunity for that Motion to be debated." I took it upon myself to press the matter a little further, and he said, "Oh, well, of course, next Session our considered scheme will be brought forward, and then there will be ample opportunity for hon. Gentlemen opposite to examine the details." That is the position in which the Government find themselves at the present time. The faith of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is puffed up with pride because of his artificial majority, is shown now to be a mistaken faith, even in the docility of hon. Gentlemen behind him. I apologise to private members of the Conservative party for the hasty jibe that I levelled at them. When the noble Viscountess, the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) ventured, as the angel on this occasion to rush in where fools feared to tread, and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether whether there would not be a chance of speaking, she hinted that some of her colleagues and herself were satisfied, and I, all too soon, said they were too docile. They are not too docile, and they have thrown the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary for India and the Marquess of Salisbury to the wolves. If, in particular, the Secretary for India does not resign after this Debate to-day—I am sorry to say I have searched in another part of the House, and I do not see him listening to-day—his skin is five times thicker than I thought it was.
    I particularly wish to add my small meed of praise to our new colleague the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) on his speech, and also I would like to congratulate those hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheered that speech, for that speech could not

    1363
    have been made more damaging if it had been delivered from these benches. I think the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has introduced into this Chamber an independence which hon. Gentlemen opposite still need in greater measure. All the speeches to-day, with the exception of the Prime Minister's, have been in condemnation of the Government scheme. I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders). He said that it was not his scheme and he could not approve of it, and as I have mentioned the right hon. Gentleman, may I remind the House what is the real mind of the backwoods Tory Member of the House of Commons. It is contained in an interjection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells on 15th February, when this matter was last debated. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was accusing the Government of wanting more power to protect the country, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells interjected this remark:
    "To protect the country against you·!"
    That means, from the elected Members of the Labour party when they are returned to power. That is the real mind of the Conservative backwoodsmen. If the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper) believes what he has been saying he should join the Labour party. The Prime Minister made a feeble attempt to defend the hereditary system. He said that the House of Lords was linked with the Great Council of State. I have not looked up the facts concerning the Great Council of State, but I am quite sure that it was not hereditary in the sense of the present House of Lords. It comprised many of the great feudal owners of land. It may have been true that they were inheritors of land, but that is not the sense in which Noble Lords sit in the House of Lords to-day. There are many of them, scores of them, who do not own a rood of land to-day, and I think the analogy of the Prime Minister a very false analogy indeed. Do hon. Members opposite realise, going back only to the Battle of Cressy, no, I think it is the Battle of Poitiers, that of the English Nobility who rode as Knights and the English chivalry who fought there not one descendant of one of the Knights
    1364
    is in the Upper Chamber to-day. So much for the great traditions and the wonderful historical connections of the Upper Chamber.
    Sir C. OMAN: They did not ride at Poitiers; they fought on foot.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They may have fought on foot, that is not the point. At any rate, they rode to the battle even if they did not fight on horseback. The hon. Member for Oxford has not intervened in this Debate so far, but if he speaks I believe he will be the only Member who will support the Government proposals. That is the position to which the present Government finds itself reduced after three years of office. I should have thought the best thing they could do is to resign, but hon. Gentlemen opposite will cling like limpets to office for the last time. Rather than reform the House of Lords I wish the Chief Whip would direct the attention of the Cabinet to the need of a reform of this Chamber. When a representative Government is at last returned to power the trouble will be to get the necessary legislation through this House under the present conditions. I resist the temptation to enlarge on this topic but I think we shall have to find some method of reforming the machinery of legislation in this House or the people may demand many radical alterations in the representative system. I am in favour of devolution and also strongly in favour of the Committee system. I believe there is no other way of restoring the control of the House of Commons over finance. However, that is a large question and one which I hope we shall have an opportunity of debating very soon.
    The trouble is this, and we might as well face the real fact of the situation. The real trouble is that a Conservative Government cannot bring forward a scheme which will be acceptable to Parliament and the country and at the same time be acceptable to the House of Lords. The House of Lords has one great privilege; social prestige, and if the Lords themselves are prepared to surrender it their wives and daughters are not. What are they saying of the present proposals? They are saying that if they give up the hereditary position then they are no better off than a baronet. It is a question of social prestige. You have this

    1365
    vested interest of social position and prestige, and no Conservative Government will ever make its will felt against the House of Lords. The only people who really can deal with this problem is a Labour Government, because we are not so closely bound up with the hereditary social prestige of the House of Lords. That is the real fact of the matter. The Government had much better have left the matter alone, although for political and personal reasons I am sorry they are abandoning their proposal. I congratulate the back-benchers opposite on having more sense than their leaders, but at the same time I am sorry their leaders have been forced to bow to the storm. I would rather it had come from the country than from the backbenchers of the Conservative party, but when a Labour Government is returned I hope we shall deal with this matter in a sane and sensible way.
    Captain BOURNE: The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has said that I should be one of the few who would support the Government in this Debate. That, as he knows, is because I have had the luck to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. There are 103 Members who would have supported my Amendment, congratulating the Government on submitting their tentative proposals, although only the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) and myself have had so far the luck to be called. But that does not mean that the supporters of the Government are limited to the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I am sure the whole House will sympathise thoroughly with the hon. and gallant Member because he knows that his fate one day will be to disappear into the gilded Chamber, where I am certain he will not feel so much at home as in this House. Possibly his colleagues may be prepared to regard this prospect with equanimity, but I am sure that we can all sympathise with the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member. I regret very much that members of my own party have spoken on this occasion against the Government. I feel that they must regret still more that they have given the hon. and gallant Member an opportunity to offer his congratulations. We
    1366
    have had a very interesting Debate, in which a great many points of view have been put forward, but it seems to me that many of the arguments against the proposals put forward on behalf of the Government have been based on the assumption that they propose to repeal the Parliament Act and thereby restore to another place the power of accepting or rejecting Measures. For one thing, I am supporting the Government on this question because they are not proposing to put up another House with equal powers to the House of Commons, and thereby to insure the deadlock which must inevitably follow. Deadlocks we have had before in the history of our country, and they have generally been solved only by the personal intervention of the Sovereign himself. We do not want to get back to that state. I have listened with interest to the arguments which have been advanced not only by hon. Members but by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. One would imagine that they were convinced that the Government proposed to give back to the House of Lords the power to delay Measures ad infinitum. They do not say that the reformed House of Lords is to possess precisely the same power which it has at present, with the one exception that a Measure which is to effect an alteration in the constitution of the Second Chamber can only become law after a General Election has taken place and that Measure has received the approval of the country.
    It is quite obvious that many hon. Members, opposite do not believe in the necessity for a Second Chamber. For myself, I think there is probably no country in the world where a Second Chamber is more needed. I will give only one reason for the moment, and that is that we are almost the only country in the world in which legislation is passed through Parliament in the form in which it ultimately becomes a Statute of the Realm. Most countries legislate in broad principles and leave the strict language which will be interpreted by the Courts to be issued by experts belonging to the different Departments. Here, thank goodness! our principle is different. We legislate in this House and in another place, and where you adopt that system it is far more important to have a

    1367
    Second Chamber and to be as certain as you can that the legislation is word perfect when it receives the Royal Assent, because nothing is more disturbing than the fact that, if some loose phrase is agreed to in this place—as the Prime Minister has said, we frequently legislate in a great hurry—the promise of a Minister is assumed to mean one thing and the Courts eventually decide that he means something different. That is one reason why we require a Second Chamber.
    I do not believe that any Second Chamber which we can devise can possibly do more than delay and revise legislation, and delay matters in regard to which public opinion is not very definite. I agree with the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), and many other hon. Members who have spoken, that no paper Constitution can possibly stay a revolution if the country has set its mind to it. From that point of view a Second Chamber or a paper Constitution or anything else is utterly useless. But what a Second Chamber can do is to make the country think, "Do we really want this?" It can make certain that Measures are understood, discussed and reconsidered by the country before they are finally assented to. When a Second Chamber has the respect of the nation it can make the country think very seriously about any Measure which it rejects. I will give only one instance. In 1906 the then Liberal Government brought in, with a great flourish of trumpets, a certain Education Bill. It was rejected by the House of Lords. I was then beginning to take an interest in politics, and my recollection is that once that Measure was rejected there was no further demand for it in the country. That is a function that a Second Chamber can perform.
    I think the proposals of the Government go some way towards producing a Second Chamber that will command more respect and even greater authority than the present House. To my mind, the greatest weakness of the present House has always been the small number of Members who habitually attend. I cannot see why it could not be strengthened if its Members were elected
    1368
    by their Order. Nor do I see how it is possible to get rid of a certain number, possibly a large number, of nominated Members. For one thing, any Government must have the power to choose whom it wishes to conduct and lead the other Chamber. That is a necessity. Unless it has that power of nomination I cannot see how it is going necessarily to have that power. I wish, and wish very much, that the Government had proposed that certain hereditary peers who have rendered great and distinguished service to the country, who have served in the Cabinet or have been Dominion or Colonial Governors, should be ex-officio Members of the other House. There is much to be said for such a proposal. It would at any rate ensure that nearly all the Noble Lords who represent the party opposite, and no small portion of those who represent the Liberals would be there to carry on the traditions of both parties. I do not want another House composed entirely of Members of my own party. I do not think it would be effective or command the respect of the country, nor do I think it would carry on the business as efficiently as the existing Chamber does now. But I do see a good deal to be said for cutting down numbers and for nominating people who are distinguished in other branches of life, and who, if they in their considered opinion rejected a Measure, would command the respect of the country.
    9.0 p.m.
    Another point on which a great deal of argument has taken place is the question of the certification by Mr. Speaker of Money Bills. It has seemed to me that many of the hon. Members who have talked on this question have had a very limited idea as to what a Money Bill is and as to what is the exact effect of these proposals. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) reminded the House that since the passing of the Parliament Act no fewer than seven Finance Acts have not been certified by Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact I believe the only two Bills, in the course of a Session, which are bound to be certified, are the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill, and that no other Measure which is produced is of necessity a Money Bill. I have never regarded the certification by Mr. Speaker

    1369
    or the fact that the House of Lords cannot amend or reject a Money Bill as being any particular derogation of the prerogatives of that House. For one thing, I do not believe it is possible to tack on to a Money Bill at any rate some of the terms of a Measure which would seriously alter anything in this country.
    My reason for welcoming some such Committee as has been suggested in this proposal is quite a different one. I have never doubted that any Speaker who has been elected or who is likely to be elected to the Chair of this House, will attempt to carry out honestly and to the best of his ability the very difficult duty which is placed upon him of deciding whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. The real trouble is going to arise when you have, as we have had for the best part of a century, a Speaker belonging to one political party and a Government dominated by another political party. Occasions will come when political feeling will run high, as it did over the Budget of 1909, which the then Speaker, Lord Ullswater, has since recorded in his Memoirs, he could not certify as a Money Bill. The trouble will arise when some Speaker refuses to certify some such Measure. That is a very real danger. My reason for hoping that some form of additional authority will be given to the Speaker is, not that I fear that any Speaker will misuse his power, but that sooner or later you are going to have the Chair dragged into the vortex of party politics, and that will be a loss of prestige not only to the Chair but to this House. Whether it would be wise for their lordships to be joined in such a Committee or whether the representation should be limited to the Law Lords, exclusive of the Lord Chancellor, I do not know. I put it forward as a suggestion. At least it would ensure that the representatives of another place would look at a matter judicially, and, I believe, impartially.
    Finally, I would like to remind hon. Members who have spoken against these proposals that if one thing is more certain than another, it is that you cannot put up another Chamber in this country which is going to claim the right of being equal or superior to this Chamber. I do not believe the proposals of the Government would set up any such Chamber. If we were discussing the establishment of a Second Chamber in a new country
    1370
    which had no constitution, then we might consider an elective Chamber or a nominated Chamber or one partly elective and partly nominative. But we have to, remember that here we are dealing with an old Constitution, and with old traditions. As the Prime Minister reminded us, we are dealing with a House whose traditions go back for many more centuries than our own traditions. I believe it is only by combining the hereditary element with some degree of nomination and thereby carrying on without a break the continuity of tradition that we can get a Second Chamber which will efficiently fulfil its functions.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: To those of us whose Parliamentary memories go back to the days of 1906 the Debate of to-day wears a most astonishing aspect. The matter which we are asked to discuss is admittedly one of the greatest constitutional importance, and yet I make bold to say that now, as we approach the last hours of the Debate, nobody in this House knows where the Government stand as regards these proposals. Do the Government mean to introduce a Bill or have they raised all this pother merely for the satisfaction of gathering criticism and getting ventilation—and what is it all about? In the House of Lords the most specific assurances were given, not only that the Government intended to legislate, but that they felt it an obligation of honour to introduce and carry through their legislation before the end of this Parliament. Here, in the House of Commons, we have never even had a White Paper providing us with a statement of the Government proposals. The whole thing is left completely in the air; and if it is ventilation which the Prime Minister desires, he has had plenty of it to-day from his own side of the House, not omitting a very shrewd gust from the North from the hon. Member for Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan).
    I desire to make two points, and two points only, though I am not so fortunate as to have the Government spokesman present on the Treasury Bench. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow me, intends to make the same points, and I am sure he will be more fortunate in securing the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman who is to wind up on behalf of the Government. My first point is regarding the proposal about Money

    1371
    Bills. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and if I may I will do so indirectly through the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—what is the meaning of the Government stating in the House of Lords, as Lord Birkenhead did, that there were notorious and almost admitted instances in which Mr. Speaker had failed properly to exercise his discretion and judgment as to what is a Money Bill. I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for coming in. I was just saying that in the House of Lords the Government spokesman asserted that it was indubitably true that indisputably wrong decisions had been given by Mr. Speaker from time to time as to what is and is not a Money Bill. I think the House of Commons is entitled to know to what instances the noble Lord referred. The words of the Secretary of State for India were:
    "It is unquestionably true that over and over again indisputably wrong decisions have been reached as to what is and what is not a Money Bill—decisions inconsistent with one another."
    Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to tell the House what it is entitled to know, namely, to what instances the Secretary of State for India was referring when he used those words. The only instance which was offered by way of particulars in the House of Lords was an instance which is to be laid to the charge of the Lord Chancellor. We are told that these things have been considered for more than a year, but it is astonishing, in view of that fact, how much in fault the Lord Chancellor was when he said that a War Charges Validity Bill on one occasion had been certified as a Money Bill, and on another occasion a similar Bill had been certified as not being a Money Bill. Anyone who looked inside the two Bills could have ascertained—any inquiry would have ascertained—that the two Bills, though they had the same name, had different contents, and that there was nothing whatever inconsistent in the action of Mr. Speaker in certifying the one and not the other. That was the only instance, and the Lord Chancellor in very ample terms withdrew it. What other instances are there? What case is there known to anybody since the Parliament Act where a Money Bill has been improperly dealt with by Mr. Speaker?
    1372
    The truth of the matter is, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, that since the Parliament Act on no less than seven occasions, the Finance Bill of the year has been refused a certificate by Mr. Speaker, because of the precision with which he examines every Clause. I think the last instance was in 1922.
    I am quite unaware of the ground upon which it is sought to contend that, on the basis of past experience, we are called upon to amend the Parliament Act in this particular. The only other point which I wish to make I can best put by asking the House to consider what will happen if indeed it is till the intention of the Government to embody these proposals in a Bill and to carry them through both Houses before the next General Election. Suppose the Government introduce such a Bill, carry it by their majority, and send it to the House of Lords. It is instructive to observe that every human being assumes beyond question that the House Lords will at once pass such a Bill. If, indeed, they were the guardians of the public against legislation which was not before the country at the previous General Election, they might be supposed to reject such a Bill. But everybody assumes that if the present Government send such a Bill to the House of Lords, the House of Lords will pass it at once. I ask hon. Members to consider what will happen then. You will have on the Statute Book a Statute which secures the House of Lords against reduction of its powers or changes of its constitution except with its own consent. Suppose there is then a General Election in which there is returned to this House a great majority of Members who have given explicit pledges and assurances that they will carry through the House of Commons a Bill to repeal that Statute—and if you go on like this, you will very likely get such a majority in the next House of Commons.
    That majority will come here, and the first duty of that House of Commons will be to pass a Measure to repeal what it is now proposed to enact. What happens to the repealing Bill? You will then have made the House of Lords a body newly created, newly furbished, newly buttressed and founded, and it is quite obvious that the House of Lords will be under the strongest possible temptation to refuse to pass the repealing Bill.

    1373
    Then we must suppose that in a second Session the same majority in the House of Commons will pass the Bill a second time, and that the House of Lords will reject it a second time. Let us suppose that for the third time, within two years from the beginning of the new Parliament, the majority in the House of Commons passes a Bill to repeal the Measure which you now contemplate. In that instance, would the thrice repeated passing of that Bill of repeal through this House be effective to repeal or ineffective to repeal the previous law? it seems to me quite plain from the proposals of the Government that they intend to entrench the House of Lords in the next Parliament in this position—that even if a majority were immediately returned which three times over was to pass a repealing Bill, none the less the House of Lords would be master of the situation and could quite easily—[An HON. MEURER "No!"] An hon. and learned Member below the Gangway is good enough to give me private information. He says "No." Then I should be very glad to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is not the result of the proposals which he now puts forward that, supposing there is a majority in the next Parliament to repeal the legislation he proposes to pass in this Parliament, it will be within the power of the House of Lords to prevent that repeal being made effective for as long as ever it chooses.
    If it is not so, then you have not entrenched the House of Lords, but I say that it is the inevitable result of the proposals of the Government. Does any human being suppose that you are going to promote the stability and the peaceful progress of our own democratic institutions if you pass, in this Parliament, legislation of such a sort that it cannot be repealed and cannot be amended by legislation in the next Parliament, whatever be the circumstances under which that next Parliament is elected, unless the House of Lords itself is pleased to consent? It seems to me that that simple test brings the thing down to a not improbable future. It is quite sufficient to show, either that this scheme has never been thought out at all, but that it is as slipshod and as vague in conception as it certainly hitherto has been in state
    1374
    ment, or else that you are putting the House of Lords in your scheme in a position where it is not necessary to recommend it to damn the consequences, because there are no conceivable consequences which it will ever be under the necessity to damn.
    There is a further consideration which very much surprises me when I am told that these distinguished and accomplished Gentlemen in the Government have been considering the matter with so much care for so long. I confess I thought the consideration was a very elementary one to those who have studied the question of the framing of Constitutions in any comparative sense. You may have, as we have had in this country, what is called a flexible Constitution, under which the law by which you change the composition or the powers of this House or that may be passed by the same ordinary normal machinery by which you pass any other Statute—and that is our system—or, again, you may have a system such as obtains in many Continental countries, where you think it wise to pick out certain important leading principles in your Constitution and say that those principles are sacrosanct and that they cannot be interfered with by ordinary process of legislation. But I never heard of a Constitution which adopts that, second alternative that does not contain within itself some special arrangement by which the rigid and fixed Constitution that you have removed from the interference of ordinary law can be constitutionally altered.
    Take the French Constitution of 1871. It is impossible, of course, for the ordinary Parliament of France to change that Constitution—I rather think they could not introduce proportional representation—but that does not mean to say that the framers of the rigid Constitution of France have to face a revolution as the only way of amending it. On the contrary, they have in their Constitution a special provision by which they can call together a National Assembly, to sit at Versailles, where, if you get sufficient majorities, you may change this very rigid Constitution which you have preserved from the influences of ordinary law. Take the still better known case of the United States of America. Everybody knows that Prohibition could not be introduced into the United States without

    1375
    a change in the Constitution of the United States. That change could not be brought about by the ordinary legislation of Congress or the Senate; it required the bringing into operation of the special machinery which the Fathers of the American Constitution were careful to provide, by which you could change the Constitution whose rigidity was otherwise secured.
    But here are these distinguished persons on the Government bench, and they have, for the first time in history, adopted the plan of fixing rigidly the Constitution and powers of one portion of our Legislature. They do not intend that they shall be capable of alteration or amendment or reversal by ordinary Statutory provision, and they have made no other provision by which they can be altered. Nobody who ever had thought this thing really out could possibly have supposed that it would be left in that position, and the only possible answer which could be made by the Government in this matter, I conceive, would be this: They would say, "If you were to have an election which returned to this House a very large majority, pledged and bound to secure a change or a reversal in our scheme, then you might be quite sure that the House of Lords would put no obstacle in the way of passing the necessary amending Act."
    I can only say that, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remember, and had some small experience of, the days between 1906 and 1910. The fact of the matter is—it can be put in a simple sentence—that there are very few Members now present who were in the House in those days, but between the years 1906 and 1910 there was no single Measure that was carried through this House by the great majority then to be found here against which the remnants of the Conservative party chose to vote on Third Reading which ever reached the Statute Book at all on any subject whatever. Education, temperance, plural voting—what has the House of Lords to do with that?—Scottish land valuation, a whole series of Measures was passed through this House, supported by great majorities here—I am not now concerned with the question whether they were wise or unwise Measures—and if you could say of any one of them, whatever
    1376
    its subject, that the remnant of the Conservative Opposition voted against it on Third Reading, in every single case it was rejected or mutilated and prevented from reaching the Statute Book by the House of Lords. What is the good of telling me that, if we once fix this element rigidly in the Constitution and give it a guarantee that it cannot be changed, assure it that, however it behaves, it will be perfectly safe—what is the good of telling people with that experience in mind that in the end a General Election will secure, as a matter of fact, that any necessary Amendments can be made?
    I do not desire to keep the House—I know others are going to speak—but I have ventured to make that point because it does not seem to me at present that the explanations offered by the Government, either in the House of Lords or in this House, have met the situation at all, and I repeat that I want to know whether, if this proposed legislation is passed in this Parliament, a General Election which puts a majority in this House that desires to repeal this proposed legislation will be a General Election which will enable that repeal to be effected, and, if so, how? I can see no method by which that result could be secured except the acquiescence of the House of Lords, which, in the case supposed, has just been assured by the Conservative party that it is so highly valuable that it is to run no risk even if it goes on rejecting legislation from this House till the crack of doom.
    It is amazing to some of us that any body of public opinion in this country, and most of all a Conservative body of opinion, should have thought that legislation of this sort was really going to increase the security of this country against revolution. I cannot imagine how it is supposed that the ordinary voters of this country are going to rest content with a method which, as the example I have given shows, necessarily leaves the House of Lords in the position of having the last word. It would put the House of Lords in our Constitution in exactly the same position in which the Sovereign himself stood until the Sovereign became a constitutional monarch, giving his assent to laws on the advice of the Government of the day. The old Royal Veto was nothing more than an irresponsible interference with the will of the House of Commons and,

    1377
    as such, it had to go. Here you have these students of constitutional law and history—these persons who maintain the ancient ways and who claim that the ancient development of Conservatism in this country is a progressive force—actually proposing to put the House of Lords in exactly the same constitutional position in which the monarchy of this country was put long, long ago and which the monarch has long ago abandoned in order to adopt a position which he now holds to the satisfaction of us all.
    Lastly, let me observe, there is surely a great confusion in all the talk about the respect for the hereditary principle. The hereditary principle, as illustrated in the Monarchy, has never, I am sure, had a more widespread and devoted support from the mass of the country than to-day, but why? Because everybody knows that the Royal Family discharge their very arduous and sometimes, I am sure, most trying duties without the smallest possible political partisanship. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his knowledge of the history of the House of Lords and with all the speeches he has made in the past, really put his hand on his heart and say that when he has effected these reforms he has turned the House of Lords into an impartial body? There is nothing whatever in history to make one think so, and the only reason why since the Parliament Act there has been hope that the Constitution would work reasonably smoothly is because there has always remained at the back of the Parliament Act the possibility of the Prerogative of the Sovereign, on the advice of the Government, to create more Peers, which was a very healthy corrective against extreme and foolish courses. I do not want to detain the House because other Members want to speak, but I venture to put these points, and I shall be grateful if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with them when he replies.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could put his hand on his heart and defend these proposals. I am quite sure that the Chancellor would do that without any difficulty whatever. I shall not intervene at any great length, because I
    1378
    want to give the House the earliest possible opportunity of seeing and hearing the right hon. Gentleman perform that feat. The Prime Minister stated this afternoon that he hoped to derive from these Debates some information as to the opinions of members of his own party. I am quite sure the Prime Minister has had his wish fully gratified. It is only within the last half-hour that one word has been uttered from that side in support of these proposals, and, quite fittingly, it came from the representative of the City of Oxford (Captain Bourne), the home of lost causes.
    The Prime Minister complained this afternoon about the nature and the form of our Motion, but he very carefully refrained from dealing with it, and, in the course of a speech of three-quarters of an hour, the only reference he made to its terms was to say that his refined literary taste had been offended by the use of the word "gerrymander." The right hon. Gentleman has a high literary reputation as a man of very wide learning and extensive reading, but it is quite evident, from the ignorance he exposed this afternoon, that the standard dictionaries have not been among his reading or he would have known that "gerrymander" is quite a classic word. He will find in the Century Dictionary, for instance, a definition which describes exactly what the Government propose to do, namely, to use their temporary political and party majority to alter the constitution of Government. The fact is we have no choice in adopting the form of a Vote of Censure. For, as has been pointed out already in the course of this Debate, we had no alternative. We asked for an opportunity for, shall I put it, a nonparty and non-controversial discussion of these proposals. We wanted to give the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing its unfettered opinion and judgment on these proposals. That was declined, and we were told that if we wanted a discussion on these proposals we could have it only in the form of a Vote of Censure on the Government.
    Coercion has evidently not been applied to this side of the House only, for the fact that the Amendments on the Paper have not been moved is evidence, I think, that coercion has been applied to the supporters of the Government sitting

    1379
    behind him. We have had a number of speeches—very brilliant and very eloquent speeches—from the other side of the House strongly condemning these proposals, but those Members who have made those speeches had their names attached to Amendments on the Paper. Why, therefore, have they withdrawn? They may continue to express those views, but it is quite evident they are not prepared to carry the expression of their views into the Division Lobby against the Government.
    The attitude they have taken up reminds me of a story told by the late Speaker of the House of Commons. A man lost his dog. like some hon. Members opposite, it had gone astray. This was the advertisement he inserted: "Called Ben; answers reluctantly to 'Dash-you-come-here.'" That is exactly what hon. Members opposite do. The Prime Minister has determined the form of our Motion, and therefore it is little short of an impertinence on his part to make an appeal to us for help in the consideration of these proposals. More than once in his speech this afternoon he made such an appeal, but it is quite impossible, under the circumstances, for the House of Commons to express its views upon these proposals by means of a vote. What is going to happen is this, that the votes that go into the Division Lobby in support of the Government mean neither approval of nor dissent from these proposals, but are simply a vote of confidence of hon. Members in themselves. The right hon. Gentleman said that moving this Motion was like heaving half a brick at the Government. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the last half brick that will be heaved at the Government on this subject.
    The Prime Minister complained that we had put forward no constructive proposals. On an occasion like this it is not our business to put forward constructive proposals. Our immediate duty is to expose the character of the Government's proposals. When the time comes and the necessity arises for dealing with this question of the Second Chamber, we shall have our proposals; for the moment our duty is confined to dealing with the scheme which has been proposed by the Government. Never once this afternoon did the Prime Minister touch on the terms of our
    1380
    Motion. He spent the first 30 minutes of his speech in a dry, academic discourse about the constitution of various Second Chambers. At the end of 30 minutes he said he would come to the issue. The next 20 minutes he spent in giving an account of the various schemes which had been considered by previous Governments, the Bryce scheme and the scheme of the Coalition Government. We are not in the least concerned about the Bryce Report or about the scheme of the Coalition Government. We have no responsibility for either. We are concerned now with the scheme of the Government. The last part of the Prime Minister's speech said that he was trying to ascertain the opinion of the country. There is a way in which the Prime Minister can find the opinion of the country, a way in which he would have our hearty co-operation; it is the constitutional way of a General Election.
    It is not clear at all, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said, whether the Government intend to persist with these proposals. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to throw some light upon our difficulty. But whether they proceed with these proposals or not, the fact that they have put them forward is a clear indication of the mind of the Government. Why have these proposals been put forward? No one who read the debates which took place across the corridor can be in any doubt at all as to the reason why this issue has been raised at this time. There was not one speech in those debates which did not say that another Labour Government was a likelihood in the near future, and that therefore the present occasion must be used in order to strengthen the Second Chamber as a bulwark against legislation which might be introduced by a Labour Government. I think I should not be in order in referring to specific declarations made by particular Peers. A rather notorious Peer was quite frank about the matter, and said there must be a bulwark in the House of Lords against nationalisation proposals which might be brought forward by a Labour Government. Indeed, he said the House of Lords must be so strengthened that it would be the last line of defence against tyranny and chaos. The House of Lords has always been the defence

    1381
    of privilege and oppression. The House of Lords has always been the opponent of the extension of democratic rights and democratic privileges.
    An hon. Member who spoke from this side a few minutes ago said that even if the Members of the House of Lords themselves were not very particular about, maintaining their hereditary legislative rights and privileges, they would oppose any radical change in the constitution of the House of Lords under the influence of their wives and daughters. That was a scheme actually put forward in the course of the Peers' debate. One noble Peer said it was their duty, on behalf of their ladies, to see that there was no radical change. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that it was neither the intention nor the purpose of these proposals to strengthen the power of the House of Lords. Are we to assume, then, that the Government are not united upon this question? A speech was delivered a day or two ago by a Member of the Cabinet, the Home Secretary, who, a little time ago, told this House that he was like a parrot; that he did not do much talking but he did a lot of thinking. If the Home Secretary did a little less talking and a little more thinking, he might be less of an embarrassment to his colleagues in the Government. The Prime Minister told us that these proposals were not intended to strengthen the House of Lords. What did the Home Secretary say a day or two ago:
    "We are accused of trying to make the House of Lords stronger than it is to-day. That is our policy, and we have suggested these proposals for that very purpose."
    What is the scheme? It makes a pretence of accepting the Parliament Act. The two years' delay is intolerable, and I can imagine that it would be used very effectively by the House of Lords, with its existing powers, to hamper a Labour Government and make its harvest of legislation very meagre indeed. The worst feature of this scheme is one to which constant references have been made to-day, and that is the alteration of the Parliament Act in regard to Money Bills. That is a power for which the House of Lards are anxious. I am not very much concerned about the other powers of the House of Lords, provided the absolute authority of the House of Commons over money matters and other
    1382
    finance can be retained. If the House of Lords gets control of the purse, if they are able to reject a Money Bill, then they will have the power to destroy a Government. They can render ineffective all the other work of a Government.
    The Prime Minister this afternoon said that there might be hidden in a Finance Bill proposals of an industrial economic and social character which would have far-reaching consequences. The desire of the House of Lords and the desire of the Tory party is to give the House of Lords control over Money Bills to give them the power to prevent legislation of a social character being carried into effect. That, undoubtedly, is the real purpose of these proposals. They are not only asking for these powers over national finance, but they are asking for the absolute right to interfere in regard to local rates. The question of local and national finance is now so inextricably mixed up that if the House of Lords had the right to interfere with proposals regarding local taxation, it would be impossible for a Labour or a progressive Government to carry out any real scheme for the reform of local taxation, and especially any scheme which proposed to appropriate for public purposes any part of the increment value on land.
    I said a moment ago that if the House of Lords got this power they would have power to destroy a Government. They could throw out the first Budget of a Labour Government, and to throw out a Budget means the defeat of the Government. Therefore, there would be no further opportunity under the Parliament Act to carry those proposals into effect. The historic privileges of the House of Commons are threatened by these proposals. The Lord Chancellor said, and the Prime Minister almost in identical words repeated the statement this afternoon, that the Committee which it is proposed to set up to consider Bills, should have regard not only to the form but the substance and effect of the Measure, and a Committee composed as such a Committee will be of a majority of Peers and of Conservative Members of the House of Commons, would always be able to read into a Finance Bill that it contained something which had far-reaching industrial, economic and social consequences. Suppose that we were to propose a drastic addition to the Death

    1383
    Duties. Far-reaching consequences of an industrial, economic and especially social character would be involved in that, and, clearly, under these proposals that Committee would have the right to reject such a proposal.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for continuity in our institutions. Under this scheme, there would be something like 350 members of the House of Lords and an overwhelming majority of them would be hereditary Peers. The Lord Chancellor in outlining the scheme made that point quite clear. There would be, he said, a number but not a substantial number of nominated persons. The Prime Minister tried to justify his proposals this afternoon on the ground that they were to a considerable extent carrying out the recommendations of the Bryce Committee. I am not approving the recommendations of the Bryce Committee, but I would mention this fact, which disposes of that contention of the Prime Minister, that the Bryce Committee recommended that the House of Lords should consist of 246 persons, and that at first there should be only 81 Peers, to be reduced to 30. If the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to maintain historic and feudal continuity, why did he not accept this recommendation of the Bryce Committee, for he would have got in those recommendations some relic of the prehistoric state of things? There are other points of view which we take in this connection. First of all, there is the point with which the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) dealt at great length. I agree with him that if any sensible construction can be placed upon the statement made in the House of Lords, it follows conclusively and clearly that it will be impossible, if this scheme be carried, to reform the House of Lords except with the consent of the House of Lords itself. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to that, and I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he did not agree with the point of view of the hon. and learned Member, so it would be interesting to have the Chancellor's point of view.
    In these proposals there is a sort of democratic or small nominee element. When a Tory Government are in power a number of nominations will be made to
    1384
    10.0 p.m.
    the Second Chamber by that Tory Government, a small number of nominees to give it a democratic flavour. Yes, a dozen Labour members nominated by the Tory Government will give as much democratic flavour to that institution as a pinch of salt would give to a cartload of muck. May I say to hon. Members who have so soundly condemned these proposals this afternoon, but who have Amendments on the Paper, that these Amendments are not at all consistent with the speeches they have made, because in those Amendments they have favoured an alteration with regard to the Speaker's Veto in certifying what is a Money Bill or what is not. Therefore, I take it they would be in favour of a scheme of the Government setting up a Committee to deal with that point. If they are in favour of that, they stultify everything they have said about the rest of the proposals of the Government. The Prime Minister dealt with another point this afternoon, that is, as to whether the Government have any mandate for carrying these proposals into effect. The Prime Minister quoted a speech he himself made just on the eve of the last General Election, but may I remind him that there was no reference to this important matter either in his Election Address or in the official election manifesto of the party to which he belongs, and I am sure the Prime Minister is too honest a man to maintain that votes cast for his party were cast in favour of these proposals. The Prime Minister's honesty always reminds me of Bunyan's definition of Mr. Honest. "Mr. Honest said he came from the town called Stupidity, beyond which lies the city of Destruction." I am quite sure the Prime Minister is too honest to maintain that votes were cast for his party on a statement in one sentence in his speech on the eve of the General Election, which could not have been read by the general body of the electors, or that a single vote was passed at the General Election on the statement of the Prime Minister that the Unionist party might consider this question. But we have evidence much more substantial and much more conclusive that the Government have no mandate. The Prime Minister this afternoon stated that he had given pledges in a party caucus to deal with this question. Does the Prime Minister or the party opposite

    1385
    maintain that if it could be proved that the opinion of the country is opposed to those proposals, they have a right to carry them into effect? What is the evidence which we have had, even granting that the Prime Minister's speech at Perth was read by the public and was approved at the party caucus, that they never got a majority for them? Ever since that time the support that they received at the General Election has been declining. At the last General Election, for every 115 votes polled by the Opposition party, 100 were cast in favour of the Conservative party. This year for every 100 votes polled by the Conservative party, 230 have been cast against them, and that effectively disposes of any contention that the Government ever had a mandate to deal with this matter. The Prime Minister said they had a mandate under the Parliament Act. He said their proposals were to implement the declarations of the Preamble of the Parliament Act, but they are no such thing. The Parliament Act in its Preamble states that this question will be dealt with by constituting a Second Chamber upon a system of popular election.
    "Whereas it is intended to substitute for the present House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis."
    Are the proposals of the Government then implementing Mr. Asquith's proposals? Are these proposals constituting a Second Chamber on a popular basis—proposals under which the hereditary system is still to be overwhelmingly entrenched? The Preamble of the Parliament Act says that when this question was dealt with it would be by limiting the powers of the House of Lords, and not by permanently entrenching and strengthening them as in this Bill. Now when statements were made in another place, those proposals were defended by spokesmen of the Government on the ground that they were intended to protect the people from ill-considered legislation and to ensure that any legislation carried through Parliament would reflect the considered judgment of the country. If that is so, what right have the Government to press these proposals forward in this Parliament when by all the evidence available they are not the considered judgment of the country, and judging by nine-tenths of the speeches made from that side of the House this afternoon
    1386
    the Government have not got the support of any considerable proportion even of their own followers.
    One of the spokesmen for the Government there said that there is a danger looming up in our political life, the growth of the caucus, and it is most pronounced, he said, in the Labour party. He said that there were Ministers of that party who judged not a question upon its merits, but took their instructions from a party caucus, and the House of Lords must protect the country against such things. Yet the Prime Minister this afternoon attempted to justify these proposals on the ground that he had given a pledge to a party caucus. When the Trade Union Bill was under discussion in this House, it was defended, particularly the part dealing with the political levy, on the ground that it was demanded, not by the country but by the Tory party caucus. If it ought to be the aim of the House of Lords and the Government to protect the country against the rule of a party caucus, the Government have an opportunity of doing that in the Trade Union Bill. That Bill was defended on the ground that it was to prevent a Government being coerced by an outside body. This afternoon, we have the Prime Minister defending these proposals on the ground that the Government have been coerced into bringing them into operation by a party caucus and sections of their own party.
    We have been criticised on the ground that we have put forward no constructive proposals. As I said, it is not our duty or our business to do so at this time. But we have had this request made by some Members on the other side of the House who opposed the Government scheme. I want to put this question. They say in their Amendment that no reform of the Second Chamber can be made except by general agreement. Upon what conditions can general agreement be obtained? Are hon. Members opposite, who are opposed to the Government scheme, to hold to the hereditary system? If so, no agreement is possible. Are they in favour of the elective principle? Are they in favour of a Chamber which should be a legislative or a revising Chamber? Above all else, are they in favour of retaining for the House of Commons its historic privileges in regard to the control of money? It is of no

    1387
    use asking for agreement in this question; no agreement is possible. The gulf between us and all who believe in the right of hereditary government is far too wide to be bridged, and this question will have to be fought out.
    I do not envy the task of the Prime Minister if he persists in attempting to carry it out. He likened his task this afternoon to the task of Sisyphus; but he tried to derive some satisfaction from the fact, as he stated that there was no record that Sisyphus ever came to injury. That may be so, but he had a very hard and a very troubled, and a very harassing time. I do not think that the Prime Minister, when he made that classic reference, was quite aware of the close parallel there was between the task of Sisyphus and the task which he has undertaken in putting these proposals. This, I find, is a description of what Sisyphus had to encounter:
    "With many a weary step, and many a groan,
    Up the high hill he heaves a huge, round stone.
    The huge, round stone, resulting with a bound,
    Thunders impetuous down and smokes along the ground.
    Again the restless orb his task renews,
    Dust mounts in clouds, and sweat descends in dews."
    Well, we have not been able to find, in the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, whether he intends to continue his task. If he does, I am quite sure that the dust will rise and the sweat will descend in dews. Now I want to repeat, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer, a question which was put by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me. Do the Government intend to proceed with these proposals? The Earl of Birkenhead gave a very categorical answer to that question when it was put in the House of Lords. He said, "Most certainly we do, and in this Parliament." We want to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to implement the pledge of the Earl of Birkenhead. We shall listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with interest, to hear what he has to say in reply to that question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he
    1388
    came into the House this evening, brought a despatch box with him, and it possibly contains the reports of the speeches that he delivered upon this question some years ago. I wonder whether he will repeat this? Speaking of the House of Lords, he said:
    "A played out, anachronistic assembly, the survival of a feudal arrangement utterly passed out of its original meaning, a force long since passed away, it only now requires a smashing blow from the electors to finish it for ever."
    If the Government persist in this scheme, then they will raise the whole question of the continued existence of the House of Lords, and, when that issue is placed before the country, I have no doubt what the verdict of the people will be. They will ask a question, and they will give an answer. They will ask the question, once put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer: "Who are these men that they should rule us? Who are they that their children should rule our children" They will ask that question, and, as I have said, they will answer it. From the point of view of party advantage, I hope the Government will persist in these proposals. If they are mad, as Mr. Garvin assumes that they are, if they are utterly indifferent to the political and electoral interests of their own party, then they may proceed with them; but, if they do, one thing is absolutely certain, and that is that the party, at the next election, will receive, by the verdict of this country, a condemnation without parallel in the electoral experience of any political party in this country.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER(Mr. Churchill) : It is a pity, I think, that the right hon. Gentleman should have disfigured his lengthy but well-considered constitutional oration by the use of such a disgusting metaphor as to compare the House of Lords to a cart of muck. [Interruption.] As one who has filled my responsible position, and who aspires, no doubt, to fill a still higher and more responsible position in this country, the right hon. Gentleman, one feels, is perhaps taking a lower view of the taste of his supporters than is actually justified by the facts. I must begin by reminding the House of what we are going to vote upon to-night. It is not upon the reform of the House of Lords, nor upon the relations between

    1389
    the two Houses, but only upon whether the Government have done wrong to allow their representatives in the House of Lords to take part in a discussion upon these topics. [Interruption.] To put it mildly, that is taking rather an extreme view. The question of the reform of the House of Lords may be inopportune; it may be undesirable; but it is certainly not indecent. We have often seen proposals to censure Governments for their action, or for their inaction, but this is the first time I remember any proposal to censure a Government for discussing a question—[Interruption]— for adumbrating a policy, or for taking an opportunity of warning and guiding public opinion. There would be nothing censurable if we had actually introduced a Bill—
    Mr. MacLAREN: Lord Birkenhead said you would.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There would be nothing censurable if we had actually introduced a Bill. It has often been done. One would have thought the people who are opposed to any reform of the Second Chamber would have praised the Government for opening the topic in this careful and non-committal manner. They ought to be grateful to us instead of comng blustering out with a Vote of Censure. Nothing is more proper in constitutional matters than to proceed by way of Resolution. It is the recognised procedure on such topics. Nothing can be more proper than to proceed by Resolution in the Chamber that is specially concerned. I think myself it is a great pity that we do not adopt this venerable procedure by Resolution more frequently in the busy House of Commons and use it to explore add illuminate very large questions, instead of allowing ourselves to be over-pressed by detail and routine. Resolution is the proper procedure for opening these matters, and it was by this means that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1906 or 1907 first introduced the topic of the Parliament Act to the House of Commons. It would be impossible to have selected a more constitutional procedure or one that was more fair to the Opposition or more helpful to the country in its examination of the subject. Moreover, as I have said, of course it is right that a matter of this kind should, first of all, be ventilated in the House of Lords. That
    1390
    is the branch of the Legislature which is directly and immediately concerned with the question of its own reform. They also have a good deal more leisure to discuss these matters than we have here below, especially at this period of the Session. So, so far from being censured in these very gross terms, we ought to be praised by the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit behind him.
    Let me inquire who are these people who seek to censure us for our procedure. Who are these guardians of the British Constitution who have rallied so eagerly to its defence, whose breasts are heaving with indignation that even a touch should be laid upon its sacred structure? Who are they? Would you believe me, Sir, they are the same gentlemen, the very same, the identical ones, who little more than a year ago were planning, organising, managing, or as I believe they now admit, mismanaging, the general strike. We have heard of Satan reproving sin. This Resolution speaks of a constitutional outrage. Imagine such muddle-headed political leaders suddenly posing before us as the august defenders of the Constitution and as the arbiters and judges of the niceties and perfections of constitutional law. [Interruption.] I have finished. I have dealt with the official Opposition. What is to be said about the Liberal opposition? What are their pretensions in this affair. The hon. Member for Silvertown's friend, Julius Cæsar, said that all Gaul was divided into three parts. In order to save time, I will deal with the Liberal opposition under only two heads. I will deal with them under the two heads of the impeccables and the naughty. What did the orthodox followers of, shall I say, Sir Herbert Samuel or Lord Oxford, commit themselves to in supporting the Preamble of the Parliament Act?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Did you?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, and I support it now. What is their position? They have never compromised with fortune. They have kept the faith and have also run in the race. They are the pure and the unsullied, and I ask why should they complain that the question of the reform of the House of Lords has been raised by His Majesty's Government. How in the face of the Preamble of the Parliament Act can they object

    1391
    to that? Of course, it is quite true that they may not agree with the proposals which Lord Cave has put forward. That is quite true. They are perfectly free to differ from those proposals. Indeed, they have logical grounds for doing so in the very text of the Preamble of the Parliament Act. But what we are now being censured for, is not for any proposals or any Bill that we have put forward. We are now being censured because we have allowed this question to be raised and to be discussed in another place. [Hon. MEMBERS "Divide!"] Well, that is quite easy. Any party can do that, and, if it comes to dividing, we will divide. I thought the hon. Gentleman wanted a Debate. In the face of the statements that they have made about it being a pledge of honour and a pledge which brooks no delay to deal with the question of the Second Chamber, I ask them with what shadow of consistency can they condemn us, not for the method of our proposals, but for the fact that we have ventured to put some forward? So much for the impeccables. Now let me come to the naughty. I come to the black sheep that was lost, and warned and written off as "no earthly," but later on returned to his overjoyed companions and quite unexpectedly broke back into the pen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was the head of the Government that made these very proposals five years ago.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE indicated dissent.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman says "No, no." They are as like as two peas. It is true that if you take two peas and put them under a microscope a certain number of minor peculiarities will be discernible in each pea, and I am quite ready to make the right hon. Gentleman a present of the minor peculiarities. Let me ask him this question. Assume we obliterate the minor peculiarities and make our proposals in the exact identical form with those he persuaded me to support five years ago, where does he stand? Can we count on his aid in the further exploration of this problem if we put ourselves directly in line with him and his Government?
    HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to take now the line which he took in the Cabinet then, I shall be prepared to stand by him.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true that five years ago I was rather shocked at the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and I somewhat deprecated his ardour for reform of the House of Lords, but everyone knows how compulsive and persuasive is his personality, how commanding his presence as the Leader of the Government, and in the end I deferred to his advice and wishes and, in consequence, I shared with him the responsibility for the proposals which were put forward five years ago by him and which have now been tentatively advanced for public discussion in a slightly different form by His Majesty's Government.
    I now venture to depart from the strict terms of the Motion before the House and deviate, though it will be perfectly orderly, into the merits of the issue of the reform of the House of Lords. I took the trouble to re-read a large number of the Debates on the Parliament Act, and it is really difficult to believe that they took place only 16 years ago. How completely the political atmosphere has changed since those days! Not only have 16 years passed, but world shaking events have taken place and multiplied the ordinary passage of time. The scene is completely transformed. We have a new electorate, a new generation. We have a new world, battered and chastened, but still a new world, and undoubtedly the opinion of this new generation, of this new electorate, must be the supreme factor in any modification of our Constitution
    But what is the main feature of the change which has taken place? Surely it is the attitude of the nation as a whole towards the Parliament Act. In those days the Parliament Act was the most fiercely controverted Measure of Liberal and Radical reform. Now it is accepted widely and generally; for good or for ill, it is accepted as having taken a lasting and almost an unchallenged place in the Constitution. Whatever the differences between parties may be, or whatever the differences in parties may be—there are still very clear differences, natural and honest differences, on this difficult topic of the

    1393
    reform of the House of Lords, in almost every party—whatever those differences may be, it may be taken as an agreed fact that the Parliament Act is the foundation and the starting point of all modern constitutional reform. The Parliament Act dominated the Bryce Committee; the Parliament Act dominated the Coalition proposals; and the Parliament Act dominates any proposals which at any time may be made by His Majesty's Government. It is accepted that the Parliament Act must remain as the instrument to regulate the relations between the Houses, unless or until some Second Chamber utterly different in composition from what exists to-day were actually called into being.
    I am not going to dwell upon the proposal that is put forward, that a Joint Committee should be substituted for the Speaker's certificate to determine what are and what are not Money Bills. It was recommended by the Bryce Committee; it played its part in the Coalition proposals; and it presents itself in a somewhat different form in our own. The right hon. Gentleman makes a great point of the differences between his proposals and ours in that respect. I can assure him that if he is pinning his faith to being able to preserve his consistency by that quibble, the foothold will be withdrawn from beneath him, because there is no reason whatever why, in the course of fair discussion, the proposals which we put forward should not take the form of those which were put forward in the days of the Coalition. I cannot believe that the proposal to adjust the relations between the two, Houses on this matter in the form put forward by the Bryce Committee raises any issue which ought to divide sincere constitutional reformers.
    Far more important, however, is the question, also included in the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, of whether the powers which are being left by the Parliament Act to the House of Lords ought to be capable of being altered by the Parliament Act within the lifetime of a single Parliament and without any intervening election. Everything in the British Constitution must be capable of alteration, either by the prerogative of the Crown or by some other lawful means, in accordance with the settled and
    1394
    persisting will of the people. The Government have no intention, and never had any intention, of creating any system for which there is no constitutional exit. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) devoted a closely-knit argument to this subject, and I do not at all complain that he should have raised this question. Means must exist of procuring constitutional change by the manifestation of the will of the people, and those means could not be sufficiently provided merely by the constitutional practice of the House of Lords to defer to a direct expression of the popular will.
    In the preliminary Debates in the House of Lords this point was not made sufficiently clear and exactly the same thing took place when the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs were introduced. The reason is very easy to understand. These proposals partake of two parts. There are certain minor modifications in the relations of the two Houses and proposals for the alteration of the composition of the House of Lords. Until it is known whether the House of Lords is willing to make alterations in its own composition and reduce its numbers in such a way that, through that very fact, the prerogative of the Crown to create Peers is affected—until that is known it is not necessary to alter the proposals for making sure that the Parliament Act is inalterable by means of the Parliament Act. But, of course, it is perfectly clear that once the issue is raised a method of continuous progression by constitutional means must be afforded and must always remain open to the people of this country. The question, therefore, is not whether we must make the Parliament Act inalterable by means of the Parliament Act, but whether it should be inalterable unless a General Election has intervened at some stage in the Parliament Act procedure.
    I am going to examine this proposal because I think it requires attention. My part in the Parliament Act Debates was considerable. I wound up the principal discussions, and I took a great part in the Committee stage and, therefore, I can claim to be thoroughly well acquainted with all that went on at that time and with the views that were held. The then Liberal Government con

    1395
    sistently repudiated the idea of single-Chamber Government and in abrogating the Veto of the House of Lords they deliberately assigned to the Second Chamber, the Chamber of review, the extremely important and, as the right hon. Gentleman wisely indicated, formidable function of delay. That arose as a result of convictions formed in the days of John Bright. It was the opinion of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and, over many years, the highest possible value was attached by the Liberal leaders to conferring upon the House of Lords and securing to them the full use of the weapon of delay. The object was to enable a Chamber of review, a revising Chamber, however it might be constituted, to safeguard the country against sudden and precipitate action, against laws passed in passion and in violence, and to ensure a reasonable amount of revision. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me whether I could put my hand on my heart and say that I approved of this proposal and the other proposals. I will, not in any vanity, not because I am trying to prove myself the most or perhaps the only consistent man in this House, quote what I said on behalf of the Liberal Government in those days 16 years ago:
    "I do not believe the bi-cameral system is necessary to the stability of the State. I think it is necessary for the passage of good laws. But we do not propose single-Chamber government; it is not in our Bill, it is not in our Preamble; it is not in our policy. We propose that the absolute veto of the House of Lords shall now cease and be determined for ever, and that in the place of that absolute veto they shall exercise a delaying power over all legislation, which will give ample time for fair consideration by the country and full opportunities for revision as well as for the exercise of a certain bargaining power between the two Houses. We do not say that this is the final settlement. Among the legislation which we shall submit to the delaying powers of the Lords will be included, if it be the general wish, a Measure for creating that fairly evenly constituted Second Chamber of which so many Members have spoken to-night."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1911; cols. 2035–6, Vol. 21.]
    I say that that truly illustrates the views held by the Liberal Government of those days, and it is only right that we should approach this question along the path of historical continuity. In the present circumstances there is no security at all that
    1396
    the safeguard of delay provided by the Parliament Act could not be swept away, through the machinery of the Parliament Act, in two years after a new Parliament had come into being, and swept away without the electors even being asked whether or not they wished to have the Parliament Act altered or repealed. It would only be necessary in this Statute, in Section 1: "If a Money Bill, having been passed," to omit the one word "Money," and let it read: "If a Bill, having been passed," to destroy altogether the safeguard of delay, which, in all these controversies in the last two generations, it has always been determined by the Progressive party should be attributed to the Second Chamber.
    I think this is a serious danger, and it is reinforced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I saw him working himself up to an attack, not merely upon the proposals of the Government—and the proposals, incidentally, which he made himself—but working himself up to an attack upon the Parliament Act itself, pointing out all the inconveniences of the delay and generally making out a case to sweep away such safeguards as the wisdom which emerged from the controversies of generations have still left to the Second Chamber in this country. I have asked myself why this security was not demanded by the House of Lords and by the Conservative party at the time of the passing of the Parliament Act. The explanation is, I am sure, that owing to the passions which were then running and the keen resentment which was felt, no word of good could be spoken about the Parliament Act, and the many advantages which it confers upon the Second Chamber could not be recognised in any way, but I am quite sure that if the House of Lords had then said, "We will pass this Bill without a threat of creating peers provided it is understood that the powers now given to us are not to be taken away through this very instrument, but that there will be a General Election before these powers are taken away"—if they had made that request, the Government of the day, I say myself, giving my own personal opinion, would most certainly have accepted that request and I point as a precedent to a request which was accepted. It was proposed by the House of Lords that the provision of the Parliament Act which says that the life

    1397
    of Parliament may not be prolonged beyond five years should be specially exempted from the ordinary provisions of the Parliament Act, and that figures in that Act at the present time as an exception to the legislation which may be dealt with under the Parliament Act.
    It is entirely reasonable and in the general historic sequence of events that the Parliament Act itself, and such privileges and rights as yet remain to the Second Chamber, should not be altered—without an appeal to the people, because that alters everything—through the ordinary automatic working of the Parliament Act. I am not here to say what are the proposals which the Government will put forward in due course, but, at any rate, it seems to be a matter which may quite fairly be the subject of discussion and which ought to be very carefully considered by all those who wish to see the Constitution of this country put into good order. Why should it be thought that such a safeguard is less needful now than it was in 1911 or in the days of my right hon. Friend in 1922? Why should it be less needful now? What has happened since then to make it less necessary? Whereas the party systems in this country which carried on the struggles of politics so fiercely in the past were not divided in former times on fundamental issues, we now have a party which would be greatly insulted if anybody were to suggest that they did not wish to sweep away and alter fundamentally the whole existing economic and social system of the country. I dare say they are not so red as they paint themselves, but, at any rate, they are a party which claims the right to proceed to nationalise all the means of production and distribution. At any rate, no one can say that the new fact which hon. Gentlemen constitute makes it less necessary that the reasonable safeguards which were approved by the Parliaments before the War should be limited or are rendered unnecessary to-day.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), who interested us all so much this afternoon by his delightful speech, said, in effect, "Trust to the common-sense of the British people." I agree with that, and I am quite sure that, on the day when
    1398
    the constitutional parties of this country lose faith in the common-sense and good will of the masses of the British people they will have lost all influence at home. But how does my hon. Friend know that the good sense and common-sense of the British people is going to be consulted? [An HON. MEMBER: "Dare you consult them on this"] How much did you consult the good sense of the British people when you declared the General Strike? [An HON. MEMBER: "How much did you consult them over the Eight Hours Bill? "] I submit that these reasonable proposals which have been put forward are deserving of the careful and patient consideration of sincere men in all parts of the House. That brings me—and I have only a few minutes to spare, but quite enough—to the second part of these proposals, namely, the composition of the Second Chamber. I should like to point out that if the relations between the two Houses are satisfactory—if they are regulated by the Parliament Act and are satisfactory to the House of Commons—the composition of the House of Lords becomes definitely less important and sinks to an altogether less important plane. Nevertheless, I venture to think it is plain that among men of all parties opinion in this House has clearly turned against the brand new elective Senate which would be a rival to the House of Commons and would certainly interfere with the course of business and set itself up as an antagonistic and confident combatant with us at every stage. But our object is much more limited. Our object is to enable the House of Lords, if it chooses, and only if it chooses, to form itself into an assembly which can better and more fairly discharge the functions remaining to it under the Parliament Act. All parties, as the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs has pointed out, have an interest in that, and I cannot see how the Labour or Liberal parties could possibly be damaged in their interests because of the House of Lords—wishing to put itself in better relations with the country and to fit itself better to discharge its duties—choosing to add representatives of other parties and to reform its body from within. I cannot conceive that we are to be blamed and censured because we have allowed it, encouraged it, to embark upon the study of

    1399
    such a matter. It may well be that we shall fail.
    The right hon. Gentleman has said that every effort to solve this problem has failed, and that the House of Lords will long continue in that venerable and unreformed magnificence so dear to the heart and the historical sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities. If that should happen after there has been a fair and a free and an open and public discussion, if it should happen that the scheme fails, that agreement cannot be reached, that nothing which makes things very much better should be produced, we shall bear our disappointment with what fortitude we may. Nevertheless, I am sure that we are right, and, indeed, we are bound to assist in the ventilation of this subject. The House of Commons stands to lose nothing from the discussion, and it may well be that the Constitution will be the gainer. I trust my hon. Friends on this side of the House will not think that these constitutional matters are unimportant, or that they can be ignored. The task that we have before us is the defence of the Parliamentary institutions of this country from all enemies, from whatever quarter of the political horizon they may come, and in that task we shall be the stronger if an earnest attempt and a goodhearted attempt is made by both Houses to understand their own difficulties and to discharge their proper functions under
    the Constitution with common respect and good feeling. Now I have finished, and I merely wish—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I—?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I cannot give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I shall trespass no longer upon the time of hon. Members. I know they wish to divide. If these proposals had been received in a sincere desire to examine this problem and carry it forward, and if we had been reproached with any fault in the manner or method in which we had brought them before the public, we should have been wounded by the censure; but when we see there is nothing in this but really hungry partisanship, and that it expresses itself in the gross, harsh and insulting language of censure, we shall show ourselves able to repel it.
    Question put,
    "That this House regrets that the Government has put forward a scheme for fundamental changes in the House of Lords which gerrymanders the constitution in the interests of the Conservative party, deprives the House of Commons of that control over finance which it has possessed for generations, entrenches the House of Lords, on a hereditary basis, more firmly against the people's will than for centuries past, and, in defiance of every precedent of modern times, robs the electors of power to deal with the House of Lords; and this House declared that it will be an outrage on the Constitution to force such proposals through Parliament without mandate from the people."
    The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 362.

    Division No. 244.]

    AYES

    [11.0 p.m

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Connolly, M

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Cove, W. G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Groves, T.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, Walter

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hardle, George D.

    Barnes, A.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Harney, E. A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Dennison, R.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Duckworth, John

    Hayday, Arthur

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Duncan, C.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Briant, Frank

    Edge, Sir William

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Broad, F. A.

    England, Colonel A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Bromfield, William

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Bromley, J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G M.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Buchanan, G.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Gillett, George M.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Cape, Thomas

    Gosling, Harry

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Clowes, S.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Greenall, T.

    Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)

    Compton, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Riley, Ben

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Kennedy, T.

    Ritson. J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Lansbury, George

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Towne'id, A. E.

    Lawson, John James

    Scrymgeour, E

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Lee, F.

    Scurr, John

    Varley, Frank B.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sexton, James

    Viant, S. P.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wallhead, Richard c.

    Lowth, T.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Lunn, William

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    MacLaren Andrew

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    MacNeill-Weir, L

    Smillie, Robert

    Welsh, J. C

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Whiteley, W.

    Maxton, James

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Morris, R. H.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Snell, Harry

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Murnin, H.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Palin, John Henry

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Paling, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Windsor, Walter

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

    Wright, W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Strauss, E. A.

    Potts, John S.

    Sullivan, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Purcell, A. A.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-Is-Spring)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Edwards.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington. S.)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Burman, J. B.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Albery, Irving James

    Burney, Leiut.-Com. Charles D.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Diewe, C.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Apsley, Lord

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, city)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Atkinson, C.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Balniel, Lord

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Fleiden, E. B.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Charteris, Brigadler-General J.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Bennett, A. J.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Clayton, G. C.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Berry, Sir George

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Bethel, A.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gates, Percy

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Blundell, F. N.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cope, Major William

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Couper, J. B.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Grotrian, H. Brent.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)

    Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Buchan, John

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hall, Leiut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovit)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    1402

    1403

    Hanbury, C.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    McLean, Major A.

    Sandon, Lord

    Harland, A.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Savery, S. S.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Makins, Brigadler-General E.

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Davon, Totnes)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)

    Meller, R. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Merriman, F. B

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Mline, J. S. Wardiaw-

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

    Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid,

    Hopkinson, Sir A.(Eng. Universities)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitsh'n)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptraf'ld.)

    Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Oakley, T.

    Waddington, R.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Jacob, A. E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Penny, Frederick George

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wells, S. R.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Pllcher, G.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Preston, William

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Radford. E. A.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Ramsden, E.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Lloyd, Cyrli E. (Dudley)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Withers, John James

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Loder, J. de V.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Long, Major Eric

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Looker, Herbert William

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Wood, E (Chester, Staiyb'ge & Hyde)

    Lougher, Lewis

    Roberts, E. H. G.(Flint)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Ropner, Major L.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Luce Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Lumley, L. R.

    Rye, F. G.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Colonel Gibbs.

    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Commander Eyres Monsell.)
    Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC (DRIVERS).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (DRIVERS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TYPISTS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TYPISTS).
  CHINA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  CHINA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  SWEETS (WRAPPERS).
  SWEETS (WRAPPERS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS, WEST HAM.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS, WEST HAM.
  EMERGENCY REGULATIONS (RELEASED PRISONERS).
  EMERGENCY REGULATIONS (RELEASED PRISONERS).
INDIA.
  MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MEDICAL SERVICE.
  OPIUM.
  OPIUM.
  AIR PAGEANT, SCARBOROUGH.
  AIR PAGEANT, SCARBOROUGH.
  ROYAL NAVY (STAFF COURSE).
  ROYAL NAVY (STAFF COURSE).
  NAVAL DISARMAMENT (BRITISH PROPOSALS).
  NAVAL DISARMAMENT (BRITISH PROPOSALS).
  MORPHIA (EXPORTS).
  MORPHIA (EXPORTS).
  INSURANCE (INSPECTION).
  INSURANCE (INSPECTION).
  LETTERS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
  LETTERS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD DALZIEL OF WOOLER.
Sir Davison Alexander Dalziel, Baronet, having been created Baron Dalziel of Wooler, of Wooler in the County of Northumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (No. 2) BILL. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to these Bills I think there are adequate public reasons for the Motion which I make to your Lordships dispensing with the Order made on March 24 last, and I move that the Resolution on the Order Paper be agreed to.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

DEAL AND WALMER GAS ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Viscount Peel, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 16th of June last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEWQUAY (CORNWALL) GAS ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved with an addition.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 20th of June last be approved with an addition.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 20th of June last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 11) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
BOLTON AND KINGSTON-UPON-HULL PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 12) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

THE NEW FOREST.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to call attention to the recent cutting of old and ornamental timber in the New Forest contrary to the provisions of the New Forest Act of 1877, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether orders can be issued to treat the New Forest henceforth as a national park dedicated to the enjoyment of the public, and whether its management in future could be undertaken by the Office of Works instead of by the Forestry Commission, who are chiefly concerned with the planting and cutting of timber for commercial purposes, and are not primarily interested in preserving the beauty or amenities of forest areas; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I go into detail in regard to the Motion which I have put down I would like to make a few preliminary remarks. First of all, I hope in this debate to say nothing which will prejudice the chances of a friendly settlement of the outstanding questions which are at present under discussion between the Forestry Commission and the New Forest Advisory Committee and the Verderers. Secondly, I think it would be only right for me to say that the noble Lord who, I understand, is replying on behalf of the Forestry Commission has always been most courteous in his consideration of this question and, though his official position may render it difficult for him to say as much as I should like him to do on some of the points that I am going to put forward, I feel certain that he is aware of the strong feeling that exists and will do his best as far as he can to persuade the Commission to consider that feeling. I would also like to say

185
that I do not propose to discuss in general the policy of the Forestry Commission. It is the duty of that Commission, as your Lordships know, to plant trees, to cut them and generally to promote the interests of forestry, but the Forestry Commission has mainly to look at the matter from a commercial point of view.
The Commission is not primarily interested in any question of beauty. By its very constitution it has not to consider even the interests of the public; it is a body which has to make as much money as can be made by cutting the trees and by planting so as to provide for the needs of posterity in case a shortage of timber should arise. Whether that shortage will ever occur to the extent that some foresters think is a matter of opinion. I shall not go deeply into that question to-day. Our real quarrel with the Forestry Commission is that it is almost impossible for it, so far as we can see, to detach itself from the commercial consideration of this kind of question. I know the noble Lord has said on previous occasions, and I believe Lord Lovat has also said, that regard is being paid to the amenities of the New Forest and its beauties, but, so far, we have seen direct evidence to the contrary. It has been said that this question of the New Forest is purely a local question. That I am prepared to deny in, tote. It is true that we who live in the locality naturally have taken up this matter more keenly than it has been taken up in other places, but the New Forest is a national possession. In addition to that, there are unborn generations coming after us who, if the policy that is at present in force is carried on, will not, in our opinion at any rate, enjoy the beauties of the Forest in the way they would have done had the trees now being cut been preserved.
In confirmation of my statement that the case we are defending is a national case, I may say that we—that is, the New Forest Association—are supported in our action by the Commons Preservation Society, a very important and old established society, which for many years past has watched over public amenities in relation to commons and footpaths and has done a great deal of good work. The National Trust also supports us. Everybody knows that that Trust has done
186
excellent work. We also have the assistance of the Selborne Society, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and of the recently established Council for the Preservation of Rural England, over which my noble friend the Earl of Crawford presides. I think that list of five very representative national societies ought to give the answer to those who say that this is purely a local agitation got up by the people in the locality who may be interested, while nobody else is much interested in the preservation of the Forest.
For the benefit of noble Lords who may not be quite aware of the position of the New Forest, I would like to give a rough outline of the position to-day. There are 64,000 acres in the New Forest, of which 17,000 acres only are inclosurable. Not more than 16,000 acres, however, may be enclosed at any one time. The Crown during my lifetime—my memory goes back over fifty years—has never enclosed up to the limit of 16,000 acres, but we do not deny that the Crown has the right, to do so. Whether it is wise to do it is another point. What I want the House to understand is that of those 16,000 acres, over which the Crown has undoubted rights of enclosure and planting subject to certain limitations which I will presently state, only about 2,000 acres are in dispute to-day. Those 2,000 acres, in our opinion, ought to be regarded as "ancient" and "ornamental"—to use the words of the 1877 Act—and ought to be treated as a national possession. The question is: Are they to be out by the Forestry Commission in exactly the same way as any other parts of the Forest, which may consist of conifers, are cut. Our view is that the words of the Act cover the 2,000 acres in dispute. I am not going into the legal aspects of the matter, however. My noble friend Lord Darling, who has lived in the New Forest the greater part of his life, is much better able to deal with the legal argument relating to what we think is an infraction of the Act, and I would rather leave that argument to him.
I want to emphasise once more that the real dispute, so far as the cutting of old wood is concerned, refers to somewhere about 2,000 acres. For many years past, in the time when Mr. Lascelles was deputy surveyor and when Mr. Leese succeeded him, there have been occasions when a certain amount of friction has

187
developed—because it must be remembered that the New Forest is not in the sole ownership of the Crown. It really belongs to three sets of owners. The Crown has the rights of the lord of the manor, but the commoners have very considerable and valuable rights, and the public also have rights, laid down in the Act of 1877, of having the old woods kept open and of roaming over the open part of the Forest at their own will and pleasure. Lately, however, we have noticed distinct aggression on the part of the Forestry Commission. I do not accuse the noble Lord of acting in an aggressive spirit, nor am I blaming the Forestry Commission, but, whether with or without their knowledge, local officers have displayed this aggressive spirit. The result is that never in my long experience of the New Forest have I known anything like the hostile feeling that has been developed there, and I do not think that from the point of view of the Forestry Commission itself it is wise for the Commission to allow this feeling to become still more intense.
Just fifty years ago, my father and Mr. Briscoe Eyre got the Act of 1877 passed, with the consent of the Government of the day. That is our charter in the New Forest. It limited the rights of the Crown in some directions, it defined the duties of the Crown representatives, and it renewed and re-established the old Court of Verderers, one of the oldest courts in the country. That is the Act on which we principally rely. Ten years of very hard work had to be done before that Act was passed, and I tell the House that if it takes us five or ten years to re-establish what we think is the law, and to bring home to the Commission what we think to be their duty, there are many of us who will willingly fight for that length of time.
I come now to specific instances of what has happened lately. Unfortunately, I was out of England in February and March; I was in the Far East. When I came back at the beginning of April I found, not only that the whole district was in a turmoil, but that people in London and all over the country were very much agitated about what was going on. There had been cutting of a wood called Burley Old Wood—which I think has been alluded to in a previous debate in your Lordships' House—about which an undertaking
188
had been given by a previous Commissioner of Woods and Forests that it should not be cut. That, I acknowledge, was an oversight, and if it had been known that the undertaking had been given that wood would not have been cut. Since that time more old woods, varying from 150 to 250 years old, have been cut. We in the Forest consider that that is a distinct breach of the undertaking given by my noble friend who sits below me—that is, as we understood it. I know that my noble friend will probably tell the House that the undertaking which he gave dealt only with Burley Old Wood, but the people in the Forest did not so understand it and if they were mistaken it was a mistake which was quite natural.
There was a report in The Times which I think confirms that. In a report in The Times of March 3, Lord Lovat is reported to have said:—
"The Forestry Commissioners did not intend to carry out any more felling until such time as the Committee had been appointed and had had an opportunity of functioning."
That seemed to be fairly conclusive. Then, on April 26, I had a letter from Sir Hugh Murray, one of the Commissioners, who says, in reference to complaints about other wood being cut, that the deputy surveyor did not consider that he was contravening Lord Lovat's assurance that fellings would be suspended in all the old ornamental woods until such time as a Committee should have been appointed and consulted. That naturally gave me the impression that all felling was to be suspended. In addition, there was a shorthand note made at the time of the proceedings at Lyndhurst. I cannot say that the shorthand writer was absolutely correct in everything he put down, but this is what he did take down:—
"Meanwhile he (ford Lovat) definitely undertook that all felling operations should entirely cease pending the formation of such a Committee and a meeting between it and the Commissioners."
I do not think that we can blame those in the locality if, after those three statements that I have read out, they came to the conclusion that the noble Lord had, as we thought very courteously and wisely, given an undertaking that until the Advisory Committee was set up no more trees should be cut. Before I pass from that subject, let me add that in

189
my long experience of public life I have generally found that reports in The Times, at any rate, are correct. I do not say that this particular report was not condensed, but one can generally rely upon these reports and I hope that the noble Lord who sits below me will excuse my saying that there was considerable ground for a little—shall I say misunderstanding? in this matter.
Since the middle of April a great deal more cutting has gone on in certain woods. I will not trouble the House with the names of all of them, but I will mention Pitt's Wood. This wood was planted under the Act of William III, the timber is a little over a hundred and fifty years old and it is one of the most beautiful woods in the Forest. That wood has been very seriously damaged from a picturesque point of view, and what we consider to be clear felling has taken place on the eastern side of it. There had been clear felling again at Aldridge Hill Wood. In that case I think there may be something to be said for the Commissioners. Whether they were legally entitled to do it is another question, but I think the natural regeneration is going on there very well, and they may have done a wise thing. But there again I think they broke the law. What it comes to is that we understood locally that the noble Lord was going to suspend cutting until the Advisory Committee had an opportunity of examining and reporting, and naturally the fact that cutting went on before the Committee was set up has produced a very serious state of tension in the locality.
I should like to ask also, having had some experience in my own woods, the reason for this curious haste to smack down all these old trees. Those who have private property would not think of cutting hardwood trees during the summer season, for many and obvious reasons. First of all, as everybody knows, when the sap is in the wood the oak is not so valuable as when it is winter-cut. There seems to be a curious haste to cut down these old woods, and how can we wonder if it is interpreted locally as being caused by the fact that the representative of the Forestry Commission in the locality is so afraid of some check being put on his actions that he is cutting, as many trees as possible before anything is done to stop him? It is not as if much money had been obtained from these poor
190
old trees. We know from a Parliamentary Question put on the 27th of last month that only 10 d. a foot was obtained for oak and 4d. a foot for beech. I know that this is the average price for the trees cut, but I am credibly informed that about 1s. 2d. a foot is the maximum. You may have trees 250 years old and more being cut for the miserable return of 1s. 2d. a foot, and that means that if the tree has a bole reaching to half the height of this Chamber it would fetch somewhere about £2 10 s. or £3; and for that a great tree that has taken 300 years to grow has been sacrificed! I do not think that even the Forestry Commissioners can justify this.
Then again, one of our accusations against the Forestry Commission is that, instead of replanting where oaks have grown, with hardwood and broad-leaved trees, like the oak, the beech, and possibly the ash, conifers have been planted in their place. This has been denied in some quarters, but I see from a Parliamentary Question on June 23 that 835 acres of conifers have been planted since January 1, 1926, as against 32 acres of oak. That does not look as if oak is being replaced by oak, and it seems to suggest that oak is being replaced by fir. I am one of those who have a good deal to do with the engineering trades, and my experience in engineering is that concrete and steel are more and more taking the place of wood for constructional purposes. I very much doubt whether these 800 acres of conifers that have been planted will ever repay the cost of their planting. Certainly no private owner would have done this. It may be that there will be a rise in timber in the next 100 years, but all I can say is that it is much more likely that fresh methods of construction will be used and that we shall have lighter steel and better concrete, and wood will become just as much a thing of the past in house construction and other purposes for which it is now used as oak has given way to steel in the building of ships.
With regard to the cutting of old trees, I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Forestry Commission, even if he cannot see his way to give all the undertakings to-day that we hope he may be able to give, to realise that we do feel most deeply on this question. To many of us, including myself, these old

191
trees are like old friends and to see them cut down—trees that you have known all your life—is a very sad thing indeed. No one would do it in his private park, no one would think of doing it in an area like Windsor Park or Richmond Park or any of the great London parks. But all the answer that we have had, at any rate up to now, is that the matter will receive consideration and that after all this is a forestry area.
I should like to tell the noble Lord also that I have had many letters from societies whose names I have not read out and from many private individuals on this matter. The noble Lord knows enough natural history to be aware that when you plant fir the gloom overhead to a large extent destroys the flora, and it also destroys—this may be a small point to some people, but it is a big point to others—the butterflies and moths, some of which are exceedingly rare and are not found elsewhere than in the New Forest. It alters the whole natural history of the district. One of these societies, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, is quite right when it says that if you plant groves of fir to replace oak all the bird-life tends to disappear and most of the flora and fauna disappear too.
I turn to the question of the commoners' grievances. At this moment all political Parties are vying with each other to re-establish the small holder. We have all kinds of State-aided schemes to break up farms and plant a new race of yeomen. We are all, I think, in sympathy with those aims. In the New Forest we have 3,500 of these yeoman farmers, who are living to a large extent on their own land and to whom the exercise of the right of common is almost the most valuable part of their holdings. It is not only the exercise of their right of common that makes the Forest important to them; it gives them a sort of free life and the wider outlook which comes to men who do not live in enclosed surroundings. The Commons Preservation Society, to whose excellent work I have already alluded, will tell you that men bred next to commons, whether in Surrey, or in Wales or in Scotland, or elsewhere, are more independent and generally much more intelligent than those bred in enclosed countries. The race of New Forest commoners is a very valuable race and I think very strongly that nothing should
192
be done to affect their continued existence. One of their great grievances is this (and I believe it is a grievance which the noble Lord has expressed his willingness to abate): all over the open heaths, which used to be in most charming contrast to wooded country, are now growing Scotch firs, which spread like a plague in every direction. My noble friend Lord Darling can tell you that between where he used to live and where I live now, twenty or twenty-five years ago there was not a fir tree to be seen, but now those heaths are absolutely clogged and overgrown by Scotch fir.
I believe that the noble Lord sympathises with us on that point, which has become a serious grievance to the commoner. It overgrows his pasture and prevents grass coming up, for, as is well known, no grass will grow under fir trees. And, although we have often been promised by those in command of these forests that this nuisance shall be abated, so far all we have seen is a constant increase in the number of firs, which crowd our open heaths and are closing up what we know as the lungs of our country. It is not as if there were not some beautiful Scotch firs in the New Forest inside the enclosures, but we are talking about this foreign tree—it came, I believe, from the Baltic—which is not an indigenous tree and is doing a great deal of harm.
Then I come to a second grievance of the commoners. Although up to a few Years ago the gates of some of the enclosures were locked at times, they are now locked for something like three to four months of the summer, and no one can get through. I have had the courtesy of having a key myself, but I am talking about the ordinary commoner. In some cases his cattle cannot get through to feeding grounds and it has become a very serious deprivation of the commoners' rights. One of the grievances which they keenly feel—I am bound to say that I sympathise with them—is that these gates are unlocked during the hunting season and locked up during the non-hunting season. I am the last person to throw a stone at hunting, but is it fair and in accordance with the democratic spirit of our age, and in accordance with what should be understood to be the wishes of the Crown, that you should open the gates to those riding horses

193
while hunting, and close them to the poor man and his pony? I do not think it is justifiable from any point of view. If the gates are open to one class they should be open to another. The treatment should be equal to all classes, whatever their social position.
There are also other points of which the commoners complain. Just recently some of the commoners of Burley offered to put up the money to drain one of the local bogs. Leave to do so has, I understand, been refused. They wrote to Mr. Osmaston and he refused to allow them to do so. I think that is tactless, to say the least of it. Now I come to another point which is indirectly a hunting point—namely, the killing of deer east of the line. For many years, although the Deer Removal Act, 1851, is still in force, it has been winked at. The New Forest is about, the only place except Exmoor where the wild red deer exists. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to condemn such a proceeding, but the red and other deer are being shot by keepers east of the line with buckshot, and one of my own employees found the body of a deer with buckshot through it. It must have lived for days in agony. I also found the skeleton of another, which had clearly been killed with buckshot. If he wishes to diminish deer on the east side of the line I hope he will be able to see that we shall be able to keep a few deer east of that line. We have very few left.
There is another point that I wish to put to the House. If Lord Dawson of Penn were here he would have spoken upon it and, I am sure, much more ably than I can do. I ask the House to consider what is the value to the public of these great open spaces. Some noble Lords may think that the New Forest is somewhat remote from the large centres of population, but there are Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth not far away, and it may be said that a million people are living within easy motor access of the New Forest. These people never had such opportunities of seeing the New Forest as they have to-day. At holiday times not only charabancs but thousands of small cars may be seen there, and the occupants resent almost more than any one that the enclosures should be locked up. The public say,
194
and I think rightly, "After all, we the nation are the owners and we think we should be able to do what we have been able to do for many years, which is to go into the enclosures. Why should hunting people alone do so?" I dare say the noble Lord will say, and I believe it is true, that they are allowed access but are not allowed to wander. I am sure it is not the desire to prevent the public from having access to these enclosures, but the effect of locking the gates is that women and children cannot get in. If that is to be the policy I ask the noble Lord whether the difficulty cannot be got over by making stiles, or providing what are called kissing gates, in order that people may walk through these enclosures without having to climb over the gates.
I do not propose to detain the House much longer. I would like, however, to refer to that part of my Notice which has reference to the Office of Works. It merely is an idea of my own, but since that was down on the Paper I have received a very large number of letters and resolutions backing up that point of view. The Forestry Commission, as I have said already, is essentially a commercial body. It is quite right, to be a commercial body. The Office of Works, however, is always in contact with the public. Everybody knows how well it has restored the abbeys of London, and how well it has run the London parks. It looks after Richmond Park, Windsor Park and other great, areas of that sort. It has that sort of public spirit in it which does not seem to exist in the Forestry Commission. If it were possible from the administrative point of view to take the New Forest, make it a national park, and hand it over to the Office of Works, not only would matters run much more smoothly but we would have absolute confidence that, in the future, the beauty aspects of the New Forest would have precedence over every other consideration.
The noble Lord represents in this House the Commission, who in their turn represent the Crown in the New Forest. The New Forest of 64,000 acres is the largest area in the whole of Hampshire, and probably in the Southern counties, under one control. It is the biggest landlord and has more houses and probably more people living on it than any other estate. I would ask him if it is wise to antagonise nine-tenths of the people on the estate.

195
There are 3,500 commoners and you may add to them 5,000 or 6,000 more people who are living there, making 10,000 people who live in that district and who are in a state of furious hostility against the present policy. Can you administer a great estate of 64,000 acres in a state of perpetual enmity with those who live there? If this estate had belonged to a private owner, he would have been pilloried long ago in both Houses of Parliament in terms far stronger than I can use.
Those of us who run big estates know that nowadays we have to use conciliation on every possible occasion, and that we have to consider the wishes of those who live near us much more—and quite rightly—than ever before. Is the Crown setting a good example in this matter in the New Forest? Is it possible for them to continue on the present system? Is it, true that the Commissioners are so disturbed by the various acts of illegality by commoners and others—which I do not for a moment defend—that they are going to double and treble the number of their watchers and keepers? I hear that is the policy to be adopted in the coming spring. It is not repression that will cure the trouble, but conciliation. You can only administer a large area like this by the general consent of those living in the area. I advise the noble Lord to recommend to his Commission a policy of that kind. It is not as if the Commission wanted the New Forest badly. According to their last Report, they have 350,000 acres that they can use for commercial forestry. If they want to exercise this commercial forestry, why cannot they leave our old wood alone and practise their commercial forestry elsewhere?
I do not want to say anything that will prejudice the chance of a friendly settlement. I would like to say as a member of the Advisory Committee—and I am sure I speak for my colleagues as well as for myself—that we have tried our very best on that Committee to show a reasonable spirit, and we are most hopeful that the Commission will meet our representations in a friendly spirit on their side. It is probable that far the best way would be that we should be consulted by the commoners on the one side and by the Crown on the other and that we should be able to come to a friendly arrangement. I hope for peace in that direction.
196
But do not let the noble Lord be under any misapprehension. Feeling is far stronger than he perhaps realises. I implore him, for the sake of the New Forest, of the commoners, and of the beauty of the New Forest, in the future to turn his thoughts towards peace.
If I have spoken somewhat strongly on this question, I know the House will forgive me. The New Forest is a unique area in the world. Its old trees are a wonder to those who visit them, whether they come from the State forests of Germany, from the great natural forests of North America or from the forests of the Himalayas. The hardwood trees of the New Forest are one of the wonders of the land. Cutting those trees is like selling your soul. To make money you might have building sites in Hyde Park, you might allow advertisements to be put on the Cenotaph, but it is selling your soul. This policy of cutting the old trees is, in our opinion, selling the soul of the New Forest. I believe that when England knows it will protest in far stronger terms than I have done to-day against what is a national calamity. I beg to move.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I rise to support the appeal of my noble friend Lord Montagu. The New Forest has from time immemorial been one of the most prized possessions of the Crown. It has been regarded and treated for centuries past as a great national park, of which the beauties and the amenities were to be preserved and maintained for the benefit, not only of the inhabitants of the Forest, but of the nation at large. For more than two centuries past provisions have been made by the legislation of this country for the protection of these ancient woodlands. In 1698, in 1808, and again in 1851, Acts of Parliament were passed expressly providing for the increase and the preservation of timber in the New Forest. Early in the 'seventies the attention of Parliament was called to the position of the woods in the New Forest and a Select Committee was appointed to look into the matter and report. The result of the Report of the Select Committee was the passing of the New Forest Act of 1877.
I should like to refer to two passages in that Act. In Section 8 there is an express provision that "the ancient ornamental woods and trees in the Forest

197
shall be preserved." In Section 6, which deals with timber in the enclosures in the Forest, it is laid down that, as regards the enclosed lands, in cutting timber or trees or in improving the woods, "care shall be taken to maintain the picturesque character of the ground." Then it makes provision about what should be done in regard to planting. That Act was passed, and for some time, I understand, it worked very well. At that time, and for some considerable period before, the care and custody of the New Forest was in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and after the passing of that Act, and so long as the Forest remained under their control and management, there appears, so far as I have been able to ascertain, to have been no complaint, at any rate no serious complaint, as to the treatment of the ornamental and other timber in the Forest.
In 1919 the Forestry Commissioners were established, and a few years afterwards the care of the New Forest was entrusted to them. But may I point this out—and I venture to think that it is of great importance in connection with the Question that we are now discussing—whatever power the Forestry Commissioners possessed they had to abide by the provisions of the Act of 1877. Those provisions remained, and still remain, in full force and effect. And, indeed, so important were those provisions thought that in the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act, 1923, which was the Act which transferred the New Forest to the Forestry Commissioners, there was an express provision in the Schedule to the effect that
"All Acts … relating to any property transferred under this Act … shall continue of full force and effect.…"
So that under the very Act from which the Forestry Commissioners derive their title express provision is made for the continuance of the Act of 1877, which involves the maintenance, preservation and care of the ornamental and other timber in the Forest.
No one, certainly not myself, would call in question the competence, the diligence and the care with which the Forestry Commissioners have transacted the commercial part of their business in regard to those areas—many large areas outside the New Forest—which they had
198
to carry on, and very properly, for commercial purposes. But I cannot but think that they, or their subordinates, have formed a somewhat erroneous opinion as to their rights and duties in regard to these woodlands which are vested in them in the New Forest, or portions of those woodlands. Because it appears that they do not pay sufficient attention to the provisions of the Act of 1877. They appear to think that their primary duty as regards the whole of these woods in the New Forest is not to preserve the ancient ornamental woods and trees in the Forest and to maintain the picturesque character of the grounds but to develop the Forest on commercial lines.
They have been cutting down in large quantities in certain portions of the Forest beautiful old trees, selling them for what they would fetch, and planting disfiguring trees in their place—I think the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, characterised them by an even stronger expression. And may I say incidentally that the question of the plantation of conifers seems to me all the more important because I read in the Report recently issued by the Forestry Commissioners themselves, that the outlook for the supply of hardwoods, such as oak, in the future in this country is most disquieting. I do not suggest for a moment that in dealing with some of the trees in the New Forest the Commissioners should not take account of the profitable, as well is the ornamental, use of the Forest. I do not dispute that, but I suggest that in regard to those portions of the Forest which ought to be preserved for ornamental purposes they have had primary regard to the commercial aspect, and not sufficient regard to the ornamental aspect and to their duty of preserving the amenities of the Forest.
Let me very shortly tell your Lordships what they have done in certain portions of the Forest—and I take my information from answers given in the House of Commons. An answer was given on May 23, from which it appears that since September 1 last the Forestry Commissioners have felled nearly 17,000 trees, hardwood and softwood, and have sold about three-quarters of them for what appears to be the insignificant sum of a little more than £6,000. In the Burley Wood enclosure they have made large clearances, and have cut down 29 ornamental timber

199
trees, of which only about half were even alleged to be decayed or decaying. There was another answer given on June 2, from which it appears that they now intend to cut down still more hardwood trees in the Forest in the coming autumn and winter. It appears also from an answer given on June 23 that since January, 1926, they have cut down in the New Forest nearly 16,000 oak and beech trees about a hundred years old, and they have sold the wood at the prices mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu—prices which, to me at any rate, appear to be extremely inadequate, and even if they had been more adequate I doubt if the Commissioners ought to have done that.
Since September, 1025, they have planted no less than 835 acres of conifers and only thirty-four acres of hardwood. It may be said and, with truth for what I know, that these are not so much the acts of the Commissioners themselves as of their representatives in the New Forest, who either misunderstood, or possibly exceeded, the instructions given by the Commissioners. However that may be I do not know; the facts are as I have stated. And I should be very glad indeed if the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, when he replies were able to reassure us on this point, and to tell us that the Forestry Commissioners do not intend to treat these portions of the New Forest as purely commercial undertakings, but intend to have due regard in future to the provisions of the Act of 1877.
I have been down to the New Forest lately. I am a constant visitor there, and I do not think that Lord Montagu in the least exaggerated the situation when he said that most, if not all, of the inhabitants of the New Forest, of all classes and all ranks, are under grave anxiety, and it is perhaps not too much to say that they are indignant at what has gone on. I earnestly hope, as Lord Montagu has said, that in dealing with this matter both the Forestry Commissioners and all those interested in preserving the great beauties and amenities of this ancient Forest for that very large number of the public from neighbouring towns and elsewhere who constantly visit it, may approach the matter in a spirit of good will on both sides and
200
with a sincere desire to arrive at a satisfactory result. And if, as I have no doubt he will, Lord Clinton does his best to achieve that result, he will have earned the gratitude, not only of the inhabitants of the New Forest, but of that very much wider and larger public who are interested in its preservation and who still enjoy its beauties.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I recognise that my noble friend has brought a very heavy charge against the Forestry Commission for its administration of the New Forest; at the same time I acknowledge that the noble Lord has used a considerable amount of restraint in his language, because I know something of the somewhat thunderous atmosphere which pervades the forest at this moment and the really excited state of public opinion there. I think if my noble friend had translated the views of the people there accurately into the words or the phrases they might have used, he would have gone to the full limit of language which is prescribed by Parliamentary usage. But he has refrained from that, and I can only say this with regard to the first part of his remarks, that we regret as much as any one can regret that suspicion of the Forestry Commission and all its works should arise there. There has been smouldering for probably centuries, and occasionally breaking out into flame, trouble between the Crown and, first of all, the commoners and then with other representatives in the Forest, and we do regret very much indeed that in the early years of our administration of the Forest it should have broken out again so strongly, but I am going to ask my noble friend to believe—and I know he will probably have great difficulty in believing—that we in the Forestry Commission are at least as anxious to preserve the picturesque character and the amenities of this great national Forest as the noble Lord himself or any one of his friends.
There are several points raised by my noble friend with which I will endeavour to deal in order, but I would like first of all to speak for a moment about certain methods now being adopted in the Forest which I sincerely hope will lead to an entirely friendly and satisfactory conclusion of some, at all events, of the difficulties which have arisen. Before my

201
noble friend Lord Lovat retired, to our very great regret, from his Chairmanship of the Forestry Commission, he initiated a Committee, consisting of many interests both local and national, to deal with the New Forest and generally with the rural beauty of the nation. That Committee he initiated for the purpose of advising the Commission on matters relating to the picturesque character of their work, and the reference to that Committee was that they should assist the Commission to schedule those areas of outstanding beauty in the Forest, which should be set aside from the ordinary treatment of the remainder of the enclosures. I may remind your Lordships that the ordinary treatment of the remainder of the enclosures does not mean a commercial treatment. I think my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu agrees with that, but I gather that my noble friend below me [Lord Danesfort] thinks we are out for purely commercial purposes.
We are absolutely bound, of course, by the Act of 1877, which lays down in perfectly clear terms instructions for the management of the enclosures. We are not to clear some and we have, in the words which my noble friend below me quoted, "to maintain the picturesque character of the ground" and we have always to leave on the ground "a sufficient number of the most ornamental trees." That does not necessarily mean, legally, that we are to fell no ornamental trees. But whatever may be the actual wording of the Act a great deal of judgment has to be used in carrying on woods under ornamental methods. In connection with the Advisory Committee I wish to say that they have had two meetings and I am glad to state that already they have been able to make a recommendation to the Commission that certain portions of the more beautiful woodland should be reserved from ordinary treatment. I have not the least doubt that the Commission and the Advisory Committee, with good will on both sides, will have little difficulty in coming to a conclusion on that particular matter, and I hope that will go a very long way towards settling—even if it does not absolutely settle—the differences which have arisen. At all events, it will be a sign to all concerned on both sides that we and those who are locally interested in the Forest are exceedingly
202
anxious to meet one another over its management. On that particular point I hope my noble friend may be satisfied.
I should like, before I go further into the points raised by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, to deal with one or two matters that were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Danesfort. I do not want to charge him with using language of exaggeration, but he evidently is under the impression that our object in dealing with the New Forest is to lay the whole Forest to the ground and sell it for what it is worth, which, he has already told us, is not very much.
LORD DANESFORT: I did not suggest that.
LORD CLINTON: It appeared to me that the noble Lord was talking on a very large scale of the felling of enormous quantities of ornamental trees. That really does not fit in with the knowledge of anybody who knows the work that has been going on in the New Forest during the time that we have had control. I think the noble Lord did say that we had sold large quantities of hardwood trees and planted pine in their place. The pine, as my noble friend says, was an exotic so far as the New forest was concerned, but not so far as this country was concerned. It was brought here in the year 1770 for the main purpose of making masts and bowsprits for the Royal Navy, and the planting of that fir has been continued, but only in ground that is not suitable to the growth of oak. No one managing a forest, particularly when managing it for a nation, would plant the inferior timber of Scotch fir if he could get the valuable timber of oak to grow, and it is only on those places where oak will not grow that fir has been put in. No doubt, as my noble friend said, it has been put in places where he does not want it, but so far as the Commission is concerned, it has been kept solely to the areas where nothing else would grow. It has been said, and quite truly, that the recent plantings in the New Forest have been in fir and there is a very complete justification for that. During the War the demand was for fir, over 2,000 acres of fir was cut, and it is those 2,000 acres which are now being

203
planted. But there is no question of substituting the pine for the oak where the oak will grow.
Then I think we were charged with accepting too low a price—an inadequate price, I think, was the expression—for the oak that we sold. I do not think the noble Lord ought to value timber without seeing it. The reason we had to accept 10 d. a foot for oak will be apparent to most noble Lords. It was that the timber was not worth more. Nearly the whole of the oak which has been cut and sold during the last few years has been timber of what we call an unthrifty nature. I was asked by my noble friend Lord Forster, who is good enough to act as Chairman of the Advisory Committee, to ascertain for him if fellings in the Forest could stop pending arrangements. It is not easy to stop felling, because contracts are entered into lasting for some time and they have to be fulfilled, but I have ascertained, in the matter of fellings that are going on in these enclosures at the present moment, that in every case save one they consist of dead, or nearly dead, oak. There is no possible advantage to the locality or to the Forest in keeping on the ground oak that is merely dying upon its feet.
My noble friend has told the House that there was an undertaking not to cut any timber in Burley Old Wood. I have no doubt whatever that there was an undertaking, but I think my noble friend has already told the House that he does recognise that we had no knowledge of that undertaking. The fact was that the Commissioner of Woods and Forests, about the year 1880, wrote a letter to a resident in the Forest saying that no cutting would take place in Burley Old Wood, except, I think, the cutting of dead trees. We had, of course, no notion whatever that that letter existed. We could hardly be expected to look through the files of some forty-five years to find a letter of which we did not know the existence. If we had known of that letter undoubtedly it would have received full respect, but as we did not know of it a cutting was made in Burley Old Wood. That was made purely for the purpose of regeneration, purely for the purpose of continuing the enclosure of Burley Old Wood, and it seems to us that from time to time cuttings must be made in the Forest if you are to maintain the whole Forest in continuing beauty. Most of
204
us know that there is nothing so difficult as to manage ornamental woods properly. Those of your Lordships who have ornamental woods of your own will know that there is more art in that matter than there is in ordinary forestry management, and that the greatest art of all is to conceal the art you use. The cutting in Burley Old Wood was purely for the purpose of continuing the Forest. There was no question of commerce in the matter. As the trees cut were dead or dying there was naturally not much commercial advantage from cutting them down.
Questions of that kind, I hope, will disappear as a result of the appointment of our Advisory Committee, but while I hope that my noble friend and his associates may be satisfied to some degree with what I have said, I know that it will not satisfy a very large number of people. I am bound to recognise from correspondence in the Press, from statements I have heard made and from conversations that I have had with people, that they do believe immense harm is being done over the whole Forest, new and old. Their real desire is that the Forest should be left alone and left entirely to nature. But we have to carry out the Act of 1877. Under that Act we are bound to keep the woods replenished. We cannot keep them replenished by leaving them alone. Everything in nature is doomed to die and these great trees, some day or other, will fall to the ground. What will take their place?
You will get mainly the minor produce of the Forest—thorn, whitebeam, crab apple and many other trees. Many of these are very beautiful in themselves, but they are not trees which should be allowed to extend over large areas. They cannot, of course, be compared with the majestic beauty of the great oaks which now exist in the Forest. Among that minor produce you will get a certain amount of beech coming through, which I think may be trusted eventually to grow into fine trees, but you will not get oak. Oak, probably more than any other tree, is exacting in its demands for light. It cannot compete in the struggle for existence with these other classes of trees, and in time is crowded out. Go through the whole Forest now, and in any of the older enclosures you will frequently see

205
that oak has germinated on the ground. You will find, perhaps, oak two or three years old, but it will be exceedingly difficult to find any proportion of trees which are between ten and fifteen years old. That is obviously insufficient to keep the oak forest growing in its natural beauty. I do not know of any instance of an oak forest which has grown up without treatment.
Apart from that there is reason to fear as to the future of the Forest altogether. There appeared in The Times recently a letter in which the writer borrowed an expression and applied it to the Forest, describing it as a giants' cemetery. Of course that is a term of the very greatest exaggeration, but I think there is reason to fear—not in our time; the present or the next generation may see no change—that unless something is done to keep the whole Forest going then it may deserve that description a century, or even less, hence. There are actual instances I could show you pointing the danger signal to the oak in the Forest. We had—not in our time, but before—a classification of the oak woods in the enclosures one hundred years old. Out of over 7,000 acres—I think the figure was 7,900 acres—which were existing at that time one-fourth, or 1,900 acres, were described as in some stage or another of decay. In Burley Old Wood there exist 1,700 trees, of which something like 320 are dead or dying. That is one-fifth of the whole. One cannot overlook these things and we who are responsible are bound to advise that steps should be taken to preserve and replenish the Forest. Thus it is, I fear, certain that future generations may blame this generation very severely and will receive as their share a Forest that is merely a wreck of its present magnificence.
The question of public utility was also raised by my noble friend. He recognised that in this Forest we have an area that is of great importance, not only to those who live there, but to those who visit it for pleasure from all over the world. But let us look at this matter in some proportion. There are included in the boundaries of the Forest about 63,000 acres, and of these 45,000 acres are left to nature. No hand of man goes into those woods. There is open forest amounting to 5,000 acres and a balance of about 40,000 acres of open land. That is to say, there are
206
some 45,000 acres altogether in the Forest that are already, in the words of my noble friend, a national park. The only care that we are allowed to take of that area of open woods is to take out from time to time sufficient dead wood to supply the commoners with fuel.
With regard to the open forest, the bare land, nature there has been recognised as being boo liberal in her profusion and has spread these Scotch firs, to which so much objection has been taken, over them. I am not at all clear how they have been allowed to remain there. It would have been, one would imagine, a matter between the commoners who have grazing rights and the Department of Woods and Forests or ourselves, but so far as I know, in every case where the commoners require land to be burnt for the improvement of their grazing, it is done for them by those who have been in charge of the Forest. But while I recognise that to many people there is a great beauty in a mixture of heather-land and clumps of Scotch fir, I think that in this particular case it has been overdone. I must also remind my noble friend that great care will have to be exercised in getting rid of the trees now, otherwise you will get a most unsightly and deserted-looking place for many years to come.
Out of the whole area we have something like 45,000 acres of land which is in all respects a national park. With regard to the balance of 16,000 acres, which alone we have to control, it is open to the public for something like nine months in the year, but the gates are locked for three months in the year. No exception is taken to people climbing over the gates if they wish, but I recognise that this is not always a very convenient mode of access. The gates have to be locked from time to time merely for the purpose of keeping out stock, but custom is a curious thing and the gates remain locked for three months because they always have remained locked for three months. This applies not only to the ordinary gate which lets in stock, but to the side gate also, which is quite unnecessarily locked, and while some step would have to be taken to convert these side gates so that they admit people and not stock, I have already given instructions that this shall be tried in some cases to see how it can be done.

207
We were charged with felling against the instructions of the Act at Pitt's Wood and at Aldridge Hill. Fellings have been going on in both these places, I suppose, for some twenty or thirty years. They have been continuous, I think, at Aldridge Hill, where they may have increased lately. I do not know if this is so, but certainly the timber in Aldridge Wood is in a bad state. Yet a sudden objection is made to our doing it now. Why was no objection made during the course of the last twenty years, while this was going on? I think I understand the reason. Something is found that, in the opinion of the local people, the Commissioners have done wrong, and quite naturally everything is hunted up to see if something more can be found to add to the general complaint against them. In conclusion, let me say one word with regard to the request that the Government should give instructions that the New Forest should be made a national park. It is not, I think, in the power of the Government to give those instructions. It would entail repealing at least two Acts of Parliament and, if the noble Lord wishes his idea of a national park to be carried out and if he can persuade people that it is advisable in the interests of the Forest and of the nation, his first task would obviously be to agitate for the repeal of those Acts. I think that I have given your Lordships as much information as I am able to give in this short time.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I think that those who live in the neighbourhood of the New Forest will feel greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for bringing this matter before this House, to which they look for a sympathetic hearing and such remedy as may be possible through greater attention being paid by the Commissioners to the Statute of 1877. For a long time I lived in the New Forest, and my family live there now. I go there and see what is going on, and I can assure your Lordships that there is the strongest possible feeling at this moment that the Commissioners have lately been grievously misusing the powers given to them by Act of Parliament. The Act of 1877 gave them powers to enclose and plant certain portions of the New Forest. It limited the area thus controlled by words
208
of which I think the Commissioners have often lost sight. In all that they do, when they cut wood and when they replant, they are to have regard to the ornamental nature of the Forest. That is in black and white in the Act, as has been said more than once, and that is what those who live there feel convinced that the Commissioners have—shall I say?—forgotten. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who has not been responsible for many months for what has been going on, has admitted this, and your Lordships will not desire to visit upon him the sins of his predecessors.
LORD CLINTON: Will the noble and learned Lord say what crimes we have committed?
LORD DARLING: Oh, yes. It is this. They have cut down oaks in Burley Old Wood when they had promised that they would not do so.
LORD CLINTON: I must remind the noble and learned Lord that this is not admitted at all.
LORD DARLING: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I thought that it was admitted that the Chief of the Woods and Forests Department, Lord Loch, had written to somebody in the New Forest and had said that he would not allow the oaks to be cut in Burley, and that later this was done; and that this had happened because, among all the correspondence received by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, they had not remembered that letter. As they seem to have forgotten it, I will do them the favour of reading to them what Lord Loch said when this question of Burley Old was brought up in 1884. He said:—
"It is not my intention to cut down trees, unless dead or far gone in decay, and not even then if their removal would interfere with the general beauty of the place; nor is it intended to treat Burley Old as a plantation in the ordinary sense of the word."
They have done it. Those who live there know that they have treated Burley Old as a plantation in the most ordinary sense of the word.
LORD LOVAT: At the time when I was first notified that cutting down in Burley Old had been begun I went down there, having heard that five acres of ground had been cut. I think I am correct in saving that I found that eleven or

209
thirteen oaks had been cut, and, speaking from memory, twenty-seven beech. So the question of very large cutting ought to be ruled out.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I have not measured it but Lord Montagu tells me, on his responsibility, that the amount of wood cut in Burley Old is about two and a half acres. My own son is sitting in this House, but not yet allowed to address it. If you would allow me to move the adjournment of the debate until be is in a position to address your Lordships, you could receive his first-hand evidence as to practically every tree that has been cut in that particular plantation. I fear that that would be an unreasonable request, and I will not make it. Lord Loch went on to say this:
"I consider, as the representative and guardian of the Crown rights of the New Forest, that I am, in the interests of the Crown, deeply responsible for the preservation, as far as may be, of this type of old English scenery in its perfect beauty, which is so dependent on woods retaining their old character and associations with the past; and. I believe the best security for the continued preservation of the New Forest, with all its privileges and all its charms, is to be found in enlisting public interest and sympathy, in protecting from encroachment those rights under which it exists."
That is what we feel and that is why this debate was originated.
Why is it that the New Foresters are suspicious that their rights are encroached upon by the Commissioners? In 1868 Mr. Cumberbatch was deputy surveyor of the New Forest. He was what Mr. Lascelles afterwards was. Mr. Cumberbatch wrote this to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests:—
"It appears to be important that the Crown should, as soon as possible, exercise its rights of inclosing the 16,000 acres authorised by the 1851 Deer Removal Act."
On that I will ask: Why should they exercise their rights at once? The answer is this:—
"because, exclusive of other advantages, by so doing all the best pastures would be taken from the commoners, and the value of their rights of pasture would thus be materially diminished, which would be of importance to the Crown in the event of any such rights being commuted, as suggested in the 31st Report to Parliament."
Did you ever hear a more discreditable recommendation made by an official of the Crown? Enclose the 16,000 acres; do not
210
enclose them impartially, but take all the best pastures; diminish the value of the commoners' rights all you can and then buy them out! To this day the memory of the commoners goes back to the time when the New Forest was enclosed by the Norman Kings, and when they were deprived of their rights without compensation. But William Rufus himself, if he could write—I do not think 'he could—would hardly have written anything as bad as that.
What came of it? There was a Commission and Lord Henry Scott, the father of my noble friend, took part in the Commission, and it is due to him that the. Act of 1877 was passed. In the course of that Commission Mr. Kenneth Howard, Chief Commissioner of Woods, was asked by Lord Henry Scott this question, and this answer (which I will also read) was given to it:
"You are not disposed to repudiate this sentence of Mr. Cumberbatch's letter of December 31, 1853?"
"No. I do not repudiate it; I can only say it had better not have been printed."
Things went on and people in the New Forest believed themselves badly treated. Mr. Fawcett, afterwards Postmaster-General, was in the habit of walking in the New Forest. I believe it is said that the law is that you may walk but may not wander. Mr. Fawcett was of the same opinion as was expressed by the noble Lord who wrote:
"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,"
and I am afraid he used to wander. At any rate he got a Commission appointed, people of great authority sat upon it, it made a long and careful Report, Lord Henry Scott took great interest in the matter, and the end of it was the Act of 1877.
What did that Act provide? In the New Forest theme is a strong opinion that the Act only applies to the enclosed land, and that in any other part they can do as they please. Any one who will read it carefully will see that it applies to the whole of it. In all that they do they are to have regard to the ornamental character of the place, and not only—
LORD CLINTON: Does the noble Lord say that we are only to have regard to the ornamental character of the place?
LORD DARLING: I say that the Act says that wherever you go to plant or to fell timber you must have regard to the ornamental character of the place. You can destroy a distant scene by putting up a tall chimney. You have got to have regard to the ornamental character of the Forest and you cannot cut down old-standing and beautiful timber simply because you say: "It is in my enclosure and I have a right to do it in my enclosure." If the Commissioners will read this Statute and will have regard to it, they will see that they cannot work their own sweet will within their enclosures and say: "If the Forest looks hideous in consequence, we have not broken the Act." My noble friend Lord Clinton mentioned what sort of timber they had been cutting and why it fetched so little. That is exactly one of the things of which the inhabitants of the Forest complain. Unthrifty timber was cut that it was a trouble to get rid of. Yet it looked well and people came from afar to see it. Was it really necessary to cut it down?? Why did you not leave it there? I should like to see the bill for cutting it and for hauling it and find out what profit was made in the transaction. It may have been a very bad bargain to have cut this unthrifty timber if it was picturesque.
What is another reason that is given for cutting this old oak? It was suspected in the New Forest, but I never knew it admitted before: it comes out now that they have entered into contracts and they say they must keep them. That is why they have done it. They would be sued for breach of contract if they did not keep their contracts. What is said to that is that it was improvident of them to have entered into those contracts. It is no excuse for a man to say: "I have to commit a crime because I have promised to do it. As an honourable man I must keep my word." The noble Lord said that great art must be used in dealing with wood forests and he went on to say that perhaps the greatest part of your art is concealing how artful you are. It is an old maxim—and I should have thought that while this House is still unreformed the noble Lord might have used it—"Ars est celare artem." While we are still exactly what we are that language might be permitted. How is the art concealed? Pitt's Wood was mentioned. A month ago I
212
went through Pitt's Wood and there were oak trees there which I was told were about 200 years old. They were beautiful trees and things of beauty while they stood. I saw them lying on the ground, worth what? Tenpence a foot, is it? Go and look at the place and tell me if due regard has been had to the ornamental character of Pitt's Wood.
The Act says, in Section 6:—
"Provided also, as respects lands in this section mentioned, that in cutting timber or trees for improving the woods, or for sale, care shall be taken to maintain the picturesque character of the ground, and not wholly to level or clear the woods, but to leave from time to time a sufficient number of the most ornamental trees; and to keep the woods replenished from time to time by protecting the self-sown plants, or by planting trees in the vacant spaces, having regard to the ornamental as well as the profitable use of the ground."
What was done? They are told what they must do, they must leave from time to time a sufficient number of the most ornamental trees. They cut Pitt's Wood. They cut the 200 year old oaks. I imagine that, while it was being done, someone came along with this Act of Parliament and said: "In the interests of art—and you must be careful to conceal your art as well as you can—in the interests of concealed art you must leave some of those ornamental trees." They did. They left two fir trees and, as to one of those, an oak, whether by accident or design, knocked the top off it as it fell. Now they can say: "See how we have regard to the second part of Section 6. Look at the artistic scene that has replaced Pitt's Wood. Look at the contrast of that fir standing straight up and of that one there with its head knocked off. You should praise the Commission for its love of art." These are the things which exasperate the people of the New Forest.
I hope, as the noble Lord said, that a period of peace and amity is about to begin. There is an Advisory Committee appointed. I know who they are. They are people with knowledge of the Forest, with every right to speak for those who live there, and not ignorant of the commercial value of timber. I do trust that not only will they be consulted after the wood has been cut down but, before anything of the kind is done in the old and ornamental parts of the forest. If the Commissioners wish to cut down the firs that their predecessors planted, let them

213
do it and no one will shed a tear. If they wish to cut down the firs which have been allowed to spread all over the places where people pasture their cattle let them do it. But, before they cut any ornamental timber, it is to be hoped that the Advisory Committee will be consulted, that they will be allowed every opportunity to give their advice, and that, when they have given it, it will be treated with the respect to which it is entitled. I could say much more upon what to these people is a burning question, but I feel sure that this debate that has taken place to-day will have called attention at least to the existence of the New Forest, to the absolute necessity of not treating it as a mere wood to be cut down and made into pulp for printing newspapers, but of leaving it as nearly as possible for what it is—a thing of beauty which cannot be replaced except after hundreds of years. And this debate will have done something to satisfy those who have the interest of the Forest, at heart.
But I would mention this. Feeling in the New Forest is very strong on this matter, and many people have wanted to take the opinion of the Judges by going to law about it, and asking for an injunction. I do not know why they should ask me, except because I am no longer a Judge, but they do ask me, and I have said to them: "For Goodness sake, whatever you do, don't go to law; and, if you will go to law, above all don't go to law with the Crown. If you win in the end you will have had such an unpleasant time on the way that you will repent that you ever began going to law at all." But there are laws, and there always have been, which if rightly understood will protect these people, the commoners, who were so despised by Mr. Cumberbatch, and will protect the public who desire that these trees should stand, partly for the good they do, partly because of the beauty that they are and the pleasure that they give.
There are laws, I say. I will read one—I do not know whether it has been repealed or not. It may have been put into some Statute repealing many good laws. It shows how long this unlawful practice has been going on. This is a law of Ina, King of the West Saxons, and this is what it says:
"And for those who clandestinely cut wood (of which the very sound of the axe
214
shall be sufficient conviction) for every tree he shall be mulcted thirty shillings."
Fancy what that was in the time of King Ina!—
"A tree so felled, under whose shadow thirty hogs can stand, the offender shall be mulcted three pounds."
Many of those trees were trees under which thirty hogs could shelter—I do not mean motor people who go through the New Forest, but the ordinary cattle of the place. Those trees have gone, others still remain, and I trust that the Commissioners will listen to the words of the noble Lord below me, Lord Montagu, who spoke so feelingly of these trees which he had so long known, and which now have been cut down for fuel or other purposes. What he said brought into my mind lines which one cannot remember without some feeling—
"The oak that in slimmer was sweet to hear,
And rustled its leaves in the fall of the year,
And whistled and groaned in the winter alone,
Is gone—and the fir in its stead grown."
And the fir would not of its own wickedness have grown there, but the Commissioners of Woods and Forests went and planted it.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not propose to go back to the time of William Rufus, or even to 1877, but I shall confine myself to the present day. I live within about forty miles, of the New Forest, and am fairly well acquainted with it, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a word on this occasion. I do not desire to associate myself directly with either of the protagonists, but merely to speak as one of those members of the public referred to by Lord Montagu, to whom the New Forest is a very precious possession, and who value it for its beauty and not, I am afraid, for its commercial value. I am quite sure—more sure, I think, than perhaps Lord Montagu was inclined to be—that the Forestry Commission mean well, and I think it possible that they mean better now that their attention has been more called to it than they did before. But I also feel sure that they are none the worse, and have been none the worse, for a little watching, and I think we who are interested in the New Forest are very much indebted to Lord Montagu for

215
being the watch-dog of the New Forest. I only hope that this Advisory Committee which is going to be set up and the close touch which will be maintained between the Commissioners and those interested in the Forest will lead to matters going so satisfactorily that it may not be necessary for your Lordships often to be troubled with these debates in the future.
I heard with great pleasure from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who has not long succeeded to his present post, that they propose, wherever possible, to plant oak. That is clearly as it should be. Oak is a timber that no private person can afford to plant, and therefore it is the more fitting that the Government, which has the money and can afford to wait, should plant oak wherever it can do so. I was not quite sure whether Lord Clinton had been convinced that even an old and partially decayed oak might well be left standing. I rather thought he had not been convinced of that. From the point of view of beauty an oak which may be and, as we hear, is commercially almost valueless, may be a very valuable asset, and it would be a thousand pities to cut down these old oaks and partially decayed oaks, which would remain things of beauty for another generation or so, before it is necessary to deal with them. I recognise, of course, that no forest goes on for ever. Things must decay, and you must replant, but I am not sure—and I am not convinced from the course of the debate—that perhaps the Forestry Commission have not a little unduly hastened (shall I say?) the time of replanting.
I do not know that I entirely sympathise with the last part of the Question of the noble Lord, in which he suggests that the Forestry Commission should be replaced by the Office of Works. Personally, I attach very great importance to afforestation in this country, and I do not think that a forest is any the worse managed if an attempt is made to manage it on commercial lines. I should not be at all sorry to see the commercial aspect of timber-growing kept in view, provided the Forestry Commission in this instance remember what the Act of Parliament directs them to do—that they must subordinate it to the ornamental character of the Forest and the enjoyment of the public. I think that that lesson has perhaps been learnt by now. If not, we
216
can trust the noble Lord to let us hear about it. But as one of those very numerous people of whom the noble Lord spoke, who use the New Forest and value and admire it, I do hope that everything possible will be done to preserve its amenities, and I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for raising the subject.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT): My Lords, I hope you will allow me to intervene for a moment in the debate as one who was, a very short time ago, responsible, as Chairman of the Forestry Commission. I am sure that no member of the Forestry Commission could take any exception to what the noble Earl who has just spoken said, and I am glad that the last act of mine on leaving the Forestry Commission on March 3 or 4—the appointment, or the sending out of the letters of invitation for appointment, of a Committee to advise the Forestry Commission on the subject of the treatment of special areas in the New Forest—seems to have received universal support in this House.
Before I deal with the main point on Which I wish to speak, may I refer to one or two questions which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has raised? I must say I am most astonished to hear that the commoners are opposed to the action of the Forestry Commission in the New Forest. I am particularly astonished to hear that any offer of theirs to do drainage schemes has been refused by the Forestry Commission. I would like to point out to the noble Lord that during the whole period of the Commission's rule in the New Forest—which does not go back a very long time—they have done more for drainage schemes in the. New Forest than had been done in the previous 100 years. We spent, I think, £1,400 on one occasion and, if my memory is correct, £600 on another occasion, and on neither of those occasions were we able to get anything like the contribution that we hoped for from the other side. I may say it was only by frequent and personal visits to the Treasury that we were able to get the sums that we did spend. After that it is very hard to have it thrown in our teeth by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu that we have done nothing in the way of drainage to help the commoners. I think that is hardly fair.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I did not say that; I said in one particular instance.
LORD LOVAT: I think even that is disputed by my noble friend Lord Clinton; it has not come to our notice.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: It may have been refused locally.
LORD LOVAT: It is curious if it was refused locally, because we always keep the whole of the New Forest matters in our hands.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I will send the facts to the noble Lord.
LORD LOVAT: With regard to the question of the Scotch fir, I think our arrangements for that were satisfactory. The Commission are thoroughly alive to the encroachment that the Scotch firs have made info the commons pasturage, but we have had no complaint. The ordinary process is a complaint made by the commoners to the verderers, who bring it before the Verderers' Court and so it is passed on to the Forestry Commission. Orders have been issued for burning as much as possible. Some commoners have themselves said to me during my visits to the New Forest that they were satisfied and that the burning of the pasturage was much better done than in the past. The Forestry Commissioners have done what they could to get the heatherland burned, and as to those horrible little Scotch firs that spring up all over the commons, we have done what we can to get that rectified.
With regard to the question raised by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu on the subject of the replacement of timber by steel, may I assure your Lordships that one of the duties of the Forestry Commission to-day is to pay special attention to, and watch the fluctuations in, the world's timber supplies. We believe, and we know that the American authorities believe and that the world conference held in April last year in Rome believed, that there is a grave danger of the shortage of coniferous timber. As your Lordships are aware about 95 per cent. of the timber used in this country is coniferous and only something just over 5 per cent. hard wood. I would not advocate that land which can grow oak should be planted
218
with coniferous timber, but to say that coniferous timber may not be wanted in the future to the extent that it is at present is certainly prophesying a thing which is against the evidence. It has been proved over and over again by statistics that a nation's requirements in timber vary with its commercial development and, curiously enough, that substitutes add to rather than decrease the amount, of timber that a country uses.
From the speeches of several noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion it seems to have been ignored that the area which is growing hard wood and the area which is growing soft wood are defined in the working plan and have not been varied since the time that the Forestry Commission took over the management of the Crown woods. We are continually accused of being desirous of turning the whole of the New Forest into coniferous timber, whereas in fact we are carrying out the exact working plan, which has not been altered in any important detail, that was laid down something like thirty years ago. That plan is still being acted upon. I have mentioned this matter more than once in the New Forest and I mention it now for the second time in this House. We are continually having the accusation made that the Forestry Commissioners are doing nothing except plant soft woods and that the area in which hard woods are grown is being contracted. That is not so. It is natural that we have to reafforest first any area which will carry hard woods, even those at the present moment carrying soft wood. As soon as that crop of soft wood is ready for felling the area will be returned to hard wood if it can grow it. It is obvious this must be the policy of any sound Forestry Commission. As the noble Earl has pointed out, no private individual at the present rate of interest can possibly grow hard wood. It is, therefore, the duty of the Forestry Commission to grow hard wood as and when it can, but it is not the duty of the Forestry Commission to grow hard woods in certain areas which are not suited for them. In the rage for hard woods one hundred years ago, some areas of the New Forest which were not suitable for hard woods were nevertheless planted with them, and there are some hard

219
woods, seventy, eighty or possibly one hundred years old, which are even now only in the state in which, properly grown, hard woods should be after twenty or thirty years' growth.
But that is not the point I wish to speak about to-night. I would like to refer to some remarks which the noble Earl made, and I acknowledge that he spoke in sympathetic terms. If you have to carry out the Act, to treat the old, beautiful woods successfully, to maintain them as woods and yet preserve their beauty, you are faced with a task of extreme difficulty. Section 6 of the New Forest Act of 1877, which has been frequently referred to, definitely lays down at the end that those woods must be replenished from time to time by self-sown plants and by the planting of trees in the vacant spaces. I hold that any authority which may look after the New Forest, if it allow those beautiful woods to die, so to speak, on their feet will not be carrying out the principles of that Act, and I think that a Committee, such as has been appointed and is now prepared to act, will be able to help very considerably the Forestry Commission in treating these areas to the best advantage.
A point was made by the noble Lord that I gave a promise on March 3 that no felling should take place after that date. I was referring at the time I made that remark—I made an almost identical remark two or three times—to those beauty spots referred to by Lord Manners, who had raised the question in a letter to The Times of that date. I think the promise that I made was fully carried out, as is shown by the fact that the day I returned to London I issued the invitation to the Committee. I sailed for Brazil the following day and I naturally thought the Commission would meet within a week. As a matter of fact I understand the delays were such that it did not meet for two months, but I cannot hold myself responsible for the delays nor can I hold myself responsible for more than the promise I actually made, which referred to those particular woods mentioned in the letter to The Times. I believe my
220
promise was carried out entirely, but if there was any mistake no one regrets it more than I do. As, however, I was overseas I could hardly control the action of any other individual than myself.
I would like to add that I sincerely hope that a good feeling will exist once more between the inhabitants of the New Forest and the Forestry Commission. May I say on behalf of the Forestry Commission, that that small area of land out of the 300,000 acres under the Forestry Commission presents more difficulty than any other. We get more petitions from that quarter and very often one is exactly opposite to another. While I am sure the Forestry Commissioners wish to carry out their duties to the best advantage there, they have to deal with three groups of people who, as a rule, do not see eye to eye on many of the subjects with which they have to deal.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the House for the patience with which it has listened to this debate and for the evidence of interest in the subject shown by the speeches which have been delivered. There are just two points with which I would like to deal. One is the question whether oak replenishes itself naturally. Obviously it has done so in the New Forest for centuries. I do not think there need be any fear on that score. Great woods like Mark Ash are all naturally planted. As to the gloomy prognostication of the noble Lord, I would like to quote a report by Mr. Clutton, a man of great experience, who in 1875 said that in his opinion Mark Ash would not exist fifty years hence. I am glad to say that it is in a splendid state now. I would like to ask the noble Lord to give special attention to the area now being replanted with fir, and I should also like to ask that in the annual reports which are published by the Forestry Commission information should be given as to the number of trees cut, the amount of money obtained for them, and as to the species cut, whether broad-leafed or fir. After what has been said, I do not wish to press my Motion to a Division.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PEERAGES IN ABEYANCE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Address on the Paper for the purpose of giving effect to the Report of the Committee on Peerages in Abeyance to which your Lordships a short time ago gave a general approval. During the discussion upon the Report two points were raised, and it was understood that if approval was given to the Report they could be raised again on this Motion. I will only say a few words about each of those points because I think I may be able to meet them.
The first point referred to the second recommendation of the Committee. That recommendation was:—
"No Petition should be allowed to proceed, where the Petitioner represents less than one-third of the entire dignity."
On that it was pointed out that a Peer holding a Peerage by Writ descending to heirs general might die leaving four daughters or some greater number. The effect of that would be that the Peerage would fall into abeyance and that none of the four daughters could petition to have it called out of abeyance. That state of things might continue, of course, for some generations. That did appear to me to be rather a hardship and I have attempted to meet the point by inserting words in the Address, which your Lordships will find under consideration (ii):—
"that the Petitioner (not being a child of the last holder of the dignity or a descendant of a parent of the last holder) represents less than one-third of the entire dignity.…"
The effect of those words would be this: that the four daughters of a Peer holding a Peerage of this kind would not be debarred by that condition as to one-third and would have two generations in which to present a Petition. I think that substantially meets that point.
The other point was taken with reference to the recommendation of the Committee which is numbered 5. That recommendation was in these terms:—
"In considering whether or not the Sovereign should be advised to extend his grace to the Petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject, on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage should be conferred."
It was said that in the case of a Petition for calling a Peerage out of abeyance it
222
was somewhat drastic to require that the Petitioner should not only be fit and of good character, but should have, rendered such services as would be deemed a recommendation for granting a new Peerage. I said, and I still think, that the words ought to be taken together, that all four things should be looked at together, but that it would not be necessary for the claimant to satisfy all these qualifications before a Peerage could be called out of abeyance. But some anxiety was still expressed in the matter and I understand that an Amendment is to be moved—I did not feel justified in altering the recommendation myself—to meet that point by omitting the word "services." I am prepared to accept that Amendment if it is moved—subject to the consent of the House—and I hope that in that way the objection will be removed. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty submitting to His Majesty that if it is His gracious pleasure to place some limitation on claims to Peerages in abeyance, such limitation might be effected if His Majesty would be graciously pleased to issue an instruction to the Attorney-General that if it should appear to him that a claim to a Peerage in abeyance is affected by either of the following considerations:—(i) That the commencement of the existing abeyance occurred more than one hundred years before the presentation of the Petition; or (ii) that the Petitioner (not being a chill of the last holder of the dignity or a descendant of a parent of the last holder) represents less than one third of the entire dignity, he should in his Report to the Crown on such claim call attention to these circumstances, and that in such cases His Majesty should be advised that no further proceedings should be taken except in the cases of Petitions which have already been presented and in the absence of special circumstances or special reasons to the contrary; and that the attention of the Crown should also be called to any Petitions for the introduction of Bills into the House of Lords for restoration in blood to qualify a claimant to the termination of an abeyance to enjoy the Peerage, where such claims are affected by the above-mentioned considerations; further submitting to His Majesty that where the Committee for Privileges of this House is satisfied that any arrange-

223
ment, entered into between a Petitioner for a Peerage in abeyance and any co-heir, is tainted with any impropriety, it would be desirable that the Committee should make no Report to the House except that such arrangement is not shown to have been a proper one; and further submitting to His Majesty that in considering whether or not His Majesty should be advised to extend His grace to the Petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage be conferred.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, perhaps I may justify my intrusion upon your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments by recalling the fact that as Attorney-General I. was in touch with these Peer- age cases and had to consider the recommendations which have to be made by the Attorney-General in such cases. As the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, he has met one of the very serious objections which were taken by those who intervened in the debate on the Select Committee's Report when your Lordships accepted and adopted the Report. The Lord Chancellor has met that objection to a very large extent, but it occurs to me that, taking the Resolution as a whole, there is something incongruous in leaving the last words of the Resolution as they stand. Let me remind the House that, in the case of these Peerages in abeyance, when an abeyance is terminated it is the old Peerage which is revived with the old precedence.
As the Resolution stands the limitation that was contained in the second of the recommendations is modified. The second recommendation was that no Petition should be allowed to proceed where the Petitioner represents less than one-third of the entire dignity. That has been altered to these words:—
"that the Petitioner (not being a child of the last holder of the dignity or a descendant of a parent of the last holder) represents less than one-third of the entire dignity."
Translating this into a possible case, it means that, supposing the last holder of the dignity leaves four daughters or four nieces—this would be covered by the words "a descendant of a parent of the
224
last holder"—then it would be possible for one of them to be a Petitioner to have the abeyance terminated; and, bearing in mind the fact that, if the Petition were granted and the abeyance terminated, one of those four persons, in whichever degree the Petitioner lay, would be entitled from the abeyance of the Peerage to have and to hold the old Peerage with the old precedence, it seems a little incongruous, as I have said, in considering whether or not in that case His Majesty should be advised to extend his grace to the Petitioner for the termination of an abeyance, that—
"the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage be conferred."
Supposing that the Petition of one of the four daughters or of the four nieces of the last holder is acceded to, and thereupon the abeyance is terminated that Peerage would then be the old Peerage with the old precedence. It seems difficult to apply to such Petitioners the test of character, position, services and fitness that would be applied in the case of a subject "on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage be conferred."
I can well understand that some such words are necessary. There have been cases, and there may be cases again, where, even in regard to those Petitioners who are near in blood to the last holder, it may be inadvisable to call the Peerage out of abeyance. I will give one illustration. They might have become the nationals of a foreign State, and ft would certainly be wise in that case to bear in mind and have regard to the character, position and fitness of any Petitioner. But when the word "services" is there found, are you not importing a test with which it would be impossible for the Petitioner, in either the one degree or the other degree to which I have referred, to comply? Inasmuch as the Resolution of the Lord Chancellor gives close attention to the system of heredity and intends to give the Petitioner, who may be one of four daughters, the right to ask that the abeyance should be terminated, surely it is not unreasonable to make an alteration so as to eliminate the test of service in that case?

225
And yet in the Resolution as it stands, the last part ("and further submitting to His Majesty," and so on) applies equally to cases where the Petitioner is near in blood to the last holder of the dignity as to cases where the Petitioner may be petitioning after the lapse of some ninety years. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, speaking when the Report was adopted, pointed out that during a hundred years it, might well be possible that one of the Petitioners would have rendered such service as would enable him to comply with the actual terms of the Report; but those observations do not apply in the case of the nearness of the Petitioner to the last holder of the dignity now provided for in the exception to the second clause. For these reasons it appears to me that some alteration ought to be made.
Although I wish to preserve and in no way to infringe upon the general purpose of the Report, I feel, after much consideration, that the point would be met if, after the word "abeyance" three lines from the end of the Resolution, we left out the Words:—
"the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage he conferred."
and inserted the words:—
"regard shall be had to the character, position and fitness of the Petitioner."
The measure of the regard that is to be had to character, position and fitness which is indicated by giving the case of "the subject on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage be conferred" imposes a standard that is certainly of a variable character. I cannot help feeling, speaking from some experience, that the Attorney-General would be able to fulfil all that is necessary and all that is implied in the Report if he were directed that "regard should be had to the character, position and fitness of the Petitioner," leaving him to exercise his discretion upon those three points, and yet at the same time placing the Petitioner under a necessity of fulfilling qualifications that are undoubtedly needed by any aspirant to hold the dignity of a Peerage.
226
I have had the opportunity of speaking with some of those members of your Lordships' House most concerned and interested in these Peerages in abeyance, and I think I am not going beyond the mark if I say that, if this Amendment were accepted, it, would take into account the objections that were raised on the previous occasion, and would go far—I really think it would go all the way—to meet those objections. For these reasons, which I have endeavoured to sketch quite shortly, I beg to move the Amendment which I have handed in at the Table.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble and learned Lord be ready to modify his Amendment and to use the words "regard should be had"? This fits in better with the clause.
LORD HANWORTH: I had some doubt whether it should be "should" or "shall." I am content with either.
Amendment moved—
After the last "abeyance" leave out ("the like regard should be had to character, position, services and fitness as would be had in the case of a subject on whom it is in contemplation to recommend that a Peerage be conferred") and insert ("regard should be had to the character, position and fitness of the Petitioner").—(Lord Hanworth.)
LORD PARMOOR: Has the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, any objection to that Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, perhaps, as I was Chairman of the Committee that reported in slightly different language, I ought to explain, as I understood it, what was the principle which the Committee thought they were following in suggesting the form of words to which the noble and learned Lord has taken exception. Not having seen the Amendment which he proposes to make, but only having heard and made a note of it as he read it out, I have not had an opportunity of considering to what extent, if at all, it makes a difference, but what was in the mind, I think, of the Committee was this point, which possibly the noble and learned Lord has not considered. The case cannot be looked at solely of daughters or nieces of a recently de-

227
ceased holder, which is the case which is particularly put. In making a recommendation of this kind it has, of course, to be adapted as far as possible to all the cases which can occur, and therefore it ought to be adaptable not only to the case of very recent abeyance but to the case of one which has lasted for a considerable number of years—the case in which the Petitioner, instead of being an actual member of the household of the deceased holder of the dignity, was one somewhat remote in relationship and quite likely of a totally different position in life. You have to make the phrase cover all cases.
The other point is that, in the case of these Peerages, it is not a matter of right to have the abeyance terminated at all. It is purely a matter of the Royal favour, and although it is perfectly true to say that when the abeyance is terminated the Barony which is then revived is the same ancient Barony as before, with the ancient precedence, it is, as far as the particular subject who is thus preferred is concerned, comparable, and strictly comparable, to the case of the creation of a new Peerage, because the Sovereign of his grace, and not of any right of the subject, brings into virtual existence a Peerage which otherwise would remain in abeyance. It appeared to the Committee, after considering the matter carefully, that that reason, and the necessity for securing so far as possible that fit persons alone should be recommended for Royal favour, was a ground for saying there was a case for consideration of the characteristics of the claimant comparable to the consideration given to the characteristics of a person upon whom it is recommended that a Peerage should be conferred. That, and not any idea of interrupting rudely the descent of a family honour, was the reason which I believe was at the bottom of the Committee's recommendation.
I do not myself see that there is very much to be gained by saying that regard should be had to certain qualifications, unless you set a standard in some way to indicate what regard ought to be had. I should have thought that it would have been better, and certainly the Committee I think was of that opinion, that there should be indicated a standard to guide those who have the privilege of advising
228
the Sovereign in the matter. Character, position, services and fitness would be brought into consideration to the extent to which services exist, position exists, and fitness exists. It is not a requirement that there should be public services rendered, or that the person who petitions shall have held some public office, nor was this intended or thought of. The words were chosen so as to cover as wide a field as possible appropriate to both sexes. The regard will be quite sufficiently satisfied by considering any one or all of these matters as sufficient ground for the recommendation. The responsibility and the choice rests upon the Minister who makes the recommendation and the clause about special circumstances we thought provided a sufficient safeguard against any hardship at all.
Of course, if the Amendment commends itself to your Lordships as a good one, I do not desire to stand in the way of it. It is very much better that, whatever form the humble Address should take, it should be unanimous, and therefore if my noble and learned friend presses his Amendment, and it commends itself to the House, I have no more to say about it. But I think it is only fair to the Committee that I should have explained to your Lordships that the words were carefully chosen, with the desire to cover all cases and therefore quite possibly cases where the Petitioner may be different in position in life and in fitness from the last holder, and where, it being virtually, as far as he is concerned, the conferment of a new honour, some regard comparable to that exercised in the case of new Peerages should be recommended—I do not say required but recommended—in his case.
VISCOUNT ST DAVIDS: My Lords, when this matter was discussed the other day the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack promised kindly consideration of a case put forward by one or two of us, and notably by the Earl of Ancaster, who, being abroad I believe, is unable to be present to-day. One of those objections has been most fully and fairly met by the Address as it is moved to-day by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack. The other point would be met if the House would accept the Amendment that has been moved by the noble and learned Lord on the other side of the House. I think that the case

229
which has been put by the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, as to the views of the Committee, was quite a reasonable one; that is to say, that services ought to be considered when dealing with old Peerages that have been in abeyance for a great number of years, and when you might be calling up either a man or a woman, I think it is quite right that services should be put in.
At any rate I can understand how the Committee came to put in the word "services," but I would point out that if this Address is carried there will be practically no more old abeyances to come before the House. The noble Lord said just now: "Why talk of ladies when it may be men?" but it practically cannot be men in the case of new abeyances. If the holder of one of these Peerages dies leaving a son, the son succeeds as of right. It is when he leaves female descendants, and in present circumstances, if a Peer by Writ leaves more than one daughter, one of those daughters is called up. She may be a young girl, and it is likely in the present circumstances that the Prime Minister would have to consider whether the lady in question was a fit and proper person. He quite rightly would have to consider her character, position and fitness. I submit that it would be an absolute hardship if in the case of a young girl, the daughter of a Peer whose title falls into abeyance, the Prime Minister were debarred from considering her case because she could not show services. A young girl could not in the nature of things show services, and yet it might be that the Prime Minister very much desired to call up the daughter of a father who might have done good work and played a great part in this House, or whose family had taken a great part for many generations in the proceedings of this House. I think, therefore, considering that the bulk of the cases that will be dealt with now will probably be the cases of young women, that it is only reasonable that the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord below the gangway should be accepted and that the word "services" should be omitted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know if I can shorten the debate at all. I feel the justice of
230
what has been said by my noble friend Lord Sumner. Nevertheless, I am glad that he does not press any objection to this Amendment. I do not think there would be any objection to the original words and I know why the Committee put them in. But it must be remembered that these Peerages are hereditary. It is not quite the same thing as creating a new Peerage. It would be rather drastic to expect from a Petitioner for a revival quite the same qualifications as from a person on whom a new Peerage is conferred. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be satisfied to accept the Amendment.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, would it not meet the difficulty if all the words which follow the word "abeyance" are left out? because it seems to me that in every case which may arise in the future the claimant may be a female. I cannot see why you should bar her right to petition. After all, the position of a Petitioner is a very innocent position, politically and socially. Why should you bar her right to petition by having a rigid rule saying that regard should be had to her character, position, services and fitness? It would simplify the matter to leave out those words entirely.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I only wish to point out two matters. In the first place it is quite clear that you can have male claimants. The simplest case is where the holder of a Peerage by Writ has two or more daughters, each of whom predecease him, leaving sons who claim by their mothers' right. I wish to point out, secondly, that this recommendation is no more than an expression of opinion by your Lordships' House as to the lines on which they would wish the advisers of the Crown to act in dealing with these questions. I would also point out that when a Peerage goes into abeyance it is a very similar act of the Prerogative to terminate that abeyance as to create a new Peerage. When a recommendation is made to the Crown by responsible advisers, surely those advisers ought to give due, or some attention to the points raised in the Committee's Report? All we are doing now is to say that, in advising the Crown, the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General should give attention to this point and not treat

231
these abeyances as in the past. Whether they are old abeyances of a century or more ago or recent abeyances, they should give some attention to the character, position and fitness of the petitioner. In considering what advice they should give the Crown, they should take those points into consideration. As the Chairman of the Committee, speaking on behalf of all the members of the Committee, has expressed no objection to the modification of the words of our Report, I for my part, as a member of the Committee, am quite ready to accept the modification.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

BASLE TRADING COMPANY.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNhad given Notice to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that the claim of the Basle Trading Company for the return of their property, confiscated seven years ago in West Africa under the guise of liquidation, or in the alternative compensation, has not yet been settled; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I would ask your Lordships' permission to postpone this Motion until Wednesday, July 20.
LORD LOVAT: I think the noble Lord will have to do that at his own risk as to when it will be actually taken. As he knows, there is always a great deal of business at the end of the Session and the Question may be crowded out.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Unfortunately the difficulty is that the supporters I had in the House have had to go away. On two occasions I have postponed the Motion to suit the convenience of His Majesty's Government. They might be good enough to accord me reasonable time to bring it forward.
LORD PARMOOR: There are two special matters on July 20, which is a Wednesday. I postponed a Question of mine until that day. If the noble Lord were to take the day he suggested and put it down after my Question it would meet the case.
Question, by leave, postponed.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chairman if he can inform the House what progress has been made in regard to the Peers' War Memorial and the redecoration of the Royal Gallery. I have nothing to say about the Question, except that it is nearly nine years now since the War and I think it is high time that progress should be made.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to this matter. I am sure he does not wish me to understand his last sentence as a request that I should explain why nine years have passed since the War with this matter before us. Your Lordships will remember that the actual Committee dealing with this matter was only appointed in May, 1925, and I am sure it would not be in the interests of your Lordships that I should revive the controversies of the seven years before, when people took a great interest in various questions of alternative sites and so on. These questions were settled but not until after a rough passage, which resulted, as all rough passages do, in the spending of a good deal of time.
I think I can shortly answer the noble Lord's Question and bring the matter up to date if I refer to the Report of the Committee which was appointed last Session and re-appointed this Session, with power to deal with this matter of the Memorial. Therein your Lordships will see two things: (1), that the Committee have accepted a sketch model for the Memorial; and (2), a statement as regards the removal of the golden statues, which are familiar to your Lordships' eyes. It is quite true that the design for the statue has been accepted, and I understand that the larger model has made very good progress in the hands of our sculptor, Mr. Tweed. The question of the golden statues at each side of the alcove has again come up for reconsideration as the result of certain correspondence and discussion, with the details of which I need not trouble your Lordships. It is satisfactory to say that I have heard from our sculptor, who says that he does not think that whatever is decided about the golden statues affects

233
the carrying out of his design, as that has always been in his mind. Therefore there should be no delay on that head.
That is the position as regards the Memorial. But I should also tell your Lordships that the Committee have had in preparation a Memorial Book, in which it is proposed to have inserted the names of all those with whom the Memorial is concerned. The designs for the book were approved in December, 1925. Each name appears on a separate sheet, with a record of the services, and so on. There are 243 sheets in all, and three-quarters of them are actually finished. Some more are expected next week; I do not know exactly the number. But at any rate I think it is satisfactory that, so far as that book is concerned, the matter is very well forward, and should be completed this year. The special binding for the book has been decided on, and designs for a case are under consideration, but not yet finally settled.
I think that brings the information that I have as regards the actual Memorial up to date, but the noble Lord also addresses a Question to me as regards the redecoration of the Royal Gallery. That is really more in the province of my noble friend the Lord Great Chamberlain, although, of course, I am concerned. Your Lordships will remember that the House approved of the suggestion of the Lord Great Chamberlain that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chairman, as representing the House of Lords, should be brought into consultation with him when plans became ripe enough. That time has apparently not yet arrived, because I have not yet been called into consultation with the Lord Great Chamberlain, but I have no doubt I shall receive an official communication from him when the time comes.
But I think I ought to inform your Lordships that, earlier in the year, I was in correspondence with Lord Iveagh, whose name is mentioned in the Report referred to, in connection with this big scheme in the Royal Gallery, and I think it would relieve some anxiety I have heard expressed outside—not within your Lordships' House, where these things are better known—if I read a paragraph from his letter:—
"I hope your Lordships will realise I am doing nothing beyond preparing a sample
234
picture to be offered in position for the Peers to see and approve of, and the Office of Works is experimenting with an improved system of lighting."
I need hardly say it is my intention, and has always been my intention, when the Lord Great Chamberlain thinks fit to call me into consultation, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor and the First Commissioner of Works, to make it my business to see that before anything is finally decided your Lordships have every opportunity of considering the proposals and expressing your opinion of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, perhaps it would be to the advantage of the House if I let the House know exactly how the position stands at the present moment. On August 7, 1925, the House agreed to accept a recommendation of the House of Lords Offices Committee that they would regard with warm approval the acceptance of the generous offer made by Lord Iveagh for completing the decoration of the Royal Gallery at his own expense, under conditions that were set out in the Report of July 9, 1925. As the Chairman of Committees has stated, Lord Iveagh's proposal was accepted on the understanding that it was carried out in conjunction with the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Office of Works, and I suggested that the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees should be added as representatives of your Lordships' House, as I well knew the confidence which your Lordships have in their wisdom, and how well they would look after the interests of the House, to which they belong.
This is the present position: Lord Iveagh entrusted the responsibility of making the mural decorations to Mr. Frank Brangwyn. I may say at once that Lord Iveagh's intention was to carry out what was the original plan of the architects of this great building, and to cover the large panels with paintings, no alteration being made in the structure of any sort or description. That, I am glad to say, has had the entire approval of the Royal Commission on Fine Arts, which was called in by the First Commissioner of Works for consultation as to what the decoration of the Royal Gallery should be. They decided, I believe unanimously, that no structural alterations of any sort or kind in the Royal Gallery should be permitted, and Lord Iveagh never had

235
any idea of the sort in making his generous offer. In addition to the mural decoration, the noble Earl most generously said that he would pay for the alteration in the lighting. The Office of Works are past-masters at that—your Lordships know the magnificent way in which the lighting of this Chamber is carried out at the opening of Parliament—and a very line scheme of lighting from the ceiling has been partially carried out by the Office of Works. I have seen one portion of the roof lit up and I am glad to say that the Fine Arts Commission were kind enough to come down and see it. They will report as to whether they would advise your Lordships' House to accept that scheme, but their report has not yet been sent in. In my humble opinion the scheme is a magnificent one and I very much hope that it will be carried out.
236
Mr. Brangwyn, the artist, has completed the cartoons for the pictures of the two end walls of the Royal Gallery—there are to be panels at each end of the Royal Gallery—and all details are ready for carrying forward the work on the full-size pictures. The artist hopes to have those for one end of the hall ready for inspection by your Lordships in about three months' time. I hope the House will appreciate the good work that has been done in a very short time by Mr. Brangwyn. I think the whole, when completed, will be a beautiful setting for the gem of the Peers' War Memorial in memory of those brave men who fought and died for their country.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.

Preamble
The Earl of Devon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
OUSE DRAINAGE BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House, to consider the said Bill, do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room No. 1 on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock.

LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (No. 2) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

V. Cobham,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss) (Chairman),

L. Ravensworth,

L. Somerleyton,

L. Cochrane of Cults;

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

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as Members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, namely:—

E. Lindsay;

V. Falkland;

agreed to: and the said Lords appointed accordingly.