asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he could state in which of the British Colonies or Dominions periodical returns were required by law of all dormant balances and unclaimed securities in the hands of bankers; and whether he would grant a Return showing the value of unclaimed moneys and securities thus disclosed?

Such returns are required by law in several British Colonies. I would suggest that my hon. Friend should move for a Return covering the information desired by his question. It will, however, take some time to prepare.

I understand the Return will be granted?

Yes.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he could state the total sums paid up to the present during the current financial year to the two Law Officers of the Crown, respectively?

A Return of the total amount of fees paid to the Law Officers of the Crown is given annually in the Appropriation Accounts; and I do not think that any advantage would be gained by giving a Return for a broken portion of the financial year. The details required would have to be collected from many different Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could now state how many persons had been proceeded against in Egypt under the Deportation Law of 4th July, 1909; and whether he could give any details as to the cases?

I have no information since that-given in reply to a question by Mr. Mackarness on 25th November last, but will make inquiry.

asked whether His Majesty's Government were aware that the proposed construction by China of an important railway in Western Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia could not be proceeded with chiefly owing to the attitude of Japan, who after a period of protracted delay had submitted proposals which could not possibly be accepted; and, seeing that the nearest point of this proposed railway could not be less than 150 miles, whether His Majesty's Government was prepared to admit Japan's claim to be consulted as of right; and, if so, in what manner could such an attitude be reconciled with the existing treaty obligations of both Japan and Great Britain regarding Manchuria?

In the case of the line referred to in the hon. Member's question, the Japanese Government expressed their readiness not to oppose the proposed railway, provided that they were admitted to participation in it as some compensation for the injury the line might inflict on their own railway. They have now, I understand, defined their demands; I am not aware that there is anything inherently unreasonable in these, and it is for the Chinese Government to decide in the first instance whether the conditions of the Japanese Government are acceptable or not. The original scheme for the railway in question was from Chinchow to Taonan-fu. It was subsequently extended to Tsitsihar, on the Siberian Railway, and finally to Aigun, on the River Amur. The Russian Government have now intimated both to His Majesty's Government and to China that on economic, strategical and political grounds they, as well as Japan, are interested in the question. This contention is obviously a reasonable one, seeing that Aigun is on the Russian frontier and that the line would actually cross the existing Russian railway, and the matter is therefore one for arrangement between Russia, China and Japan.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, if he could say whether any concessions of land or territory in the East African Protectorate had been made to Mr. E. S. Grogan; if so, what was the date and acreage of the concession, and whether the concession received the sanction of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies?

By an Agreement made the 9th July, 1904, between the Acting Commissioner of the East African Protectorate and Captain E. S. Grogan, the former agreed to grant to the latter a lease of some 64,000 acres of forest for a term of 50 years from the 1st of October, 1904. The Protectorate was under the administration of the Foreign Office at that time, but the agreement appears to have been made by the Acting Commissioner, without reference to the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in pursuance of the powers vested in him under the East African Order-in-Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have not the concessions now lapsed?"] I am not aware. I will refer the question to my Noble Friend, Lord Crewe.

asked whether the imprisonment of the British-Indians in the Transvaal for refusal to obey the registration laws still continues, and if Mr. Royeppen, a Natal-born Indian, a B.A., L.L.B., of Cambridge, and a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, has recently been arrested, tried, and deported for being in the Transvaal without a registration certificate; and whether His Majesty's Government will take some steps to correct this condition of things within the Empire?

On the 5th of January there were 41 Indians in custody convicted of contraventions of the registration and immigration laws and four more were waiting the result of appeals. I cannot say what the present number may be nor have I any information that Mr. Royeppen has been arrested. The whole subject, which is one of extreme complexity, has been the subject of long correspondence with the Transvaal Government, which is not yet finished. There has also been a frequent interchange of opinion between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for India.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how many British-born settlers have benefited by the mortgage advances made since its start by the Transvaal and Agricultural Bank; what is the exact amount of the advances they have received; and what proportion does the gross amount of these advances bear to the aggregate disbursements?

According to the report of the Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank for the year ended 30th June last a total of £1,105,568 loans had been made. No detailed information of the kind referred to is given, nor am I aware that it is in existence. Might I suggest that the hon. Member will get more information if he will apply to the Agent-General for the Transvaal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Miss Selina Martin was detained in Liverpool Gaol as a prisoner awaiting trial on the 21st December, 1909; will he say if she was refused bail and put in irons during her detention and whilst she was still an untried prisoner; if she was frog-marched and forcibly fed, and, if so, for what offence was she so punished; will he also say if there was any inquiry by magistrates before such punishment; and, if not, by whose authority and by what regulations such treatment was meted to an untried prisoner?

Selina Martin, who was refused bail by the magistrate in the exercise of his discretion, was treated, while in Liverpool Prison on remand, in strict accordance with the rules for untried prisoners. No force was used towards her beyond what was rendered necessary by her very violent and destructive behaviour, and her resolve to starve herself. The allegations to the contrary were carefully investigated by magistrates, who found them to be untrue. I would refer the hon. Member to an answer sent by my predecessor in office to inquiries made by a correspondent with regard to the case which was published in the newspapers of the 12th ultimo. I will send him a copy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report of Mr. Squiers, C.E., who was appointed by his Department to assist the coroner at the inquest upon the men killed in the dock accident at Newport last year; whether he intends to publish such report; and what further action he proposes to take to prevent such accidents in the future?

The report was presented to Parliament and issued some months ago. I have no power at present to take any action on it. If the Building and Engineering Works Bill, which was introduced last Session by my predecessor, should pass it would give me jurisdiction in the works of this class.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of Fowler v. Grant, tried at the Manchester Assizes last week, in which it appeared that a person now admitted to have been perfectly sane was committed to a lunatic asylum, and there treated as a lunatic for upwards of a year; and especially to the observations of Mr. Justice Walton that a man or woman, not a pauper, might be taken to the workhouse, shut up in an imbecile ward, and then declared to be a lunatic and placed in a lunatic asylum, without any public inquiry, any hearing before a magistrate, or any notice of what was going on; and whether he will consider the advisability of making inquiry, by means of a Select Committee or otherwise, into the working of the Lunacy Act, 1890?

I am making inquiries about this matter, which I heard of for the first time from my hon. Friend's question. I will let him know the result.

asked which of the lady inspectors of factories and workshops was responsible for the inspection of the South Wales and North Wales districts, respectively; and whether they had a competent knowledge of the Welsh language?

South Wales is visited by lady inspectors from the headquarters, North Wales by lady inspectors attached to the Midland Division. None of the lady inspectors, I am informed, speak Welsh, and no suggestion as to any necessity for their doing so has, so far as I am aware, ever been made. The number of women employed in factories and workshops in Wales is very small. The staff of men inspectors stationed in the Welsh districts include, of course, several who speak Welsh.

asked the Postmaster-General what progress, if any, has been made with the proposed introduction of the trunk telephone from Dublin to Galway, Sligo and Cavan respectively; and when the project will be inaugurated?

An extension of the trunk telephone system to Athlone, on the route to Galway, is being carried out, but a guarantee in respect of a further extension to Galway is not at present forthcoming. I am in correspondence with the Treasury with regard to the acceptance of a local guarantee for an extension to Sligo. An extension to Cavan cannot be undertaken until a guarantee has been given for an extension to Clones.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the canvassing staff on the Glasgow telephone service, who were taken over by the Post Office when the service was taken over from the Glasgow. Corporation, are now being transferred to the service of the National Telephone Company, although when the staff entered the Post Office service they were guaranteed conditions as favourable as those they enjoyed under the corporation; and whether there is any guarantee that the transfer now taking place will not endanger the security of the men's employment, but that they will be retained and retransferred to the Post Office when the Department takes over the National Telephone Company's service?

Seven Post Office telephone canvassers, of whom four were formerly employed by the Glasgow Corporation, are being temporarily transferred to the service of the National Telephone Company, whose staff will carry out canvassing work for the Post Office in certain districts of Glasgow till the end of 1911. When the whole telephone system is taken over by the Post Office these men, provided their service has been satisfactory, will be retransferred to the Department on terms as favourable as those they would have enjoyed had they continued in the service of the corporation and the Post Office respectively.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that increased subsistence allowances were given to the staff at many head offices last year who were sent to take duty for season work and holiday relief at sub-offices and other places away from their homes; whether he is aware that at King's Lynn the allowance was increased for duty at one of its sub-offices; whether, as a result, the staff is not to be sent there in future, but the unestablished staff at that place are to perform holiday reliefs by means of overtime, and take charge of the office during several hours of the day and supervise established postmen; and whether he will make inquiry into this matter, with a view to having these duties performed by an established staff as in previous years?

I am aware that increased subsistence allowances have been given at certain season offices, including one of the King's Lynn sub-offices, but there is no intention of altering the general arrangements for season duty in the way the hon. Member suggests.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that direct telegraphic communication between Limerick and London has been completely interrupted for three days ending the 23rd instant, thus causing inconvenience and loss to public and commercial interests; and whether he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made into the matter, with the view of some steps being taken to prevent a recurrence of such frequent and prolongd stoppages in future on those important lines, entailing a delay of many hours duration?

To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the loss and inconvenience occasioned in Ireland by the frequent interruption of telegraphic communication with Great Britain by storms, and whether he will hasten the work of putting underground the wires between London and the North-West Coast of England?

To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the delay and inconvenience caused to the newspaper Press in Belfast by the breakdown of the telegraphic service between Belfast and London on Monday last; whether he is aware that messages handed in at London at noon had not arrived in Belfast at six o'clock; that not a line of the report of the proceedings in Parliament had arrived up to eight o'clock, although the House assembled early in the afternoon; and that, although the House adjourned at eight o'clock on Monday night, the reports of the Debate on the Address on that day had not been received in Belfast up to three o'clock on Tuesday morning; whether these delays in the transmission of Press telegrams have occurred four or five times since the General Election began; whether any steps have been taken to prevent such delay in the event of storms in future; whether he is aware of the feeling amongst newspaper proprietors in Belfast that the local telegraphic staff is not sufficient to cope with an exceptional rush of work; and whether he will have inquiries made into these matters, with a view to making the service more efficient and reliable?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these questions together. On account of the recent severe storms there was, I regret to say, a breakdown of telegraphic communication on Monday last with many parts of the United Kingdom. This breakdown coincided with the despatch of an amount of Parliamentary news which has only once been exceeded—on the occasion of the introduction of the Home Rule Bill of 1886. There had been other breakdowns of less importance earlier in the year. I am aware of the inconvenience that resulted in Ireland and elsewhere from interruptions of communication and I greatly regret it. A sum of £1,500,000 has been spent by my predecessors in laying about 1,000 miles of underground cables along the main lines of communication. I propose to continue this policy, and a considerable sum will be included for the purpose in this year's Estimates. The extension of the underground cable system to the large towns of South Wales and from there to the landing places of some of the Irish cables is under consideration. It should be remembered, however, that a large proportion of lines must remain aerial, and that if these are broken down by storms, underground cables would be liable to become congested with traffic, and delay, though lessened, would not be entirely obviated. Telegraphic communication between London and Limerick was subject to some delay on the dates mentioned by the hon. Member for Limerick; but it was certainly not stopped for three days as the hon. Member's question appears to suggest. I will make inquiry as to the adequacy of the telegraph staff at Belfast as desired by the hon. Member for West Belfast.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the £1,500,000 has been spent for underground communications? We have no knowledge of any part of it having been spent in Ireland.

About 1,000 miles of underground cables have been laid to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, and elsewhere, and gradually the system is being extended. As I have stated, I hope that in future it will be possible to extend it to the landing places of the Irish cables in South Wales.

I think that of the £1,500,000 expenditure the Irish service did not get a pennyworth of advantage.

I do not think that is quite so. I am not sure that part of the route to Ireland, at any rate, is not protected from interruption from storms by underground cables. It should be remembered that not only the places to which the cables actually go have their communications protected, but messages to places beyond are less liable to suffer interruption from storms.

asked when it is proposed to begin work on the new post office at Devonport; when the work will be completed; and whether the Postmaster-General is aware that the walls of the present building are cracking and the structure has to be shored up in places to guard against accident?

It is anticipated that the work of extension to the post office at Devonport will be commenced at the end of the present year, and that the premises may be ready for occupation by the end of 1911. The crack in the wall of the present building was observed during last year, and inspections were made periodically to see if it extended. It was considered necessary in December to buttress the wall, in order to make the building secure, by means of timber shoring; this was done at once, and no further extension of the crack is anticipated.

asked if there is any prospect of a guard ship or training ship being sent to Kingstown?

It is not intended to establish a guardship or training ship at Kingstown.

asked the number of submarines completed and building for the British, United States, German, and French navies?

I am afraid I cannot undertake to bring up to date in reply to the hon. Member's question, a particular piece of information that can be found in the Dilke Return which is published annually in April or May.

asked whether either of the four contingent armoured vessels of the 1909–10 programme have yet been laid down; and, if so, the date when they were commenced?

None of these vessels have yet been laid down, but work in connection with the preparation and collection of materials for guns, gun-mountings, machinery, and hull has been in progress since January.

Is it anticipated that all these vessels will be laid down by 1st April as stated by His Majesty's Ministers?

These vessels will be laid down as stated by His Majesty's Ministers in time to secure their completion by March, 1912.

asked whether the battleship "Renown" is still considered an effective or reserve unit of the fleet?

The "Renown" is a reserve unit of the Fleet.

If the "Renown" is a reserve unit of the fleet, and it is anticipated that she will be required for action, is it hoped by the Admiralty to be able to replace her secondary armament in time to make her an efficient unit for war?

The expression "reserve unit" is a technical expression, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and is applied to ships which have no great fighting value. The "Renown" is a reserve unit.

If the "Renown" is not regarded as having any very great fighting value, will her name be taken off the effective fighting force?

No. The "Renown" is properly described for a ship of her class, and there is no need to take her name off the list.

asked how many, and which, of the destroyers of the 27-knot type have been condemned as unfit for further service?

Five of the 27-knot type of destroyers have been condemned, namely: "Skate," "Hornet," "Starfish," "Sturgeon," "Ferret."

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 27-knot destroyers are considered suitable for service in the North Sea?

It depends on the conditions in the North Sea. That is to say, the particular service they have to perform, and the length of time they are expected to be away from their base.

In the case of war service; that is the only practicable service?

That is how I understood the question, but it would depend upon the particular war service. They are all capable of service in the North Sea.

asked the number of men entered on the establishment at Chatham Dockyard on 1st February, 1906, and 1st February, 1910, respectively; whether the establishment has been closed or suspended during any, and what, part of the period from 1st February, 1906, to the present date; the number of men to which the establishment at Chatham Dockyard is to be reduced; and when it is proposed to allow new men to be entered on the establishment at Chatham?

The reply to the first part of the question is 1,787 and 1,551 respectively. With regard to the second part, the establishment was closed during the whole period named, with a few exceptions as regards storehousemen and others not coming in the general category of workmen. The revised number allotted to Chatham and the other yards is under consideration. The filling of vacancies will proceed as soon as the revised details are settled.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the nature of the illness amongst the naval cadets at Osborne College; how many were affected; were any cases fatal; has any trace of the origin of the illness been discovered; and will he state whether the buildings were hastily erected against the advice of the civil engineering and medical authorities of the Admiralty, who recommended a larger expenditure of money in order to erect more suitable structures?

The nature of the illness was epidemic influenza. Two hundred and forty-four were affected. The disease is epidemic throughout the country and has been introduced into the college in the usual way. One case proved fatal from pneumonia and peritonitis. There is no foundation for any of the suggestions contained in the last part of the Noble Lord's question. In any event, the Board of Admiralty in 1903 took full responsibility for the course pursued, and it would be irregular to refer to the advice of individual officials in the Admiralty.

How many epidemics have broken out since the college was opened, and is it the fact that a large number of cadets are constantly absent from duty owing to illness?

No. I think it would be desirable to give notice of any question involving figures. I could not undertake to carry in my head the precise numbers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether those buildings have been placed on the original foundations of the Royal stables and that some of the boys suffer from an equine disease known as pink-eye?

As the hon. Member is referring to facts which may have occurred in the year 1903, I think he had better address the question privately to the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Even if the right hon. Gentleman is successful in establishing his party point, has he no responsibility for the present state of affairs?

I accept full and complete responsibility for the present state of affairs. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the buildings established in 1903 were on the site of some stabling, and I invited him then to address the question to the hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Is it not the fact that the buildings of the Royal Naval College at Osborne were erected as temporary buildings, and why is it that more permanent buildings have not been erected to take their place?

If the term temporary was used in the sense that it meant only a period of six or seven years, the hon. Gentleman would be right. Although the term may have been used, it was intended that the buildings should have been used for a much longer period.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty: Is it intended to further reduce the corps of Royal Marines; if so, whether he will state the numbers proposed as a reduction, giving separately the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry; and will he state the numbers reduced of each corps since 1906, and the strength of each corps at present, not including the bandsmen?

I cannot undertake to give details of the numbers of Vote A of the Estimates for 1910–11 in anticipation of the presentation of the Estimates to the House. The reduction since 1906 is, in the case of the Royal Marine Artillery, 800; and in that of the Royal Marine Light Infantry, 946. The present strength of the Royal Marine Artillery is 3,057, and of the Royal Marine Light Infantry, 13,208. These numbers do not include twenty-seven Staff appointments.

When will the Estimates be presented?

In the course of a very few days. I cannot give the precise date. It is a question of printing.

asked the Attorney-General how many estates came into the hands of the Public Trustee during the past year, and the amount of them; and what were the total cost and expenses of the Trustee's Office, and the total amount of the fees, commissions, and other sums paid to that office.

It is expected that the second general annual Report of the Public Trustee will be laid upon the Table of the House about the end of the present week. In this Report full information will be given upon the points mentioned in the question of the hon. Member.

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether any provision for appeal against or rectification of accidental omissions from or errors in the registers of Parliamentary voters after such registers have left the hands of the revising barrister exists; if not, whether he will undertake that one or more of the revising barristers will be constituted a body to whom appeal may be made during the month of January in each year to obtain redress in cases of unintentional error and hardship; and if he will have the effect of the omission of the whole of the old lodgers (13) in the parish of Rowde, in the Eastern (Devizes) Division of Wiltshire, redressed?

There is no provision for appeal in respect of accidental errors or omissions in the lists of voters after the Revising Barrister has closed his courts, nor for rectifying the register after it has been delivered to the Returning Officer. The omission referred to in the question therefore cannot be redressed. The plan suggested for obtaining redress in similar cases does not seem to be practicable.

asked the President of the Board of Board of Education whether he will state the methods of paying secondary schools in England under the rules of August, 1909; whether this payment depends on attendance or on examination; and whether there is any training or registration for recognised secondary teachers?

I am not sure whether I understand what the hon. Member means by "the methods of paying secondary schools," but if he refers to the conditions of grant, he will find them fully set out in Chapter VII. of the Regulations for Secondary Schools in England, to which I must refer him. Payment of grant depends partly on the number of pupils attending the school. It does not depend at all on examinations, but is liable to be affected by a variety of considerations, all of which can be gathered from a perusal of the Regulations. Certain institutions are recognised and aided by the Board as affording a satisfactory course of training for persons intending to teach in secondary schools, but the number of such institutions is at present strictly limited. The question of the constitution of a Registration Council, with a view to the formation of a register of teachers in accordance with Section 16 (1) of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, is at preesnt receiving consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to introduce legislation during the present Session to remove from applicants for old age pensions the disqualification arising from receipt of Poor Law relief?

I hope to introduce legislation dealing with this matter. I may remind the hon. Member that in any case the disqualification automatically ceases to operate after the close of the current year.

asked the Prime Minister whether a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, in the direction of removing the pauper disqualification, and of omitting the benefit received by any applicant for a pension from a friendly society or trade union when estimating his income, would be regarded by the Government as controversial; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of introducing such a measure at an early date?

My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he has just stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Antrim, hopes to introduce legislation dealing with the pauper disqualification for old age pensions, which, I may remind my hon. Friend, automatically ceases to operate after the close of the current year. It is not proposed to introduce further amending legislation this Session.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the difficulty of obtaining on mobilisation sufficient horses for Army purposes, and of the number annually shipped abroad, he will take steps to check such export, more especially in the case of mares, by an export duty or otherwise?

The demands of the Remount Department only amount to less than 3,000 horses a year, and, accordingly, these foreign purchases increase the demand for horses and thereby stimulate horse-breeding in the United Kingdom considerably in excess of Army peace requirements. The effect of the hon. and gallant Member's proposal would be to reduce the stock of horses available on mobilisation by giving a severe check to horse-breeding.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he recollects promising, in answer to a question put by me in the last Session of the late Parliament, that the Government were going shortly to make a statement on the question of the supply of horses for Army purposes?

I shall have something to say upon that on the Estimates.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the use of the words constituted and empowered in the King's Speech, in relation to the House of Lords, has caused much doubt and uncertainty amongst Members of this House and the public; whether, in view of pending elections and the danger as shown by recent experience of ambiguous utterances, he will state whether the words quoted above indicate an intention on the part of the Government to reform the constitution, as well as to limit the powers, of the House of Lords; and whether the Resolutions or the Bills promised for dealing with the House of Lords will make provision for a reform in the constitution of that House?

I am going to make a statement in a few moments on the subject referred to in the question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Report of the Treasury Committee on the needs of the Scottish Universities will shortly be made public; and whether the Treasury is prepared to propose a grant in aid of these universities?

The report of the Committee is still under consideration, and though I hope to be able to propose an increase in the grant made to the Scottish Universities, I am unable to say at present what the increase will be or what conditions will be attached to it.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered whether a wider use could be made of post office and trustees savings bank funds for municipal administration; and whether, in the interests of ratepayers as well as of the depositors in savings banks, he will consider the advisability of widening the area of investment of such funds, so as to enable local authorities to obtain advances of such funds on the security of the rates or other property or funds which they are authorised to mortgage?

The object which my hon. Friend has in view is already to a large extent secured through the machinery of the Local Loans Fund, the securities issued on account of that fund being by law authorised investments for savings banks funds. There would, I think, be very strong objections to any arrangement under which municipal authorities would be allowed to borrow directly from these funds. I may also, perhaps, refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Select Committee on Savings Banks of 1902, which was not in favour of an extension of the area of investment for savings banks moneys.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state the estimated gross yield in Great Britain from the increase in duties proposed in the Budget of 1909 on all classes of retail licence holders, and what amount of extra duty per barrel, both on beer manufactured here and on beer imported into this country would produce an equivalent sum; whether the raising of revenue is the sole object of the proposed increase in the licence duties; and, if so, whether it could be more expeditiously collected by a duty on beer from the manufacturers and importers than from a multiplicity of retail vendors by an increase in the licence duties?

For the reasons given in my reply to the late hon. Member for Darlington on 16th June last I am unable to give any reliable estimate of the yield of the new duties on retailers' licences. I scarcely think that the other points raised by the hon. Member are such as can be satisfactorily dealt with within the limits of an answer to a question.

asked whether any application has yet been made by the Board of Agriculture for any grant from the Development Fund; and, if so, what is the amount applied for and for what purpose or purposes it is intended.

No application has yet been made.

Will any steps be taken to secure that the quarter of a million promised by the right hon. Gentleman during the Second Reading Debate of last year's Finance Bill for purely agricultural purposes shall be so applied?

I hope to make a statement with regard to the matter in the course of the next few days. I trust it will be seen that the names of the Commission will be the best guarantee that the sum of money, which will really exceed a quarter of a million, will be applied very largely to agricultural development.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Boyle Rural District Council No. 1, of the 12th February, requesting that an inspector should be sent to inquire into the flooding of the land about Lough Key, which has been affected by operation carried on by the Congested Districts Board; and whether he will take steps to have the water lowered at Knock-vicar and the affected lands about Lough Key?

The Congested Districts Board have received the resolution referred to, but they do not read it as suggesting that the floods about Lough Key result from works carried out by the Board. On the contrary, they observe that it attributes such flooding to the retention of water at the outlet of the lake. The Board, however, will make inquiries into the matter with the object of ascertaining whether the flooding can be prevented.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the case of Michael M'Dermot, of Currawnban, Clooneyquinn, Elphin, Roscommon, whose pension was withdrawn last October on the ground that he had four cattle at grass, but who declares that these cattle are the property of his son; that this man is 75 years of age and is the occupier of a small farm, with a Government valuation of £5 15s., and declares he has no other means, except what small allowance his children can make him; and will he have the case inquired into with a view of having the pension restored?

The Local Government Board, on an appeal by the pension officer, reduced this man's pension from 5s. to 1s. per week, as they estimated the value of his means at more than £28 17s. 6d. per annum. His age and the valuation of his holding are as stated. The cattle referred to in the question were not taken by the Board as belonging to him, though they credited him with a small sum as the value of their grazing on his holding. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision on the appeal.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the many other similar cases existing, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the possibility of having some fixed rules to guide the pension officers?

I should be very glad if such rules could be fixed, but how are you to lay down fixed rules for the purpose of determining whether the real income is £28 or £29 or £31? I am afraid it would be very difficult, though I should be very glad of assistance.

By what regulations or methods does the pension officer decide the value to the old age pensioner of his living in the house with his family?

The pension officer has to ascertain the income of the person in receipt of the pension, and he has to estimate as best he can his revenue from all sources.

Where there is no revenue, and the old man and woman have simply the right to live in a room of the house, how does the pension officer estimate the rent of the room per week?

It very often happens in Ireland that the old people have the right to live in the room by legal covenants, under which they have handed over their property, and the Revenue officer has to consider what the value of that legal covenant is, and how much the accommodation, and how much the food is worth per annum.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he could say upon what grounds Patrick Dalton, Roskeen, Queen's County, was deprived of the pension of 5s. per week granted to him by the Mount-mellick sub-committee; whether he was aware that Dalton was in receipt of the pension from 1st January, 1909 to 1st July last, and that no appeal was lodged by the pension officer within the statutory period of seven days; and could he say under what circumstances and by what authority the pension was withdrawn?

I understand that Patrick Dalton was in receipt of a pension from 1st January to 1st July, 1909. The pension was discontinued by the pension sub-committee on a question raised by the pension officer in accordance with Article 17 of the Old Age Pensions Regulations as to whether Dalton had attained the statutory age. The name of Patrick Dalton not being found among his parents' family in the Census Return of 1841, the Local Government Board confirmed the decision of the pension committee when it came before them on appeal by the pensioner.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he could state why Michael Burke, of Drumnasovey, Riverstown, Ballymote, county Sligo, an old age pensioner on the list since the Act came into operation, had been deprived of his pension; and whether he had been called upon to refund the sums already received by him?

Michael Burke has been deprived of his pension by the local pension committee on evidence produced to them that, according to the Census Returns, he has not yet attained the statutory age. In accordance with the provision of Section 9 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, he has been called upon to refund the sums paid to him in respect of the pension while the statutory conditions were not fulfilled.

asked the Chief Secretary if he could state why Mary McGarry, of Carrea, Ballintogher, county Sligo, who was born in 1835, and who had been in receipt of a weekly pension since the Act came into operation, had been suddenly deprived of such pension; whether such action was taken without the case having been duly investigated; and, if so, whether steps would be taken to have the facts of this case fully inquired into?

In this case the pension officer raised the question that Miss McGarry, who stated in her claim that she was born in 1837, had not reached the statutory age. The pension committee decided that her pension should be continued, but the pension officer appealed to the Local Government Board, who decided in his favour, as Miss McGarry was not included in the Census Return of her parents' family in 1841, and appeared as only eight years of age in the Census of 1851. Before coming to their decision the Board afforded her full opportunity of furnishing any evidence which she could obtain as to her age.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that an application for an old age pension, accompanied by a certificate from the local parish priest, was duly made to the pension sub-committee of the district, either at Rivers-town or Ballintogher, county Sligo, by Dan Murphy, of Roughan, Conway's Cross, early in 1909, and that the applicant was granted the full pension of 5s. per week; whether he was aware that afterwards the Local Government Board refused their sanction on the grounds that the applicant's name could not be found in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851; and whether, seeing that, at the suggestion of the pension officer, several old persons certified the applicant to be over 70 years of age, the case of Murphy would be re-investigated under the circumstances and in view of the unreliability of the Census Returns as a true test of age?

I understand that Daniel Murphy was allowed a pension of 5s. a week in September last by the Riverstown pension sub-committee, who seem to have come to their decision as to the claimant's age on the ground of his appearance, and not, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, on any evidence or certificate. The pension officer appealed to the Local Government Board, who upheld the appeal as Murphy's name did not appear in the Census Returns of his parents' family in 1841 and the other evidence submitted by him afforded no proof of his having attained the statutory age.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board and of the Department of Agriculture has been called to the operating of steam trawlers within prohibited areas between Valentia Island and Scariff Island and within a short distance of Bolus Head; whether he is aware that the steamer "Helga" has not visited the district for months past; and can he say when he proposes to put into force the Prohibited Areas Trawling Act?

Complaints have been made to the Department of illegal trawling in the districts referred to. The hon. Member appears to be misinformed as to the visits of the "Helga." I understand that she was at or near Valentia for several days in November and December last and again in the present month, and that the Congested Districts Board's steamer, the "Granuaile," whose master is empowered to enforce the Department's by-laws, has recently been there for a week. These vessels devote as much attention to the Kerry Coast as is possible having regard to their duties elsewhere. The provisions of the Act of last Session are already in force and have been applied by the Department in two cases.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state when the offer of Mr. James W. Bond to sell to the Estates Commissioners, under Section 6 of The Land Purchase Act, 1903, the untenanted lands of Monedarragh or Strokestown, county Longford, will be accepted; and whether any steps have yet been taken or are about being taken for the division of these lands amongst deserving applicants in the locality?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate consists partly of tenanted and partly of untenanted lands. The purchase agreements for the sale of the tenanted portion of the estate were not lodged until November, 1907. The estate will be dealt with in order of priority, but its turn has not yet come.

May I ask if this gentleman is still boycotted, and if there are any deserving applicants in that locality?

I should be very sorry to doubt that there are. I do not know whether he is the gentleman or not.

asked whether any proposal had been made to the Estates Commissioners for the sale, under Section 6 of The Land Purchase Act, 1903, of the lands of Coolcraff, or Coolcray, parish of Abbeylara and barony of Granard, county Longford; whether he is aware of the tract of untenanted land in this parish; and will he direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the desirability of acquiring the same immediately?

The Estates Commissioners are unable from the particulars given in the question to identify these lands as pending for sale before them. If the hon. Member will give the owner's name further inquiry will be made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Estates Commissioners that they should not expedite the purchase from parties where there has been boycotting?

They know perfectly well what their duties are in this matter.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the questions put to him by the hon Member from North Armagh and the hon. Member for Mid Armagh are totally wrong?

asked whether any further steps had been taken to acquire the estate of the late John E. Thompson, of Clonfin, county Longford, who, so far back as a year and a half ago, made an agreement for sale with his tenants, including the handing over to the Estates Commissioners of some 500 acres of untenanted lands for sub-division amongst the tenants and other deserving persons; whether any inspection of the property had taken place or was ordered; and when some definite progress in the case may be expected?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the sale of this estate were not instituted until October, 1908. It will be dealt with in order of priority. The Commissioners cannot yet say when its turn will come.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will state the reason why the Estates Commissioners have taken no steps to provide a holding for the family of Terence Reilly, of Cooldoney, North Longford, an evicted tenant, who was recently found dead at the back of a ditch on his evicted holding; whether any inquiry was made into the facts of this case by the Estates Commissioners; and whether there is any hope of there being an equivalent holding found for them on some of the adjoining ranches in the district?

I understand that Terence Reilly died in Mullingar Asylum three years ago. His son is a clerk in Dublin, and the Commissioners do not consider him a suitable person to work a holding.

asked the Chief Secretary how many evicted tenants have been provided with holdings in county Clare since 1903, and how many claims for holdings are now under consideration?

489 applications have been received by the Estates Commissioners from persons applying for reinstatement as tenants or the representatives of tenants evicted from holdings in the county of Clare; 217 of these applications have been refused after inquiry; 138 applicants have been reinstated or provided with new holdings, and 20 have been noted by the Commissioners for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land. The remaining 114 applications were received after the date mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act and cannot be dealt with under that Act.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will represent to the Congested Districts Board the urgency of dealing with county Clare as soon as possible?

I can assure the hon. Member that there is not the slightest danger of county Clare being neglected by the Board.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will grant the Return in the name of the hon. Member for South Dublin?

If the hon. and gallant Member will substitute the words "who were allowed to grow tobacco in the season of 1909" for the words "to whom Permits have been issued for the growth of tobacco," I shall be glad to grant him the Return for which he asks.

I shall be glad to do so.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of including in this Return not merely the area under tobacco, but the amount of tobacco raised on the area and the amount of duty?

I think there is no objection, but I do not want to say offhand.

Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know if there is any objection?

If the hon. Gentleman would communicate with me indicating what he wants, I would be happy to consider it. I do not think there is any difficulty about it if the hon. Gentleman will produce his words in writing.

I will do it straight away.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have yet got possession of the untenanted land on the Hamilton Stubber estate, Queen's County, for which they have been in treaty; and, if so, can he say how they propose disposing of it?

The Estates Commissioners have instituted proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of these lands under the Evicted Tenants Act, but the owner has filed an objection, which has not yet been determined.

asked the Chief Secretary how much public money has been voted or otherwise allocated for the establishment of an agricultural college at Athenry; what are the present intentions of the Department of Agriculture with reference to that project; and what are the reasons for the change of policy?

I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Vice-President of the Department to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for South Mayo on 29th July last.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the census of horses taken by the constabulary in Ireland is complete; and whether he is able to state the results?

further asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received from the constabulary authorities in Ireland the details of the horse census taken by them; and whether the information discloses how many horses are fit for military purposes?

The details of this census have been received, but some time will be required to enable the staff concerned to examine them thoroughly and decide how many horses are fit for military purposes.

May I ask will this census be a census apart from the annual return made by the Royal Irish Constabulary of live stock, and, if so, whether any charge will fall on the public funds; and if he can inform me, as the census is to be placed before county associations in England, and as there is no Territorial Army in Ireland and no county associations, before what body will the returns as to Ireland be placed?

The census is taken for the Army generally.

asked the Chief Secretary how much of the revised Estimate of £22,425 for grants in aid under Section 15 of the Agriculture and Technical Education Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, and Section 49 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, is for agricultural instruction?

The Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture informs me that the amount is approximately £21,000.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners will state, in the form of a Return or otherwise, the number and the names of the persons who have obtained parcels of land in the county of Dublin under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act of 1903 and the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Acts, the place from which each such person has come, the acreage in statute acres of the holding in each case, and the reason, in the case of persons not belonging to the county of Dublin, why they were provided with land in that county before provision was made for county Dublin people entitled to and in need of land?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have allotted parcels of untenanted land purchased by them in county Dublin to fifty-eight persons, including twenty-four tenants evicted from holdings in the county, and eighteen evicted from holdings in other counties. Of the remaining sixteen persons to whom parcels have been allotted five belong to county Dublin and eleven to other counties. For the further particulars which he requires I would refer the hon. Member to the Quarterly Returns of Proceedings under the Evicted Tenants Act, and the Monthly Returns of Advances under the Irish Land Act, 1903, which are presented to Parliament. The lands were allotted by the Commissioners in the discretion vested in them.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will state the total amount of advances applied for under agreements for purchase since the passing of the Land Act, 1909, at the higher rate of interest prescribed by that Act, the total amount applied for in the equivalent period prior to the passing of the Act of 1909, and from what counties and by what landlords were such applications lodged?

The Land Act of 1909 was passed on 3rd December last. In the months of September, October, and November, 1909, 2,504 purchase agreements in the form prescribed under the Act of 1903 were lodged, representing a purchase money of £750,720. Of these agreements, 2,125, representing £625,206, were not lodged until after the 15th of September. 1909, the date mentioned in Section 13 (a) of the Act of 1909, and as they are not, therefore, "pending purchase agreements" to be financed under the Act of 1903, they have been returned to be amended in accordance with the new Act or to be replaced by new agreements. In the months of December, January, and February (to 25th) 137 purchase agreements, representing £37,755, repayable by 3½ per cent. annuities, have been lodged. They have not yet been classified by counties or estates. As regards the period since the passing of the Act of 1909, it should be explained that the Act required the preparation of new regulations and rules as to procedure, some of which have been made and issued recently, while others are still under consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of his statement on 22nd April, 1909, on the question of arterial drainage in Ireland that it was the duty of the Government at the earliest possible moment to avail themselves of the suggestions of the Arterial Drainage Commission of 1905, and to carry out some legislative procedure which would transfer to those local authorities the task of maintaining arterial drainage works, he would say when legislation on this matter would be submitted to the House?

A Bill with the object of transferring to local authorities the task of maintaining existing arterial drainage works is in course of preparation, but in present circumstances I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce such Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the tenants on the Churcher estate, Castle-french, county Galway, agreed to purchase their holdings in November, 1907; and whether he could say if the estate had yet been inspected, and, if not, what was the cause of the delay?

This estate is pending for sale to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. Owing to its place on the priority list, it has not yet been inspected with a view to the Commissioners making an offer to purchase.

asked the Chief Secretary what action the Department of Agriculture proposed to take by regulation or by effective sea patrol to prevent the continued losses of the fishermen of Antrim, Derry, and Donegal through the depredations of steam trawlers in the estuary of the Foyle?

The Department have already made regulations prohibiting steam trawling in the locality referred to, and enforce them so far as the means at their disposal permit. Their steamer "Helga" has repeatedly visited the district during the past three months, and the "Granuaile," whose master is empowered to enforce the regulations, has also been along the coast. If local fishermen or others will furnish particulars of any case of illegal trawling, the Department will at once take such action as may be possible.

asked when the rules and programme of the Intermediate Education Board of Ireland would be laid upon the Table of the House?

The rules and programme are at present under consideration, and will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as possible.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he would inquire from the Estates Commissioners if their inspectors had reported on the applications of evicted tenants from the union district of Dingle, county Kerry; how many applications were sent in; how many investigated; how many tenants reinstated; and how many others placed on the list?

The statistics of the Estates Commissioners are not compiled by unions. Taking the county of Kerry as a whole, the Commissioners inform me that they have received 1,048 applications from persons seeking reinstatement as tenants or representatives of tenants evicted from holdings in the county. They have refused 508 of these applications after inquiry. Three hundred and one applicants have been reinstated or provided with new holdings. Ninety-four have been noted for consideration in the allotment of un-tenanted land, and the remaining 145 applications were received after the date mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot be dealt with under that Act.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he would give particulars as to the nature of the experiment for which four Normandy sires had been purchased by the Department of Agriculture, and state who was in charge of the experiment?

The nature of the experiment was explained in a letter recently addressed by the Vice-President of the Department to the hon. Member for the Leix Division of Queen's County. I will send a copy of that letter to the hon. Member. The officers of the Department's establishment acting under the instructions of the Department will be in charge of the experiment.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to a resolution of the Roscommon District Council requesting the Congested Districts Board to arrange to purchase the Tonlagee farm for distribution among the neighbouring tenants; whether this farm, and its owner, Mr. J. Byrne, of Ballinasloe, had been more or less boycotted for the past three years, with the object of compelling him to sell the farm at a price settled by the local branch of the United Irish League; and whether he would represent to the Congested Districts Board that, in view of the persistent intimidation which had been practised, it was not desirable to interfere in the matter?

My attention has been drawn to the resolution in question, but I am informed that the question of the purchase of this farm is not at present before the Congested Districts Board.

asked whether the War Office had yet come to any conclusion as to the issue for general use of pointed bullets as the result of the experiments carried out last autumn?

The experiments have been so far successful that an extended trial will shortly be made by the troops, and ammunition for this is now being manufactured.

asked the Secretary of State for War if there was a shortage of officers in the balloon and aviation branch of the Royal Engineers; if so, and in view of the great advance that was being made by foreign countries in this branch of military work, would he state what he could propose to increase the number of officers in this branch of the service?

also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that officers of the Royal Engineers engaged in the regular work of ballooning and aviation were unable to insure against accidents on such favourable terms as other officers in the Army; and whether, in view of the risks incurred in this service, some consideration in extra pay should be given, on the same principle as extra pay was given for extra risk in the Navy?

In reply to these two questions I may inform my hon. Friend that the whole organisation of the balloon companies is now under consideration, and that the question of the pay of officers and men will be dealt with. In reference to the matter of insurance representations have reached the War Office to the effect stated in the question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the rate of payment for transcripts of bankruptcy examinations was 4d. per folio of 90 words, whereas the Treasury rate for transcripts under the Criminal Appeal Act was the usual 8d. per folio of 72 words; and whether he would take steps to raise the rate of pay in these bankruptcy cases to the standard rate?

also asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, by a recent order, the rate of pay for transcripts of bankruptcy proceedings had been in effect reduced by requiring that these transcripts should be type-written and in duplicate; under what order this reduction was made; and whether he would consider the possibility of increasing the rate of pay commensurate with the increase of work?

I am looking into the matter referred to in these questions and will communicate with my hon. Friend later.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of his Board had been called to the necessity of further increasing the system of fog signals on the West Coast of Ireland; and was he aware of the fact that many vessels had been lost owing to fog-signal stations on that coast being very few in number, and that complaints had been made on this subject?

I am informed by the Irish Lights Commissioners that they have recently received several applications for an increase in the number of fog-signal stations on the West Coast of Ireland, and that these applications are under consideration. I have received a similar representation from the Irish Harbours Association, which I have communicated to the Commissioners. I have no information as to any vessels having been lost owing to the want of such signals, but any proposals which may be made by the Irish Lights Commissioners will receive my careful consideration.

asked at how many stations along the coast of North-East Ireland, from Lame to Londonderry, a life-saving apparatus was provided?

There is no full life-saving apparatus station between the limits named in the hon. Member's question, but there is one at Port Muck, near Larne, and one at Greencastle, at the entrance to Lough Foyle. There are seven stations within the limits mentioned at which there are belts and lines for life-saving purposes, and there is a lifeboat stationed at Port Rush.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he would give instructions for a Return to be published each month in the Board of Trade Labour Gazette giving, respectively, the number of persons applying for employment at the various Labour Bureaux and the number of cases in which such applications had been successful?

The question as to the method, form, and frequency of publication of statistics relative to the operations of Labour Exchanges is at present under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the figures for the first month will be available? They are very important.

It is rather early to ask for statistics until the Exchanges are in full working order, but I have the matter under consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, while having regard to the difficulty of obtaining accurate comparable statistics of trades union unemployment in different countries, he could, following the example of his predecessor, state, generally, from information in the possession of his Department, whether there had been, during the present winter, more or less unemployment in the United Kingdom than in Germany or the United States of America?

I regret that, as the statistics of unemployment in the three countries are not properly comparable, and that as regards two out of the three countries such figures as exist are not up to date, it is not possible to give the Noble Earl the information which he desires.

moved "That up to and including 24th March Government business shall have precedence at every sitting."

I am extremely sorry that my first duty after the conclusion of the Address in a new House of Commons should be, on behalf of the Government, to make a demand for an encroachment upon the time which is normally allotted to private Members. I certainly should not make that demand except under the stress of absolute necessity. I pointed out, I think, the main circumstances with which we have to deal when I was addressing the House a week ago in the Debate on the Address. That Debate occupied five days, and it is well that I should remind the House at once or recall to their attention the position in which we now stand. My Motion is that the Government business should have precedence at every sitting up to and including 24th March. To-day is 28th February, and from to-day until Thursday, 24th March, both days inclusive, there are nineteen Parliamentary days. Of those nineteen days there would, under our normal procedure, be available for Government business four Mondays, four Thursdays, and partial sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. That is, roughly speaking, three days a week for four weeks, or out of nineteen days twelve days in all.

On the other hand, under our normal procedure, private Members would have at their disposal evening sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the whole of the Friday sittings; and that would work out at seven Parliamentary days. The effect of my Motion, therefore, if carried, will be to add to the twelve Parliamentary days, which, in any circumstances, the Government would have at their disposal and under their control, the seven more days which, under those conditions, would be at the disposal of private Members. The demand is not a very large one, though it is one I very much regret to have to make. But I may point out once more the circumstances which render it urgent, and, indeed, indispensible.

I will take just the present week. During the present week, consisting of five Parliamentary days, we must, if we are to meet the financial exigencies of the country, as I explained them the other day, pass through all their stages, including the Money Resolutions in Committee and on Report; the Second Reading, the Committee stage, and the Third Reading of Bills—the Bill for temporary borrowing, and the Bill to Redeem the War Loan, and we must further during the present week, if we are to be at all up to time, pass the Supplementary Estimates for the expiring financial year. I come then to the second week, the week which begins on Monday next, 7th March. In that week we propose—and I am afraid we are not allotting an unduly large share of time to each of the topics that will have to come under consideration—in that week we have to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates, which we propose to do on Monday. We have to get the Army Votes on the Tuesday and Wednesday, we have on Thursday to get the Civil Service Vote on account, and on Friday to take the Report of the Supplementary Estimates and of the Army Vote. That disposes of the second week.

Then there is the third week, which begins on Monday, 14th March. We propose on Monday to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates, and to devote Tuesday and Wednesday to Navy Votes, and Thursday the Report of the Navy Votes. That will be four days of that week devoted to the Navy. On the Friday we shall take the Report of the Vote on Account and the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolution which then becomes necessary, and the Army Report if not concluded. That brings me to Monday, 21st March. In that week we must take the Report of the Ways and Means Resolution, First Reading of Consolidated Fund Bill; on Tuesday the 22nd the Second Reading of Consolidated Fund Bill; on Wednesday, Committee stage of Consolidated Fund Bill, which is a very formal stage, and on that day we may perhaps be able to introduce one or two necessary and pressing Departmental measures of a non-controversial character, and on the Thursday the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Motion for Adjournment.

I think that shows the House that we have mapped out the time between now and 24th March on the most economical lines that we can possibly adopt, and that it is impossible between now and that day to introduce any other measures to the consideration of the House than the necessary financial measures of the country, which have to be carried into effect if things are not come to a standstill.

4.0 P.M.

I might stop there, because I think I have abundantly shown that my Resolution, which only proposes to take the time of the House up to and including 24th March, is not only justified and warranted, but necessitated by the conditions of the case. That is really all that is strictly relevant to the Resolution which you, Sir, are about to put from the Chair. I think it would be convenient to hon. Members in all quarters of the House if I were to take the opportunity to make a further statement, confined, as it will be, within the briefest possible compass as to the business which, if this Motion is assented to, we shall take after the 24th and before we ask the House to adjourn for its spring Recess.

If I may say so, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it may be convenient to go beyond the ambit of the strict limits of the Resolution upon the Paper; but I rise to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, whether, if the Prime Minister carries out that very convenient course, it would be in order for other Members in other parts of the House to discuss it as well as to discuss the strict terms of the Resolution?

I think it must be obvious that if the Prime Minister introduces matter contingent upon, but not strictly relevant to, the Motion, it must be equally open to Members in other parts of the House to discuss the topics which he brings forward. Perhaps it might be convenient, at this stage, if I said that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel) could not be raised as an Amendment to the Motion of the Prime Minister.

If I may say so respectfully, I anticipated that that would be your ruling. If the conditions had been normal I should certainly not have gone beyond the terms of my Motion. I believe I am speaking with the general assent of Members in all quarters of the House in claiming their indulgence, whilst slightly exceeding the technical limits of the Motion now before us.

I am going now, in a very few sentences, to outline the course the Government propose to take, in the event of this Motion being carried, after March 24th. On that day we shall propose, as I said about a week ago, that the House should adjourn until the following Tuesday, the 29th. Immediately upon its reassembling, subject, of course, always—I must make that safeguarding provision—subject to unforeseen exigencies, we shall present our proposals in regard to the relations between the two Houses of Parliament, and present them in the first instance, as I have already intimated, in the form of Resolutions. These Resolutions will, I hope and believe, be both few and simple. They will affirm—I am speaking now in general terms—the necessity for excluding the House of Lords altogether from the domain of finance. They will ask this House to declare that in the sphere of legislation the power of veto, at present possessed by the House of Lords, shall be so limited in its exercise as to secure the predominance of the deliberate and considered will of this House within the lifetime of a single Parliament. Further, it will be made plain that these constitutional changes are without prejudice to, and contemplate in a subsequent year, the substitution in our second Chamber of a democratic for an hereditary basis. If this House should assent to the Resolutions, a Bill, to give effect to them, will without delay be introduced—

Not the proposals for reform?

The operative proposals of the Resolutions.

The academic proposals will not be included?

We shall see whether they are academic when the time comes. The Bill will give effect to the operative parts of the Resolutions, but without waiting for that Bill to pass through all its stages in this House we have come to the conclusion—and in this respect only I have to vary what I said about procedure a week ago—that in order to avoid waste of time and labour, and to bring the main issue to trial and conclusion at the earliest possible moment, the Resolutions so assented to by this House will be submitted to the House of Lords. If that House agrees to them, well and good; but whatever it does, or whether it does not, we—I mean His Majesty's Government—regard the placing with all possible promptitude upon the Statute Book of provisions which will set free this House from the veto of the House of Lords, not only as the first condition of the legislative dignity and utility of the House of Commons, but as our own primary and paramount duty. In the prosecution of that cause we shall adopt all such measures within the limits of the Constitution as seem to us proper and adequate, and upon its successful accomplishment we stake, not only our fortunes, but our existence as a Government.

The observations of the Prime Minister naturally fall into two parts—that part of his speech which was relevant to the Motion, and that part of his speech which was irrelevant to the Motion just put from the Chair. I think they are of varying degrees of interest and of varying degrees of importance. I take them in the order of their interest and of their importance, and I take what the Prime Minister said upon the Resolution before I proceed to make such observations as occur to me upon the new programme of business he has laid before the House—which his mature consideration since last Monday has induced him to lay before the House—in respect to the proposed action of this House for the alteration of the status of the House of Lords.

With regard to the Motion before the House, it certainly seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has got a strong case. This is the first time, I believe, since the Rules were introduced in 1902, when it has been found necessary to interfere with the rights then secured for private Members. Before 1902 the nominal rights of private Members were far greater than they are now, but those rights were restricted under the pressure of public necessity by successive Governments, with the result that nobody knew what private Bills or private Members' Resolutions were ever likely to come on, and great uncertainty and confusion were introduced into all our proceedings. We endeavoured to cure that, and I think did cure it, speaking generally, by the alteration of procedure in 1902. We greatly restricted the number of hours given to independent Members of this House for raising questions by Resolutions or introducing Bills to the notice of the House, but we hoped to secure, and have for seven years secured, that such rights as private Members possessed they should hold securely. I am sorry that the Government have found it necesasry under the special circumstances of this Session to interfere with those firmly-established privileges. But I admit that the public necessity is so great and the special circumstances of the Session are so peculiar that it is hard to say what alternative was open to the Prime Minister except the one he has actually adopted. Therefore I will content myself with asking whether before this Debate concludes the Prime Minister will tell us what are the uncontroversial Departmental Bills he proposes to take on those days when Supply-will occupy but a very brief portion of the time of the House, and I also ask whether he will consider, if it should turn out that the amount of time given to Votes in Supply is, in the general view of the House, inadequate to the very large questions to be raised on them, he will do his best at some later period of the Session to remedy the necessarily hurried procedure which we must undertake if the law is to be fulfilled. These are the only two points upon which I desire information with regard to the strictly businesslike or relevant part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations.

I turn now to his revised programme of the business after Easter. I do not complain of his having told us too much of what the Government propose to do between the Easter Recess and the holidays we are promised some time in April, but I do rather complain of a great omission from his statement. In his original statement of business made on the first day of the Session I understood the Government's plan to be that they would take in the interval between what he called the Ecclesiastical Easter holidays and the longer holidays which were to combine the ordinary Easter holidays and the Whitsuntide holidays, he proposed to take, in the first place, the Resolutions on which were subsequently to be founded a Bill for dealing with the House of Lords, and, in the second place, the Budget, and that both the Resolutions and the Budget were to be dealt with in that interval. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing inconsistent with that object, but he did not make it quite clear whether that part of the plan had suffered revision as well as the other part.

I may say at once it has not suffered any change at all. I mentioned the only variation.

Then, Sir, I also gather that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the only changes that have taken place in his original idea, and the Budget is the first business after Easter. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman's speech is conclusive on that point, but he made a speech a week before the Dissolution in which he said:—

"If we are fortunate enough to enjoy the confidence of the House."

I have no reason to doubt that that condition is amply fulfilled—

"If we are fortunate to enjoy the confidence of the House its first act will be to reimpose as from this week all taxes and duties which were embodied in the Finance Bill."

That was to be the first duty of the reassembled House. The right hon. Gentleman has since discovered that the pressure of financial business, which must legally be squeezed into the interval which separates us from the Easter holidays, makes it impossible for him to carry out in literal terms that speech. If I may remind him, there is no legal necessity for proceeding to the destruction of the House of Lords. That is not a duty imposed upon us by statute, and I should certainly have conceived that under those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would have felt that the pledges he gave just before the late House was dissolved became operative and binding absolutely as soon as the necessary financial business was carried through. I am sure that was the intention of the Government; at any rate, it was their intention on Monday last, and certainly before the House dissolved. I am not going into the circumstances, which require no Machiavellian intellect to conjecture what has induced the right hon. Gentleman to think that there may be other more interesting and even more pressing business than that of carrying through in the early days of the financial year beginning in April, 1910, the consideration of financial proposals for the year which began in April, 1909. I should have thought, in view of the denunciations which the right hon. Gentleman then passed on another place for postponing for a few weeks the consideration of the Finance Bill—I should have thought, I confess, that that consideration and the ordinary obligations of this House to as far as possible see that within the limits of each year the financial burden of each shall be legally levied as well as legally imposed, would have induced the Government to carry out-its specific pledge of a few weeks ago, and what I venture to think was the right hon. Gentleman's implied intentions six days ago, and introduce the Budget, though not part of it. For some reason they meant to hold it in terrorem over somebody; but the right hon. Gentleman meant to introduce it first. I suppose he has been told that that is not agreeable in influential quarters, where there is a passionate desire to see the House of Lords destroyed—[MINISTERIAL cheers]—I said a passionate desire. I intended to be, and I was, a faithful interpreter of the wishes and aspirations of hon. Gentlemen to whom I speak. The right hon. Gentleman finds amongst his supporters that there is a passionate desire to destroy the House of Lords, but not a passionate desire to pass the People's Budget. In these circumstances, though I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must regret, as we all do, the necessity in which he finds himself of so rapidly making tactical evolutions in the presence of the enemy, it is so intelligible and from his point of view so eminently reasonable that he would be a hardhearted and brutal critic indeed who would measure out too severe a measure of justice to right hon. Gentlemen who find themselves in a somewhat difficult and embarrassing Parliamentary situation.

What do the Government propose? They are now going to introduce the House of Lords Resolutions before they introduce the Budget. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how soon he hopes to be able to lay on the Table of the House these Resolutions? I understand the right hon. Gentleman says that the Resolutions for this year are to be few and simple, and we are also promised more far-reaching legislation next year upon the constitution of the House of Lords, or, rather, upon the creation of a new Second Chamber upon a representative basis. These simple Resolutions are to include a Resolution saying that the House of Lords is to have nothing whatever to do with finance. It seems to me an odd time for a Resolution of that kind, just when everybody knows that it is through the House of Lords that a freshly-elected House of Commons will have an opportunity of giving effect to what everybody knows is its real view, namely, that the Budget with which the Lords are said to have interfered does not carry out the wishes of the people. It is a most extraordinary illustration of modern democratic philosophy that directly the Second Chamber refers something to the decision of the people, and directly the decision of the people is shown to be not the decision of the last House of Commons—[Cries of "No"]—that is regarded as a conclusive proof why this outrageous interference with the will of the democracy is never again to be tolerated.

I would ask one further question about this financial part of the Government's proposals with regard to the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman said that their proposals would be simple. But it does not seem to me to be very easy to draw up a Resolution about the powers of the House of Lords with regard to finance in such a perfectly simple form, because everybody agrees—at least, I think everybody agrees, for even hon. Gentleman sitting immediately below the Gangway agree that the practice of tacking has from the earliest time been admitted by every constitutional authority to be an illegitimate interference by this House with the privileges of another place. I hope the Government will consider—I think they must already have considered—that an alteration of our practice, which is to prevent the House of Lords offering an opinion upon a money Bill, if it is to be tolerable at all—personally I think it is altogether wrong—but even those who think it is right must admit that it is not just that this should be made an excuse for withdrawing from the cognisance of the other House matters which are not strictly relevant to the Finance Bill. Is the Government of the day to be judge whether tacking has taken place or not? But if the Government are going to carry their so-called democratic philosophy to the point, that everything which the Government of the day thinks., is right, well, of course, there is nothing more to be said. After all, the objection to tacking was that it was abused by the Government. The reason why men of all parties and opinions at every period of our history have said that tacking was objectionable is that it enabled a majority in this House that desired to make use of this weapon to entirely destroy the whole working of the constitutional machine. Therefore, if the rules against, tacking are to be really a provision against the abuse by the majority of the financial authority of this House, you must have as judges of what tacking is either a House of Lords or some external authority, and if it is to be an external authority, I do not know that the Resolution which embodies the creation and formation of the functions, powers, and duties of that independent body—I do not see how that could be embodied in a Resolution so elementary and simple that we can pass it as a mere annexe of the Budget of 1909–10, in addition to all the other work we are expected to do between the Easter holidays and the middle of April.

My right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) points out that it is necessary for somebody to define tacking. That will not be an easy thing to do, but if it is going to be done, I hope it will not be left entirely to the discretion of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is the second proposal which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman to make? He intends to make a proposal, I presume, on the lines sketched out by the First Commissioner of Works, most elaborately, in a speech to which I have already referred, and which, I understand, was an official declaration of the Cabinet a few months ago. That practically entirely destroys any power the House of Lords may possess during the first two or three years of a Parliament. That was the intention of it, and evidently the Government mean to carry it out. I do not quite understand what relation that proposal has to the creation of the representative Second Chamber which we are promised next year.

It is notorious, and the Cabinet have made no secret of it—it certainly appeared on the very face of the Gracious Speech from the Throne—that there have been divisions in the Cabinet, one section of the Cabinet desiring a representative Second Chamber, and the other section of the Cabinet desiring the abolition of the Veto. I take it the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made was a rather clumsy attempt to unite in Holy matrimony those two utterly incompatible views. The section of the Cabinet who want a really representative Second Chamber are to look forward in hope, if not in confidence, to the creation of such a Chamber by the legislation of next year. The other section are to have their more modest wishes immediately satisfied. But I do not quite understand how in this double policy the Government propose to approach the House of Lords. They are going, as I understand, to send up to the House of Lords, contrary to the original view of the Prime Minister, these few and simple Resolutions as soon as they have passed this House, and they are going to take what steps they can to induce the House of Lords to indorse them. Very well, but how can you possibly ask the House of Lords to indorse an interim arrangement, which leaves us without a Second Chamber, when at the very moment you are making that proposal you tell them that in your opinion there ought to be a Second Chamber, and a much stronger Second Chamber than the one which at present exists. I do not see how, without laughing and without general hilarity in every part of the Kingdom you can really ask the House of Lords to agree that for the six months, let us say, which separates the Resolutions of this year and the legislation of this year from the legislation of next year, the country should be without a Second Chamber at all—practically without a Second Chamber—because, forsooth, next year you are going to introduce a measure for having a representative Second Chamber, proving beyond all controversy how valuable you think the element of a Second Chamber is in the working of the Constitution.

I think the whole policy of the Government as now explained by the right hon. Gentleman shows an utter lack of consistent statesmanship. In every sentence and in every clause of the revised programme he has put before us you see one consideration dominant, and one consideration alone: How is the Cabinet to be kept together and what lightning conductor can they find to dissipate the threatening electrical storm which menaces them from that side of the House as well as this? I do not think this is statesmanship, though I am not at all prepared to deny it may be very good Parliamentary management. I think he may have succeeded—I have no doubt he has succeeded—in satisfying the excellent Gentlemen who sit upon the same bench as himself, and it is quite possible he may have thrown sufficient sop to the ardent One Chamber Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway on that side of the House and to the strenuous opponents of the Budget who sit below the Gangway on this side of the House, but who are prepared on grounds of high policy to sacrifice their convictions on that particular point—I do not mean in any wrong sense, but the vote they would naturally give if that subject were considered alone and the vote their constituents would like them to give—because of some greater and ulterior gain that they hope to attain. I do not know whether the payment they are receiving in the way of legislative promises may not be sufficient. It just occurs to me as I am speaking—I have not had time to consider these views, I am sorry to say; I could have put my case much better if I had had notice of what I was expected to deal with—it occurs to me while I am speaking that there may be an explanation of what I understand to be the policy of the Government, which is to abolish the House of Lords for all veto purposes in the present year, then to leave a hiatus, and afterwards to introduce a strong Second Chamber of representative government next year or some subsequent Session. I suppose it is in that interval that Home Rule is to be passed. At all events, it would be an extremely ingenious idea, and if it emanates from the fertile brain of the hon. Gentleman who leads the Nationalist party, I present him all my compliments. I cannot think it would meet with the approval either of the House or of the country. Indeed, I think the country, when they read the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-morrow, will be extraordinarily desirous of knowing what is the view of the Government upon the all-important question of the position of the Second Chamber in this Legislature of ours. We shall have plenty of opportunity of seeing their policy develop when we return after the Easter holidays. Meanwhile, I am bound to say the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, however well adapted it may be for securing an era of peace for the hardly-tried Gentlemen who manage their tactical affairs in this House, however well it may be for that purpose, it will be very little adapted either for raising the impression of the country as to the statesmanship of the Government which can suggest so ill-compounded a plan and great misgivings as to the composition of the party, the clash of whose various elements is driving the Government into this unhappy procedure.

I can assure the House that I am most unwilling, whatever the appearances, of obtruding the Irish view of this Question unnecessarily upon its attention. Indeed, nothing would be more pleasant to myself personally than if it were possible for me in the very grave and delicate situation in which we stand to remain silent, but I cannot do so. My colleagues and I sitting on these benches are, on the main question on which this Parliament was elected, in complete and whole-hearted agreement with the majority of hon. Members on that side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "On the Budget?"] No, I am not speaking of the Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That seems to surprise hon. Members above the Gangway, but I have been perfectly frank and candid, and I shall be so again before I resume my seat. I ask to be allowed to pursue my own humble argument in my own poor way. I say that on what I regard as the main question on which this House was elected, namely, the abolition of part of the veto of the House of Lords and the limitation of the rest of the veto of the House of Lords, we are in complete agreement with hon. Members opposite, and on that question, which I maintain is the main question decided by the country, the right hon. Gentleman possesses a majority of 124. My object is not to pick a quarrel with him or his Government, not, indeed, to pick a quarrel with those on the other side of the House, who I know are, in the main, friends of Ireland and the Irish people, but to insist, as far as it rests with me and my colleagues, upon the right hon. Gentleman not throwing away and dissipating that great mandate and not destroying that great power he has got by receding in the smallest degree from the bold and, I believe, the statesmanlike policy which he laid down in his Albert Hall speech. Nominally, we are on a comparatively small point—whether all private Members' time is to be given to the Government between now and 24th March. My colleagues and I have always stood up in this House as the defenders of the rights and privileges of private Members. I cannot remember an occasion or any circumstances when we consented to a Motion taking away the time of private Members. Yet upon this occasion I declared last week, and I declare again now, we are willing to-morrow, without any delay at all, to pass the Budget into law, and we are willing at once to give up all private Members' time—we have already proved our willingness by the fact that we have not ballotted for any Motions or Bills since the commencement of the Session—and we are willing to give the Government a united and whole-hearted support on the one condition that they carry out what we believe to be the policy of the Government, and the policy of the Government, as understood, let me say, not only by us, but as understood by his own colleagues on that bench, and as understood by the great bulk of the Liberal party in the country.

I will not rake up again the precise words of the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman in the Albert Hall. I dealt with that on Monday, and, while I gave my opinion frankly, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that I gave it fairly and without unnecessary offence. I do not want to rake that up again, but the right hon. Gentleman on Monday last said that so far as asking for guarantees from the Crown was concerned, it was impossible for him to do so, or any constitutional Minister, until his veto was at least proposed, and perhaps considered and passed, by this House. I admitted the plea, but my admission of that plea did not excuse the Government, because I think their veto plan ought to have been agreed upon and known by them long ago. I was under the impression—a mistaken one as we understand now—that their plan was the plan of the late Sir Henry Camp-bell-Bannerman, which had been adopted by a large majority in this House, but I had to face the fact that they had not agreed upon their plan, that they had not produced their plan, and that the House of Commons had not considered it. Therefore, I admitted the right hon. Gentleman was in a strong position when he said that under those circumstances he could not approach the Crown as to the use of the Royal Prerogative. I urged upon him last week that that made the greatest, the strongest, and the most unanswerable argument in favour of the immediate production of his plan. He has told us to-day that he is going to produce a Resolution at once embodying his plan.

But he told us further—and it was an important and interesting communication—that he is going to send that plan to the House of Lords. If it is either rejected or held up by the House of Lords, what then? The right hon. Gentleman, who is a master of lucidity, was, I am afraid, somewhat obscure on this point. These are occasions when one must speak with reference to the Crown and to the Royal prerogative and so forth in a way which, under ordinary circumstances, would be improper and perhaps out of order. But we must get to the bottom of things on an occasion like this. If the right hon. Gentleman intends, when his Resolution is rejected or hung up in the House of Lords, there and then to ask for guarantees and for the exercise of the Royal prerogative, why does he not frankly say so? If he means to do that, let him say so at once And let him say, further, if they are refused, does he intend to continue responsible for the Government of this country? I ask him, first of all, that this obscurity shall be cleared up. I ask, Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, when his Resolution is suspended or rejected by the Lords, to ask for guarantees, and, if they are refused, does he propose to continue—in contradistinction to what he said in his Albert Hall speech—does he propose to continue responsible for the Government of the country?

Meantime what about the Budget? [Ironical UNIONIST cheers.] Let hon. Members lend me their ears. So far as we on these benches are concerned we stand exactly in every particular where we did this day last week. If the right hon. Gentleman will pursue the course he has indicated about the Resolution, if he will say, further, that if it is rejected he will go and ask for guarantees, and if those are refused will not consent to retain office—if he will do that, and if, in the meantime, he will suspend the consideration of the Budget, I, for my part, will vote for his Resolution to-day, and will be perfectly satisfied with the situation. But if he does not, then nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said alters my view that we should vote against the Resolution taking all the time of the House. I notice, with great interest, that the Leader of the Opposition kindly offered assistance to the Government. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he and his friends would support this Motion.

I said I did not see what the Government could do except to propose it.

Do not let the Leader of the Opposition now sink into obscurity. What does he mean? Is he with his friends going to support the Motion or not? Let me give my reading of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, is afraid for his life of an immediate dissolution, whereas, from my point of view, if there is to be a dissolution at all this year, the Government have everything to gain by an early dissolution on a bold policy. [A UNIONIST MEMBER: "What about yourself?"] As to myself, I can only say if the hon. Gentleman will come down and contest my seat in Waterford, I promise him a most attentive and courteous hearing, but not many votes. I repeat I believe it would be well for the Government to have an early dissolution on a bold policy. I am quite sure that that would not suit the Leader of the Opposition and his party. Hence they are most anxious to help the Government to secure the adoption of this Motion and to carry on business for the next four weeks, getting the necessary Votes in Supply for the sake of the Empire. Hon. Members who thought nothing of the rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords last year are quite willing now to help the Government, because they do not want an early dissolution. I hope that word of wisdom and that hint as to the probable future will find some legitimate hold in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

One word about Reform. The Government has a mandate on the Veto. It has no mandate on Reform. Let the Government deal with Veto, and in some subsequent year or Parliament let the Liberal party or the Conservative party—led, it may be, by Lord Rosebery—tackle this question of Reform. But until the Question of the Veto is satisfactorily settled it would be madness, in my opinion, for the democracy of England to listen to the question of Reform. I am glad no mention has been made of the Referendum—that outlandish proposal which has recently appeared on this Question in some newspapers—a proposal which, for my part, I would not approve for one moment, and the effect of which would only be—[UNIONIST cheers.] Of course, you like the Referendum, but what would it involve? [UNIONIST cries of "It would kill Home Rule."] No, it would not kill Home Rule. It would mean the indefinite postponement of the curtailment of the powers of the Lords. [UNIONIST cheers.] Hon. Members having enjoyed themselves by cheering, I hope they will now listen to me for a moment. I again ask what would the Referendum mean? It would involve, in the first place, the passing of a Bill, and that Bill would be rejected by the House of Lords. The whole question would then be hung up, and all hope of getting a curtailment of the powers of the House of Lords would be put back for one or more generations. Hon. Members will, therefore, see, I think, that their cheers were a little premature.

Let me sum up my somewhat rambling observations. I make the same plea for indulgence as was made by a far more experienced and skilful debater. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I did not know beforehand what the Prime Minister was going to say. I have been giving my impressions of his speech. I say if no guarantees are to be asked for—if the Budget is to be carried into law through all its stages, and if this Session is for months more to meander along in the ordinary humdrum fashion, as if nothing had happened—we, for our part, cannot agree to this Resolution to give up the time of private Members. We stand exactly where we did. The right hon. Gentleman has nothing to lose from the point of view of his party or from the point of view of Empire, the interests of which must, of course, be paramount—he has, I say, nothing to lose by suspending the Budget for two or three weeks longer than he intended. He has admitted that the Budget cannot now be passed within this financial year—that is, before 31st March. It must necessarily now go over into the new financial year. Whatever loss or confusion is caused by that fact will not be materially increased by postponing the consideration of the Budget and keeping this great weapon in your hands. In his speech the Home Secretary said—and indeed everybody knows—that it is a great weapon. You lose nothing, then, by keeping that weapon in your hands for two or three weeks longer until you have gone to the Throne and asked for your guarantees. Why do you want, before the crisis comes—before the climax—to straighten out the paths for those who may perhaps follow you? Why do you want to go out of your way to run the risk of dangers to the great policy you have at heart for the sake of undoing some of the mischief caused by the action of the House of Lords? The right hon. Gentleman has nothing to lose by suspending the Budget for two or three weeks longer until we see the result of the appeal to the Throne. The Leader of the Opposition quoted just now the pledge of the Prime Minister that the Budget would be the first business of this Parliament. I quote against that a statement in his Election Address a much more important document than the report of any speech, no matter how remarkable the occasion. In his Election Address the Prime Minister said the first and most urgent step to be taken in this Parliament was limiting the veto of the House of Lords. If the right hon. Gentleman gave the pledge quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, he gave this pledge also. Let him, I beg of him, for the sake of this great cause go this one step further. If he does I am convinced he will not alienate the support or goodwill of a single man sitting behind him.

5.0 P.M.

I am, in one sense, in a most difficult position. I have to take a course which possibly may bring me before everything is over into conflict with the representatives of the democracy of England, although on the main issue we are absolutely united. That is a very hard thing for a man in my position, remembering my experience, extending over thirty years, in this House. There has not been a democratic measure passed in those years for England that has not been passed by our votes and with our aid in this House. We have on every occasion supported the representatives of the democracy in England. They have, in the main, supported us, and there are bonds of steel between us on the really great principles that divide party politics in this country. It will be a very hard thing if a wrench occurs between us. I hope one will not. My desire is not to say one word to alienate the friendship of those old and true friends of Ireland on the other side of the House. But at the same time, I believe, if the right hon. Gentleman does not follow out to the letter and in the spirit the pledges on which he gained his majority of 124 there will result nothing but disaster to the hopes of the democratic party in this country. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, even if they may differ from me in the future—I do not honestly think we differ much at present on anything I have said on this Question—but if they differ from me in the future upon any action that we may take, I ask them to believe that we take it reluctantly, that we are anxious to work hand in hand with them, that we have the same object as they have—to free the democracy of this country from that power which, so long as it exists, will effectually and permanently prevent the realisation of all their most cherished dreams and aspirations. I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently, and I conclude by saying again, that unless I hear further from the right hon. Gentleman on these two points about the guarantees to be asked from the Throne and his action afterwards, and the suspension of the Budget meantime, my Friends and I will vote against this Motion.

Strictly speaking, the Motion is one for considering how we shall deal with the time before Easter. The question that is propounded is very much that which is heard in the churches at this time of the new year—what good work can we do in Lent? The Government have their own very modest plan of settling their account and paying their bills, but much more polemical matter of considerable interest has been introduced. In the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), to which we have just listened, the hon. Member put his finger in a moment on what is the real difficulty in the Government's way. I confess that I commiserate with the Prime Minister to some extent. He has gone a long way from the position he took up with a great show of resolution on the first night of the Session. Then the right hon. Gentleman treated the suggestion that the Resolutions should go to the House of Lords with something like contempt. Now the Resolutions are to go to the House of Lords. Then he went a few steps further from his path to explain that he had not the slightest intention of asking for any constitutional guarantees—for any guarantees; they certainly are not constitutional.