HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS SPEECH DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS. THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. A. A. W. H. PONSONBY

proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words:—"And further desire humbly to submit that the repeated rejection by the House of Lords of measures of capital importance which have been passed in this House by overwhelming majorities has made it imperative that proposals should be embodied in a Bill for the consideration of Parliament this Session for regulating the relations of the two Houses of Parliament in accordance with the resolution of this House of 26th June 1907, declaring that in order to give effect to the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail."

Motion proposed: "That those words be there added."

Mr. PONSONBY

It is with some diffidence that I rise to move the Amendment. I am fullv aware that there are many Members in this House who are better equipped and qualified to undertake a formidable task of this sort, and also that there are very few Members who have so short a Parliamentary experience as I have. But I do not raise this question with any reluctance, because nobody can be more fully aware than I am of the very grave Constitutional crisis that has arisen because of the strained relations between the two Houses. It is even with a sense of deep disappointment that I feel myself obliged to act in this manner. I hoped up to the very last moment that it would be unnecessary to take steps of this sort. But after I had read the Speech from the Throne there was no alternative left me. The President of the Board of Trade the other night, on the Amendment on Unemployment, said that the Government were getting sour and middle-aged. I do not see that there is any particular reason for that. My complaint is perhaps more serious. I am afraid the Government is becoming self-complacent. I do not blame them for it. I think the blame rests with their huge majority on the back benches, because I 444 believe that as time has gone on—I do not say we have become in the slightest degree apathetic—but I believe we have become rather docile.

The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division the other night on the Unemployed Amendment made an appeal to us here not to vote against the Government. The hon. Member has considerable authority and great influence with Members in this quarter. May I, as one who has neither authority nor influence, venture to differ from the opinions of the hon. Member. I think if this huge majority were never to have voted against the Government at all the self-complacency might have reached a very dangerous point. I consider it to be the duty of a large majority, when the occasion rises, to make the Government very uncomfortable. This Question, some may say, is more suitable for a party meeting, and that it is a Question of tactics. That is not my view. It will have to be discussed, not only in the congenial atmosphere of the platform, but it will have to be argued and debated again and again in the full fray of Parliamentary debate within these four walls. I do not desire—to use a vulgar phrase—to put the Government in a hole. On the contrary, my desire is to block up the hole into which they seem determined to creep. (OPPOSITION laughter and cheers).

I am quite aware that in a great many remarks which I shall have to make this afternoon I shall receive cheers and jeers from hon. Members opposite. But I note with satisfaction that as the time goes on the once hilarious laughter that greeted the mention of this subject is becoming a little more hollow in tone and a little more nervous and hysterical. I am impatient that this question should be raised and discussed, because I believe that the honour and credit of the Liberal party as a fighting machine and as a machine of Government is involved. As the House knows, the question of the House of Lords has come up on many occasions during past years. Since 1832 it has come up more and more frequently and with increasing vehemence. In 1894 an Amendment was moved to the Address, and was passed in the same way as I hope the Amendment I move will pass. In 1907 mention was actually made, for the first time, in the Speech from the Throne of the unfortunate differences that had arisen between the two branches of the Legislature. After that a Resolution was passed by this House by an overwhelming majority, and finally the Prime Minister himself gave voice to an eloquent call to arms, the un- 445 compromisingly vehement terms of which are still ringing in our ears. The challenge was on the Resolution passed by this House. That was taken up when the Licensing Bill was flung back in our faces.

What would have been thought of a champion in the days of old who had thrown down his glove, and when his opponent stooped to pick it up, had cried out: "Just wait a moment; I am not quite ready yet." I think the Government are not reading the feelings of the country aright if they consider that the country is not ready for this fight. I believe the country is more than ready. But there is one thing which people object to, to whatever party they belong, and whatever part of these islands they may live in; and that is hesitancy and indecision. The people do not mind a statesman or a Government being wrong. We are all wrong at times; it is human. But what they do not like to see is an indecision which generally betrays indifference. I do not want to join those in the country, who, I hope, are not an increasing number, who seem to believe that the Government, on this question, do not mean business. But when I saw the Speech from the Throne, and instead of seeing mention, as I had hoped, of a Bill to deal with the veto of the House of Lords, I saw instead a Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church of Wales, I was sorry.

No one is a warmer advocate of Disestablishment than I am, not only for Wales, but elsewhere. But I believe my hon. friends from Wales know that a Bill dealing with the veto of the House of Lords would have been a far higher step to achieve their object than by this Welsh Disestablishment Bill, which means that we shall discuss night after night, trudge through the Lobby, this time not even with any doubt in our minds that our work is useless. Social reform comes very much in the same category. We cannot really deal with it decisively and comprehensively as long as that obstacle remains there. Like architects, the Government ought to see that these dangerous ruins must be removed before they can lay a sure foundation for a nobler and finer edifice for those who follow.

There is no doubt the Government could do a very useful work, especially in the way of administration, if they stay in for another two, three, or four years—whichever it is they mean to do—but it is not a matter of this or next year. It is a matter of the future. The Government ought not to allow their zeal to show their efficiency under the present hampering con- 446 ditions to militate against the clear necessity to remove these very obstacles. They ought to think of the great number of like Governments which have to follow. We know well enough that the old parties of 10, 15, or 20 years of Unionist Government passed with the 19th century. That will not recur again. But for the periods when Liberal Governments have power that must be utilised, the ground must be prepared, and too much attention should not be paid to the immediate future. If a man runs a race with a weight chained to his foot surely it would be best for him to stop dead, take a file and file through the chain, and then, after he has got rid of the impediment, he can go forward, refreshed, steadily on his course. I feel that we must concentrate on this issue, and, so far as I am concerned, nothing short of a Bill to deal with the veto of the House of Lords, to be introduced this Session, will satisfy me. I can hardly believe that the Prime Minister has come down here to-day to smother the flame which he himself kindled—I say, "smother," because he cannot extinguish it. Further than that, he after all is not sorry that someone has decided to accept his invitation to treat this question as the dominating issue, although they may have accepted it with rather embarrassing promptitude.

In dealing with the House of Lords, it is exceedingly difficult to restrain ones language. I will do my best. The House of Lords is the beloved friend of hon. Members in that corner of the House, and I do not propose to go into writings and speeches upon this question. I do not suppose there is one question which has called forth stronger and more vehement eloquence than this of the House of Lords—from prominent statesmen who are no longer with us, and those who are at present with us on both sides of the House. I notice that there is really no defence made of the House of Lords. There is an excuse, even an apology made, but no defence. I cannot say that I envy the task before hon. Members above the Gangway opposite in the next election when they have got to go up and down the country defending the House of Lords. I think that they will have to cook up some courses of Tariff Reform to induce them to consider this very unsavoury part of the menu which they will put before the constituencies. There are many anomalies in our Constitution, some of them inconvenient, some of them rather puzzling, but this one is really ridiculous. The Constitutional power of the House of Lords really 447 amounts to a European joke—indeed, I do not see why I should confine it to Europe, I think it tickles the sense of humour of the world.

The principle of hereditary legislators will not hold for a moment, because it is really not defended anywhere. Only recently prominent members of the House of Lords itself have made speeches saying that it needed reform. But it is puzzling that in this twentieth century, when there is a distinctly steadier advance in democracy, and when there are great social and economic problems coming up for settlement, we should submit, sit down, and allow this hereditary, incompetent, and irresponsible chamber to be the ultimate arbiters of our legislation. It is a sad reflection on the common sense of the nation. In future, no doubt it will appear amusing and comic to our successors, but at present the comic element does not appeal to the people. When we see our endeavours thwarted and our ideals crushed, it makes us feel bitter and indignant. What do their lordships represent?

Popular opinion with regard to the Lords, I am glad to say, has very much altered during the last year. I think that education and various other things have altered the view that peers are descended in a straight line from people who came over with William the Conqueror. They do not consider that is true. We all of us know now that they are quite modern creations; that peers are people very much like anybody else, except that they have had the advantage of a public school education. Beyond that people accept them as ordinary human beings. But I fear that there is still in our nation, I think less in Ireland and Scotland than in England, a certain tendency to be overawed and impressed by mere titles. What I want to draw the attention of the House to is this: that in the past the nobility—I do not like the word nobility—the aristocracy had a certain distinction, a certain refinement, which I think now is fast fading away.

There is no doubt that this distinction obtained for them the respect and confidence of the people to a great extent. But that particular and undefinable distinction is fading away fast before our eyes. In its place we are getting sterling worth. I do not refer to the creation of peers during the last fifty or one hundred years; I do not detach one part of the House of Lords from another; I take the assembly as a whole, and I say that the flower of the ancient aristocracy is fading away and 448 in its place is rising the gaudy fungus of plutocracy.

The prosperity of this country to my mind depends not on how many men there are who have incomes that far exceed their possible needs and requirements, but how few men there are whose incomes do not fall below that standard which makes human life endurable. Money is being collected by individuals into backwaters and into unremunerative channels, with the result that the general flow is lower, leaving people on barren rocks, where the fertilising flow of national wealth cannot reach them. But though the landed aristocracy is bad, the plutocracy is ten thousand times worse, because it is infinitely more cruel. Yet this takes place before us, although we do not seem to be wholly aware of it, and that is an additional reason why the House of Lords, which represents the plutocracy, should have its powers curtailed. One noble Lord said that the House of Lords owned about one-third of the land of the country. " Owned." That is a word which requires more careful definition. "Property " is another word. Most of the land does not belong to them by any very ancient tenure, and it is merely the result of the way in which they used their overwhelming political power in the 19th century, when they appropriated to themselves many thousands of acres; and that is why we have got to try, though it will be uphill work now, to get back some of that land.

And now comes a claim which has been very often made on Unionist platforms. It is an interesting claim, and requires careful attention. It is that the Lords represent the will of the people. An instance is given in regard to the way in which the Borne Rule Bill of 1893 was treated by the Peers. On that occasion 419 Peers voted against Home Rule. They came from all corners of the country, and it was one of those occasions when the police and officials and clerks of the House of Lords were greatly embarrassed because of the strange faces of noble Lords who flocked up to London. They may have been interested in the question of Home Rule; they may not. They may have understood the merits of the question; they may not. But the point is that they all claimed that they were impelled by a great desire to express the will of the people, which they somhow seemed to find in themselves. How the will had communicated itself to them I do not know; that is a matter for psychical research. Whether it was communicated through their heads to their intelligence, or whether it was directed to 449 their legs so as to direct them into the right Lobby, I do not know. But it is claimed that on that occasion they were representing the will of the people. That statement has been met, because we know that their motive is simply a blind, blundering, and ill-concealed prejudice against Liberal legislation. That is the only guide, that is the only principle by which they are directed in dealing with measures sent up by this House.

Lord Londonderry,

in 1897, confessed, with regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act, that had it been a measure sent up by a Liberal Government it would not have passed through the House of Lords. While they do not represent the working people, they do all they can to prevent the House of Commons from representing the will of the people more closely than it does. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does it?"] I do not know to what extent the House of Commons represents the people. That is always a matter for discussion, and how soon and how long after elections does it continue to represent the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Six months."] I believe it has been claimed that they do not a week after the elections. However that may be, any desire on the part of this House to extend the franchise or to do away with plural voting, both of which measures would allow us to represent the people more closely than we can now, those are the very measures which would be rejected by the House of Lords.

I am not going to weary the House by going through all the measures and analysing how they have dealt with them, but I will take one which they accepted, and that was the Old Age Pensions Bill of last Session. On that occasion, after the second reading, an enthusiastic Unionist writer in one of the newspapers said that the House of Lords looked its noblest. I was present when it was looking its noblest, and I can only say a more depressing or humiliating sight I have never seen. To think that there was undoubtedly the richest assembly in all the world not just criticising, but grudgingly, grumblingly, and reluctantly accepting a measure which would give five shillings per week to aged workers. That is a sort of nobility which, I am glad to say, we are in measurable distance of seeing extinguished.

Then their lordships are said to be a great safeguard against any sudden change. I have never been able to tree the force of that argument or to see the absolute necessity of a Second Chamber. But let us for one moment consider that 450 claim, and let us suppose that a Unionist Government was in power, and that the Leader of the Opposition had introduced a scientific tariff. Now, I do not think there is anybody in this House who would claim that that would not be a great and a revolutionary change in the state of affairs now existing. But does anybody suppose for one moment that there would be any talk of throwing out a Budget of that kind? We know quite well that their lordships, who are most of them vice-presidents of the Tariff Reform League, would accept a scientific tariff without a murmur. If the Liberal Government, since it has been given place had taken up an uncompromising attitude, had tried to force its measures down their lordships' throats it would be different. There might be some excuse then, but even in 1906, when the Liberal Government came back fresh from the country with its colossal majority, and when there was some excuse for taking up some sort of arrogant attitude, even then they showed a most conciliatory disposition.

Over the Education Bill of 1906 the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then at the head of the Education Office, was conciliatory to the point of danger, and yet their Lordships showed an uncompromising attitude on an occasion of that sort. It is this heedless cynical obstinacy which they show over measures which we here, as a party, think of great importance and vital to the national good, that makes me say that this question I am raising to-day is not a side issue, is not a mere constitutional or academic question which can be debated without any result, but that it is a vital and overwhelming matter that overshadows all others, because whether it is hon. Members for Ireland, or Wales, or those who sit below the Gangway, or we here, or those who are in favour of land reform, all of us unite in feeling that no progress can be made until this obstacle is removed.

I am not going for a moment to enter into the question of the Constitution of the House of Lords, because that is a matter which can be dealt with later.

What we want is some practical step forward to be taken now. And I am glad we have got the scheme that was sketched to the House in 1907 for the curtailment of the powers of the House of Lords. That scheme holds the field. It is quite practical. It has not been assailed by any criticism of a damaging sort at all or by any criticism whatsoever so far as I know. 451 It is a perfectly practical scheme. It allows the other Chamber to be a body that can amend, but it prevents any of those disgraceful exhibitions of petulant animus against the House of Commons. I say that a Bill of this sort might be introduced now—this Session, and passed after being fully discussed in this House; and sent up to their Lordships before the end of the Session. If they rejected it, then explain to the country how matters stood. And I should certainly not be afraid, nor would any of my hon. Friends around, of the result when we go to the country.

Even if hon. Members on this side of the House may feel insecure in their seats, they know well enough that by a deliberate fighting policy of this sort they are much more likely to return to this House. As sure as I stand here this form of Bill will eventually be carried. It is merely a matter whether the Government by a judicious selection of this unique opportunity will achieve that purpose or are going to take refuge in indefinite postponement. I feel sure that the Government do not want to avoid the issue, but I would in all humility urge as strongly as I can upon them that this is a fit and proper opportunity to formulate our views; to embody the Resolution in a Bill which can be fully, and freely discussed in this House.

We on this side of the House and hon. Members sitting below the Gangway have no two opinions as to the clear necessity of curtailing the House of Lords. But it is because of the dominating character of the issue, it is because I feel that our legislation will be rejected, will be mutilated, and will be emasculated if any other course is adopted, it is because I feel sure that those who desire to see some deliberate advance in our social and political life, and desire to have those issues resolutely dealt with, that I would beg of the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government not to dismiss my appeal as inopportune, but to accept it as an expression of the sincere conviction, not only of a great many of the loyal supporters of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, but of a large body of opinion in the country. I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. LEHMANN

I rise to second the Amendment my hon. Friend has just moved. I was one of those who heard the Prime Minister, enthusiastically, when on a certain occasion he informed us this question of the House of Lords was the dominating issue. I understood him to mean by that an issue which controlled 452 and was superior to all other issues, an issue on which fight was to be shown, and an issue which, in the meantime, was to be kept prominently before the attention of the country. We may be told that within the view of His Majesty's Government that the issue is still the dominating issue. If that be so, we are pressed to the conclusion that the notes of dominance in any issue are first that it should not be mentioned in the King's Speech, and, secondly, and as a consequence, that it should be impossible to keep it prominently before the electors.

I have heard hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House say, "We will not be dictated to by the House of Lords; we will choose our own time." Well, that sounds very bold and very fine, but I am not sure that as matters develop we shall be so free as we imagine. It seems to me that after a few years we shall so strengthen the practical position of the House of Lords in opposition to this House that in the end they will be able to take away our freedom, that they will kill our freedom of choice, and that they will impose a time at which we have to go to the country on this question. We seem to be in the position of those who have deliberately heated an iron to white heat and then having waved our hammer over it we have allowed the iron at white heat to cool off, declaring that at some future unnamed and indefinite time we propose to take it out again in order to strike it very hard. That seems to me to be a course which offers grave risk of eventual futility and failure. I know that it has one certain result—it discourages those who support us in the country. They are made to feel that the Government is willing to suffer rebuffs from the House of Lords, and their enthusiasm against that House must suffer a perceptible diminution.

What is the position of this House as against the House of Lords? There are three measures of capital importance which have been either rejected by the House of Lords or so mutilated as to make it not worth while to persevere with them—the Education Bill of 1906, the Plural Voting Bill, and the Licensing Bill. There was also, as I am reminded, the Scottish Land Bill. All these matters had been prominently before the country. The Plural Voting Bill, for instance, had been discussed in principle for year after year. The Education Bill had been discussed in the country ever since the party opposite brought in their Bill and passed it into law. The Licensing Bill was for a great 453 many years discussed up and down the country. We know what the result has been. It is that on these points all avenues of legislation are closed to us, unless we accept the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite—who are, after all, in a small minority in this representative House—and frame our Bills to suit their demands.

I see also that in His Majesty's Gracious Speech we are invited to legislate with regard to Irish land and Welsh Disestablishment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is a very sanguine man, but he must be more sanguine than even I take him to be if he supposes that his Bill, though it may pass this House, will suffer any other fate than disaster in the House of Lords. As for Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, I am most heartily in favour of it, and I believe a large majority of this House shares my opinion; but not even the most enthusiastic supporter of that Bill from Wales will believe that, after having passed through this House, the measure can meet with any other fate than rejection from the House of Lords. ["Why not"] Because the House of Lords is the House of Lords. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the Bill. My hon. Friend knows that I am in favour of it, and if the word goes forth I shall willingly trudge through the Lobbies with my hon. Friend in support of it. But we know that our toil will be useless and our time wasted. The upshot is that outside the region of finance—and even with finance you are not absolutely safe—you are forbidden to legislate unless you suit your legislation to the demands of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are in a minority in this House, but, working through the House of Lords, they Iran impose their will upon us and upon this Assembly.

With regard to the fitness of the House of Lords, constituted as it now is, and possessing its present powers, to discharge what are considered to be the duties, of a Second Chamber—to judge dispasssionately, and to hold the balance evenly between the various parties—I am relieved from the necessity of saying very much. Their lordships appointed a Committee to inquire into their constitution and what reforms might be desirable in it, and that Committee published a Report, which, regret to say, has attracted little attention, certainly not the attention which its merits deserve. What did they recommend? They recommended that there should be a reduction in the number of legislators in the House of Lords. The result of that would be certainly to with- 454 draw a certain number of Noble Lords from the irresistible temptation to vote against Liberal measures, but at the same time it would stereotype the present system, and in no sense alter the immense disproportion which exists between progressive and conservative opinion in the House of Lords as at present constituted.

All that would happen if the principles of that Report were carried into effect would be that the House of Lords would become a more compact and even more manageable instrument in the hands of the party opposite; while the evil of which we complain, and the existence of which that Committee admitted, would be touched in no way whatever. It is just as if a body of medical experts, called in to advise as to the case of a man blind in one eye and what treatment would relieve him, after taking their time and considering the situation, presented a Report, in which they said that the best method for the man to adopt was to reduce his weight and wear a smaller suit of clothes.

There appears to be an impression in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the House of Lords possesses some secret by which it can discover the opinions of the country better than we who sit in this Chamber are able to do. I do not know how that may be. The hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool may have in his mind some idea of what the secret is; if he has, I trust he will tell us. For myself, I have never been able to discover why the House of Lords should be in possession of such a secret any more than any other casual collection of young, middle-aged, and elderly gentlemen. When a Unionist Government is in power we have the advantage of living under a Single-Chamber system. All the measures proposed by a Unionist Government are humbly accepted and acquiesced in by the House of Lords; it is only when a Liberal Government comes in that that House wakes up and begins to mutilate and reject.

Certainly, under these circumstances, hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot be root and branch opponents of the Single-Chamber system. We are told that a Second Chamber exists to prevent rash, impetuous and hasty legislation from being placed upon the Statute Book. All who have been in Parliament, even so short a time as I have, will be aware that measures of any importance are not only debated in this House, but have been debated for years in the country; and when Members bear in mind the different stages through 455 which measures have to go, they must consider the charge of rash, impetuous, and hasty legislation, as brought against this House, a ridiculous one. In fact, when you call a Bill "rash, impetuous, and hasty,"—I speak for myself, as well as for hon. Gentlemen opposite—it merely means that you very much object to the measure.

Then we are told that Noble Lords cannot be called to account by popular clamour, that they are above and beyond the gusts of popular passion, that therefore their sane and deliberate opinions have full weight, and they can decide according to those opinions. But do they always do that? Do they put aside motives of mere convenience or of mere party interest? Did they do so in the case of the Trades Disputes Bill. We know the manner in which they received that Bill, but we also know that they passed it. Then with regard to the Old Age Pensions Bill, they passed that also. I am not complaining of the result in these cases, I am complaining only of the .state of mind. During the passage of the Old Age Pensions Bill through this House and in the discussions in the country I never saw that anybody hazarded the opinion that a great war would on the whole be preferable to the passage of that Bill, yet that was the opinion put forth in the House of Lords by Lord Lansdowne, the Leader of the Unionist party in that House.

The point, however, is not that we should establish a Single Chamber system, but that we should do something to remove the absolute veto of the House of Lords as at present constituted. The Government is pledged to that. That can only be done by being embodied in a legislative measure and submitted to this House; and, since the House of Lords would be sure to reject it, on that question the country must be consulted, and on that question we shall have to live or die. I desire that that question should be submitted to the country promptly.

I am reminded of a lady in "Middle-march," who declared that boys were apprenticed not ultimately, but at 15. On this question—and it is by the invitation of the Prime Minister himself—we shall have to fight. Our existence as a political party and as a political force is involved in it; and I can only regret that the trumpet sounded so valiantly should give forth at present so hesitating and so uncertain a sound.

The PRIME MINISTER

According to well-settled constitutional practice an Amendment to the Address is regarded as equivalent to a Vote of Censure upon the Government; and I think that my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment, realising that fact, approached the matter as if it were a difficult and, on the whole, a not very congenial task. I am not sure that I could apply quite the same commendation to my hon. Friend the mover. He told us that the Government was suffering from self-complacency. I do not know what evidence there is of that state. I am not conscious, and I do not know that any of my colleagues are, of any undue attack of that most insidious and repulsive disease. My hon. Friend, however, was good enough to say that though we were, as he thought, suffering from self-complacency, it was not our own fault; and it was certainly not his fault.

I think we may approach the consideration of the very serious question he has raised remembering always that the issue presented to the House is not the issue to which the mover and seconder of the Amendment devoted the main part of their speeches, namely, whether or not a vital change should take place in the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. The issue presented by my hon. Friend in his Amendment is that the Government are deserving of censure because they have not proposed in the King's Speech to take any steps this Session for giving effect to the opinion which we all hold.

Though I regret very much that this question should have been raised upon such an occasion and in such a form, I am not at all sorry at the opportunity of explaining and justifying the omission from the King's Speech of any reference to the matter. There is no controversy among upon this side of the House either as to the magnitude or as to the urgency of the issue itself. It is not too much to say that for the last twenty years it has overshadowed the whole field of British politics, and it has done so with growing obtrusiveness as the House of Lords has become in a more and more overwhelming degree a body of one particular complexion, and as the guidance of its policy has come more and more to be conducted by very different hands and in a very different spirit from that which animated the great Conservative leaders of the past—the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Aberdeen, and Lord Derby. Fifteen years ago from this very place from which I am speaking to-night many of us heard Mr. Gladstone in his parting speech to this. 457 House, with all the weight and all the wealth of his accumulated experience and his unrivalled authority, warn the nation that this was to be the problem of the near future, but during the last ten years it has reached a stage which I doubt whether even Mr. Gladstone could possibly have foreseen.

What is the history, so far as these two Houses are concerned, of the last decade? It has been indicated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. During the first and larger part of that time, to all intents and purposes, we had not in this country a second chamber at all. We were living in what some people represent as the worst of all constitutional conditions—the untempered autocracy of a single chamber. During that time, and under those conditions, measures of a revolutionary character, never submitted to the electors at the polls, were carried through this House by a strict party vote, and, I would add, with the liberal aid of the closure. (An HON. MEMBER "Oh!") Yes, the liberal aid of the closure, and passed into law without remonstrance, without delay, and substantially without amendment, by a docile majority elsewhere. That is the history of the first part of the last ten years. And what of the second part? We have seen as complete and absolute a reversal of these conditions as the human mind can possibly conceive. We have seen measures, the principles of which have been expressly and emphatically approved by the electors at the polls, torn to pieces or rejected with contempt, and without even the homage of discussion, at the instance and under the inspiration of the very men whom those same electors had sent to this House a discredited and impotent minority.

This is a state of things which I venture to say is quite incapable of being defended. The picture I have drawn is not in any of its features either an exaggeration or a caricature, and the necessity for a speedy, effective, and drastic remedy is a necessity which is not simply advocated from platforms for party purposes by demagogues and men of one set of opinions in the State, but it has been forcing itself with ever increasing insistence upon all clear-thinking and clear-minded men in the country. That being so, I confess I feel myself that a climax was reached the other day on the Licensing Bill—one of the greatest and most far-reaching measures of social reform—a measure certainly approved in its general features at the last General Election by a majority—a measure on the discussion 458 and shaping of which this House had expended weeks of time and thought and zeal. That measure, at the invitation of a private and irresponsible party caucus,. was refused so much as a second reading.

In the speech which I made almost on the morrow of that remarkable incident, which I think both of my hon. Friends have referred to, I declared in my own name and in the name of my colleagues that in our opinion the relation between the two Houses had become the dominating issue in British politics. I did not use that expression lightly or unadvisedly. I used it with the full conviction of its truth, and both in letter and spirit I adhere to it to-day. What does it mean? It means that in our opinion it is useless to ask the electors to vote for the Liberal party at the poll—it is useless to submit to the country at an election Liberal measures as part of your political programme—it is useless to propose and pass those measures so submitted and so approved through this House unless adequate safeguards are provided by the Constitution that the will and determination of the people shall effectively prevail.

So far I believe there is no difference between my two hon. Friends and those of us who sit upon this Bench, but their amendment suggests either that there was some want of sincerity in the declaration to which I have alluded, or, if they acquit us that, that there has been some want of consistency in not following it up as they say we should have followed it up by an announcement in the King's Speech, the effect of which would have been, of course, that we should have wound up now this present Session and this present Parliament in order at once to submit the issue to the country. I am addressing my hon. Friends, and I think they will agree with me that that is the gravamen of their complaint. Let us see how the matter stands.

Mr. PONSONBY

I intended to convey, not necessarily before the end of the Session, but before a new Session next year.

The PRIME MINISTER

I do not know that I quite appreciate that distinction. Let us look at the Amendment. The Amendment declares that it is "imperative that proposals should be embodied in a Bill for the consideration of Parliament this Session." In other words, the Bill should be brought forward, and, I presume, pressed forward this Session, raising the issue. If that is the case, anybody who is acquainted with Parliamentary and political life must be aware that from that 459 moment onward this House of Commons and this Parliament would be acting under sentence of death. There is no question whatsoever about that, because you would be deliberately bringing to issue a question which can only be settled by a dissolution—namely, the question whether the present relation between the two Houses should continue to exist.

My colleagues in the Government and myself—I need not assure my hon. Friends have devoted a great deal of time and thought to the consideration of that course, and we came to the conclusion that such a course was open to insuperable objections on several grounds, which I will proceed to enumerate. In the first place, though my hon. Friend who has just sat down does not seem to attach very much importance to it, we were not disposed, and we are not disposed, the first time to concede to the other House, in addition to the powers which the Constitution does give them of checking, of defacing and of destroying legislation which this House has approved, another right never claimed by it, and never allowed to it—the right of prescribing the time and the method for a dissolution of Parliament. If anyone will consult our political annals he will find that never since the year 1832, never since the time of the Reform Bill, has there been any dissolution of Parliament which has been occasioned by a vote of the House of Lords.

No Government, Liberal or Conservative, has ever recognised in the House of Lords the right or the power to dictate a dissolution. That is only one step along the road, of course, assuming—and my hon. Friends will agree with me in assuming—that it rests with us, and not with the House of Lords, to say when and how the issue should be submitted to the people. Then, of course, we have to determine the answer to that question upon a general survey of our duties and obligations, and upon that survey it appeared perfectly clear to us, and I confess it appears increasingly clear to me the more I reflect on the matter, that this Session—the whole time of this Session—is hypothecated to tasks which we cannot honourably to ourselves, or in the best interests of the country, leave unattempted or half performed. I will mention one or two. Take first of all the question of finance. There has not been a Parliament or a Session in the House of Commons, for a great many years in which the financial problems which will have to be discussed 460 and determined were so great in bulk, so complex in detail, so grave in their consequences for the years which lie immediately ahead. I will only give one illustration.

I will give you only one illustration. Take the Old Age Pensions. Last year this House decided to grant Old Age Pensions, knowing perfectly well it was committing itself to an expenditure the exact dimensions of which could not be ascertained with any approach to accuracy and which may turn out to be even a larger addition than most of us contemplated to the normal expenditure of the country, not merely for this year alone, but for years to come. I believe it to be beneficent legislation. I am not going to attempt to forecast the Budget of my right hon. Friend. I do not pretend to know what it will contain. But I am perfectly certain will occupy in consideration, and must occupy, a much larger proportion of the time of this Session than is usually given to our financial proposals. It cannot in fairness or in justice be rushed through.

Therefore, upon that consideration there is primâ facie reason for supposing that the time and energies of this House will be required far in excess of those which we have to provide for in ordinary years. I will leave on our side the question of finance. There are pledges distinctly given by us and given in regard to this Session as to specific measures which we are bound in honour to perform. I will take the Irish Land Bill. There is the Housing Bill of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. But over and above and beyond these there is a group of social problems connected with unemployment, and with the underpaid and unorganised industries of the country, with which even if we were not pledged, as we are pledged, to make serious and substantial beginnings this year, cannot in policy, and I am not exaggerating if I say, even in safety, be put on the shelf or in the pigeon-hole, to come up for settlement at some uncertain date in some indefinite future.

Here is business of the highest importance which imperiously and urgently calls for the immediate attention of the House of Commons. Here is a House of Commons ready and able to grapple with the tasks laid upon it; and under these conditions, to which we have to respond, it is rather a strong thing for my hon. Friend to ask us to indefinitely postpone attempts to pass all these important Bills. I do not 461 think what hon. Gentlemen opposite may think about playing the game; but I need not add for the information and reassurance of many on this side of the House that there is no intention on our part of shirking or postponing the issue we have raised. I repeat, there is no intention of postponing the issue we have raised. We have no desire to do so. We have no interest in doing so; and, speaking for myself and the Government, I can give a complete assurance that at the earliest possible moment that is consistent with the discharge by this Parliament of the obligations I have indicated, the issue will be presented and submitted to the country.

Let me say to hon. Friends who take a different view that in my judgment, at any rate, the cause is not likely to he jeopardised nor the issue in the long run less wisely decided because it is presented in all its aspects, after full deliberation and consideration, to the tribunal of public opinion.

Let me, by way of illustration, take the case of the fiscal controversy. How was it we won our verdict in the Constituencies?

An Hon. Member on the Opposition Side: By Chinese labour.

The PRIME MINISTER

Chinese labour! I should have thought that hon. Members opposite by this time would have found out the danger of referring to that subject. How was it we won? We won by argument upon the facts. We were not like the Leader of the Opposition, afraid of dealing with figures. The arguments were carried on by the light of day. The arguments so convinced the electors of this country that they returned to Parliament the largest majority ever known in Parliamentary history. I for my part, and on the part of those of my Friends who agree with me, think that when the matter is fully and freely presented to t he judgment of the electors, carefully argued out by the light of day as the Fiscal Question was, they are likely to arrive at the same just determination on the issue.

We need not be afraid if a few more weeks or months are occupied in the process than some of the more ardent and impetuous of our supporters may desire. For my part I am confident that the longer the arguments proceed, and the more fully they are presented to the country, the more it will be realised that the evils to which I adverted in the early part of my observations are evils which no one can seriously contend can be remedied by any mere change in the composition of the 462 constitution of a Second Chamber. I do not prejudge or pronounce any anticipatory verdict on proposals of that kind; but of this I am perfectly sure, that, however your Second Chamber may be constituted—given on the one hand proper opportunities for deliberation and consultation, and on the other hand such regulations as to the duration of Parliament as will prevent the popular Assembly from acting after it has exhausted its mandate and expended its force—it is perfectly fair, given these two conditions, to assume that when the matter is placed before the people, and when they have had an opportunity to make up their minds, will come to the conclusion that it is only by limiting strictly the limit within a short duration of time of the veto of a non-representative Assembly that the electors of this country will be satisfied.

Mr. BALFOUR

When I came down to the House I had no intention of intervening or taking part in this debate. Nor should I have done so had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman indicated merely a domestic controversy between the Government and their recalcitrant followers below the Gangway. But he has raised one or two issues and used words which I do not mean to deal with at length or detail. I think, however, that the House would regard it as unusual if the Leader of the Opposition did not rise in his place and deal with such important utterances on the part of the Leader of the majority.

The right hon. Gentleman began in a strain familiar to me now after 20 or 30 years of political life, saying how much wiser and more prudent and more statesmanlike were the Tory leaders of a previous generation than are those who hold the sway in the less happy times in which the right hon. Gentleman has been called upon to exercise political activity. He looks back with a regretful eye to the days of the Duke of Wellington, Lord Aberdeen, the Earl of Derby, and other eminent Conservative Ministers. He looks back to those happy days, and he compares the statesmanlike moderation which then prevailed with the reckless counsels of my right hon. Friend Lord Lansdowne and other wild revolutionaries in another place. I always notice there is no demerit which existing statesmen possess which their predecessors possessed when drawing interesting parallels.

Let me call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the different condition of things, if I take the time of the Duke of Wellington for example, and the differ- 463 ence in circumstances which the House of Lords had then to deal with, and those which the House of Lords has to deal with now. It is perfectly true that on more than one occasion the House of Lords on the appeal of the Duke of Wellington, gave way, because the Duke of Wellington and the House of Lords felt whatever their own views might be public opinion was that of the House of Commons and not that of the House of Lords.

Is that the case now? Will any hon. Gentleman candidly say that in their opinion the House of Lords in rejecting any of the measures to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted were running counter to the great mass of public opinion? [SEVERAL MEMBERS: "We all say so."] I will put the question rather differently. I am perfectly sure that at the present moment there is not a man who believes that anybody may convince himself that I am right merely by casting his memory back over the history of the last three years.

The Education Bill was the first measure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and that was rejected in the very height of the power of the present majority, when it was not more than 13 months old. It was Amended in the Lords and then dropped by the Government, though they were quite ready subsequently to adopt most of the Amendments in the Bill which was intended as a compromise, and yet the whole blame was thrown on the Upper House.

There were many people at that time who were of opinion that this would arouse a storm of indignation in all parts of the country, and there were plenty of people who were anxious to arouse such a storm, and, had the fuel been there there were plenty of people ready to lay the match; had there been dynamite about there were plenty of willing hands to lay the train. Everybody knows that the country could not be stirred to a moment's indignation, that the general trend of feeling, on the whole, was in favour of the House of Lords, and that it was impossible to arouse the smallest scintilla indicating that the House of Lords was in the position now in which it had been in at the time of the Duke of Wellington in the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, in which the House of Lords, whether they were right or wrong in their opinions, did not share the general opinion of their countrymen. 464 That was the first of the great actions of the House of Lords to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. What is the last? The one which he described as the climax of the whole—that was the Licensing Bill. It was rejected by the House of Lords after what was called a caucus. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means the meeting at Lansdowne House. I do not know why that was more a caucus than the meetings that Mr. Gladstone used to have of his party at his house. I presume that the difference between Berkeley-square and Carlton House-terrace is not fundamental to the Constitution, and that if a collection of Conservative or Unionist gentlemen in a house in one quarter of the town deserve to be described as a caucus, no more complimentary epithet should be applied to those who met to discuss great political questions when Mr. Gladstone was leading the Opposition and living in Carlton House-terrace.

The House of Lords did reject the Bill. That was the climax of their iniquities; that was the last unforgivable offence—their rejection of the greatest of all social reforms; the casting out contemptuously of something which the great mass of their countrymen were passionately desirous of seeing passed. Does not everybody know that by any test you apply, the majority of the country was behind the House of Lords. It is possible, of course, to argue about the vehemence of the indignation existing on the one side, and to say that there was little indignation on the other side. I admit you cannot bring that particular balance of argument to the test of those figures, of which the right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day was so much enamoured.

The Licensing Bill applied to England, and England alone. We have had some test as to what the opinion in England is at the by-elections. The right hon. Gentleman said just now we ought to have Parliamentary elections at sufficiently rapid intervals to prevent the House losing the mandate of the country. He, therefore, does think that this House does lose the mandate of the country before its six, years have elapsed. I wonder what his tests are of the House having lost the confidence of the country. I have never been one of those who have held that the Government of the day were to go outside the letter of the Constitution. I never pressed the Government to dissolve on account of the by-elections, but when they come forward and tell us that the country is indignant with the House of Lords for 465 having pursued a certain course of action, I ask, then, what the indication is? Everything has been done to stimulate and magnify the indignation, if it exists. Every machinery has been set to work to invent it, if it did not exist; but with all the power of magnifying and inventing nothing has appeared that any human being could describe as indignation, excitement, or disapproval of the action of the House of Lords. The whole trend of every by-election in the country since the House of Lords took that action, and when it was known they were going to take it in the country in which the Bill applied, has conclusively shown that the inference which everybody can draw from such indications as are open to all of us, as to the way public opinion was going, is that the House of Lords would not have been doing their duty, would not, at all events, have been carrying out the views of their countrymen if they had passed the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in such indignant terms.

The right hon. Gentleman having denounced the House of Lords and worked himself up to a degree of indignation which would have satisfied even his Friends below the Gangway—perhaps it was intended to satisfy them—proceeded to air an argument which I did not quite understand. He said it was quite true that the House of Lords committed all these iniquities; it was quite true he was burning to be at them; it was quite true the country was panting for their blood. But the Government had a duty to perform, and he was going to exercise his whole powers of self-control, he was going to keep his impatient colleagues on the leash, he was going to prevent any premature inquiries in this country as to what the country really thought about this subject, in order that these great duties might be carried out.

I do not dissent from one portion of the right hon. Gentleman's schedule of duties. I quite agree he has run up an enormous Bill. I do think he should pay it. That I agree, but he did not tell hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that directly that the Budget was passed he was going to the country. Not at all! They are going to discuss the Welsh Church, the Irish Land Bill, the Housing Bill, and a great many other Bills this Session, including Unemployment. We heard nothing about the Unemployed Bill, by the way, during the unemployment debate; it has suddenly appeared; it is a new subject in the Government's programme. They have thought of it since last Tuesday.

The PRIME MINISTER

Not at all.

Mr. BALFOUR

They have got to get through all these things before they ask the country to decide upon the great issue. Well, if they are going to carry out all these great measures of social reform I presume the right hon. Gentleman thinks these measures will receive very fair treatment at the hands of the other House. If they do not think that, I do not see whom they are benefiting by it. If they really think that the co-operation of the House of Lords cannot be counted on on questions of social reform, surely it is the greatest waste of time and the unkindest thing to the classes that think they are to get these social reforms, not at once to see that this obstructive Upper Chamber is reduced within the limits which commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

If you do not think there is any difficulty when you come to social reform it seems to me all this sound and fury and indignation is thrown away. I therefore cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman's line of argument. He admits that you have not only this Session but a succession of Sessions before you in which this Government is going to carry out fruitful and beneficent work for the people.

Mr. LUPTON

Hear, hear.

Mr. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman has an interest in prolonging the labours of this particular Parliament, but if this particular Parliament is going to carry out all these beneficent duties, I repeat, how can you with any decency say that the House of Lords is a great obstructive Chamber to social reform? You give away your own case by announcing your own programme. What does it all come to?

The right hon. Gentleman launched out into musical metaphor. It was the climax, the crescendo, the dominant note. He drew inspiration from some great choral or orchestral work. I ask what the climax is going to be? It is going to die away in some faint diminuendo, in some distant future. I think the Government must feel that speeches of the kind to which we have just listened, on an Amendment of the kind which has just been proposed, after the pledges given, Session after Session, and after the Resolution which has been passed by this House, are an anti-climax really of the most ludicrous description. Hon. Gentlemen really should give up beating the big drum and blowing their trumpets, walking round the walls of Jericho, and expecting them to fall unless 467 they have something like the courage of their opinions.

Anybody reading the speeches of the Government and of those who support the Government, reading their resolutions, examining the indignant resolutions passed by their supporters in the country, would really suppose they meant business. It is quite obvious they do not mean business. Then the question arises, Why do not they mean business? The right hon. Gentleman has spent half an hour and more this evening eloquently in giving us what he wants us to accept as the reasons for their not meaning business. I will give a much shorter and a much more conclusive reason why they do not mean business.

The fact is—and everybody knows it—that either by bad luck or bad management the Government and their supporters have contrived in three years to turn the whole country against them. A majority much smaller than that which I see opposite to me now—a majority of half its size with the country behind them—would, I do not say make different speeches, but they would do different things. Everybody knows what has been the effect of their policy. Everybody knows why nothing is brave about them but their speeches. Their communications have been cut. They are a gigantic army, but they have no means of drawing supplies from their true base. They know they have not got the country behind them, and it is because they know they have not got the country behind them, and it is because they know that all this indignation against the House of Lords is indignation which they may feel in their own breasts, but is indignation that has no echo in the breasts of their countrymen—it is for that reason, and for no other reason, that instead of assenting to the proposals of the hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has felt himself bound to get up and make the amazing speech to which we have just listened.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I desire to say a few words on behalf of the party with which I am associated with regard to this Amendment. We must take this Amendment for its intentions, and we are not prepared to say the Government ought now to produce a Bill dealing with the House of Lords veto, that they should close all their other work in order to advance that Bill, and in a month or two appeal to the country upon it. We have no desire to vote for that, to speak for it, 468 or to associate ourselves in the country with it at all.

Mr. PONSONBY

That was not what I advocated.

Mr. MACDONALD

What I want to make clear is this: I believe that my hon. Friend's intention is, as he has indicated by his interruption, but his amendment is so worded as, I think, to carry that meaning to a very large percentage of people who have not read it carefully. At any rate, all that I have to do is to make our position perfectly clear. We certainly shall not vote for the Amendment to the Amendment if it is moved, because again we must take the intention, and however skilfully that Amendment may be worded, and the Opposition has got very skilful nowadays in wording its Amendments—however skilfully that Amendment may be worded the meaning of it is this—it means that this House is to agree that the other place shall have the power to say when an election is to be held, and that is a thing that I shall not for a single moment submit to, and this House of Commons would be unworthy of itself if it submitted to any such idea as. that. But it seems to me that the Labour party must take the best opportunity which presents itself for indicating what it thinks and feels about the House of Lords. Therefore, if we vote for the Amendment which the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs has just moved, it is simply because it is the only opportunity that presents itself to us on this occasion of declaring emphatically that we are altogether opposed to the further existence of the House of Lords.

There is one thing, I think, that the Government has failed to do. I doubt very much if there is a single Member of this House who believes that the Government do not intend to do something about the House of Lords agitation before Parliament comes to an end, but I am doubtful about the country. Is it not excusable on the part of the country to argue that a Government which is sending up, almost on every occasion, man after man and supporter after supporter to the House of Lords does not mean to deal with that House very effectively. I know very well the conditions under which these men go-up. The party wants funds; they are individuals prepared to subscribe those funds. We all know the conditions under which those funds are subscribed. I am bound to say, in view of the historical position of the House of Lords, that deprives it of all the respect that it ought to 469 gain by it. If we find that the other place has become merely one that is occupied by Gentlemen who are buying a seat there in a recognised way, it is no longer an aristocracy, it is the very worst expression of the plutocratic spirit that shows itself in England at the present time.

I hold in respect for valour the curiosity collector who has bought from a pawnbroker a Victoria Cross, just as much as I respect those noble lords whose only claim to be there is that they have paid for the right to sit in that House. I am one of those curious specimens of a Conservative who sit with the Labour party. I am Conservative because I have a profound respect for historical institutions. There is nobody in this House who is more anxious to pay respect to the House of Lords and the aristocracy of the country than I am. Where is it? What is it? As to the majority of the people who have gone there recently, why we have really seen the strawberry leaves growing painfully on their brows for year after year. It has forfeited that respect which an aristocracy, British, or any other, is bound to have if it is to stand against the impact of a growing democracy.

So far as we are concerned we want no conflict with the House of Lords. It is not our intention to pick a quarrel, and we would prefer very much if they would just let us alone. We came in here to do some social legislation; we did not come here to tinker and try to mend our democratic machinery any more, but if the machine will not work then the machinery must be thrown upon the scrap heap. If our Constitution has so provided that no drastic amendment can be made in our taxation, in our method of holding property, and the way that property is used—if our Constitution has so carefully provided impediment to these changes, then it is absolutely necessary for the democratic party to remove those impediments as soon as it can and as early as it can in carrying out its programme of social reforms.

Those of us who have to face electors know perfectly well that the interests represented by the House of Lords are admirably represented in this House. They are the people of money; they are the people of privilege; they are the people who at every election in this country subscribe money for political organisations and non-political organisations to keep us out of this House—to keep advanced Liberal and Radical opinions out of this House, and to swell the ranks of the party which sits above the Gangway on this side of the House. And yet, not content with 470 the enormous political power that property and wealth gives them, they have to be entrenched in another ditch—in another place—lest drastic Radical and Socialistic legislation should go through this House and be set up. They have a double chance. They have a chance in our elections, and then, if you please, each one of them occupies precisely the same political value in the Constitution of his country as my constituency does, or any constituency does.

"One man one vote." Why, there is, one man one constituency, when we consider the powers and privileges of that other place. We have got to face that whether we like it or not. It is said, however, that they ought to be the great interpreters, the wise and accurate interpreters of the democratic will. Well, I am bound to say that the democratic will is exceedingly elusive. Whoever interpreted the democratic will rightly? I recollect one of the wisest and keenest electioneers that ever sat in this. House, the late Lord Beaconsfield, egregiously erred in 1880, when he thought he interpreted the democratic will, and realised to his cost, much too late, that he had made a mistake in regard to it. I do not know whether this House does interpret the democratic will, but I know this House is carrying out the Constitution. I know the British Constitution is that we have an election once every seven years, and that the majority returned to the House has to do its best to carry out the democratic will, and the only way in which you can judge of the way it is doing so is just the ordinary indications that show themselves outside. The Government is in touch with its followers, its followers are in touch with the constituents, and I ask whether there is a single Member of this. House, whether Liberal or Labour, who, is waiting to throw away his seat to follow some will-o'-the-wisp in the shape of drastic forms of legislation.

There is not a single Member of this House, in supporting legislation who does not believe that somehow or other he can secure a majority of his constituency in the approval and support he gives to it. The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House challenged us to test whether the House of Lords, in rejecting the Education and the Licensing Bills, was carrying out the will of the people. Curiously enough, he saw his error in time and then he set conditions by which the test was to be applied, and said if you take the figures of by-elections, you must knock Scotland out. In order to make 471 himself safe, he had to become a separatist, and I hope he will remember that. Will he allow us to test the opinion of Scotland with regard to the Land Values Bill?

Is it the policy of the Unionist party now to take Bills relating to England and measure public opinion regarding those Bills only so far as public opinion is the opinion of the English Constituencies? What is fish for one is fish for another. If that is so as regards England, what about Ireland? Are they going to allow us to carry a Home Rule Bill through this House on the ground that there is a vast majority of opinion in favour of a Home Rule Bill, and that every bye-election that has happened in Ireland regarding my hon. Friends on this side of the House has only shown more than ever the practical unity of the Irish people. That separatist argument will not go down, and there is no party in this House who will be more ready to throw it overboard than the party led by the right hon. Gentleman.

Since the Licensing Bill was introduced there have been eighteen contested elections in England and Scotland, and the Government lost six out of the eighteen. Three of the seats would never under normal conditions have been held by the Government, and two of the other three were attended by three-cornered contests, and the Opposition Member returned to sit won by a minority vote. Since the Licensing Bill was introduced the Government have only lost one seat, which they might have lost under ordinary circumstances, and might have indicated a slight change of public opinion.

Then as to the votes. The votes cast were 98,760 for the Bill, and 80,905 against it. I wonder if the other place which interprets the democratic mind was aware of those facts. Moreover, supposing it was all right and the majority was on the other side. Why is this Upper Chamber as active as Lot's wife after she was cast into a pillar of salt when the Tory party is in power? Why is it that it requires some Radical knight to kiss her bosom and painted cheeks before she wakes into life and shows her teeth? If the House of Lords is the custodian of the democratic will let it be the custodian all through, and not merely when the hated Radical Government is in office. Why was it not aware of the great democratic responsibilities placed on its shoulders during the last two Parliaments? Were there no 472 bye-elections showing this impartial Senate what the democracy of the country wanted prior to 1906? Where was their vigilance? Where was their patriotism? Where was their impartiality in those days? They did not know it. They do not know it now. Let me take the two most recent examples, the Mines Eight Hours Bill and the Licensing Bill. I went up and heard the debate on the first Bill there, and I heard Gentleman after Gentleman get up seriously assuring his hearers and through the House the country that he was awake to the iniquity of imposing a penny or twopence a ton on the price of coal. A very large percentage of some whom I heard speaking are actually themselves imposing sixpence a ton on coal and not giving one single iota of service to the community to entitle them to it. How do you explain this, that the mining rights and royalties imposed on pig iron in France are eightpence, in Germany and in England 4s. 6d.

I wish those who had so suddenly awoke to the fact that to protect the lives of miners meant a penny or twopence more on their coal had awoke to this more serious fact, that in order to keep the aristocracy of this country going we have to impose duties of 6d., 7d., and 8d. on a ton of coal. The first case is an instance of class legislation of the most objectionable kind. Take the Licensing Bill, where you get a combination of partisan interest and class legislation perhaps unparalleled in the history of the country. The Leader of the House referred to a caucus. The Leader of the Opposition objected to the word "caucus." I do not mind. Let us call it a meeting. A meeting, however, in Mr. Gladstone's house was a meeting of representative persons—of persons sent to this House under party pledges, because they displayed certain party colours—meeting to consider what the party ought to do.

So long as we have a democratic constitution that sort of thing will go on, and it is very good that it should go on. Probably if the opinion of this House was more solid, and if the small Committee known as the Cabinet did not force legislation upon us, I think this House would produce better results than it actually does. But why was this meeting of the other place in regard to the Licensing Bill called? First of all it was called of those who are Tories by conviction, and secondly of those who are owners of brewery shares, and they voted. The Bill was held up to them as the baby was held 473 up by Solomon to the natural and the unnatural mother, and this Solomon said— Shall we kill it or shall we not? The unnatural mother very nearly unanimously said we will kill it, and they killed it, and they left the House boasting of their patriotism and their impartiality. They voted simply for their party and their pockets. They reminded me of those gentlemen you see on the side-walks. They tuck up their legs behind them, and put in front of them the legend that they are lame. They discolour and disfigure their eyes, and assure the charitable passer-by that they were born blind.

The Lords went out for Lansdowne House with "Patriotism" written on their chests in the same way as the rogue and vagabond tries to palm off his assumed blindness and lameness on the charitable public. Let us simply use the proper words in designating certain patent facts. The House of Lords is a class assembly. It represents a certain economic interest. It stands there to do that, and to do nothing else. Its patriotism and its impartiality are as fraudulent as those brass plates that the rogues and vagabonds wear. I hope the time will not be far off when we shall have an opportunity of discussing one Chamber and two Chambers. Personally, I am in favour of a single Chamber. Wherever two Chambers have been tried, wherever British stock is governing itself, the two Chambers have failed. You have either to have the second Chamber opposed to the first, in which case it is not wise legislation that it issues, or you have to have it having the same opinions as the first, in which case it goes to sleep like our own Chamber when the Tories happen to be in office. Take Canada. One of the first things Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to do was to adjust the political balance in the Upper Chamber. It kicked at first, and then it slept, and it has been sleeping ever since. Take New Zealand. The Upper House in New Zealand kicked when Seddon came to carry out his programme. At first the Upper House kicked. Then new men were appointed to it. Then it slept, and it, too, has been sleeping ever since. Take South Australia. The Upper House is elected, but there has been friction, and the Upper House has been at loggerheads with the Lower House. I was privileged to sit in the House of Commons in Adelaide on the day when Parliament assembled there after the last General Election, and I saw a scene there the like of which I have never seen before, and hope never to see 474 again. The Prime Minister rose up and moved the first reading of the Second Chamber Bill. It went through in the twinkling of an eye. He rose again, and moved the suspension of the Standing Orders. That went through in the twinkling of an eye. The Bill got its second reading, went through its Committee stage, and got its third reading all in 35 minutes, showing that the conflict between the Lower and the Upper House had become so drastic and had reached such a crisis that no reasonable person, not even the Opposition, offered opposition to what everybody admitted was an absolutely necessary Bill. The Lower House was determined not to have its work retarded and blemished by the Upper House. I am not opposed to a revision Chamber, but it must be perfectly clear that the revision Chamber must give a second reading to every Bill that comes from us as a matter of right. It must be one of the House of Commons' privileges that we settle the principles and aims of legislation, and if there is to be any alteration to be made it must be in detail. Just as we have claimed the privilege of settling financial legislation, so must we claim as a privilege that the principles, the aims, and the intention of legislation shall issue from the House of Commons, and from no other branch of the Constitution.

But we are in no hurry. Our programme is not fulfilled. We were not sent here to go back to the country without, at any rate, attempting to do certain good work. We are not going to allow, so far as my colleagues and myself are concerned, any irresponsible and non-representative Chamber to tell us when General Elections are going to come. We are going to go on. We have to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. We have to deal with the Unemployed, and so on. But if the Government is really to impress the country with the fact that it is in earnest, it must do something it has not yet done. We will vote, I suppose, for the Amendment under the conditions and with the explanations I have made, but I hope before long the Government will make it perfectly clear to us, even clearer than the right hon. Gentleman in his very clear speech has made it this afternoon, that the Liberal party is not going to allow, if it can help it, such a Constitution in which a few non-representative persons can undo the work of an elected Chamber to remain, because, in the words of the formula which have often been carried here and elsewhere, the House of Lords is responsible to nobody 475 except itself, it is representative of nobody except a class, and it is an anachronism in our Constitution, and ought to be abolished as quickly as possible.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out from "imperative" to end, and insert "in the interests of stable Government to decide forthwith by an appeal to the constituencies which of the two Houses of Parliament enjoys the confidence of a majority of the electors." He said: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in the course of the somewhat violent observations which he has made on the subject of the House of Lords, appeared to me in places to have somewhat missed the real nature of the issue which is before the House at the present moment. The issue is not as to whether the House of Lords possesses merits or whether the work of the House of Lords is vitiated by demerits. The question is a very short and simple one—whether or not the Government are going to take the opportunity which is afforded to them at the moment of going to the country in order to decide whether or not the country shares the indignation which they express at the recent conduct of the House of Lords. I certainly imagined my Amendment would have met with the support of the Labour party.

Mr. MacNEILL

On a point of order, I have to ask your ruling as to whether the Amendment is in order. It is a direct negative to the Question before the House, and is not an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think the Amendment is a direct negative. It is an alternative course, namely, to dissolve at once and appeal to the country.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

Under those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman, being reassured as to the character of the Amendment, I trust I may have his support also in due course. The mover and seconder of the Amendment, in their very weighty and serious statements, certainly impressed me with the idea that they have put their hands to the plough in the spirit of men who mean to carry it to the end of the furrow, even if they are only ploughing sand. The difference between their Amendment and mine is after all only the difference of a single Session. I do not believe in the elaborate machinery which the Government suggest is to follow from their Resolution. I rather venture to suggest, in view of the conflict that has arisen 476 as to what should be done at the moment, that the right course is to have an immediate dissolution. If the hon. Gentleman, the mover of the Resolution, still adheres to his view, and if the House as a whole should take the view that they were not prepared to accept my Amendment, then I certainly should find myself in a position to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman as an Amendment to the Address; because, as I understand the position of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, while it would not produce an appeal to the country as early as I or my friends would wish to see, it would at least procure an appeal at least one Session, and, maybe, two Sessions, earlier than the Government intend to make that appeal to the country, if left to themselves. Under those circumstances, I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman unless the House accepts the Amendment to it which I have moved. I confess that, reading his Amendment, I thought it was admirable, dignified, and adequate, until I came to the word "Resolution," and saw that we were, after all, only to be treated to a revival of the discussion of a year or two years ago. The tenour of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman reminded me of the speech made by a supporter of the Government in the country the other day, to this effect:— The country demands in dealing with the Lords a policy severe, haughty, and drastic. Nothing short of this will satisfy the fighting brigade. But at all costs you must resist the monstrous claim of the Lords to force a dissolution. That is:— The policy may be as severe, as haughty, and as drastic as you please, but whatever else we do let us resist the claim of the House of Lords to force a dissolution. I do not particularly quarrel with the limitations of the hon. mover's proposal. I think he is very likely waiting with the admirable prudence of his fellow countrymen until the pending bye-elections in Scotland are determined before giving his voice in favour of an immediate election. As far as opinion in this discussion is concerned, it has developed, so far as one can judge, among the occupants of the Ministerial front bench in this direction, that they are strongly of opinion that it is their duty to their country to remain in office, while so far as we have had an opportunity of judging, nearly everybody else in the House, or at any rate those below the Gangway who usually support them, we upon this side of the House, and the Labour Members below the Gangway are 477 strongly of opinion that the Government should not remain in office. As far as the rank and file of the Government are concerned the position they have taken up with regard to the House of Lords does them, from one point of view, very great credit. Very many of them have indulged in violent denunciation of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister denies that he indulged in it at all. But we find that if you take from the year 1830 the Liberal party created no fewer than 249 Peers. This then, it may be said, is a parricidal war. Since the days of King Lear none has ever nursed such an adder in his bosom. And while the Liberal party created 249 Peers, we on this side of the House have only created 181 Peers. During the first year in which the present Government held office they created 16 new Peers, that is to say, a Peer every three weeks. I can see the mouths of right hon. Gentlemen watering. I hope to supplement the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, the mover of the Amendment, because I must not close my eyes to the possibility that the House may not accept my Amendment, and I must, therefore, seek to reinforce his arguments by some observations which have fallen from Gentlemen opposite at different times and by some inferences which I shall ask the House to draw from those observations. There was one speech made by the Prime Minister before he was Prime Minister of which my hon. Friend, if he had recollected it, would possibly have reminded the House. The right hon. Gentleman said:— Outside in the country, wherever the electors have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion, they have spoken of the contempt into which the Ministry has fallen. Under these circumstances, why do they not resign? No one but the Office holders know.

The hon. Gentlemen would have helped the House to arrive at an impartial decision if they had reminded us of a speech which the Prime Minister made at a banquet in the National Liberal Club. Let us give the House the advantage of those stimulating words:— The question I want to put to you is this: Is this state of things to continue? (Cries of no, certainly not.) We say it must be brought to an end, and I invite the Liberal Party to-night to raise the veto of the House of Lords as the dominating issue in politics.' As indicating the earnest spirit of these strenuous men who assembled together on that occasion, I note that the "Times" reporter calls attention to the fact that the company at that point stood up and waved their dinner napkins. It was, perhaps, a somewhat inauspicious omen at this early stage that they should have mast-headed 478 the white flag. I can well understand my hon. Friends who moved and who supported this Amendment thinking that it was a somewhat fallacious proceeding to wave the napkins, unless the waving of the napkins was followed by something. I would ask them to apply their consideration not merely to the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister, but to the very surprising statements made by other Members of the Government having regard to the extraordinary apathy that they are now displaying. Take for instance the First Lord of the Admiralty. No one will fail to recollect it is only about three years ago that the First Lord of the Admiralty when he was at the Education Office announced to the country in most resolute and determined language that he was shortly going to the House of Lords with a sword. It was quickly discovered that his only qualifications for the Board of Education were an insubordinate record and his sword, and he was therefore dropped into his present position. Since he occupied that position one may perhaps discover the reasons why he is not so anxious to press on the campaign, as he was until he found himself in this position, which is one of great prestige and dignity, and one that affords great scope for enjoyment, and the nation, I am sure, will have observed that the right hon. Gentleman lately, in a manner which was not inadequate to his dignity, examined those outposts by which our maritime supremacy is sporadically maintained in the Mediterranean, and the country noted with much interest that the right hon. Gentleman's uniform on this occasion was an impressive compromise between that of a private tourist and that of a Rear-Admiral. The exaltation which is produced by the opening of belligerent possibilities in a Radical bosom may possibly account for the change of opinion in the First Lord of the Admiralty, but there is another Member accustomed to sit on that bench whose apathy produced even greater astonishment, and that is the President of the Local Government Board. Only three years ago I remember reading, as many of us in this House had occasion to read, the election address of the right hon. Gentleman. In that address he used, if I remember rightly, the remarkable words:— "I am opposed to all hereditary offices of whatever kind they may be. One would expect that if there was one sincere democrat the President of the Local Government Board would be that one. What is the explanation of the fact 479 that he is now in favour of postponing the appeal to the country? Two explanations suggest themselves to me which I place at the disposal of my hon. Friend I can hardly expect that he will appreciate the first as clearly as I would. The first is the extreme inconvenience of a Constituency in Scotland. I do not doubt that the President of the Board of Trade will confirm what I say. Because I am told that the position of the President of the Local Government Board in Battersea is very uncertain and Battersea is not seething with such indignation against the House of Lords as other parts of the country. The second reason why I understand the President of the Local Government Board is not in favour of an immediate election is that it is rumoured he desires continuity of access to official sources while he is engaged in the preparation of an interesting work to be entitled "How I Saved England," recommended to the public by that graceful suppression of the author's individuality which has made him so popular. I shall probably be asked, and an explanation is certainly due, as to why the President of the Board of Trade is not in favour of an immediate appeal to the country. At first sight it would seem very difficult to suggest a reason, if one looks back to some previous utterances, such as that of the 25th June, 1907, "At no distant date we shall open our bombardment." That is very nearly two years ago, and at present there are no signs of this bombardment. In the same debate he said:— The House of Lords is one-sided, hereditary, unpaid unrepresentative, and absentee. I should have thought it was time now to develop this bombardment against a Chamber that could be described in that way. The only explanation I can think of why the right hon. Gentleman shares the desire for delay which unaccountably pervades the whole of the Ministerial Front Bench is that he cannot take himself from the work of elevating in his official position the whole tone and spirit of our public controversy in dealing with questions affecting our national trade. We can ill spare an official in his position when showing an example of that spirit of modern exaltation which many competent observers thought had left English politics with the late Mr. Gladstone. I for one hope that I shall listen to many more of the courteous and conciliatory impromptu speeches, to the preparation of which the 480 right hon. Gentleman has devoted the best years of his life. Perhaps I may be permitted to make an observation about the Minister for War. He said that the history of Liberal Governments for the last fifty years shows a certain amount of reaction has always appeared after three years. The House will at once see the simplicity of the explanation, because that reaction has now appeared. The House should recollect that there are other reasons why the Secretary for War does not wish to retire to the obscurity of private life. As the House is aware, the right hon. Gentleman has formed an alliance on equal terms with the "Daily Mail" and the author of a well-known melodrama, who have devoted their services to the raising of this Territorial army. The Minister for War said only yesterday that he looked forward to the time when the Territorial Army would be as large as the German Army.

Then there is the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I confess that at first sight his attitude gives me considerable difficulty. The only explanation I can give is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot turn himself from a subject which lends itself so much to the sallies of a pretty wit as the present condition of Ireland. When he indulges in his witticisms I do not believe he is in any way indifferent to the horrors which are made to appear the subject of his humour. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to that type of man who, would still be fiddling if all his colleagues were burning. With regard to the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is believed at one time to have been strongly in favour of contesting the will of the people before the Budget was introduced, but when it was pointed out that this course would place the Government in the position of absconding bankers as far as Old Age Pensions were concerned, he said that it did not matter to him, as he was finished anyhow. How is the case put today? Let me for a moment treat the question seriously. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] I should be very sorry it there was anybody in this House who did not realise the difficulty of treating this question seriously. So far as it deserves serious treatment, what is the position? It is said that by rejecting the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill, which were passed by this House, the House of Lords have rejected something which the people wanted. Let me first deal with the Education Bill. As my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, 481 if the House of Lords were wrong in the action they took upon the first Education Bill, then the Government were wrong in the Education Bill which they introduced at the end of last Session, because every considerable Amendment which the House of Lords introduced into the first Education Bill proposed by the present Government was introduced in the Education Bill which was proposed from the Front Government Bench at the close of last Session. Hon. Members will all remember that when the first Education Bill was introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that Clericalism is the enemy. Two months later the right hon. Gentleman appears in double harness with a Welsh Bishop and produces a Bill which was the very negation of all that had been proposed before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:— I would rather have a compromise than a victory, But that would not have been possible if the House of Lords had not done that which they are now being blamed for doing. I am astonished at the arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to the effect that the country wanted the Licensing Bill. Take any evidence you like, either of hon Gentlemen opposite or their own leaders, I claim that I can establish to demonstration over and over again that the country did not want the Licensing Bill. What did the Lord Chancellor say in the House of Lords? He said:— The Bill may be an unpopular measure, so much the more reason why this House should pass it. That is the new theory of Liberal democracy. And what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say about this Bill, for the rejection of which you are being asked to pick a quarrel with the Lords? He said:— It is the greatest opportunity the Lords has had to rise to the dignity of its great profession as an independent institution, far removed from the passion and interest which sways the multitude. That is modern democracy as understood in Wales. A statement of that kind involves the admission that the Licensing Bill, in the opinion of the Government, does not represent the will of the people. The "Labour Leader " said of the Licensing Bill that it was a Bill which does not stir the pulses of the people.

A paper called "Justice" said of the same measure:— The House of Lords has kicked it out with contumely, and the Government know if they dissolve Parliament on this issue they will be soundly beaten. 482 The hon. Member for Bradford, writing in the "Clarion," said:— The Bills which have been slaughtered by the Lords are of doubtful popularity, and it is putting it very mildly to say that the popularity of the Licensing Bill is very doubtful.

In the face of that evidence, and the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there has been a sensible reaction of feeling of an unfavourable character, how can it be contended that anyone thinks the Licensing Bill was popular, or that the House of Lords came into collision with the will of the people by throwing it out? The President of the Board of Trade has impliedly admitted this, because he said in the country in a recent speech:— I assert that there is no reason, as the history of this country abundantly shows, why a general election at a well-chosen moment should not retrieve, and restore, the whole situation. Upon that. I make two comments. First of all, there is the implied admission that the present is not a well-chosen moment; and, secondly, if there is need for some policy to retrieve and restore the whole situation, there must be something which requires restoration and stands in need of retrieval. As the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer know, the only thing which requires retrieval at the present moment is the unpopularity of the Government. The only determination which seems to animate the present Government is that if they possibly can they will continue in office until they have introduced legislation which will reduce their unpopularity in the country, and that is why the appeal to the country is not being made now. We cannot compel the Government to appeal to the country, because that decision is in their own hands; but we can at least make an appeal to them that if they are not going to take the decision of the country they should drop the farce of this Resolution and the Bill which is going to follow it. They should also make such speeches as have been made in the country less frequent than a year ago, but still with considerable frequency. There is no one in this House who does not know that if the Government believed that they would have got a majority against the House of Lords when the Licensing Bill was thrown out they would have appealed to the country. Consider the strength of a Government, returned on a plain issue, placed before the democracy in England. If instead of indulging in empty bickerings the Government had appealed to the country on the Licensing Bill, and had been returned again to power, they would 483 have been able to have sent across the corridor a message saying, "You threw out this Bill, and we went to the Bar of the people of England, and they have sent us back with a majority strong enough to deal with your pretentions." The Government knew very well that no such consequences would have followed, and therefore they adopted the simpler course of indulging in declamation in this House. I appeal to the Government to drop the whole of this discussion until they are ready to go forward with business-like proposals. If they are not ready to do that, and if they are determined to introduce each year a debate on this subject in this House—if they persist in that course, our opinion of their statesmanship may decline, but at least we can say that they are entitled to the gratitude of the whole country for making a substantial contribution to the gaiety of nations.

Mr. E. A. GOULDING

I rise to second the Amendment. It is nearly two years since the memorable Resolution in reference to the House of Lords was proposed by the late Prime Minister and carried by overwhelming majority. But it was specifically laid down in that Resolution that the objects were to be secured by law. Yet from that day to this, although we have had two King's Speeches, there is no whisper of legislation in regard to this matter. Why this delay? Ministers up and down the country have told us that vital measures were before this House, and if they were thrown out disastrous consequences would result. Nothing of the kind has happened. The measures have gone, and the Ministers still remain in their places. The Prime Minister himself made a very remarkable statement in reference to the Licensing Bill. In June of last year he said:— I stake my own political fortune, and if I may say so, the political fortune of my friends, on this Licensing Bill. Well, the House of Lords accepted the challenge of the Prime Minister and threw out the Licensing Bill. Ever since Ministers have been up and down the country denouncing the House of Lords in the name of the people. Yet they take precious good care that they will do nothing to enable them, and enable us, to secure the verdict of the people upon these transactions. What a contemptible position for any great Government to occupy! Recall for one moment the Liberal Government of Mr. Gladstone, 1869-74. What would have been thought of that Government if they had come declaring 484 this or that great measure to be a matter of vital importance to the country, yet suffering these measures to be thrown out?

They still cling to office, and occupy the position without any power whatsoever. Doubtless they comfort themselves with the feeble precedent of 1892–5, when, on Mr. Gladstone's advice, they still clung to office after the rejection of the Home Rule Bill. What is the position to-day? Hon. Gentlemen opposite say they do not desire a dissolution because they are not going to let the House of Lords dictate the time. The House of Lords has made no such claim. What they claim, and what they are determined to claim, is to exercise those Constitutional rights they possess. They are not defying the people. If you think so, take up the challenge. But you do not take it up, because the bye-elections which have recently gone on show that enmity to your rule is largely writ in them, together with no confidence in your administration.

Then we come to the Prime Minister. He makes a great speech at the National Liberal Club. The forces of the Liberal party are gathered there to regale themselves, and take courage on the great efforts they are going to make. He appeals to them to gather all their forces together and make this great appeal to the country on the one dominating issue in politics—the House of Lords. They are to throw all their great forces into it, to "do or die" in this great cause. Nay, more. He goes on and says:— The great governing issue that is before us to-day is this veto of the House of Lords. Further on he goes on to say:— I repudiate altogether the idea that we are content as a great party to remain in office, and to be content with passing colourless legislation of a non-controversial character, which may pass the House of Commons and not offend the House of Lords. Such action would be a confession of humiliation and impotence. What did the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Crewe, say on 18th January: The question of the House of Lords, as the Prime Minister put it the other day, remains, and must be the dominating issue in politics until it is decided.

I now come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I am glad to see in his place. He also has been exercising himself over the House of Lords. He has made some great speeches. In pious, almost vehement, terms he tell us that Their Party never, even with the Licensing Bill, hoped to gain popularity. They were only actuated by the highest and disinterested motives.

No tinge of revenge against the trade. No fear of the rising anger of the United Kingdom Alliance. Not a word of the meetings and deputations that we heard of 485 the teetotal brigade that sit behind dominating the introduction of the Bill, or they would vote against the Government. So said the right hon. Gentleman, and Here is an occasion for the House of Lords, and the House of Lords said: 'Here is our chance, we can destroy the Liberal Party.'

Well, really, I should have thought that the very fundamental basis of a Second Legislative Chamber is that, they should revise legislation coming up from this House, that they should not pass Bills that they believe are against the wishes of the people, and put forward at the dictatio