asked the President of the Board of Education, whether the assistance in the choice of employment proposed to be given under Clause 1 of the Education (Choice of Employment) Bill will in every instance be given in co-operation with the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges, where such exist; and whether it is proposed that communications shall be made with employers, as well as with boys and girls, under the said Clause?

The answer to the first part of the question in the affirmative. I regard co-operation with the Labour Exchanges as essential to the success of the arrangements which I hope to see made under the Bill when it becomes law. The matter referred to in the second part of the question is one with respect to which arrangements will be made between the Board of Education and the Board of Trade, who are acting, and will continue to act, in close co-operation in these matters.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, how many shipbuilding slips, including both the Royal dockyards' and contractors' slips, would be occupied as at present arranged by warships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" classes building or laid down for the Royal Navy; and how many contractors' slips in the United Kingdom are occupied by similar vessels building for other purposes than the Royal Navy which it was known would not be launched before the 1st April, 1911?

I regret I have not yet received the material which would enable me to answer this question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a reply?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to establish a system of offering rewards for the detection of criminals?

I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which the Under-Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Bath on Wednesday last.

Arising out of this answer by reference in which the right hon. Gentleman said there was a distinction between the cases where the criminal was known and was not known, may I ask in What respects the evils attendant on offering rewards for the detection of criminals are mitigated when the criminal is known?

was understood to reply: There is a distinct difference between the two cases. In the one the offer of a reward may lead to the manufacture of false evidence, but where no question of that kind can arise then a reward may be usefully offered.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable delay always occurs in the detection of criminals when a reward is offered?

I am not aware there has been any unusual delay.

Out of which Vote are the rewards taken?

reply was inaudible.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that an outbreak of American gooseberry mildew existed in a garden near Draperstown, county Derry, from early spring to the beginning of October last year, and that its existence was reported on several occasions during that period to the Department of Agriculture; whether any and, if so, what steps were taken by the Department to prevent its spread to several extensive gooseberry plantations in the immediate neighbourhood; whether it did, in fact, spread to one of these plantations, and some time ago caused the necessary destruction of over 400 bushes; whether the owner of the plantation, Colonel Waters, in addition to writing several letters to the Department, wrote to the Vice-President and President and could get no satisfactory reply; what justification, if any, had the Department for saying that his complaints were not well founded; whether the disease has since spread to the remainder of Colonel Waters' plantation, necessitating within the last few days the destruction of the entire plantation, comprising about sixteen acres; and whether the Department intends to pursue a similar course of inaction in future, and thereby endanger the existence of the fruit-growing industry which is being developed in the North of Ireland?

The Department of Agriculture inform me that in the summer of 1909 an outbreak of American gooseberry mildew occurred in the garden referred to, and in the plantation owned by Colonel Waters in the same locality. The necessary steps for the suppression of the disease as prescribed by the American gooseberry mildew and black currant mite (Ireland) Order, 1908, were taken by the Department in conjunction with the inspector appointed by the county committee under that Order. Subsequently, a corn-plaint was lodged with the county committee by Colonel Waters, who was afforded an opportunity of appearing at the meeting of the committee, but failed to do so. The committee expressed their entire satisfaction with the measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease. The Department, after careful inquiry, are satisfied that Colonel Waters' complaints are not well founded, and he has been informed accordingly.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that Miss Margaret Farrell and Mr. T. Cory, of Mell, Drogheda, county Louth, made application for the purchase of their holdings on the Singleton estate to the Estates Commissioners; whether he would explain why their application was refused; whether one of the applicants had been served with notice to quit by the middleman for making this application; if so, whether any action could be taken by the Commissioners to prevent the eviction and to extend the right to purchase to the sub-tenants; whether he would say if a bonus was paid to the landlord on the sale of the estate; whether all the agricultural land on the same has been sold to the tenants; and, if not, whether steps could be taken to have the sale carried out?

The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the cases of the sub-tenants on this estate, and in the exercise of their discretion, have decided not to declare Margaret Farrell and T. Corry to be direct tenants, under Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, of the lands in their occupation as sub-tenants. The Commissioners have no power to interfere in the matter of the legal proceedings referred to. The agricultural lands on this estate have been sold and vested in the purchasing tenants, and all moneys, including the bonus, paid to the persons entitled thereto.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether his attention had been called to the resignation of Captain C. W. Sergison, late of the Scots Guards, from the Sussex Territorial Association, on the ground that no discretion was allowed to county associations; that even the question of hiring a drill hall for a shilling a night had to be submitted to the Army Council; that local and regimental views were ruthlessly overruled by the War Office officials; that the attitude of the Army Council towards the county associations led to a waste of time and money; whether he proposes to take any steps towards giving the county associations greater responsibility and more powers of initiative in the performance of the duties which have been entrusted to them; (2) whether he is aware that the Staffordshire County Territorial Association has passed a resolution at the end of its first term of office recording its disappointment at its failure to receive the support it was led to expect from the Army Council, complaining of continual delays in replying to questions of immediate urgency, the supervision of the smallest detail of administration, and the interference in matters which the association, on accepting office, understood that it would be left to carry out, which had hampered the association in its endeavours to provide a properly equipped force on the Grants allotted, and expressing the hope that on accepting office for a further term the county association would receive more considerate treatment; whether, having regard to the complaints made by this and other associations, he has made inquiries as to the causes from which they arise; whether he proposes to remove them; and whether he can hold out any hope to county associations that they will enjoy greater freedom and less interference from the Army Council on matters of detail during their next period of office?

In reply to these questions, which both raise the general question of the relations of the Army Council to the county associations, I wish to point out that the differences of opinion mainly arise in reference to schemes for providing land and buildings for the accommodation of the various units. It has been found expedient in the interests of administrative efficiency and economy to exercise more detailed criticism of the schemes than the associations have apparently understood to be necessary. But I can safely assert that every step practicable has been taken, and will be taken, to expedite the settlement of these questions. The majority of the cases have been already settled. As regards the two associations mentioned, it would appear that the Noble Lord is referring to cases of acquisition of property. In the case of Sussex, difficulties have arisen in connection with property held by trustees as to the terms on which the force should have the user. In the case of Staffordshire a great deal of additional expenditure has been approved, and the outstanding matters are comparatively insignificant.

Am I correct in saying that there have been con- tinual delays in replying to questions of immediate urgency and the supervision of the smallest details of administration?

No; that is really not quite correct. I have gone very fully into the facts, and we are passing through the stage at which these questions will necessarily arise. In six months more I expect it will be over. Divergency of opinion has led to a great deal of correspondence about matters which, in my opinion, would be much better settled by personal interview. I am attending to these matters myself in order to get things through.

asked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to an application by Edward Garrod, aged sixty-nine years, of Dovercourt, Essex, for a gratuity on his discharge after completing twenty-nine years' and 119 days' service in the Ordnance Store Department and the Army Service Corps Department; and whether he can see his way to award the gratuity usual after this length of service under the Superannuation Act of 1887 or otherwise?

Garrod's service was, unfortunately, not continuous, and so did not entitle him to a gratuity. I have no power to go outside the Act in such matters.

Is he aware that Garrod served twenty-nine years and 119 days in the Ordnance Store Department and the Army Service Corps Department and was only out of the employment of a Government Department for half a day, leaving the Ordnance Store Department on the Friday night and re-engaging with the Army Service Corps Department the following day?

It is quite impossible for the Secretary of State to know all these details. The hon. Member must give notice of his question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make any statement as to the probable duration of the Conference on the relations between the two Houses of Parliament; and whether any statement as to the result of such Conference will be made before the House rises for the Autumn Recess?

The representatives of the Government and the Opposition have held twelve meetings, and have carefully surveyed a large part of the field of controversy. The result is that our discussions have made such progress, although we have not so far reached an agreement, as to render it, in the opinion of all of us, not only desirable, but necessary, that they should continue. In fact, I may go further, and say that we should think it wrong at this stage to break them off. There is no question of their indefinite continuance, and if we find as the result of our further deliberations during the Recess that there is no prospect of an agreement that can be announced to Parliament in the course of the present Session, we shall bring the Conference to a close?

Are further meetings to be held during the Recess?

assented.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the House is to understand that it is the intention of the Government that the decision will be given one way or another and announced to the country and this House at the latest by the time Parliament meets in November?

I would rather not pledge myself to a fixed date like that, but I should say in the coarse of the present Session. I hope at a very early date.

Do I understand that if the Conference should come to a rupture the country will be informed then and there, or whether we shall have to wait for the reassembling of Parliament?

That is a hypothetical question, but in the contingency to which my hon. Friend refers, and I trust it will not occur, I do not think the country will be kept in the dark for very long.

One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

beg to move, "That the Proceedings upon the Accession Declaration Bill, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act (1908) Amendment Bill, the Jury Trials (Scotland) Bill, the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) Amendment Bill, and the Education (Choice of Employment) Bill, and upon the Motion for the Adjournment (Winter Sittings) be not interrupted this day at Five o'clock or Half-past Five o'clock, and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."

On the question of the suspension of the Half-past Five o'clock Rule to-day, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in the early part of this Session, and in a more recent part of it, when we were dealing with Bills not half so important or controversial as the measures in question to-day, the House has risen sometimes at half-past seven, sometimes at eight and sometimes at ten o'clock in the evening after giving very deliberate consideration to the measure before it. I think it will be in the recollection of the House that on several occasions hon. Members sitting behind the Treasury Bench made complaint that the course of business was such that the House was allowed to rise at that hour. Now, however, that a great constitutional change is proposed, it is thought fit by the Government to pass each day a Resolution to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, or on Friday the Five o'clock Rule. The conduct of business under such conditions is a scandal to the management of the Government. Why should Bills of much less importance receive long deliberation in the ordinary working hours up to eleven o'clock, while time is wasted when we might have been studying the terms of the Bill, and now, at the end of the Session, we are taking the discussion of this important matter in the small hours of the morning, when the reports of our Debates are not able to reach the outer parts of the country. Whatever change in the Constitution is proposed by the Government, we should be allowed to discuss it calmly and carefully during the working hours of Parliamentary time, and not smuggled through in the early hours of the morning. The position of some of my Friends from Ulster has been sincere, and it is the feeling of the people who sent us here that such a change was, first of all, unnecessary, and that if it was considered necessary by the Government, it should have proper and fit discussion, and time should be permitted for it to be thoroughly understood by the people, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House should receive the conscientious convictions of their constituents. This has been prevented, I believe, with an object. Owing to the hurry with which the matter was pressed forward, the Bill we discussed in Committee was not the Bill introduced by the Government.

This is not the time to debate that. The only question is whether we should suspend the Five o'clock Rule.

I only wish to enter this protest against the manner in which we have been treated. I put questions to the Prime Minister, asking him to postpone the matter till the Autumn Session, when the deliberate opinon of the country might be obtained, but he has seen fit to

suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule on the two nights we have already had, and now he proposes to suspend the Five o'clock Rule. The attention of the House and the country requires to be drawn to the manner in which this grave constitutional change has been rushed through, and the people prevented from understanding its nature.

I am very sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman should think that in this matter we are in any way departing from usage. The only departure we have made from usage is by not moving to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule generally during the whole of the remainder of the Session. I have made no such Motion. I have only made it on particular days when the business of the day seemed to justify it. Really we have resorted much more sparingly to that particular invasion of the convenience of the House which has been customary in days gone by. It would not be in order to go into the merits of the Bill, but it could not have been introduced until after the unhappy demise of the Crown, and all references to what took place in the earlier days of the Session have no relevancy. It has been before the House and the country for a very considerable time, and it was in deference to the generally expressed wish to suit the general convenience that the later stages were taken before the Adjournment. I hope the House generally will agree that we have not in any way trespassed beyond the ordinary Parliamentary courtesies.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 101.

I beg to move to leave out from the word "I" ["I will, according to the true intent"] to the end of the Schedule, and to insert instead thereof the words "do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever. And that the invocation of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are contrary to the Protestant religion in which I believe. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration and every part thereof unreservedly."

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) gave notice of an Amendment in similar terms, and I am very sorry that he is unable to be here to move it. He was desirous of moving it in Committee yesterday evening. I think most of those who were present at the Committee Debate will agree that, owing to the form the Debate took, it was very difficult to get a really clear issue on the point involved in this Amendment, namely, that there should be an opportunity of expressing the view of those who think that the least possible alteration in the Declaration should be made. There were two ways which could have been taken—either to adhere to the old Declaration with the omission of only two words which appeared to me and others to be offensive, namely, "superstitious" and "idolatrous," or to follow the advice of the House of Lords Committee of 1901 and recast the Declaration in the form of which it stands in this Amendment. In raising this point, I think we shall now get a clear vote, which will distinguish those who wish for a very sweeping alteration from those who only wish a very moderate and qualified one. I do not think it is necessary to go at any length into the argument after the long debate we had yesterday. I object, for my part, to the proposal of the Government in the Bill, on the ground that it involves too much change and is too vague. Nobody can say that the words of this Amendment are vague. They have also the sanction of a very strong Committee of the House of Lords of 1901, which contained the Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Salisbury—whose opinion on this subject I for one think of enormous weight—the Duke of Argyll, another very great authority, and many other distinguished people, including Lord Crewe and others who belong to the Government side. I think it is a very considerable argument in favour of the report of the Committee that it is one drawn up and subscribed by men of such distinction.

There were only three courses as far as I can see. The first was not to have a Declaration at all, and all the arguments in favour of the Bill lead up to that conclusion. The Prime Minister has said that that is impossible that people would misunderstand and misinterpret it. I venture to think that we have now got a Declaration which is far more open to misinterpretation than having no Declaration at all. Another course would have been to have an affirming Declaration much in the form of the Coronation Oath which has to be taken and which is perfectly inoffensive to everybody, because it affirms that the King is a member of the Church of England as everybody knows, and it does not repudiate or attack in any way any other religious body. Both of these methods being now impossible there only remains the course of reintroducing those words of repudiation without the only two offensive words "superstitious" and "idolatrous." I cannot believe that anybody can regard this form as offensive. If we wish to say that we do protest, and to say it clearly and emphatically there is no harm in saying what it is we do protest against.

I beg to second the Amendment. I am afraid I am supporting a cause which is already lost, but though the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister may lead a large majority into the Lobby on this occasion I feel equally sure that if those who follow him had been asked at the last election whether they would retain some repudia- Live words there is not one out of twenty who would not have answered in the affirmative. One realises in this Parliament how far the political exigencies of the moment are governed by legislation. I am one of those who have supported the Amendments which would introduce a repudiative Clause. I do so, because I am cordially pledged to see as far as I can the Declaration put on as strong a footing as it has been put on in the past. No one can deny that the present Declaration lacks that definiteness and strength which the former Declaration had. I am second to no one in my desire that the Declaration should contain nothing in any way offensive to any single one of His Majesty's subjects who are Roman Catholics, but I do not see how inserting such an Amendment as is now proposed could make the Declaration in any way offensive to Roman Catholics. During the Debate to which I have listened as carefully as I could I do not think we have had a sufficient answer from anyone as to why putting in such a Clause as this is offensive to Roman Catholics, or why a Protestant king in a Protestant country cannot state his disbelief in certain doctrines without insulting the members of any Church I cannot understand. I have spoken to Roman Catholics outside this House, and I have listened to and read what has been said on this subject in the past, and it is only within the last week or two that it is stated that these statements are offensive to them. We are simply told that they are so. I cannot believe that they are. If you used insulting epithets to describe those beliefs no one would deny that there is grave cause of complaint against anything of that sort. But when you simply put in a statement of disbelief no valid argument has been put forward to show that it is an insult to any one of His Majesty's subjects. When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister introduced the Bill with the first form of words I was one of those who still thought that there should be some statement of this disbelief by the Sovereign, but I say it is ten times more necessary since the right hon. Gentleman has amended the statement. He had a definite statement of the Sovereign that he was an adherent of the Church of England as established by law. Then it had the Thirty-nine Articles behind it. But now the form of the right hon. Gentleman contains no such statement. It simply says that he is a faithful Protestant, and the Thirty-nine Articles which had these repudiations are entirely removed. When the first proposal of the Prime Minister was put forward the Roman Catholics found nothing offensive in it. Although it was to be inferred from the statement of membership of the Church of England that they accepted the Thirty-nine Articles, and therefore repudiated these doctrines, yet no offence was taken. But now we are told, when we desire to put in a few sentences like those proposed, that they are an insult to Roman Catholics. We are told that if you look at this question from the common-sense point of view, with all the facts and circumstances of the case before us, it is absurd that in the twentieth century the Sovereign should say more than that he is a Protestant, and that nothing further is necessary. As one of the general public, knowing the Royal Family through the ordinary sources of information, I must say I cannot greatly dissent from this. But there are two or three other very important points of view. We are trustees for the future as well as for the present, and if we look at this matter from the common-sense point of view, with all the facts and circumstances before us, we have to realise that the Sovereign follows the will of the people. It is the will of the people that leads, and I join issue with the Prime Minister and others who have spoken, and I say that it is not in accordance with the will of the people that we should leave out the repudiative sentences in the Declaration. I think the Prime Minister and the Government greatly underrate the strong Protestant feeling that still exists in this country. I admit that it has been dormant for a considerable time, and that it has taken no active steps in recent years. But I believe that it still exists, and I say that this form of Declaration which we are asked to pass does not agree with the views of the vast majority of the people of this country. For that reason I advocate, as I have done during the discussion, the insertion of the words proposed in the Motion before the House.

I do not complain that the hon. Member opposite has raised this issue. Owing to the complexities which necessarily arise on the Committee stage of a Bill like this, on which various proposals are discussed seriatim, we have not had perhaps an opportunity of deciding as between what is called the repudiatory and the alternative affirmative Clause. I shall not trouble the House by going over the ground which was covered by the Debate on the Second Reading and again in the Debate on the Committee stage last night as to the comparative merits and demerits of those two formulas. With reference to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I quite agree with him that there is a strong Protestant feeling in this country, and I believe that the Protestant Succession was never more safe than it is at this moment. I believe there never was a time when the people more thoroughly realised the importance and desirability of maintaining it. But why that Protestant feeling should be outraged, or why it should not find the most adequate and appropriate expression, when the King is made to declare that he is a "faithful Protestant," I confess passes my comprehension. I should have thought that was the very thing Protestants in this country would combine in agreeing as the most appropriate for the particular purpose in view. I cannot for a moment admit that in the form of words which we have finally chosen the Protestant sentiment of the country is not adequately satisfied. Then comes the question, really the only question arising on this Motion, whether what I may call the essentially distinctive or discriminative doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church should be in terms expressly repudiated by the Sovereign at his Accession, or whether, on the other hand, all the necessities of the case are not adequately met, and at the same time risk of offence avoided, by the affirmative Declaration that he is a Protestant. Both hon. Gentlemen have expressed surprise and inability to comprehend why the feelings of Roman Catholics should be in any way outraged by such a form of words as is now proposed. They quite properly pointed out that they have omitted from the present form of Declaration those vituperative epithets which have been singled out by Roman Catholics as being an insult, or at any rate emphasising an insult which the form of Declaration in their view involves.

And the dispensation part.

Yes; that-has been dropped out too, and I think it is a very distinct, improvement.

If you are to have this form of Declaration at all you should take the minimum. The fact remains that Roman Catholics, without any distinction or exception, of all schools and classes, do not like that the Sovereign should be required to repudiate at the commencement of his reign doctrines which they cherish as perhaps the most sacred of all the elements of their creed. I do not wonder at that. I wonder if either of the hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken heard the speech delivered last night by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. Hope). I was very much struck with it. It was not the speech of an Irish Catholic, it was the speech of an English Catholic: it was concise temperate, and to my mind full of instruction and significance. Here was a man without any apparent prejudice, whose whole instincts are conservative in the strictest sense of the term, explaining in a manner which every Protestant could not fail to understand, that to single out particular doctrines of his creed is a most grievious offence. He and his fellow Catholics whether English or Irish—and not only English or Irish, but Canadian or Australian, or New Zealand or South African, or in every part of His Majesty's wide-stretched Dominions—every one of the twelve millions of his Catholic fellow - subjects, regard the singling out of particular articles of their creed for repudiation as giving unnecessary offence to their most sacred feelings. If you do not share that feeling, you must recognise its existence. If to attain your object—which is simply to recognise the Sovereign, to state that he is a Protestant, which means that he is not in communion with Rome, and repudiates Roman doctrine—you get rid of all that feeling of offence, and at the same time secure the only object you have in view, why, in the name of Christian charity and common sense should not that be done?

1.0 P.M.

As I am one of those who still remain opposed to the Bill in its present form, I do not like to remain silent on a measure of this sort. I confess my objections have not been diminished by anything that has fallen from the Prime Minister this afternoon. He began by expressing his wonder why anyone should take exception to the expression in the Bill "I am a faithful Protestant," etc. He expressed his amazement that anyone should take objection to this particular expression. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I see a perfectly good reason on the face of it. The expression is perfectly meaningless. If you refer to any good dictionary giving an interpretation of the word "Protestant" you will find that different meanings are attached to it. I looked up the word only this morning. I will give one interpretation, and one alone. It is from the well-known dictionary circulated by "The Times" not many years ago. It is one of the most modern and probably the best dictionary of the day. It gives a variety of meanings of the word "Protestant," which are not in any way connected with this Bill, but, as strictly connected with it, one of the meanings of the word given is:— Member or adherent of one of those Christian bodies which were descended from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. One of those bodies. Which? There is nothing in the Bill, absolutely nothing whatever to say. There was in the original Bill, but, changed as it is to-day, and in the measure as it stands, no definite and effective meaning could be given without much further explanation. The right hon. Gentleman from the first has based his support of his own proposal mainly on the ground that he found it impossible to take a repudiatory basis, and on the whole he came to the conclusion that the basis of the Bill must be an affirmative one. But he gave no adequate reason, certainly in my opinion no adequate reason, for making the statement. To-day he has rather enlarged the point when he says, go where you will, Roman Catholic subjects of the King throughout the world, in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, or in the United Kingdom, wherever you will, are, everyone of them, offended at the direct repudiation of their doctrines.

I beg leave to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I was discussing this subject with a Roman Catholic not two days ago. I was explaining and saying to him very much what I am saying now; and he said, "That we don't mind; if the offensive words are struck out we do not object." There is one out of the innumerable millions to be found in all parts of the world who does not bear out the statement that there is universal offence taken by the repudiation of some of their doctrines. Why should there be any objection? Surely we have the right to ask that question, and we have the right to some answer. I suppose with the exception of those in this House who profess the Roman Catholic faith, I should be right in saying that all of us agree that we do repudiate the doctrine of transubstantiation, that we do repudiate the invocation of the Virgin and other saints, and the sacrament of the Mass as used in the Roman Catholic Church. I do not know how many would differ from me in that statement, but the great majority of us, I think I am right in saying, do repudiate those doctrines. If we do why should we not say so in the plainest possible language? There is nothing offensive to another creed in the repudiation of part of its doctrines as contrary to your own belief if you honestly think so, as we do. I confess I can see no grounds for adopting a course which is, admittedly on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, very offensive to a vast number of Protestant people in this country, whether it be reasonable or not, and out of consideration for a sentiment which is not universal on the other side. That, I am prepared to state, is absolutely true; and in my opinion, and I believe that opinion is shared by a great many others, even if it was so held that would be no justification for this proposal. I have merely risen because, as I say, this is a question on which I hold decided views myself, and on a matter of the gravity and importance of this I do not like to give a vote without having stated my views. I do concur most thoroughly and most heartily in the closing observations of the hon. Member who spoke last. I do believe that the Prime Minister and his colleagues underrate very greatly the depth of the feeling which undoubtedly prevails among vast numbers of the British people in connection with this question. Nor do I think we need be surprised at that when we remember what has happened in the history of the past. I think, therefore, it was wrong, and that it was altogether foolish to ignore that feeling in the way the Government have ignored it, and to have prosecuted this Bill, and conducted it in the manner in which they have conducted it, and which, I think, is calculated to give a totally false impression. I do not mean to say that I believe the only reason why it has been forced through in this way is that the Government were afraid of a growing agitation. I dare say an agitation might have grown up, and I think very likely it would have before we meet next autumn. In choosing their alternative they have done that which I believe to have been wholly unnecessary, and which, I am convinced, causes the deepest offence to a vast number of people.

I would appeal even now to the Government to accept the Amendment. As was pointed out yesterday, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite accepted the omission of what they call the vituperative epithets in the existing Declaration, which have been done away with, and now they demand practically that the whole Declaration should be done away with. The Government really anticipated those remarks by bringing in the Declaration in its present form. I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody should feel aggrieved or offended by the mere statement of the repudiation of certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith. I cannot, for my part, notwithstanding the great indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway, understand that indignation at the words "idolatrous and superstitious." After all, they are only an expression of belief on the part of the Sovereign as regards the mass and transubstantiation. I cannot quite see why they should be considered offensive. I am sure there is not anybody in this House who would desire the use of them if they considered them offensive unless they thought them necessary to secure the Protestant Succession. I would submit it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite or of their co-religionists to complain of them because, although I do not say we should use vituperative epithets because they do with regard to the Protestant religion, I do not think they can complain if they were used when they were thought necessary. I will, with the permission of the House, read an oath taken by the Roman Catholic bishops of Quebec, which is in the British Empire. It is as follows——

Where is the hon. Gentleman quoting from?

From the "Standard" of 15th July, 1910.

Where is the supposed verification?

I presume the "Standard" would not have published it without being satisfied that it was correct.

What is the authority?

Do you deny it?

I have never heard it.

It is stated that this is the oath taken by the Roman Catholic bishops of the Province of Quebec:— That the Pope is the true and only head of the Catholic, or Universal, Church throughout the earth, and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by the Saviour Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States Commonwealths and Governments, all being illegal without his sacred affirmation, and that they may be surely destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost in my power, I shall and will defend this doctrine, and His Holiness's rights and customs against all usurpers, especially against the new pretended authority of the Church of England, and all adherents in regard that they and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do further declare the doctrine of the Church of England, of the Calvinists. Huguenots and of others of the name of Protestants, to be damnable and they themselves are damned and to be damned that will not forsake same. I will further declare that I will help, assist, advise all or any of His Holiness's agents in any place in which I shall be, in England, Scotland and Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom, and shall come to and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant doctrine and to destroy all their pretended power, legal or otherwise.

I have no hesitation in saying that that is not merely un-Catholic, but false, fraudulent, and a forgery.

I should like to know the hon. Gentleman's authority for that statement.

The oath the hon. Baronet has just read is a well-known forgery, which has been exposed over and over again. I can give him papers which I think will prove that to his own satisfaction.

I am very pleased to hear it; but I should like further confirmation than the statements of the two hon. Members that it is a forgery-There is the statement, and if it is correct it does not lie in the mouths of Roman Catholics to complain of these very mild words, which, as I say, no Protestant in this country would wish to use needlessly, but they think that in the interests of the Protestant Succession they are necessary. I certainly do not think the term "faithful Protestant" is sufficient to guard the Protestant Succession to the Throne. The Secretary for Ireland delivered the other night a very clever, witty, and amusing speech, which partook rather of the nature of a farce, or, as the play-bills would say, a "screaming farce," than the deliverance of a staid and sober-minded Minister of the Crown on a question which, although it may be treated by him in a light manner, is looked upon in a very serious light by a large majority of the people of this country. He seemed to think that the word "Protestant" meant nothing at all, and did not bind a man to anything in particular. I would even at this late hour beg the Prime Minister to accept this Amendment.

I would join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. The Prime Minister has stated that certain words were offensive to hon. Members below the Gangway who hold Roman Catholic views. For the life of me I cannot see how it could be expected to be otherwise. The whole object of this Declaration is to protest against the doctrines of the Church of Rome in the person of our Sovereign. That being so, how is it possible that any Roman Catholic could accept it without a certain amount of offence. I quite admit that the actual words used may vary; but whereas the original words in the old Declaration may have been peculiarly offensive, they have now been withdrawn, and it is impossible to expect the Declaration to carry out its real object without giving some offence to Roman Catholics. It would be far better to face the situation honestly and openly. Make it as little offensive as you can, but at the same time say straight out in plain English what you mean, and face the result, whether it be offensive to Roman Catholics or anybody else. Nobody wishes to offend any religion; but if the Declaration is to have any meaning at all it is impossible to word it in such a way that it will not carry some offence. The words in the new form in their literal sense carry offence to Roman Catholics. If they mean anything at all, they must mean that in the person of our Sovereign we protest against the doctrines of the Church of Rome. This Amendment gives the Government an opportunity to put into plain language what we mean by the Declaration. It is evident to most of us on this side what is the object and intention of the Government, and, therefore, our appeal is in vain. There is little doubt that this alteration of the Declaration is simply a part of the arrangement which has been made; it is part payment for the votes of hon. Members below the Gangway.

Nothing of the kind.

In order to gain their support in this House this sop is held out to their co-religionists. The last word on this subject has not been spoken; it lies with the people of the country. The Government have entirely under-estimated the force of public opinion on the matter. This Debate will not be concluded within the walls of this House; it will be carried on throughout the length and breadth of the land. I believe a feeling will have been aroused by the Government's insistence on altering the Declaration in this way, of which they will not hear the end for a very long time to come, and which will have a very serious influence on their fortunes when the next election comes round. For these reasons. I again appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment.

I think it due to the Government to say that there is not a word of foundation for the statement that this Bill is brought forward in any way to catch the votes of Irish Catholics. For myself, during the last twelve months I have voted far more often with the Opposition than with the Government. I have opposed the Government on all their principal measures, and the suggestion that this Bill is in any way a sop to Irish Members or a bid for their support I utterly repudiate. I think it is most unjust to the Government. I should have said, and I repeat that this Bill does the Government great honour. I have said and I repeat that I have been extremely struck by the candour and manliness of the Prime Minister in the way in which he has faced calumny and opposition in reference to this measure. I think I could go further and say that we accept this Bill in some sense as a tender of friendship and friendliness to Ireland on behalf of His Majesty the King. I regard it on behalf of the King as the act of a manly gentleman to have wished to pass this Bill so that our feelings 'should not be outraged at the most solemn moment of his. life. I wish to say nothing further on the point except to repudiate in the strongest possible manner the suggestion that this Bill is in any way produced as a sop to the Irish Members, or as a bid for their support. As being typical of the way in which this Bill has been attacked by those who support the Government, the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory)—I do not know whether he is a baronet or a knight; there are so many of them now it is almost impossible for one to know—has created a sensation by reading out a, document said to be an authoritative oath taken by the bishops in the Province of Quebec. When I asked him his authority, he said, "The authority of the editor of the 'Standard.'"

I did not say the editor; I said it was a letter.

I was coming to that. I am told that it appeared in an anonymous letter in the "Standard." An English gentleman, an English titled gentleman, thinks he is entitled, on the authority of an anonymous letter in a London newspaper, to slander not merely the Catholics in this House, but the loyal Catholics of Quebec ! I remember reading of the very remarkable reception which King George V., then Duke of York, got from the Catholics of Quebec, and especially the extraordinary manifestation of welcome given to him outside the Church of St. Anne, Beauharnois. I remember the extraordinary reception given to him by the pilgrims there. Yet the hon. Gentleman thinks it is due to his Protestantism and to his position in this House to read out a document which I assert is a forgery, is false, is an invention, is a lie, as being something which Catholics would ever have accepted.

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that these words are only intended to assert the tenets of Protestantism. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet—because I assume that he has reached that grade—ever read Macaulay on bull or badger baiting. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Bear-baiting."] Bear-baiting. He says that "the Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not so much because of the pain it gave to the bear, as the pleasure it gave to the spectators." I would say of this Protestant Declaration that the reason Gentlemen of the calibre of the hon. Baronet opposite are so anxious for its insertion in the Bill is not because it is pleasing to the Protestant so much as because it is offensive to the Catholic !

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was an anonymous letter.

I said I was informed that it was.

Anyway, it is well known that a paper would not insert a letter without an accompanying card giving the name and address of the writer in order, necessarily, to guard themselves against libel.

How is it signed?

With initials.

I said it was an anonymous letter. I call that an anonymous letter.

The name and address would be sent with the letter, and it is open for the hon. and learned Gentleman to find out who the writer was.

I very much regret that this note of discord has been introduced into this Debate. I will not pursue it, for my only concern is with the Protestant Succession. This, I think, is completely secured by Statute. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the White Paper issued by the Government must, I think, be convinced on that point. And if it is not secured by Statute, this Declaration will not secure the Protestant Succession. I suppose the object of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who have spoken so strongly against a Roman Catholic coming to the Throne, is that it seems to them that the old Declaration would secure not only the exclusion of a Catholic from the Throne, but his continuance upon it if he were there. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who told us a day or two ago that probably even King Charles II. would have taken the old Declaration. I cannot for the life of me see that the Succession would at all be secured by insisting upon the King taking that Declaration in the belief that it would secure a man who is not a Catholic as King. We have been told in this Debate that a man might make that Declaration and in six months become a Roman Catholic, in which case the Declaration would be entirely inoperative. Happily the Bill of Rights secures the Protestant Succession and the continuance of the Monarch as a Protestant. We were told in most forcible language by the Prime Minister, reading from the Statute, that any Monarch who joined the Catholic Church must thereby forfeit his Throne. Even if he married a Roman Catholic he would forfeit his Throne. The Act absolves all the subjects of the King in that event from their allegiance to him. I rejoice greatly that the Government have adopted a simpler and more effective form to secure what is desirable. I quite believe that the Bill as amended will satisfy all reasonable persons for all time to come.

There are three things on which most reasonable men are agreed. The first is that the old Declaration must go. It is cruel to make the King offend twelve or fourteen millions of his subjects, many of whom are as loyal as any Gentleman in this House, when he is taking his place on the Throne of this great Empire. The great occasion of the Accession should, in my judgment, be made a time for bringing together the people of all parts of the Empire in closer fellowship and brotherhood rather than of wounding them. In the second place we are agreed that the new Declaration to be passed by this House ought to offend none. It would be a pity if, whilst relieving Catholics of offence, it should in any way give offence to millions of Protestants who do not belong to the Church of England, and who would be greatly distressed by the Bill introduced in its original form. So I think all reasonable men will be grateful for the alteration. Thirdly, we are, I think, all agreed that no King must ever again be asked to publicly declare that the religion of millions of his subjects is blasphemous and idolatrous. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not in this Amendment at all."] I most heartily support the Government Bill now before the House, and hope that it will be carried into law.

It is not true as stated in this Debate that there has been no mandate in this matter. This Bill may not have been put emphatically and decisively before the electors at the last election, but speaking for myself I had to answer questons on the subject. Questions were submitted to me that, if elected, would I vote against an alteration in this Oath. And the answer I gave was that, while I was wishful and desirous, and would strive to maintain the Protestant Succession, I was anxious and willing as a tolerant Christian to take out of the Oath any words which might be offensive to any man or to any other religion. I have yet to learn that the use of vituperation in the taking of an Oath or the making of any statement is necessary for its sincerity, and to ask His Majesty to use any words other than those in the proposed new Declaration, namely "faithful Protestant," is in a measure to throw suspicion upon him. If anything was necessary in the way of additional argument to prove the necessity for this change, the Debate has supplied it. I believe that the moment is opportune for sweeping away for ever the whole ground upon which these theological disputations arise. Let us in future remove from this or any other Oath which His Majesty has to take words which may be offensive to his subjects whatever faith they possess. These words in the old Oath was borne of theological passion at a period which cannot be compared with the present, and they are not needed at the present time.

I shall support the Amendment, and for this reason that I believe the words of the Prime Minister "faithful Protestant" deserve some qualification. The words "faithful Protestant" may mean anything whatever. The word "Protestant" may alter its meaning from what we know it now, and the words which are inserted for the Oath of future Sovereigns may come to have an understanding, which means nothing at all. I asked the Prime Minister last night, when an Amendment was moved by one of my hon. Friends, to give the matter further consideration, but he took no notice of the suggestion. Now, in midday, when we may all be in a more amiable frame of mind, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not believe that for the satisfaction of a very large number of people—and I think he has underestimated the opposition to this Bill—he would not put in some word for the purpose of qualifying the word "Protestant." it would be perfectly possible for an agnostic to take the Oath as it stands now. and that is the reason I supported the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Laurence Hardy) last night. If his Amendment had been accepted it would be incumbent upon the Sovereign, in taking the Declaration, to solemly affirm he was a Member of the Church of England, and entered into communion with the Church of England. The Oath in its present form might be taken by anyone, and for that reason, and also for the reason of conciliating if I 'may say so, a very large number of people in this country who are opposed to any change, I support this Amendment. It would be judicious on the part of the Prime Minister to accept these words for the purpose of qualifying the word "Protestant."

I do not at all disguise the fact that I am still in the impenitent position of that much-despised class who are accused of not wanting to alter a single line of the Declaration. I am not at all ashamed of it. I am one of those who believe that we should not alter one word of this old landmark. I have now, however, to consider whether this Amendment is an improvement upon what has been brought forward by the Government. I must say if I was satisfied that all parties in this House would be in a position to construe the new Declaration of the Government and the words "faithful Protestant" in the same way as I do I should be pretty well satisfied, but I have great doubt as to the meaning put upon the words "faithful Protestant." Every time the Government is asked to construe the meaning of the words "faithful Protestant," and to put into the meaning of the words what every faithful Protestant would do, namely, to disavow without offence the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the Government say, "We will not ask a faithful Protestant to do that." Again and again in the Committee stage, when it was sought to ensure that a "faithful Protestant" should repudiate Communion with the Church of Rome, the Government said they would not do that. The words of this Amendment are not qualifying; they are only explaining the meaning of the words "faithful Protestant." Of course the Government know their own business best. If they are afraid of an agitation in the country of which the Chief Secretary for Ireland complained I think it is a very very important platform point against them, that as soon as they were asked to put in after the words "faithful Protestant" the words "that he was not to enter into communion with the Church of Rome" they refused to do so.

The Prime Minister said last night there was some doubt on these benches as to the meaning of the words "faithful Protestant." We never raised any doubt; the doubt came from the Government themselves. Once the Government have decided to alter the Declaration, the next best thing is to explain it, and it is explained in this Amendment. This Amendment is the old Declaration leaving out the two words. "superstitious" and "idolatrous," which were complained of. If we are to have an Amendment at all, the further Amendment now proposed should be made. The reason the two words "superstitious" and "idolatrous" were taken out was because, as the Prime Minister has said, they were offensive to Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom and Empire. An hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House expressed his desire, as many others have done, that there should be removed from this Declaration all offensive matters. I think this would be a convenient moment for the House to know what it is that is merely offensive, because, in spite of the contradiction of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. William Redmond), I state without any hesitation, and it can be supported by reference to the public journals since the agitation began, the inception of the whole thing were the words "superstitious" and "idolatrous." The matter was brought before boards of guardians, urban and rural councils, and the only criticism involving sometimes strong language was that it was a scandalous thing, from their point of view, that they should be described as "superstitious and idolatrous." That was the only point of objection on which Roman Catholic public opinion fastened itself. It appears now that opinions as to what is offensive in the Declaration are getting stronger and Wider, and even when the words complained of are eliminated it is asserted that it is offensive to mention any particular religion in the Declaration. When you say that the King must be a Protestant, then you are selecting one particular Church, because Protestants derive their name from being in opposition to certain dogmas of the Church of Rome. Is that offensive? It may not be considered offensive now, but have we any guarantee that in five years' time there will not be an agitation to remove the word "Protestant" from the Declaration. I do not like quoting from the "Freeman's Journal," but I know very well how it treats, this question in Ireland. That journal simply lumps us together as non-Catholics. Now, I claim to be just as good a Catholic as any hon. Member. I think we ought to avoid theological matters, but I may point out that it is part of the creed of my Church, and part of our religious service, that the members of our Church believe in the Catholic Church, and I have just as much right to call myself a Catholic, although I do not belong to the Roman Catholics, as hon. Members below the Gangway. I do not know that this Amendment will save us from the charge in future of being offensive. The other day I came across an historical fact. In 1851 Cardinal Cullen gave some excellent political advice. Referring to the success of O'Connell and other Roman Catholic politicians in getting restrictions and Roman Catholic disabilities abolished, he said:— Their next movement ought to be to eliminate from the Coronation Oath and the preliminary Oath taken by the Sovereign, all the limitations which confine it to the Protestant Succession. Now, after sixty years, we find a Government in power willing to carry out Cardinal Cullen's behests. We now see how subservient the Liberal Government can be to anything which is desired by hon. Members below the Gangway. The question before the House is whether this Declaration is better than the Declaration which the Government are going to thrust upon the country before we have had a chance of consulting our constituencies. The Declaration cannot be said to be offensive when we have removed the only two words which were said to be offensive. A thing is not offensive simply because hon. Members below the Gangway say it is. The country is the judge in that matter. I do not see how it is offensive to say that only a Protestant must sit on the Throne. In regard to the question before the House, there can only be one answer to those who desire to see Protestant Succession safeguarded and who prefer to see no alteration at all, and that is to vote for this Amendment.

If there is one thing about which this Debate as a whole does credit to the House it is the evident desire on the part of all who have spoken to be as inoffensive as possible. I am only a new Member of the House of Commons, but in my view the idea that a particular form of words is everything seems to be altogether fallacious. With regard to the preservation of the Protestant Succession, whatever words you introduce into any Declaration entirely depends upon the continued Protestant view of the people of these Islands, and unless you can maintain a Protestant sentiment sufficiently strong to return a Protestant majority no form of words is a real security. These changes seem to be a reflection of growing opinion in the country. One of my hon. Friends spoke of the King in a personal sense. The value of this Declaration is not in the person who has to conform to it. The King is symbolic of all the inhabitants in the Empire, and it seems to me that no religious body should be singled out to be lectured upon an occasion when a King is making an important Declaration to his subjects. I welcome this Declaration, because I think it carries out the spirit of the old Declaration and secures the Protestant Succession. We mean by Protestant that attitude of mind in a religious sense expressed in the Bill of Rights, and the new Declaration calls attention to that fact. The new Declaration seems to hoe to be another step in that advance towards religious equality when no man should be at a disadvantage on account of his religious opinion, and the King realising this enlarged sentiment in a broad sense expresses the sense of the whole nation by the statement he makes, in which he says that he will accept the statutory position secured to him, and he does it in a manner which leaves the loyalty of Catholics in no sense affected. He recognises the loyalty of the Catholics without offending them. It is said there is a growing feeling outside this House against the new Declaration. Personally I have not seen this. I do not think there has been any change in our time so great as this, or that there has ever been so little opposition as on this occason. For years I have been of opinion that the Declaration should be altered, and I promised my Constituents I would use all the efforts I possibly could to alter the old Declaration, and I gladly, accept the new form in which the Government has brought it forward. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite and some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House will be able to rouse public opinion in the way they think. The opinion of this country grows more tolerant day by day. The old Declaration has grown out of use, and the religiously intellectual people of this country have no place any longer for religious persecution. The time is coming when people will be allowed to follow fully their religious beliefs without offence. It seems to me to be a delusion to think that any form of words can be binding on the human mind. It finds itself changing by changing circumstances, and I would rather trust the Monarch in accepting this Declaration than to have any form of words such as the Amendment suggests.

The argument of the last speaker seems to me to warrant not only the abolition of the Declaration altogether, but the abolition of the Protestant Succession, because all his arguments went to show that so far as he was concerned he would be perfectly willing to see not only perfect religious equality, but perfect religious equality in the mind of the King himself as to what views he was to hold with regard to religious dogmas. I do not believe the majority of the country or of this House take that view at all, and I am very sorry myself the Prime Minister has not seen his way to fall in with the views of a large number of Gentlemen who have argued, and I think successfully argued, that a further definition ought to be attached to the words which are used in the Declaration. I do not agree with what the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Scott Dickson) said the other night, that the concession made by the Prime Minister would not go any way to allay the feelings of objection which have been entertained in Scotland. I believe the concession made by the Prime Minister will do so to a very large extent, but I do not feel it will be successful in allaying those feelings altogether. I believe the mapority of the people in Scotland and in this House also do not like the absolutely colourless nature of this Declaration. There is no boldness in this Declaration anywhere. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), but I do think that a great deal of what he has said during the course of this Debate is perfectly warranted by the character of the Declaration the Government propose. It would, I think, be far better to have no Declaration at all than to resist every kind of definition of the word "Protestant." The Government and the Prime Minister have refused to attach any kind of meaning whatever to the word, and therefore I am very sorry to say I shall find it my duty, not only to vote for this Amendment, but to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, unless the Government will accept some further definition either in this Clause or in an Amendment which is going to be moved subsequently with regard to the relation of the Papacy to this country.

2.0 P.M.

If the Prime Minister has not been able to convince my hon. Friend opposite and the hon. Member for North Armagh, I certainly do not hope at this stage to be able to do so, but I think two things should again be quite explicitly stated. The hon. Member for North Armagh pointed out that objection had been taken in the first instance, more particularly by resolutions passed by various public bodies in Ireland and elsewhere, to the particular words "superstitious" and "idolatrous," and he drew from that the conclusion that it was only to these words objection was taken by Catholics. The reason why those words figure so largely in those resolutions is perfectly obvious: it is because they are obviously and clearly offensive. I will put it to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for North Armagh whether, if the Sovereign were to single out certain doctrines of the religious communions to which they belong for special repudiation at the most solemn moment of his life, they would not regard that as grossly offensive to them, even if words such as "superstitious" and "idolatrous" were not there. The hon. Member for North Armagh and I believe my hon. Friend suggested that the next step would be to demand that the Protestant Succession itself should go. I may say quite frankly I think it is a very remarkable thing that the members of the great historic Church of Christendom should accept in this matter, as they have done perfectly frankly, openly, and in the most explicit terms, the exclusion of Catholics from the Throne of this country. It has been said explicitly over and over again both in this House and in another place, and it is not, therefore right to suggest that when hon. Members of this House and Noble Lords in another place make a solemn statement on behalf of their co-religionists that they do, as a matter of fact accept the Protestant Succession loyally and faithfully, that they are speaking something which they do not really mean. What are we doing? We are deciding for a person not present and not consulted—we are dealing not only with the present King, but with future monarchs—and we are saying what it is that the man shall stand before his people and laying his hand upon his heart, what he shall profess as to the most intimate and sacred thoughts of his being. That is a remarkable proceeding, and surely it ought to give pause to these who would ask that the Sovereign, who, after all, is not merely a constitutional citizen, but is also a man with a heart, with faith and with a conscience, it should, I say, give pause to, them before they ask him to use words which may be exceedingly distasteful to him as a man. You have, indeed, no right to inquire, seeing the nature of the laws by which the Protestant Succession is established, you have, I say, no right to demand that your Sovereign, who is to be, in the words of the Prime Minister, a faithful Protestant under the existing law of the country, shall go further and shall single out for reprobation doctrines which it may be are held by those for whom he has a kindly feeling and which he may be inclined to view in feelings of charity. I cannot conceive that anybody in his senses would come down to this House and propose to enforce a Declaration such as that which is embodied in the Amendment. It is really going beyond our province to require that the King shall at this great solemn moment of his life single out particular doctrines for reprobation, because by so doing he would, in the first place, be making a Declaration which in point of fact is grossly offensive and hurtful to the beliefs and most intimate feelings of millions of his subjects; and, secondly, it may well be that while he is prepared to say sincerely from his heart that he is a faithful Protestant, you may not only injure the feelings of his subjects, but you may also call upon thé Sovereign to do something which may be extremely disagreeable to him.

I merely wish to point out a view of the question which shows that, unconsciously no doubt, hon. Members are not doing full justice to those who object to the present form of Declaration, because they want it to define Protestantism. The proposal in the Declaration is a very unjust one, because it is a negative Declaration. You define a Protestant as a person who does not believe in certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. As a Protestant myself I protest against Protestantism being so defined. I protest against it being defined on its negative side. Everyone who knows anything of English literature will remember one of the most famous of our poems—it is the Song of Herrick, in which he said:— Bid me to live and I will live, Thy Protestant to be; Bid me to love, and I will give A loving heart to thee. There is a very correct use of the term. Protestant is not a negative term at all. Anyone who analyses the word will see that a Protestant is a person who is giving evidence for a thing; he is a witness against something else—a witness for something Protestant. My hon. Friends who are pleading for a negative definition of Protestantism are doing a great injustice to the Roman Catholic religion. Any religion which merely exists on negations must die. A religion cannot live on negative starvation. It must be positive, or else it is doomed, and I protest against my Protestantism being defined as a simple negation of certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic or any other Church. It has been well said—it was said by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that we cannot, and do not, want to define the word. We know what Protestantism means in a general sense, and we also know what it does not mean. If you talk to a man in the street, and he says he is a Protestant, he does not mean that he does not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. He knows nothing about that. He believes in certain positive religious opinions. I would plead with hon. Members on both sides of the House, who are so enamoured of Protestantism—as I hope most of us are—not to be unjust to their own faith by accepting a negative definition of the Protestant religion. It has been said that this is a sop to hon. Members on the other side of the House. As a Liberal Member of some years' standing, may I say I do not regard it as a sop. I remember when the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) introduced his Bill I was very vexed with him because he stuck in the Lord Chancellor and this jeopardised the measure by making it too big—as most people do here. As a matter of fact, I then felt we had a chance, and I said to my people, "It is positively disreputable to abuse other people's religion." Is it not possible for the English nation to safeguard its own religion without blackguarding anybody else's? That is what this Declaration, as changed by the Government, is doing. I know that any words of mine can have very little and possibly no effect, but I should have liked the House to have been unanimous on this question. It would have been an act of graciousness, an act of politeness, and of common decency that we should cease to abuse anybody else's religion, and I do plead with my hon. Friends not to be unjust to Protestantism by trying to retain a definition of it, which is narrow, negative, and an absolutely inefficient one. If you agree so much with the Roman Catholics, why single out something with which you disagree as a positive definition of our faith. I say it is unjust, and I am surprised that this point has not been raised earlier in the Debate, because it strikes me I must, as a Protestant, protest against any such narrow view of my religion. It means so much more than the negation of trans-substantiation or the prayers to the Virgin Mary, and it does not mean these things. Do the Salvation Army or the Church Army mean these things when they preach their faith at the corners of the streets I Nothing of the kind. They mean a positive thing, an actual thing, that a man can take into his heart and regenerate his life by means of it. Not a negation of the faith of somebody else. That being so, I appeal to my Protestant Friends to accept this chance of putting Protestantism on a broader and sounder basis, and not the basis of contradicting anybody else's faith.

I wish to recall the memory of the House to a time which has long since gone, and which I hope is to a large extent forgotten, and that is to the year 1851, when England was in a perfect frenzy and ferment owing to the action of the Pope in regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. The Pope had issued a Brief, couched in language which was most unfortunate, and to Englishmen very offensive. It was couched in language which seemed to indicate that the Papal spiritual supremacy could be reasserted in this country. England was mapped out into dioceses under the episcopal control of an archbishop and twelve suffragans in language practically denying the paramount authority of the Sovereign in this country. Unfortunately there was a cardinal at that time who seemed to encourage to some extent that idea by his language, and it was called by a statesman of that time "bombastic and ridiculous." Lord John Russell wrote to the Bishop of Durham and denounced the aggression of the Pope upon Protestantism as" insolent and insiduous." Why do I recall the House to a memory of that kind at the present moment? I may remind the House that at that time hundreds of addresses were poured in upon the Crown, and I would ask the House to remember what was the attitude of Queen Victoria on that occasion. Perfectly calm and perfectly temperate, and the strife that raged around her seemed not to deprive her for a moment of that quiet sympathetic spirit which rendered her so beloved throughout her extraordinarily beautiful reign. I want to recall the language of the Queen when she wrote to Lord John Russell in these words: "Sincerely Protestant as I have always been and always shall be, I much regret the intolerant and unchristian spirit exhibited."

It seems to me that the word "Protestant" may be extremely indefinite from one point of view and extremely definite 'from another. It is indefinite as showing perhaps what the man is, because it is very inclusive, but it is very definite in showing what he is not, and I for one most sincerely support the words "faithful Protestant" which were introduced by the Prime Minister into the Declaration, because I think it does secure what we want, which is a very definite statement of what a man is not. That is to say, that no man who takes those words on his lips honestly and sincerely can be a Roman Catholic. If he honestly calls himself a faithful Protestant he cannot possibly be a Roman Catholic. And yet that expression is quite indefinite as to what he is, because we all know the word Protestant embraces a great many forms of the Christian faith—forms and sections which do not in any way agree with each other not nearly so much as many of us in this House wish they did. As far as that is concerned, I shall support the Declaration as it now stands, and as to whether or not it is well to add a definition I agree very much with what the last speaker said, that definitions cannot be negative, or if they are negative they are not satisfactory. I quite agree with him in wishing to strongly deprecate not only blackguarding other people's religion—that, I think, is a word which should hardly have been used—but the use of words which can be offensive. Since yesterday I have had my attention called to a speech which I do not think has been quoted in this House at this time, but which, I think, is well worthy of the attention of everyone in this House—both those who are Roman Catholics and those who are not. That is a speech by Lord Llandaff, made on 8th July, 1901, in the House of Lords. I do want to read these words, as they do apply very strictly to the case before us. He said:— Does the Noble and learned Lord think that in the Declaration as altered there is nothing which can offend Catholic feeling? Why, two of the cardinal doctrines of the Catholic Church arc picked out for au expression of disbelief, and therefore of condemnation, by the Sovereign. This Declaration is to be made audibly, publicly, and solemnly on a most solemn occasion, and does the Lord Chancellor suppose that that exceptional treatment, allotted to Roman Catholics alone, is not painful to them? There are in this country scores of creeds, each of which teaches some doctrine in which the Sovereign does not believe, but you pass them all by in respectful silence. In the case of the Catholic Church alone two doctrines are picked out for affirmation of disbelief and therefore condemnation. Catholics cannot help regarding this proceeding as both offensive and painful. I have read those words because they bear out what the hon. Member for Clare was saying a few days ago, and I cannot help feeling that they are words that we ought to take account of, and which the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) had evidently not read, or not read lately, because he told us in this House a short time ago that the offence which Roman Catholics felt was limited to the two or three words which all of us wish to get out of the Declaration. I feel that it is only honest to read those words, because they practically are against an Amendment which I myself put down upon the Paper, and I think those of us who desire only to do what is perfectly fair and straight in this matter, and who have the greatest possible desire not to use language which can reasonably offend our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, should mention a matter of that kind. Surely, in these circumstances, we must acknowledge that the reasons for offence which have been felt by the Roman Catholics for several years past—at all events, since the year 1901, when that took place in the House of Lords—do refer to something more than the use of two or three strong expressions or unfortunate words which many of us have long deprecated and long wished to get rid of. Honestly, I believe that many of us may lose votes by it, but I hope there is not a man in the House who regards it from that point of view, and who would not gladly run the risk of losing votes if he gained the sympathy, the regard, and the respect of those who may differ from him in religion, but who, after all, have one object and one aim as Members of the House and as citizens of the Empire.

I listened to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Harwood) with a great deal of astonishment. If it meant anything at all it meant that we should shut up all our churches and chapels. I entirely disagree with him as to Protestantism not being a negative. Protestantism must be a negative, because it is simply a protest against the errors of Rome. All that we Protestants say is, "Take the Bible and read it, and judge for yourselves." We do not attempt to dictate to anyone what he shall believe in regard to their particular faith. I am sorry the Government cannot adopt this Amendment, although they may yet do so. They have given way to the ultimatum of the Nonconformists, and I think they might give the Presbyterians of Scotland a little. I cannot see any harm in the Declaration. In any case Protestants believe this about transubstantiation, and if it is true why not put it in the Declaration. But we get no answer to that at all. The Roman Catholics want to make the Declaration absolutely colourless, so that it shall mean nothing particular at all. I am sorry to hear some of our Roman Catholic Friends opposite repudiate apparently what has always been understood to be the claims and powers of their Church. Whether the letter that appeared in the "Standard" is correct or not I cannot say, but we have all for many years been of opinion that this sort of Oath had to be made just in the same way as the clergymen of the Church of England have to believe in the Thirty-nine Articles. If that is not correct, will they tell us what the correct Oath is? The hon. Gentleman opposite apparently tried, and I hope he is correct, to assure us that we shall never have a Roman Catholic Sovereign in this country. He gave up the claim of the Bishop of Rome to have anything to say to the matter at all. I never understood before that Roman Catholics had gone as far as that. I have never wished in any way to act offensively towards Roman Catholics. When I have been in Ireland I have gone to a Roman Catholic Church, not that I believe in their doctrines at all, but because I have always held that they are superstitious and idolatrous, and I have told my Roman Catholic friends that that is my belief, but I have shown my goodwill in going to a Roman Catholic place of worship. When I have asked a Roman Catholic friend to go to a Protestant Church he has said, "Oh, no, it is a sin to go to a Protestant Church at all."

The hon. Member is getting a long way from the Amendment.

I hope the Government, if they do not allow these words to go in, will, even at this late hour, bearing in mind that our Constituents in many parts of the country have never yet had an opportunity of considering the Declaration. or of saying whether they would like to have some words of this sort put into it, will meet us in some way. No explanation has been given why they will not give us time to consider these things or to consult our Constituents. That being so, my own opinion is, without being at all offensive to Roman Catholics, that it is our duty to insist on the Sovereign of this country making a definite Declaration with regard to religion, and making quite clear what he means by Protestantism. Unless that is so the country will not be satisfied. This country is Protestant to the back- bone. We owe to that our liberties, both civil and religious, and unless we want this Kingdom to be ruined altogether we shall stick to it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 58.

I beg to move, at the end of the Schedule, to add the words, "and that I wholly and absolutely repudiate, disallow, and condemn any claim made upon me by any power which overtly or covertly touches my Sovereignty."

I should not have addressed the House this afternoon in moving this Amendment unless I attached great importance to it. What I wish to say in the first place is, that I believe that this is the one vital point of the whole Declaration. I have always been against religious tests, and I am against them now. If the feeling in the country would have been satisfied without the words that are in the Schedule already I should have been quite content if I could have got the words which I now propose as a Schedule by themselves, but recognising that was impossible I have gone on this line in the Divisions which have taken place. I have voted against the specific naming of any denomination. What I am very strong about is that His Majesty should not in any way seem to dissociate himself from any large body of his subjects in the Empire. What I want to lay emphasis on is this: What is Parliament entitled to say to the Sovereign when he proposes to accept from them the Crown? I think Parliament is entitled to ask him to say that he is not under any foreign domination, because, after all, that does not necessarily concern religion, though in this particular case it may. But I do think that if there is any possibility whatever that such a suspicion may exist, we are not going outside our rights and privileges in asking him to make a Declaration that he is willing to reign over us and to be loyal to the allegiance we have placed in his hands. Therefore I think I am entitled to press this Motion on the House in the hope that it will be not only not objectionable to my Catholic fellow Members, but that also it may get some measure of support from them. It is a matter of common knowledge that all through the Empire we have most distinguished Catholics in high positions of trust on whom we impose no test. They are able in different spheres of responsibility to discharge all their duties, and no one suspects them of treachery or betrayal in the high offices they hold. But, that being so, I think we may expect those who hold the Catholic faith to realise, if it is only in one particular instance, we demand this assurance, that we are offering no insult to them or their religion. I have carefully drafted my Amendment so that there would be no reference whatever to any particular religious community at all. There are two objections which may be raised to this Amendment. In the first place, the Government have preferred a positive form, and this is, I admit, in a negative form; but I wish to say to the Government that there is a considerable number of their subjects who, because of the novel nature of this proposal, have been somewhat startled, and I think that a proposition of this sort might help them and help to remove some of the excitement in the country. Another objection is that it may possibly only refer to one Power. That is for the persons concerned to declare. It is not necessarily applicable to only one Power. It might apply to the Emperor of Germany or of China or anybody else. It may have a particular application, but I do not refer to any particular person in order that I may adhere to what I have always done—that is, refrain from picking cut any particular individual or attaching the name of any particular doctrine thereto. Therefore I ask, even at this late hour, that the Government may see its way to accept an Amendment which is not inconsistent with the Schedule as drawn, and which we believe, if admitted, will greatly strengthen their hands in the country in regard to this matter.

On a point of Order. Before you put this from the Chair I respectfully submit to you that it touches the Prerogative of the Crown. This is not an Amendment which can be put from the Chair or ought to be moved in this House. This is a suggestion made by one of the King's subjects, it must be remembered, that the King's Majesty "repudiate and disallow any claim made on me by any Power which overtly or covertly touches my Sovereignty." I respectfully submit that this is in the nature of petty treason, and that certainly in this House of Commons the Speaker ought not to lend his authority to any suggestion made by a subject of the Crown that the King is capable himself of treason, either to his own Sovereignty in this country or to the State; I respectfully submit to you that this Amendment is in the nature of an invasion of the prerogatives of the Crown, and is a suggestion that the Crown will be capable of practically treason to itself, and that under these circumstances no such Amendment should be put from the Chair.

I do not think that I can rule the Amendment out of order on those grounds. The unsatisfactory feature of the Amendment to me is that it is very doubtful whether it is within the scope of the Bill, but, on the whole, I think that I must give it the benefit of the doubt, and allow it. Does any hon. Member desire to second it?

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not know whether the hon. Member who moved this Amendment attaches great importance to it. The words are rather obscure, but, as far as I can understand them, they are words which may perfectly well be subscribed by the most orthodox Catholics. If that is so, their value from any point of view seems to be rather doubtful.

My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has in view, I believe, a feeling that animated a very large number of people many years ago, but the suggestion that any power except the Papal power is likely at any time, either openly or covertly, to touch the Sovereign power of our King is altogether out of the question. The House knows perfectly well that this is aimed at the Papal power, and nothing else. As this is the real feeling of the Amendment, I would point out that there is in the Schedule as it stands the statement of the King, "I am a faithful Protestant." Now, whatever meaning there may be attached to those words—and, of course, they cannot be precise; we all know they are not precise: that is one of the charges made against them—whatever meaning attaches to them it is perfectly plain that when he solemnly and sincerely professes and testifies that he is a faithful Protestant he cannot allow any Papal power to interfere with his sovereignty either in its public or private right. Therefore the Amendment is unnecessary. I think my hon. Friend rather overestimates its importance. He drew attention to the fact that the highest executive offices in this country and abroad are not now bound by any such undertaking, and everyone knows that executive power of the highest kind has been in the past exercised by those who were Roman Catholics. I need hardly name one of the most public-spirited servants who ever sat in either House of Parliament. Were there any possibility of the Papal power being exercised unduly, it would be as regards the Executive, yet the Executive are perfectly free in this matter. The power of the Crown, as we all know, is limited by the power of the Executive. It therefore follows that the fear which we have long since cast aside in the case of the Executive is a much more trivial matter as applied to the Crown. I would therefore suggest that, first of all, the Amendment is not as important as my hon. Friend imagines; and, secondly, that the Declaration as it stands takes the very risk which he fears altogether out of the question.

There is one other objection. If this was carried, you would have to take the title "Defender of the Faith" off the halfpenny.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 204.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Before this Motion is passed, I desire, on behalf of those who, on this side of the House, hold particular views on this question, to express our gratitude to the Prime Minister for the courtesy, consideration, and patience with which he has treated opponents of this Bill during the discussions which have taken place upon it. I can honestly and without exaggeration say that a very difficult Parliamentary situation, one which roused a great deal of resentment in the minds of Members of the Opposition, has been smoothed over and entirely deprived of its most disagreeable aspect, and carried peacefully through to its present quiet conclusion, in consequence of the manner in which the Prime Minister has been good enough to treat those with whom he is in complete disagreement. I think it is fair that it should be said on behalf of those who have opposed this Bill, that they have endeavoured to put their views before the House during its various stages without exaggeration and without offence. On the part of my hon. Friends, who feel strongly on this question and who represent others who feel quite as strongly as they, there has been a sincere, and I think a successful, effort to present their arguments in such a form that while they lost none of their force they should be rendered as inoffensive as possible.

I personally regret that we have not had more time for the consideration of this Bill, but it is too late now to waste time over regrets of this kind I am not quite sure whether if more time had been granted that the passage of the Bill would have been quite as easy as it has been, or that the framework of the Bill would be quite the same as that we bid farewell to. However that may be, we have now to consider what is to be our final word on this question. It is suggested that I have changed my own personal view. I do not believe that anybody who has taken part in these various Debates would think that there has been any change of conviction. From the beginning to the end what I sought for was the removal of the objectionable language and the retention of the Declaration, positive and negative. The Government took the opposite view, and, owing I think largely to the shortness of time, it was impossible for those of us who sought not to destroy the Bill, but to amend it, to select the precise form of Amendment we should have liked to secure a Debate upon. As the House will remember, in Committee the particular Amendment which expressed the views of many of us never really came on for consideration. I believe if there had been more time it would have been perfectly easy to secure a presentment of that case as well as the presentment of the other cases which were discussed.

Now that we have come to the end of our Debates I would venture respectfully to urge that their conclusion shall be worthy of the record of the last few days. My hon. friends who object to this Bill completely will, of course, desire to record their votes against it. Those of us who would have welcomed a change, but who find in this Bill not the change that they desire, will record their vote against it, as that is the only method they have of protesting against the form of change and the way in which it has been made. They do not propose to take up the time of the House by prolonging the discussion. Some of them have asked me to say these few words on their behalf, and on my own. I recognise more than anybody else can recognise, and that is saying a good deal, how inadequately I have discharged what has not been a very easy duty. I have endeavoured to put before the House the view we take. Although we vote against the Bill we shall do so hoping most earnestly and sincerely that the object which the Government have in view in introducing and carrying this Bill will be fully attained, and that it will be accepted by those on whose behalf it has been passed as a real message of peace. Therefore, even though it has passed in the face of some opposition that opposition has been, I think, moderate, and will be confined now to a simple vote in the hope that this result to which I have referred may be attained, and that peace and happiness may result to the country and the Empire in the passage of this Bill.

I only desire to say a few words. I should be wanting in my duty if I did not acknowledge with much gratitude the appreciation, in very handsome terms, with which the right hon. Gentleman referred at the commencement of his speech to the part which it has fallen to me to play in this matter. I can only say, and with all sincerity, that I think it is very much to the credit of all sections of opinion in this House that a question, which, rightly or wrongly goes very deep down into the people's inmost feelings and convictions, should have been discussed through all these Debates without a trace of religious animosity, and in most excellent temper, and with, I believe, a real desire on all sides to make such reasonable accommodation as possible. I wish especially to acknowledge the manner in which hon. Members from Ulster, who feel very strongly on this subject, have conducted their resolute and conscientious opposition. It only remains for me to reciprocate and re-echo, as I do most heartily, the very generous concluding passage of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and to express the hope the confident and assured hope, that when this Bill takes its place on the Statute Book the securities for the Protestant Succession will be found not to have been in any degree impaired, and a source of legitimate annoyance and offence to millions of Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty will have been for all time removed.

This matter has been discussed, and speeches have been delivered on the Catholic side, but, still, there are two points of view which have not been fully, as I think, presented to this House. Two charges, or at least one charge has been made against the Catholic faith, to which I am proud to belong, and none of the speakers on either side of the House have dealt with this charge. The charge I will come to presently, I take a different view from one of the speakers who spoke on the other side with regard to one aspect of the question. The Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton), in speaking to-day, said that the people of this country would not be satisfied except the Protestant Succession was secured. Now, if the Sovereign of this country was only the Sovereign of this country, that position would be an intelligible and clear one, but Members of this House must remember this important fact, that the Sovereign of this country is the Sovereign, or claims to be the Sovereign, of Ireland as well. It was asserted by speakers on the other side, and it was assented to by speakers on this side, that the people of this country, being a Protestant Kingdom, that it was only natural they should have a Protestant Sovereign, but the people of Ireland are a Catholic people, and if it be the constitutional right of the people of England to have a Protestant Sovereign, I as an Irish Catholic, maintain that it is the Constitutional right of the Catholic people of Ireland to have a Catholic Sovereign. What does this lead us to? This leads me to the conclusion that it would have been much better for the Prime Minister and the Government to have taken their courage in both hands and to have abolished this Declaration altogether. How can you expect the Catholic people of Canada, when a great crisis may one day arrive, to be loyal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] I had not an opportunity of speaking on this subject on the Second Reading, and I maintain that it is most unfair that Members should now try to prevent a Member of this House from voicing the opinions of a large section of the people. I say, if it be the right of a Protestant people to have a Protestant King, then it is also the right and the constitutional right of the Catholic people of Ireland to have a Catholic King. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] The conclusion is that it would have been far better for the Government to have abolished this Declaration altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] Yes, cowards, I say. Another position taken up by some of the speakers was that the Catholic Church is a political organisation, and that therefore this Declaration should not be interfered with in order to protect the people of this country from the aggressions of a political organisation. The Catholic Church is not a political organisation. If the Catholic Church is a political organisation, why does it allow its subjects to belong to different parties in the same country? If the Catholic Church is a political organisation, why does it accept different forms of Government in different countries? The Catholic Church accepts a republic in Franch and a monarchy in England. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] What service of a political kind are the nuns in the differents convents rendering? [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] The only speech the hon. Member behind me has ever made in this House has been, "Hear, hear." The Members who are trying to howl me down are cowards. Members have tried to cry me down before, but a great many of those Members have disappeared, and perhaps some of the Gentlemen who now laugh so loud and long will also have disappeared before two years are over. I wish to express my thanks to that large section of the public outside, and especially to the Protestants in Ireland, who, at considerable risk to themselves, have had the courage to come out and support a measure of this kind, particularly the twenty-three Fellows of the Trinity College who made a public declaration in favour of such a measure. I should also have liked under other circumstances to have expressed my thanks as a Catholic

to those Members of the House who, perhaps also at some risk to themselves, have supported a measure for removing from the Declaration the insults to the religion to which I belong; but under the circumstances I will not do so. I should have liked to have expressed my views on the Second Reading as other Members had an opportunity of doing. [Several HON. MEMBERS "Divide."] Once more I protest against the conduct of Members of this House who are trying to cry mo clown, particularly as those Members know that I have not behind me a great party. I should have concluded my remarks long ago if I had not been interrupted. Members who are trying to cry me down know that I stand here as an Independent Nationalist. If they knew that I belonged to the party which sits upon these benches they would not have dared to treat me as they have done. We have in this House, as there are everywhere, cowards. It is not my fault that I have not been able to express my views at an earlier stage, and those Members who have had that privilege, when I get up, try to cry me down. I have not come here to repeat the views put forward by other Members. I have certain views of my own, and I thought it my duty to myself and to my Constituents to put those views on record. I have been prevented from doing so, but, as I say, those Members who laugh now will not, perhaps in two years' time, have the opportunity of laughing at me.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 52.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the word "assistance" ["assistance with respect to the choice of suitable employment"], to insert the words "in co-operation with the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges where such exist."

It will be within the recollection of the Committee that at twenty-five minutes past one this morning, when this Bill was read a second time, the hon Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Board of Education was good enough to say that he would consider the insertion in the Clause of the words which would give effect to the intention which I am sure the Department have, that this amended Bill should not set up a rival system to the national system of Labour Exchanges which have been established with the consent of all parties in the House, and to which all parties in the House wish well. This Bill, as drafted, is to give very vague and indefinite powers to local education authorities acting under a scheme to be approved by the Board of Education. It is in the nature, therefore, of a blank cheque given to the Board of Education by this House.

I think it is most important in the interests of the right working of this scheme, to which we all wish well that the House should express its intention that in setting up the new system under this Bill, and giving the education authority the right to give information to children as to the work they may get, that machinery shall be worked in harmony with the already existing system. That system has only been started a short time, but it has already covered the whole of the country. In Scotland powers such as those which would be set up under this Bill already exist, but are only exercised by a limited number of educational authorities. It works exceedingly well in such places as Edinburgh, but there are other cities which have not chosen to take advantage of these powers. Everywhere we have the machinery of the Labour Exchanges, and it is important that the House when passing this Bill should express its intention that the new authority should be exercised in co-operation with the existing machinery of the Labour Exchanges. It may be said that it is the intention of the Education Department to act in cooperation with the Board of Trade, and that it is unnecessary to insert an Amendment to that effect in an Act of Parliament; but, after all, we know it is possible that friction may exist between different Departments, and I think it is very important therefore that we should, as far as possible, avoid the occurrence of any difficulties like that by making it perfectly clear in the Act of Parliament what the intention of the House was as to how this new machinery should be worked. It is with that view, therefore, that I move my Amendment. If it is accepted Clause I would then read: "The powers conferred upon the councils of county and county boroughs as local education authorities under Section 2 of the Education Act, 1902 (in this Act called the principal Act), shall include a power to make arrangements, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, for giving to boys and girls under seventeen years of age assistance in co-operation with the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges, where such exist,' with respect to the choice of suitable employment, by means of the collection and communication of information and the furnishing of advice." That would prevent overlapping and the creation of other machinery alongside the already existing national machinery.

My hon. Friend has, I think, exactly the same object in view that we have, namely that there should be co-operation between the Labour Exchange and such local education authorities as undertake the work of assistance in getting employment for children, and such other functions as are contemplated by this Bill. In Scotland we are fortunate enough to have this class of work done by the education authorities. In England it has been done by some local education authorities for years past. In one town that I know they have done it for twenty years, but some doubts have arisen whether that work, which was done through the master or the mistress or the school attendance officer, was empowered to be done by law. One of the objects of this Bill is to give that power and authority. When we found it necessary to take these steps I put Myself in close communication with the President of the Board of Trade, and throughout the discussions we have had, which necessitated some delay in order to secure the benefit of the growing experiences of the Labour Exchanges, we have established an arrangement securing the very objects which my hon. Friend has in view. I refer my hon. Friend to Rule 6 of the special set of rules with regard to the registration of juvenile workers. Rule 6 is part of the agreement which has been come to between the Board of Education and the Board of Trade. It is as follows:— (1) If any local education authority for higher education which has or may acquire statutory powers for the purpose of giving advice, information, or assistance to boys and girls with respect to the choice of employment or other matters bearing thereon, submits to the Board of Education a scheme for the exercise of those powers, and the Board of Education, after consulting with the Board of Trade, approve that scheme, with or without modifications, the foregoing rules shall, so long as the scheme is carried out to the satisfaction of the Board of Education, apply to the area of that local authority. I think what my hon. Friend was afraid of was the duplication of the machinery for the registration of employment. That is provided against in the second part of Rule 6, which says: Nothing in this rule shall affect the registration at any Labour Exchange of vacancies for juvenile workers notified by employers. These rules were published some months ago. My hon. Friend will see we have provided by arrangement with the Board of Trade against the duplication of machinery which he fears. One reason why it is unlikely to arise is that these arrangements are subject to the control of the Board of Education. We inserted these words at the request of my right hon. Friend in order to make sure that nothing was done in a fractious manner by any local authorities. I do not think that that was in the least likely, but we have inserted these words in order to make sure. My hon. Friend says why not put in the words of his Amendment, but I do not know a single Education Act where any authority is allowed to interfere except the Board of Education. The Board of Education is the only Department authorised to deal with educational authorities. The proper way to secure control is through the Board of Education, and the safeguard is to be found by the Board of Trade and the Board of Education working in complete harmony, and I can assure my hon. Friends we are working in complete harmony and there is not the least fear that that harmony will be disturbed.

Amendment negatived.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan) moved in Sub-section (3) to leave out the following words, "but for the purpose of any limit on the amount to be raised by rates, imposed by either of those Sections, no account shall be taken of the amount so raised to meet expenses incurred under this Act."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I would like to get some assurance from the President of the Board of Education. Is it only children who have gone through the elementary schools that are entitled to this assistance? It will not be given, for instance, to children under fourteen years of age.

No; to children after the elementary school-age.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 2 added to the Bill.

May I be allowed to take the unusual course of asking the House to take the Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill now. We are anxious that this work should not be interrupted, and during the next few months the work may be a little hampered unless this Bill goes through. Some of the schemes are being delayed pending the carrying of this Bill through Parliament.

Bill reported.

I desire to put a question to the Chief Secretary in reference to a matter which is not only important but urgent. About a fortnight ago, when the Irish Estimates were under consideration, the Chief Secretary made a promise in regard to the Labourers Bill. That measure has not been produced yet, and some anxiety exists as to when it will be passed. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that at the present time the issuing of schemes under the Labourers Act is practically suspended all over Ireland, and if the measure cannot be passed into law before the Autumn Session, I would suggest to the Chief Secretary that the circular previously sent to the local authorities ought to be withdrawn and another circular issued intimating that they may go forward with the preparation of schemes. We should feel very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he could make any statement upon this subject.

Although it is quite true that I have not had the time during the last few days to proceed with the financial Resolution which the Labourers Bill would require, I am glad to be able to inform the House that I have come to a settled arrangement with the Treasury in regard to this financial proposal, and there will be no difficulty in the future. The reason for not proceeding with the measure is simply that I have not had the time to carry through a Bill, which will be introduced at the very earliest moment in the month of November. In view of the assurances that the Bill meets with approval in all quarters of the House, there is no doubt it will become law without difficulty during the Autumn Session. It is most important that the Irish people should know what is waiting for them in that respect, and I have already, through the Local Government Board Report, inserted a paragraph stating that an extra £1,000,000 will be advanced, and that consequently the Act of 1906 will be supplemented by that extra amount. Accordingly, pending schemes which have been the subject-matter of discussion between local authorities and the Local Government Board can now be proceeded with, and other schemes can be considered. If it is necessary to issue a circular I will consider it, although I think the Local Government Board Report will give all the necessary information to the local authorities they need. It is intended that this Bill shall become law before the end of the year.

I wish to draw the attention of the Foreign Office to the state of Morocco and the disorders which have taken place there. It has been plain to all who have read their newspapers that the misrule and the state of rebellion which exists in that country has been increasing during the last twelve months. I think the attitude of His Majesty's Government in reference to this question is very well summed up in an answer which the Foreign Secretary gave to the Member for East Aberdeenshire some ten days ago. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire asked whether the Sultan had recently addressed to representatives of the Powers a voluntary letter, in which he undertook to suppress all cruel punishment; whether the wife of the Governor of Fez had been tortured, whether other members of the Governor's family had died in consequence of the tortures inflicted upon them, and what steps the Government were going to take to end such a disgraceful state of affairs; and whether they were going to approach the other Powers on this question. The answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was distinctly unsatisfactory, for he stated that he could not deny the statements which had appeared in the Press relating to the tortures, and said he regretted that no information had reached him to show that those statements were untrue. Therefore, the Foreign Secretary did not deny those atrocities, but practically admitted that they had taken place. He said the Government would be ready to co-operate in any action which would put a stop to such cruelties, and he added that the matter was one of great difficulty. Members of the Government, and especially the Foreign Secretary, are there to overcome difficult situations, and they do not receive large salaries in order to reply that the situation is a difficult one. The reply that the Government are ready to co-operate is not in accordance with the traditions of this country. This country in the past has always been ready to right wrongs in foreign countries, but the record of the present Government have not been in accordance with the traditions of this country since they have been in office. I do not think the Foreign Office, in the pressure they have put upon Congo administration, have come out very well. Congo maladministration has been going on for many years. I wonder what Mr. Gladstone would have said to an answer such as the Foreign Secretary gave to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire? What would Mr. Glad. stone, who shook the Conservative Government to its foundations in 1876 with his speeches and pamphlets. about the Bulgarian atrocities, have said if he had heard a Foreign Minister say that the English Government were willing to co-operate in any efforts to secure an amelioration of these atrocities, and that it was a difficult subject? I think the present Government have departed very greatly from the old Liberal traditions in sitting tight and seeing these atrocities continued in Morocco.

I admit Muley Abdul Hafid is a man very difficult to deal with, but, in the case of a potentate to whose court you have a Minister accredited, and in whose towns you have British Consuls living, then, whether he is a man difficult to deal with or not, I submit we must either endeavour to put au end to these atrocities or withdraw our Minister. The Sultan has voluntarily sent a Circular to the Powers that he was going to abolish all these atrocities. It leaked out that in his own palace he tortured to death many members of the present family of the Governor of Fez, and it was rumoured that the wife of the late Governor had been shut up there and tortured. The Consuls of this country, of France, of Germany, and of Spain went to the Foreign Minister of Morocco and asked if these rumours were true, and if this wretched woman had been tortured. The Foreign Minister assured the Consuls, on the word of the Emperor of Morocco, that no such things had taken place. They were not satisfied, and I think the British Consul deserves the greatest credit for the indefatigable persistence with which he pursued this subject. He would not take "no" for an answer, and eventually, by constant application at the Moorish Foreign Office, he succeeded in getting permission for two lady missionaries of the Medical Mission in Morocco to examine this wretched woman. They found she had lost entirely the use of one arm and one hand from the tortures which had been inflicted upon her, despite the fact that the Sultan denied anything had been done to her at all. Her shoulder was dislocated, and they found wounds all over her body from the chains with which she had been suspended from the walls. I put it to the House whether it is right we should continue to submit to such proceedings as this. We withdrew our representative from Dobra when certain atrocities took place in Servia, and why should we treat Morocco any more tenderly than we treated Servia? I know the answer will be given that by the Agreement of 1904 with France we allowed France to take the lead in any effective action in Morocco in return for their giving us a free hand in Egypt. I admit that is so, but we have not thereby bound our hands and said we will do nothing at all. It is still open to us to approach the French Government and point out that these atrocities are taking place. I am perfectly sure, if it is pointed out to them with sufficient persistency, the French Government will readily take the lead to do what they can to diminish these barbarities. It is only because the Foreign Office have been remiss in bringing these matters before the French Government and in pressing them upon them that no efforts have been taken to put a stop to them. This is a matter which concerns the honour of England, and the Foreign Office would do well to put it before the French Government. I am quite sure, if they do, they will find them most ready and willing and anxious to do all that they can to end this disgraceful state of things.

4.0 P.M.

I want to call attention to the decision of the Government to grant no further facilities for the Parliamentary Franchise (Woman) Bill which passed this House by such a large majority a few weeks ago. It will be within the recollection of the House that that Bill was introduced on 14th June, and that a few days later the Prime Minister, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton), promised to give time for a Second Reading Debate on the Bill. It is perfectly true he said that it would not be possible for the Government to grant further time for the further stages of the Bill, but the promise of the Prime Minister is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians; it varies very often from day to day. The Prime Minister on that occasion, in reply to a supplementary question I put to him, said that he would not give an early day for the Second Reading Debate, but within a week he promised not only one early day but two early days. I think we are therefore justified in not accepting the refusal we received yesterday as being the final answer of the Government to the request we have made. The Debate on the Second Reading took place, and the enormous majority by which the Bill was carried was a surprise even to the friends of the Bill, and we base our demand for further facilities practically on that result. The Bill was carried by 109, a larger majority than was given for the Budget or the Veto Resolution. The Government refused to accept that vote of the House of Commons as a mandate to continue the Bill through its further stages. If the vote on that Bill did not mean that the majority of the House of Commons wants the measure to be passed I should very much like to hear what it did mean, because there never was a Division which was entitled to be regarded more as a free and independent, expression of opinion. It was given without the pressure of party Whips, and the Debate was one of the most strenuous and serious which has even taken place in this House. The vote was given against the views and in spite of the appeals of the most influential Members of the Cabinet, or, at any rate, in spite of the appeals of two who, I suppose, would like to be considered as the most influential Members of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister himself spoke strongly against it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did the same. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the democratic faith and aspirations of the Radical Members of the party, and the Home Secretary, by wholesale misrepresentation tried to secure the rejection of the Bill. But they all failed, and the point I want particularly to criticise is that they all laid special emphasis on the serious consequences of the vote on the Second Reading. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "This is not a Bill merely affirming a principle. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time." It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who heard the Debate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to me, "If you regard this Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill as being the mere application of a principle, then I will vote for it, but if it is to be a vote for the Bill I go into the Lobby against it." In reply to that I put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, "If we will withdraw this Bill will you pledge the Government to give us time for the consideration of a Bill more to the liking of certain Members of the Government." The right hon. Gentleman refused to meet that. After the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, can it be said that the majority on the Second Reading was not a majority for the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman cannot say it was not an expression of the desire to deal effectively with this question on the lines laid down in the Bill. The Home Secretary said much the same thing. He said, "We have got to recognise what a vote for the Second Reading of this Bill means. It means really the Third Reading of an ordinary Bill." After all this, the House voted by an overwhelming majority for the Second Reading of the Bill. Remembering that the Home Secretary had said that this is a vote for the Bill, did it not show that the House wanted the Bill and was prepared to fight the House of Lords on it?

The Prime Minister also opposed the Bill on two grounds. I am not now concerned with the first—which was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate objection. I am concerned only with the second reason, which was that the Bill was not democratic. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to give a definition of the word "democratic," which I confess I wholly failed to understand. But it is not a question whether the Prime Minister thinks it democratic. One would attach just as much importance to the Prime Minister's opinion on that subject as we are prepared to attach to the opinion of any man holding a responsible position in this House. But other Members are equally entitled to an opinion on the matter. Thirty-three Members of the Labour party voted in support of the Bill ! Surely they are as good democrats as the Prime Minister? One hundred and sixty Members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party—equally good democrats—voted for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no principle in the Bill. I reply that it embodies the old Radical principle that taxation and representation shall go together. The Bill, indeed, pro- poses no new principle. It simply extends the present franchise for Parliamentary purposes. The Prime Minister sneered at a want of logic and common-sense in the Bill. But an illustrious predecessor of his once said there was no logic in our franchise. I go further, and say there is no logic in any Bill passed by this House. We do not legislate logically. But there is common-sense in this Bill. The common-sense principle of this Bill is that where the woman pays the taxes like a man the woman should vote. That is an easily understood and understandable principle. The Prime Minister later still, dealing with the same matter, said:— The Bill deliberately leaves off the women best qualified to exercise political rights, the wives and mothers of the country. It is really surprising what affection for the wives and mothers of the country certain Members of the Cabinet have in this regard.

I must remind the hon. Member that he is not entitled to discuss the Bill, or the arguments for or against it, still less to reply to the speech of the Prime Minister on the occasion of the Second Reading. What he is entitled to do is to criticise the Prime Minister for not having found time for its further stages; that is to say for not managing the business of the House according to the views of the hon. Member.

Surely I am entitled to give reasons why an urgent and imperative matter should be dealt with during this Session. The second reason given by the Prime Minister was that there was no demand in the country for this Bill, and indeed Members of this House who might have approved the principle had no authority from their constituents to support the Bill. I want to show that that is not so, and to press upon the Government to give facilities for pressing on this measure at once. The Prime Minister said that this House had no mandate to deal with the question, it was not before the country at the last election, but I may remind him that he went down to the Albert Hall just before the last election and although there he dealt mainly with the constitutional question, the only pledge that the Prime Minister gave on that occasion was one to the effect that he would give the House of Commons an opportunity of passing a Franchise Bill. Then he says it was not before the country, but I say that he himself by his speech made it one of the two dominating issues of that election. I venture to submit that I have established three points in favour of my contention, first, that there is a strong demand for the passing of this measure. In the second place it is women who demand the measure, and in the third place there is a mandate from the country. But the most important point of all—and this is my charge against the Government—is that this House by its vote has demanded from the Government that an opportunity should be given during this Session to proceed with the further stages of this Bill. What the vote upon this Bill meant was that the Members who voted for it wanted this question dealt with. I am not going to insult the Members who voted for this Bill by saying that they gave an uncertain vote, if this vote does not mean what the figures imply, will somebody tell me what is the difference in this House between a sincere and an insincere vote? Will anybody tell me how the majorities in favour of the Veto Resolutions, when Members were driven into the Lobby on party grounds were honest opinions and, how when on this occasion they were perfectly free and were not under the same intimidation and could vote as they pleased their vote is not according to their honest conviction. All this talk about the worthlessness of the majority is so much waste of breath.

It is the tactics of defeated men. The House of Commons has said it wants this Bill, and it wants the Government to give facilities for it, and if the Government deliberately refuses to allow the will of the people as expressed by their representatives to prevail in this Parliament, they must reconcile that with their attitude upon another question. I repeat to the Government what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, that if they are not satisfied with it the Bill will be withdrawn if the Government will give an opportunity for effectively dealing with the question. The Prime Minister has promised to do that, but he will not redeem the promise.

There are two explanations why the Government allowed a Second Reading Debate but refused further facilities. The first is that they expected that they would be able to kill the Bill on the Second Reading. I do not think the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary would have opposed the Bill as they did, and risked their reputation for influencing the House, if they had not believed they were able to kill the Bill. They did not succeed. The second explanation I can give, which has a very pertinent bearing on the demand I make, is that by giving a Second Reading and mocking and exasperating the women by permitting the Bill to go no further, they can goad the women into extreme militant tactics once more. The Prime Minister perorated, in his speech on the Second Reading, against militant tactics in regard to this platter, and I agree with every word he said. I believe this House ought not to be terrorised into giving a vote that is not in accord with its convictions. Militant tactics would not have been justified if the House had refused the Second Reading of the Bill, but the House by its vote said it wanted it, and the only obstacle the way of realising it is the despotic power of the Ministry to refuse to give an opportunity for the will of the people, as expressed by their representatives, to be given effect to in the present Session. I personally have never defended militant tactics, but if the Government refuse facilities for this Bill or say they will not put forward an alternative proposal, the whole situation is changed, and there are tens of thousands of women who have opposed militant tactics and have confined their agitation to constitutional methods but who realise that new methods are needed. The main argument which was advanced against woman suffrage in Debate was that the final court of appeal was force, and therefore the women cannot be blamed if they accept the advice which the opponents of woman suffrage have given them, but I hope it will not come to that. I hope the Government will be wiser and will put into practice some of that democracy of which they speak, and will give an opportunity during the Autumn Session for the will of the people, that good old rhetorical formula, as expressed by their representatives prevailing within the lifetime of the present Parliament.

I wish to refer to one aspect of the political situation in which we find ourselves, the question of the arrangement of the business and the date of the Adjournment. I understand these arrangements have been made and this date fixed on the assumption that there has got to be a cessation of hostilities of some kind or other. I do not complain of this cessation of hostilities. I quite recognise that it may be a necessary thing which could not have been avoided. I have not the material for criticising the conduct of either the Government or anyone else in reference to it, but I wish to urge upon the Government one fact, which they may be aware of but are not, I think, sufficiently aware of, and that is the very disastrous effect which this period of cessation of hostilities necessarily has and has had on the fortunes and prospects of the progressive forces in this country. I think that they may be well aware of it. But I think it is not out of place—and I know that in saying, so I am expressing the opinion of a great many Members besides myself—to once more emphasise these evil effects in order that they may not by any chance be left out of sight, and that if we are to have a period of cessation of hostilities, which may be necessary, we shall at least recognise the price we are paying for it, and not be going into it with our eyes shut. What has been the effect on this House? Of course, it has had the effect of removing the main subjects of controversy, but it has not stopped there. It has produced a general feeling of lassitude and a sort of paralysis of all legislation, or almost all. Some of us have been anxious to see, but for this cessation, some minor measures which could not be regarded as controversial in the ordinary sense passed into law, but we have found that it has been practically impossible to get, for example, measures dealing with milk supply, the so-called white slave traffic, street trading by boys, and the hours of labour in shops, even though introduced by a Member of the Government and with the authority of the Home Office. We have seen these measures, as it were, paralysed. I speak with great hesitation as a new Member. I do not understand the processes by which these things are worked, but, so far as I have been able to understand, the reason why these things have not gone through is ultimately traceable back to the fact of this cessation of hostilities to which I have referred. If you turn to the country, the effect has been worse still. What is happening at the present moment is that the progressive forces in this country find that their hands are very largely tied, and that they are not able to speak on many of the subjects which interest them, while their opponents are carrying on their work with their hands untied and perfectly free to deal with subjects which interest them. This is the price we pay for the cessation of hostilities, and I do respectfully urge upon the Government not to forget that it is a very heavy price. There is a waste of energy going on. There are many Members in this House anxious for work. We hear a great deal of the fatigue which exists. There are many Members who are not fatigued, who are ready for work, and who are perfectly ready to go on. I do venture to say that they have exercised very considerable patience and self-restraint in not taking the measures which they might have taken—I will not say to make themselves disagreeable, but to make themselves heard. I do not complain of the date of the adjournment, because, although there are many of us who do not feel fatigud, we know that there are a great many of our colleagues who do. I do not say for a moment that a holiday is not necessary, but I do lay stress on this one point, which I think has been insufficiently realised, that this fatigue of which we speak, this lassitude for whose sake we are now adjourning, exists among politicians and not among the main body of the electors of the country. I do not believe for a moment that the electors of the country are unwilling to enter into political affairs, or take part in political controversies. I speak only of my own experience. From my own experience the reverse is the case. People are tired of the complete suspension of political controversy. They are interested in political affairs, and it is the politicians, the Members of Parliament, who have been taking a more prominent part in these matters who are tired. I hope we shall not place the responsibility for our long and somewhat disastrous delay upon the electors of the country, who do not deserve the charge.

I listened with great attention to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Buxton) who has just sat down, but I confess I am very little wiser in the end than I was in the beginning as to what is his precise charge or cause of complaint against His Majesty's Government. He talks about a cessation of hostilities, but if his suggestion is that the Government were ill-advised after the death of the late King when they entered into these consultations and deliberations with responsible statesmen opposite that is a charge which at the proper time and in the proper place I am prepared to meet. But I do not see how he substantiates the suggestion that there has been mismanagement of business in this House. As a matter of fact, we have got through a great deal of business. The Statute Book of this Session when it comes to be published will be found to be rich in measures of very great social and some political importance. I do not think, having regard to the conditions under which this Session has been held, the compulsory adjournment owing to the death of the Sovereign, the necessary diversion of interest at a time of great public mourning, that any of us have reason to look back with regret on the manner in which our time has been spent. My hon. Friend, I think, was hardly serious in contending that we are allowing ourselves too long a holiday. He said very justly that he is a new Member. Others of us are not new Members. Many of us have been sitting practically without any intermission except for the stormy interlude of the General election since the month of February, last year. Does my hon. Friend seriously think that men who have gone through this experience are likely to be able to perform the duties which they owe their constituencies in the country unless they allow themselves now a reasonable period for recreation and leisure. I am glad to see that he is so very fresh, and full, of appetite for work. I hope we shall be able in the course of time to minister to him, and, perhaps, even to satiate him. Meantime he must allow those of us whose voracity is not so great, and whose digestive power is somewhat impaired by the excessive strain which has been laid upon us during the last two years, to bring ourselves as soon as we can to a level with himself in the matter of energy. Let me now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was the duty of the Government to give further facilities this Session for the Women Suffrage Bill, which received a Second Reading the other day. Let us see what the facts are. I refer first of all to my answer of 23rd June, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), who asked for an early opportunity for the Second Reading of the Bill. The answer was framed by the Cabinet, a majority of whose Members are in favour of women suffrage—in my Cabinet I am in a minority in that respect—so that this is the considered answer given by the Cabinet in its responsibility. I said:— The Government have considered this matter, and recognise that the circumstances of the case are excep- tional, from the fact that under the conditions which govern private Members' proposals the House of Commons has never had an adequate opportunity of discussing so momentous a change. They are, therefore, prepared to give time, before the close of the Session, for a full Debate and a Division on the Second Reading of the Bill which has been introduced. That is the case. Then I go on:— In view of the exigencies of other Parliamentary business and their own announced decision not to prosecute contentious legislation, they cannot afford any further facilities for the Bill this Session. The promoters of this Bill accepted that statement made by me as the mouthpiece of the Government, accepting our offer to give two days to the Second Reading, with the absolute knowledge from the first that they would have no further facilities of any sort or kind for the progress of this measure. It is utterly ridiculous, and worse than ridiculous, that the hon. Gentleman should make the charge that the Government have been guilty of anything in the nature of a breach of faith. I adhere absolutely and precisely to the statement I made, on the faith of which facilities were afforded for the Second Reading. How do I go on? So far I have dealt with this Session, and I have said that the promoters should have a full Debate on the Second Reading, and nothing more. I go on:— The Government recognise that the House ought to have opportunities, if that is their deliberate desire, for effectively dealing with the whole question, and the course of the debate may he expected to throw instructive light on Parliamentary opinion, both in regard to this Bill and other proposals."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1910, col. 488. The plain meaning of that was that if it was a deliberate desire of the House to have an opportunity for effectively dealing with the whole question, the Government, not in this Session, because I had already expressly stated in the previous sentence that it would not he in this Session, in the future would be prepared to afford the opportunities. What is "effectively dealing with the whole question"? How was it understood by everybody, and how was it explained in the course of the Debate? You cannot effectively deal with the whole question on a Bill, whatever the merits or demerits of the specific provision, which has its title so carefully framed, that it is impossible to move a substantial Amendment. The promoters of woman's suffrage may not be well advised in bringing forth this Bill, but if they want to satisfy the condition, which in the name of the Government I laid down, whatever the contents of the body of the Bill, you must have a title so large and so elastic that the whole question of woman's suffrage, and not one of a particular limited application to it, may come under the consideration of the House. I call that effectively dealing with the whole question, and I am certain that in that sense our words were universally understood at the time. The hon. Gentleman referred the House to the large majority as an expression of opinion in favour of this Bill. In the whole course of his speech he never referred to the Second Division on the Bill—a very remarkable omission. A majority of 109 was given in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was undoubtedly a majority in favour of the principle of Women's Suffrage. But when it came to the question of a second division on the Motion whether this particular Bill should be allowed to go any further in this Session, what was the state of opinion of hon. Members? The number of the Division showed a majority of 145, a much larger majority than was obtained for the Second Reading, for getting the Bill on to the floor of this House, which everybody knew who took part in the Division, meant the making of no further progress in the course of this Session. You could not have a clearer indication of the will of the overwhelming majority of the House of Commons that this particular proposal was not to be proceeded with further this year. What has happened since? In the argument which the hon. Gentleman brought forward to-day to induce the House to alter the decision it then deliberately arrived at, there is nothing that appeals to reason. The only argument the hon. Gentleman used was not an appeal to reason, but it was an appeal to fear. I am not going to repeat what I said on the Second Reading, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and those for whom he is for the time being the mouthpiece, that if he thinks by considerations of that kind to change the Government or the House of Commons from the line they have deliberately assumed, he is very much mistaken. I have only to say in conclusion that the Government strictly adhere to the course they laid down before this Bill came on for Second Reading. They are prepared to carry out in the letter and spirit the pledge which they gave for the second time, and there is no foundation or ground whatever in reason or justice for the hon. Gentleman's complaint that we are not giving further facilities for this Bill.

I do not profess to be, like the hon. Member for Blackburn, and ardent or enthusiastic advocate of womans suffrage, though I am a supporter of it, but I am interested in the constitutional aspect of the particular situation we find ourselves in. Here is a Bill which was read a second time in the House of Commons by a majority of 109 votes. Merely from the circumstance that the Government, apparently not unanimously but by a great predonderance of the Cabinet, are opposed to that Bill, it cannot pass into law this Sesssion. It is not seriously disputed that if the Government did give time the Bill would pass into law.

indicated dissent.

Therefore, the Veto of the Government is conclusive on a legislative proposal. I think that very interesting. I think that is a thing which deserves, quite apart from the merits of this particular proposal, the attentive consideration of the country, that the Government can exercise now and what has been going on for many years, an overwhelming power, and can absolutely condemn any Bill they please. I notice that the Prime Minister said that he had declared all along that no contentious measure would be taken this Session. I think those are his words. That is true, and the Government have kept that pledge if you understand by that statement, and if you understand by contentious Bill, a Bill that divides the two parties. It is quite true that they have not pressed a Bill that divides the two parties, but they have pressed a Bill, and have just carried through a Bill, which is in the highest degree contentious, although it has not divided the two parties, that is the Bill relating to the Royal Declaration, which, precisely in the same sense as the Woman Suffrage Bill, is contentious. There is no distinction to be drawn between the two Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] They are both highly contentious Bills in the sense that they excite very strong feelings; they are neither of them so in the sense that they divide the two parties. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in one of those delightful little speeches he makes, said the other day that the Royal Declaration Bill must be pressed forward because it was read a second time in the House of Commons by a great majority. That was a Bill to go to a Committee of the Whole House, as was the Woman Suffrage Bill. That Bill was pressed forward in a very inconvenient manner, in spite of the protests of hon. Members on this side and on the opposite side, because the reason alleged by the Minister was that a great majority of the House of Commons had accepted it, and, therefore, that it was entitled to go forward. Why is not that applied to woman suffrage? We know perfectly well that it is not applied because it does not suit the Government to apply it. I do not complain of the Government using their authority to play their own game, but do not let us have any hypocrisy about it. Let it be clearly understood that the Government are not impartial or neutral on this subject, but that, on the contrary, they mean to destroy this Bill by the exercise of their power over the time of the House. The Prime Minister said that by deciding to send the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House the House in effect decided to destroy the Bill. A more unreasonable contention could not be put forward. My right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench voted in favour of the sending of the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House because they conceived themselves bound to do so by reason of their opposition to the general proposition that Suffrage Bills should go upstairs. The Leader of the Opposition gave the immense weight of his vote in favour of sending the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House because he was pledged up to the hilt against the proposition that suffrage Bills should go to a Grand Committee. That has nothing to do with proceeding or not proceeding with the Bill.

I will put a challenge to the Prime Minister which will make the position perfectly clear. If he will not give facilities for the Bill, will he give facilities for the House to pronounce on a business Motion giving facilities for the Bill? There is a well-known Motion which used constantly to be moved, that such and such a Bill, if put down on such and such a day, should have precedence. It would not take a couple of hours to discuss such a business Motion, which might, by the consent of the Government, be moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). Would the Government allow such a Motion to be put? I am sure they would not, because they will not allow anything that would enable the Bill to pass. That is their point of view. Why not say frankly, "We are as a Government against the Bill, and we do not propose to allow it to be passed" That would be a perfectly fair thing to say. It is not fair to say, "We are neutral, we are impartial, and we propose to get all the votes we can on other issues from supporters of Woman Suffrage," all the time meaning to kill the Bill which they have introduced. That is not fair, but that is precisely what the Prime Minister is doing. He is endeavouring to get support from a section of the electorate on an essentially false pretence, that the Government are neutral when in fact they are hostile. They are killing the Bill. The speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Home Secretary were designed to kill the Bill on Second Reading. They were ineffective for that object. It would be exactly the same with any Bill that was brought forward. It would be quite easy to bring in another Bill if the Government would give facilities, but they will give no assurance.

I said that I would do exactly the same thing on another Bill. I voted for all the other Bills.

You knew they could not be carried.

It is not true.

The right hon. Gentleman knew that they would not be carried, because all the world knew, and I suppose he knew what everybody else knew. But I do not complain. I do not care whether the Bill is passed this Session or whether it is not. I do not make any pretence about the matter. I say what is the exact truth about my position, without any concealment one way or the other. The Government pretend that they are neutral, when they are in fact killing the Bill by the use of their power over the time of the House. The most important thing is the entire contempt which the Government show for the doctrine of the voice and the will of the people. At an earlier period of the Session we heard the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Home Secretary repeat "the will of the people" and "the voice of the people" with something of the melodious reiteration of singers of a glee. In every tone—bass, treble, and tenor—it came over and over again. Now we know that "the will of the people" is merely a phrase which is conveniently used on certain occasions, but to which the Government have no heartfelt allegiance whatever. The Government treat the House of Commons with great outward courtesy, but with great essential contempt. They are not the first Government that have done so. They will not be the last. All Governments treat the House of Commons with essential contempt. They do what they want, and use the powers of the House of Commons. So long as the House of Commons helps them to do what they want all is well. When the House of Commons ceases to do what they want, ceases to want the same things as the Government, then the powers of the Government are used to nullify, so far as they can, the decisions of the House of Commons. Here was a case in point. All I plead for is that when we have a constitutional question before us we may have some more autere rhetoric from the Government Benches, a little more candour, a little fewer phrases about the public will, a little less denunciation against the House of Lords for doing pre cisely what the Government often do themselves. Let us have a little reality and candour, at all events, and I, for one, shall be satisfied, even if the Government do kill the Woman Suffrage Bill.

All I wish to add is a very few words to what has fallen from the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Black-burn, and I join in expressing the hope that between now and the autumn the Government will see their way to give facilities for this Bill. With regard to what happened on the Second Reading of this Bill, we are able to look to the fact that a Member of the Cabinet himself—and we were told by the Prime Minister to-day that the answer he gave, in response to a question by the Member for Blackburn, was framed by the Cabinet—the Secretary of State for War, after taking some credit for the concession given by the Government for the Second Reading of this Bill—and for which we were duly grateful—went on to use these rather remarkable words:— No doubt it is a very important concession that is being made, because if this House of Commons expresses itself very strongly for the principle— That is the principle of this Bill. Then it is reasonable that effective opportunities should he given at some time for that House to translate its feelings into concrete form. That is what the Secretary of War said, that if the House of Commons expressed a strong approvel of this Bill it was a reasonable thing to ask that the House should translate its feelings into concrete form. That is all the promoters and sup- porters of this Bill are asking to-day. We are taking the Secretary for War at his word. We say, "There is the verdict of the House of Commons; there is 109 majority; give the House of Commons the opportunity to translate its feelings into concrete form." That is all the plea we are putting forward to-day.

Only one other point I would wish to mention. The gravamen of the charge, and I think a real grievance that the women have, is not that Members are against their Bill. That Members have a right to be. The grievance is this: that Parliament after Parliament, Session after Session, there is always apparently a majority for woman suffrage. What happens? Their Bill is promoted. It is frequently carried. It goes no further. What stands in the way? The Government of the day. I think the women have a real grievance, a real and grievous grievance. Session after Session the will of the people emphasises their grievance, yet they are unable to get any further, to have the final judgment of the House of Commons, because there is a new autocracy which has sprung up—that is, the Cabinet of to-day. It stands in the way. With all respect we have to recognise that the Cabinet have expressly said on the question of woman suffrage, "We stand aside." Stand aside for what? To give free play, free running, to the Woman Suffrage Bill. That is all we are asking of the House of Commons, that is all we are asking of the Cabinet, really to stand aside.

It is no use saying we are neutral, but we will deny you a single day or any opportunity of an effective vote. That is not standing aside or being neutral; it is very much nearer to active opposition. That is the gravamen of the grievance which I think the women really have. They have won their case in the House of Commons, but the Government stand in the way and rob them of their victory. I hope between now and the autumn, while the Members of the Government are discussing the bed-rock principles of democracy that the will of the people as expressed by a single Parliament must prevail, I do hope that the large majority in the present Parliament who are in favour of justice to women will be enabled to give their complete adhesion to this bed-rock principle.

An hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House charged the Government with being remiss in regard to the diplomatic treatment of outrages perpetrated by the present Sultan of Morocco. I think the Government has laid itself open to the charge of want of courage in dealing with this matter and with this savage potentate. The Liberal party have always stood for redressing wrongs in all parts of the world. The Liberal Government have repeatedly intervened by diplomatic means, and the Liberal party always supported its Government in such intervention. I know there have been occasions on which, with the best will in the world, the Government could not intervene—where the risks would have been too great to justify intervention. That is not the case in Morocco. In Morocco we have certain treaty rights; we are interested in Morocco on account of our great possession at Gibraltar, and we are much interested in Moroccan trade. I am told that the Government cannot intervene in Morocco because it has become a French interest. I submit that if it is a French interest humanity is still a British interest, and I say it is a scandal that we should maintain a British representative at the Court of this monster and do nothing effective, or attempt nothing effective, to bring him to book for the atrocities he has committed almost beneath the eyes of the representative of His Britannic Majesty. We are told nothing can be done because Morocco is a French interest and because we have swopped Morocco for Egypt and retired from the business. We have no longer any right or status in the matter we are told. I submit we should communicate our views to the French Government. We have no right to assume that if properly appealed to the French Government would not respond in the interests of humanity. The French have a magnificent record in this direction. We may be told that the scene of these atrocities is too far from the coast. That is not so. If the French Government considered it essential to intervene at Fez they could do so. I do not know whether it is known generally that only recently, when the Sultan of Morocco engaged certain Turkish army instructors to drill and train his army and brought them to Morocco, the French Government vetoed these appointments and compelled the Sultan not to utilise these Turkish instructors for the training of his army.

Those instructors are still, or were, I think, a few days ago hanging about Tangiers. It was very strong action on the part of the French Government to say to the Moorish Government and the Sultan, "You shall not employ these Turkish officers." They were young Turks, very capable Moslems, and just the sort of men to train the Moorish Army, but the French Government would not permit it because they preferred the Moorish Army should be trained by French officers. I quote this to show that the French Government has enormous power, and can coerce the Sultan of Morocco when it is to their interest to do so. It is the bounden duty of our Government, in the interests of common humanity, to put an end to these atrocities at Fez by bringing pressure to bear upon the Moorish Sultan. I think our Government must put a little friendly pressure upon the French Government in the interests of humanity. There are many Frenchmen who would welcome the stiffening of their Government a little by friendly representations from our Government, but those representations are not made. We are told that the British Government is willing to join in any pressure by the Powers, but that will not do. We want them to go a little further, take the initiative, and bring friendly pressure to bear on the French Government. We are told that there will be a holy war in Morocco if we take this course. May I remind the House that we heard the same argument in regard to the Soudan and the Mahdi at Khartoum. In that case we were told that there would be a holy war forced upon us throughout Egypt and the Soudan. Nevertheless we went to Khartoum. Lord Kitchener, for whom it is so difficult to find suitable employment. went to Khartoum, and we know that by using ordinary precautions and taking a small force with him, he was able to smile at the idea a holy war. and no such war broke out. I do not think a holy war will break out in Morocco it we do our duty. If the French Government is not strong enough, and not willing to co-operate with us in this matter, then we have another resource. We are not bankrupt yet, and we ought to appeal to the other Powers who are Parties to the Act of Algiceras in the name of common humanity to intervene. In that case we must, of course, listen very carefully and very respectfully to any views put before this House by the Foreign Office, but that position has not arisen yet. Our Government has not put necessary pressure upon the French Government and the Moorish Government, and I think the Government must show that it is not only willing to join in representation, but it can take the initiative. If they do not, I think we can say that our Government is not living up to the great traditions of our country and of the Liberal party. I am the last person who would ask our Government to embark upon costly expeditions all over the world. I do not claim that it is our duty to act in this way for the whole universe, but where we can it is our duty to put a stop to these outrages. I will not describe in detail the outrages which are being inflicted, but I may have to refer to this matter at a later date, give information in my possession, and communicate it to this House if a stop is not put to these atrocities at an early date. I have heard our Consul at Fez praised for the skill with which he dealt with this matter at Fez in order to ascertain whether the Governor's wife had actually suffered torture.

5.0 P.M.

I think the British Consul deserves great credit, but our Consuls in Morocco generally are not alert enough. They are not alert enough either in these matters or with regard to British interests generally. They are not sufficiently alert even in the sending of their reports and in looking after British trade. The British Consuls are not so alert in looking after British trade as the German Consuls are in looking after German trade. Our last Consular Reports are dated 1908 and are therefore two years in arrear. We are doing an enormous trade in Morocco, and it ought to be a growing trade if Morocco were under a proper and stable Government, and we have a right to demand that our Consuls should show more alacrity and put our Government in possession of their reports much earlier than they do. My complaint is not confined to the treatment of a few political offenders. It is not more than a year ago that the late pretender to the Throne in Morocco was cruelly and diabolically tortured. It is not merely that the wives and the families of these men who are similarly treated, but throughout the whole length and breadth of that Empire the prison system is a scandal and a disgrace to humanity.

I have in my hands a letter from the Foreign Office dated 22nd July, and addressed to the Secretary of the Howard Association, in which the Foreign Secretary states that a report on the prisons of Morocco has been received within the last few days from the British Chargé d'Affaires at Tangier. I want the Foreign Office to publish that Report and to let us have it at the earliest possible date. I want, in conclusion, to refer to the concluding portion of an answer to a question I put on the 14th instant. The Foreign Secretary then told me that the whole question of improving the internal administration of Morocco is one of great difficulty. We are all aware of that, but that is no reason why we should acquiesce in these diabolical atrocities and do violence to our traditions and to every principle of common humanity. I conscientiously believe that we have only to bring reasonable, friendly, and ordinary pressure to bear upon our great ally and friend among the nations, the Government of the French Republic, to make an end of these atrocities and these sufferings in this great country of North Africa. I do entreat the Government not to treat this as a party question, but to treat it as a question of humanity. It is in no sense a party question. There is no political end to gain in the matter. We maintain a collosal Navy for our national defence, and we need it for our very existence depends upon it, but is it too much to suggest that with such enormous naval resources we should not be timid and lacking in courage, and should not be afraid of standing up to a small power like Morocco, but that we should be prepared if necessary to demonstrate before Tangier. I do ask the Government to-day on the eve of our separating for a long Recess to give us some assurance of a vigorous and energetic policy.

I do not suppose there ever was an occasion when an accusation was brought against the Government with less foundation. The Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Cowan) has delivered a speech of much vehemence, but, if he had taken the most preliminary trouble to ascertain what really has happened, and if he had even read the answers given within the last day or two in this House, he would not have found it at all necessary to make that speech. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) accused the Government of being remiss. I listened with the greatest attention to his speech to find what argument he would bring forward in support of that accusation, but I could not find a single argument ecept the statement that we have not communicated with France in regard to the last grievous atrocity of the Sultan of Morocco.

I said they had not pressed it against France with sufficient insistence.

I do not know how the hon. Member can say that; it is a mere assumption on his part. The hon. Member behind me (Mr. Cowan) made the same charge, and it was extremely difficult, listening to his speech, to make out what was the policy he advocated. At one moment he talked about the traditional policy and great naval power of Great Britain for repressing wrongs, if necessary, by force of arms, and in another part of his speech he said we should not go to war with Morocco but should make energetic representations to France.

I recognise that there are cases in which British naval power could not be used, and the British Government could not intervene in this way in the cause of humanity, but I suggested that the case of Morocco was one in which pressure could be applied.

Then the hon. Member's suggestion is that we should send a naval expedition against the Sultan of Morocco. I do not think the House will accept that as practicable. I do not think the House will consider it is at all required by the necessities of the case, and when I explain the facts as to British action hon. Members will see that these charges are entirely devoid of foundation. About a year ago the Sultan of Morocco caused the most cruel punishment to be inflicted upon the followers of the Pretender to the Throne. He treated them, no doubt, in Oriental fashion, with great barbarity. Who was the person who made the most energetic remonstrances to the Sultan? It was our Consul, who talked with extreme plainness, and his action was strongly approved by the Secretary of State. Following that, there was a joint protest by the representatives of the Powers at Tangier, and the Sultan, as a result, promised better behaviour. For a time he did behave better, but then came the case of the woman who has been referred to. In spite of all denials, we are quite satisfied that this unfortunate woman was brutally tortured; there is no doubt of that. But it has been admitted by the hon. Member, and it was our Consul who succeeded in inducing the Sultan to allow her to be medically examined. We are charged with not having done the very thing we did do. We have conveyed to the French Government the information which we possess with the object of getting the French Government to join us in putting all the pressure we can on the Sultan of Morocco, in order to put an end to these abominable cruelties. The hon. Member talked in two voices about our taking warlike action. He also talked in two voices about the French Government. At one time he said the French Government would take a humane view. No one has a right to assume it will not intervene in the interests of humanity. But the hon. Member assumed it required to be stirred up to deal with this matter. I do not believe so. I believe the French Government is as keen to put an end to the tortures in Morocco as the British Government.

I wish to refer to a case which has occupied the Law Courts for the last few days, the case of an excadet for Osborne, which this afternoon came to a conclusion at which we all rejoice. I am sure no one rejoices more sincerely than the Secretary to the Admiralty. I do not speak with any knowledge or even the slightest acquaintance with any of the parties, and I do not wish to enter on the merits of the case. I am quite sure the Admiralty will do all in their power to redress the very terrible and almost irreparable wrong done to the boy on such a wrong being brought to their knowledge. That part of the case I leave entirely in their hands. Nor do I bring for one moment a charge of any conscious unfairness or bias on the part of those on whom the responsible duty of inquiring into the case was imposed. But the case does not end here. I am not quite sure that, although no conscious bias existed that those who have read the evidence are quite convinced that there has been prudence, caution, care, and deliberation in arriving at that conclusion. But I come to a much more serious matter than that. I am certain that the public at large and the parents of boys who might be sent to Osborne College and from whom the officers of the Navy will be selected, will be distrustful of certain features in the proceedings of the Admiralty with regard to this case. The serious point is this, that had it not been for the reversal of the decision of the court of first instance by the Court of Appeal, this case would never have come before the public at all, and a grievous wrong would have been done unknown to anybody. It is a case in which, I think, the Admiralty should regret that they unwisely pleaded privilege, as by such a course the indignation of, I think, a large number of the public and the parents of those at Osborne will be aroused. As I said before the First Lord came into the House, I have no hesitation whatever in leaving the interests of the particular ex-cadet in his hands, and I have no charge of any unfairness against those who conducted the inquiry; but I do ask the First Lord if he will give an assurance to this House and the public at large that the Admiralty will not again attempt to crush into obscurity and to prevent the light of day being thrown upon such cases as this, and that they will not again plead privilege and attempt to withdraw such an inquiry involving vital issues to those concerned, and anyone in a similar position—they will never again attempt to make that inquiry a closed one, and by withdrawing it from the light of day, prevent a clear hearing of such charges in a court such as has had the result which we are gratified to hear this evening.

It appears to me that the action of the Admiralty was largely dictated by a person named Gurrin, who describes himself as a professional expert in handwriting. He was willing to go into the box on one particular day to swear that the boy had signed the postal order, and the next day the Admiralty admitted that they had made a mistake, and were satisfied that the boy had not signed it. It would be of secondary importance if this expert had not been engaged before by a Government Department. This is the same expert who was engaged in the Adolf Beck case, and who was responsible for an innocent man going to prison for something like five years, and I believe he is the same expert who was consulted in the Parnell case. I want an assurance from the First Lord that he will use his influence to see that this expert is not put forward in future. I do not think that is an unreasonable demand. It is not fair in trials of this kind that the Government should employ a person who has been shown to be so unworthy to be trusted in matters of this delicate nature.

I want the First Lord seriously to consider whether any step can be taken to remedy the quite unwitting grave injustice which has been done by wiping out all record of these past two years, and making the career of this cadet as absolutely clear in future, if he chooses still to pursue his profession, as if the incident had never occurred. I want the First Lord also to bear in mind that cadets for the Navy are in very large measure drawn from families which are not wealthy. It is perhaps the finest and most honourable of all professions open to a boy, and it has hitherto been open to people who have not got wealth. Our record of the trials in this case shows one thing that is perfectly clear. It is a very exceptional case, and this thing would not have been pushed through to the final vindication of the cadet's character but for the money, the energy, the perseverance, and the determination of his relatives, one of whom is a Member of this House, who, to my knowledge, has practically devoted every moment that he has not been in the House to this affair for a considerable time past. Does that not confirm what the hon. Member said—that this case will have shaken the confidence of parents and guardians in the whole system, which leaves to the absolute discretion of officials, not only the future, but the character of the boys entrusted to them? I do not believe public opinion will be satisfied unless this cadet is reinstated entirely, and I do not believe confidence in the career of a naval officer will he restored unless we have some assurance that such a case as this can never occur again—till we have full and open investigation of any allegations which may be made against a cadet.

I wish to say a word in support of what has fallen from my hon. Friend. I need hardly say that I am not saying anything in respect of the treatment of this boy in future, because, I agree, that is a matter which obviously must be left to the generosity of the Admiralty, and I am certain that he will be treated with full generosity. I do feel very strongly, in view of the feeling which has been aroused in the country, that damage may occur in relation to those who are going to join the naval forces if those methods which have been pursued in this trial and in the preliminary stages are not altered. What do parents feel who are going to send their sons into the Navy? They feel that a case like this may be brought against a boy without anything in the nature of a trial or investigation, because it has been brought out in evidence that the investigation which took place at Osborne was simply a farce. Certainly, speaking for myself, I think it would be impossible for any parent to send his son to run the risk of being treated as that boy was treated at Osborne, unless he has some assurance from the Admiralty that cases of this kind will have so fair and full an investigation that it is out of the bounds of possibility that such things can happen as were detailed before us in the law courts. I do not agree with the charge made against the Admiralty, but I do say they have behaved throughout this matter in the most extraordinary manner. It is because I really stand up for the Admiralty that I say many people who read the records of this case will not draw the inference which I have drawn from it. What has happened? In the first place, they have put every obstacle in the way of the parents investigating it. They held an inquiry which was no inquiry at all. There was no proper evidence taken whatever, and they used all the resources of the Crown in every way to prevent this investigation taking place before the law courts. They used the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to take every technical plea to prevent the facts coming out before the public. When they have done that, what happens? The case at last, through the action of the Court of Appeal, goes to trial, and even when the facts are coming out at the trial they do not let the case be tried out. They do not dare to take the opinion of the jury, and they were perfectly right, for I am confident of this, that the jury would have expressed itself extremely strongly on the case. I am only reciting the bare facts. It is a most remarkable thing, which will be commented upon, although I do not comment upon it for myself, that having fought this case in the way they have done they collapse utterly and at once as soon as the facts are brought before the public. As soon as the facts are brought out they withdraw absolutely and entirely from the charge made against the boy. These are the plain facts of the case, and unless the Admiralty are able to assure us that such a change will be made in the system as will prevent any treatment of this kind being ever again meted out to any boy who goes into the Navy I am certain this case will have not only a bad effect on the public mind, but will also prevent parents from sending boys into the Navy who otherwise might have been ornaments of the profession.

I am sure the House will sympathise with the tone and temper of the speech in which the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aber- deen (Sir H. Craik) approached this subject—this very painful subject. He quite rightly interpreted the view of the Admiralty when he said he was sure that they would be extremely glad to have the innocence of the boy placed upon record. They are extremely glad, and, speaking for myself, if I had perfect liberty to give a judgment which would justify my mind absolutely, it would be such a judgment as has been recorded by agreement between the parties. Let me say, in defence of both sides, that while the innocence of the boy has been established, it has also been established that upon the evidence as it was presented to the authorities at the time they acted in good faith and in a reasonable belief. That has been established after a full examination of the case, after all the witnesses have been heard, and not, as the hon. Member who has just spoken declared, before the facts had been brought out, but after an examination and cross-examination of all the witnesses of both parties, that, upon one hand, the boy was innocent, and, upon the other, that the Admiralty authorities had acted with good faith and in a reasonable belief. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of the word "reasonable."

What I understood was that the charges were not withdrawn unreservedly, but that an offer was made on the other side that the charges will he withdrawn.

The hon. Gentleman is better informed than either the Solicitor-General, who conducted for the Crown, or the Admiralty. I think it would be better before the hon. Gentleman reopens cases of this kind that he should inform himself more exactly of the facts of the case. We are most glad of the vindication of the character of the boy, but I am sure that the House will be equally glad that it has been established that the officials responsible for the conduct of Osborne College acted with good faith and with reasonable belief. A question has been raised which is of greater importance—that is, the pleading of the demurrer. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General (Sir Rufus Isaacs) is here. He will be able to answer this point, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman who raised the question that it does frequently happen that private rights have to be sacrificed for the public good, and I should not be justified in disclaiming on the part of the Admiralty all right of demurrer merely because there are circumstances in the use of the right of demurrer which operate hardly upon particular individuals. If we were not justified in using this legal plea, then the law ought to take it away from the Crown. It is not reasonable to suppose that Parliament when it left this right to the Crown at the same time contended that its use by the Crown was wholly unjustifiable upon every occasion when they exercised it. It is a much larger matter than the circumstances of any particular case. Upon the point of law my hon, and learned Friend will reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Kircaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) raised the question of the employment of Mr. Gurrin. I think he was rather unfair to that gentleman. He had not Mr. Gurrin's evidence before him. Therefore I do not think that it is quite fair to say that while Mr. Gurrin swore that the handwriting was the handwriting of the cadet the Admiralty admitted it was not.

I did not say that he swore; I said he was ready to swear. Mr. Gurrin gave evidence which satisfied the Admiralty that they were justified in still continuing to consider the boy as guilty.

No; Mr. Gurrin's evidence was corroborative evidence only. It was not called in the first place at all.

But he gave a view that the boy signed the postal order.

The Admiralty was not bound by this evidence, and did not intend to offer Mr. Gurrin's evidence; as a matter of fact, Mr. Gurrin was not called at all; his evidence was not taken. It was only considered by the Admiralty after the original recommendation had been received. In the first instance, Mr. Gurrin's evidence was not a material part of the Admiralty case at all. Mr. Gurrin could only have expressed his view, and he certainly could not have said, "I swear that this is the handwriting of a particular person." He could only have said that in his judgment, after consideration, it was the same handwriting. Neither in this case nor in any other is there ground for thinking that Mr. Gurrin is either an unfair or untrustworthy expert. I hope it will not be understood for a moment that Mr. Gurrin, who is a well-known and skilled expert, has in the least suffered because in this case, as in many other cases, experts fail. In regard to the question put by the hon. Member for East Devizes in regard to the late cadet being taken back into the Navy, he will see, after the lapse of two years, the result of training during that period. I do not suppose that the question is likely to be raised on either side. I do not understand that he made his observations on behalf of the family, and therefore I think it probably better that any proposal of that kind should come, at any rate in the first place, from the family.

I do not rise in any controversial spirit at all so far as this matter is concerned, but I must say that anybody must regard this case as one of a very disquieting character. I do not think any blame can be attached to the Admiralty for having consulted Mr. Gurrin, who is undoubtedly a skilled expert who is consulted by both officials and private persons. Indeed, I do not think there is any ground of complaint at all against the Government for having consulted him. But the point to which I wish to call attention—because we have not sufficient information—is that one cannot think that it is a sound method of conducting an establishment like Osborne College that a boy of thirteen years of age, accused of theft and forgery, should have his case taken and disposed of by the authorities of the institution without his parents having an opportunity of putting his case before them. I think it is out of the question that a boy of that sort should be called before those who are in charge of the educational college, and should have the matter settled and disposed of without the parents hearing anything at all about it until they get an official communication saying he had been charged with theft and forgery and found guilty, and they were to take him away. I think it is indeed a difficult position. I do not expect that the Admiralty should at this moment be able to give an answer on the point, but this is a case which ought to be considered, and if the College is to be conducted in this way undoubtedly the parents must think twice and thrice before they send their boys to Osborne. I am not dealing in the least with any controversial matter, and I am sure the First Lord and the Solicitor-General sympathise entirely with that view. On a Motion for the Adjournment on the day the case has been settled it is out of the question to discuss a matter of this importance. A matter in regard to an important educational institution connected with the Naval service of the country cannot be settled and discussed at this time. I think the matter deserves, and I have no doubt will receive, the most careful attention from those who are concerned in these matters. I rose to say, without imputing anything to anybody and accepting the suggestion that the authorities conducted this matter perfectly fairly, and although there may be a mistake, and I think we all agree they did make a mistake, the question is as to the possibility of an occurrence of this kind reoccurring. That is the view which I desire to emphasise to the House.

Of course the House will understand that I cannot discuss the facts of this particular case, in which I was engaged as counsel. All I desire to say in regard to it is that for myself I am glad at the end that has been arrived at, and that there is no question of any sort or kind in reference to the boy, and also that complete vindication was given to those responsible in the first instance for believing in the statements that were made. I have risen because I understand some attack was made to the demurrer. In respect to that I want to say I found it on the record; and without discussing or going into the details or description of the meaning of a matter which is very technical and indeed so antiquated as a Petition of Right, I am anxious to explain to the House at the earliest opportunity. I have seen it stated that I argued this point of a demurrer on the instructions of the Admiralty. I desire to say that there is no foundation of any sort or kind for that statement. I had no consultation or discussion with the First Lord of the Admiralty, or with anyone who could give me instructions with reference to this matter; neither do I think, speaking here, that I should have taken instructions upon that point. That was a matter for the Law Officer of the Crown in charge of the case to determine whether or not. I thought that plea was a good one, and it remained for me to see whether any such Petition of Right could lie against the Crown in such a case as that. I am not going to discuss the merits. What I am anxious to make plain is that if there is any blame to be attributed or anything to be said with regard to the arguments on that point, or the early stage at which it was taken, certainly nothing is to be said against the First Lord of the Admiralty. The person who is responsible for it is myself, who argued it, finding it on the record as I did. I argued the point because it appeared to me that if there was a demurrer it was my duty as a Law Officer of the Crown at the earliest moment to ask the court to determine whether or not such an action could be heard in the courts. I do not think there is any precedent I know of none, and none has been quoted to me. Therefore, as a matter of public interest and also as a question of public policy, it was highly desirable that the court should pronounce upon it. Difficulties arose in the Court of Appeal as to whether certain documents could be inspected and also whether all the material was before the Court upon which t he Court of Appeal felt justified in pronouncing a final decision of the matter. The Court expressed the view that it would be better to have the facts tried, and when it expressed that view, without arguing the case, I assented to it; and thereupon the case was sent back without the Court of Appeal pronouncing upon the demurrer—that is, without determining whether the judge who decided that no such action could be brought was right or wrong—and there the matter remains at the present moment.

Everybody must recognise that the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Solicitor-General have acted throughout in this matter with perfect propriety. The important fact is that this is not the first case within the last few years affecting the greatest employer of labour in the three Kingdoms. The Crown employs hundreds of thousands of men in the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service, and it is a lamentable and parlous state of things if the law be that any injustice, no matter how bad, can be committed without there being any right of action in the subject. We feel this matter in Ireland in a large number of cases. What occurs to me is that this antiquated system of petition of right should be entirely abolished, and that, as in the Republic of America, there should be an official representing the Crown against whom any person having a grievance should have a right to take process in the same way as against an ordinary employer of labour. I know this doctrine is much disliked by those who have extreme views as to the status of the Crown. The King is out of our affairs entirely in all political and other matters. We treat him simply as the great ceremonial officer of the country; but the moment a soldier, a sailor, or a civil servant is ill-treated we go back to the mediaeval law, the Crown steps in with all the majesty of ancient times, and we are told "The King can do no wrong; you have no remedy." If this young man had not had behind him a powerful college, powerful friends, and considerable means, what chance would he have had? We should consider this matter from the point of view of the labourer, the soldier, and the artisan—the men who are employed in Crown service in each of the three Kingdoms While many improvements in justice have been effected from tinge to time, and many reforms of legal procedure have been suggested, it is a sad thing that until we get, so to speak, an intellectual blow from a case like this, no attempt is made to improve legal procedure in reference to that large body of unhappy people who have very few persons to speak for them, namely, the naval and military servants of the Crown. Let me tell the right hon. Gentlemen who are representing the Crown Authorities in this House the effect of it. I take the Army. I have known the very saddest cases arise in the Army in regard to young men. In this case I heard with some astonishment that the parents of this poor boy were not even acquainted with the charge against him. I have known the case of a young officer in the army, whose father was a colonel in the Army, whose ancestors for 300 years were in the British Army, whose brothers had got the V.C.; this young man on whose education thousands of pounds had been spent, behind the backs of parents of father, mother, friends, was hunted out of the army, without the knowledge of his family, on the mere ipsi dixit of some foolish officer. In any other employment in the Kingdom, or if any employer in the Kingdom was guilty of what I call misconduct, an action for wrongful dismissal would immediately follow. When you take the case of the Crown and the Services that concern you most, your Army and Navy, you leave things in that condition that you are dependent on the good sense of the law officer of the day, or it may be the First Lord of the Admiralty, or it may be the Secretary of State for War. I venture to say that if the Solicitor-General had not had the good sense to take the course he has done, and if he had not been supported by the moderation of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that this young man might have gone for ever without justice. Supposing the Crown had pushed their point up to the House of Lords, is there any doubt whatever but that it would have been held that this young man had no means of getting redress? Here we are fiddling from day to day with a thousand petty and unimportant questions. Are we content to leave hundreds of thousands of men who are in Crown employment without the ordinary rights which are due to the British subject?

So far from thinking that this case is a discredit to the Admiralty, I think the Admiralty are deserving of the highest credit, and entitled to recognition, when they saw the course the case was taking; when they saw that this boy in their opinion was entitled to redress, that they withdrew all these antiquated pleas, withdrew the case from the jury. I think they have taken an honourable and creditable course. Let us suppose they had been gentlemen with high views of the Crown Prerogative. Let us suppose the Solicitor-General and the First Lord of the Admiralty, instead of being animated by these creditable sentiments, had taken a high Crown Prerogative view—which they might well have done, and with perfect reason, following the current traditional authority—why, Sir, that young man would have been wrecked and ruined. His parents would have been discredited and disgraced, and the finger of reproach might have been pointed at him for the remainder of his natural life. The First Lord of the Admiralty made one observation with which I respectfully differ. I think it was not well considered. He said that private rights and interests have to be sacrificed for the public good. Of course it is very easy to let fall a phrase like that without seeing its full moment and importance. I think that phrase ought to be reconsidered. I think justice consists in this—and I think the whole British Constitution exists for it—that the humblest and meanest citizen may at the bar of justice and in the King's courts reckon with confidence that absolute justice will be administered. I lay down this proposition that the British sailor and the British soldier and the Irish sailor and the Irish soldier should know with confidence that if any wrong is done them redress will be open to them despit the attitude of high officials of higher authority. I think this House instead of discussing many of the minor questions that crop up from time to time might well take this matter in hand and I address myself especially to the Members of the Labour party. While trade unions are attacking manufacturers for small grievances and going into questions of wages there are undoubtedly in very many parts of the State a great many cases—I will not say of this kind—but a great many cases that need attention. Why are they not brought forward? Because there is a feeling of hopelessness upon the part of those people. They feel it is hopeless to attack this buttressed hierarchy which has set up its claims to immunity for generations. That is the instinctive feelings of all these men. This case, I trust, will lead to proper attention being given to questions deserving redress and deserving the best consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I do sincerely hope that as justice has been vindicated at this late stage the Government, in order to prevent further injustice arising, will appoint some fair and competent method of trial of such questions.

I should like, as a naval officer, to express my great satisfaction that justice has been done to the young officer who was charged in this case. I am certain that equal satisfaction is felt by everyone at the Admiralty and everyone in the whole Service and in the whole country. Such cases as this are very rare. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the reports made in the College were made in all good faith, and on evidence which they thought was accurate, and that the matter was then referred to the Admiralty for decision. But I am inclined to find fault with the Admiralty for not assisting the parents more than they did in the investigation of the ease. The question of discipline in the Service is a very difficult question. We must be absolutely fair and absolutely just in every particular. I think when the Admiralty have a very grave charge of this character made against a young officer just beginning his career, and who would have been damned for all time, if he had been thought guilty, they should have taken some trouble, and should have been more courteous to the parents and those connected with this young man, and should not have kept them for two years, until efforts were made, owing to the fact that these people were well off, to bring the matter before the Court. I think the Admiralty could have done very much what the Court did, and could have gone much further in the matter than they did. There is another point I want to bring before the House. Thieving on a ship or in a regiment is one of the worst crimes that can happen, and for this reason: The men begin to suspect each other. You do not know what may occur. There is irritation and insecurity in barrack or on board ship if there is a thief about; so that not only has every effort to be made to catch the thief, but you cannot be too careful in getting your evidence thoroughly sifted. I do not think that the Admiralty used all the efforts they might have to sift this matter to the bottom. It is very important that not only should it be put in a Court of Law that we do not consider the charge is true, but I think some letter should be sent from the Admiralty saying they were wrong in their decision, and expressing regret so that the lad, will not go away and simply say "The Court found I was not guilty, and the Admiralty did not press it." I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will see his way to give some kind of redress to that young man who has suffered so severely and so unjustly for a crime which he never committed.

This occasion offers a temptation for making a speech which I shall heroically resist. I will not keep the House more than a few moments. I wish to refer to the Colonial Estimates, in which it is stated in regard to the Uganda Railway that grants are made upon such terms as may be prescribed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury. I want to ask the Under-Secretary how this is done. Who decides what railway grants shall be allocated? I take it that it cannot be the Treasury. I presume the Colonial Office say "We prefer this railway, advance us some money." How is it that funds are available for one part of Africa, and not for another? I remember on one occasion, in my official days, finding a large sum allotted under a particular head, and when I asked why this was so, the answer was, "Oh, they always have it there." I replied that I thought that was a reason for giving it to someone else, and I was told that they always have had it, and therefore should go on having it. Why should these grants not be distributed over Africa? Why should Protectorates which have shown that they can help themselves, in which large sums have been expended by private enterprise, not have some claim for a Government bounty equal to the Protectorates of Uganda and Nigeria, which is already provided for so largely at the expense of the British taxpayer? I do not complain of these grants to Uganda. I think it is an admirable thing to make the Uganda Railway, and I quite approve of it. What I ask is why Nyassaland is not entitled to similar grants? I will not go into the details of this case because I know hon. Members want to go, but perhaps the House will forgive me for bringing up a subject which I have not had any other opportunity of mentioning.

6.0 P.M

. I beg leave to ask the Under-Secretary whether he will take the opportunity of repudiating the attacks, either explicit or veiled, which are made upon those British merchants, commercial men, and others about the world whose enterprise is profitable to the inhabitants amongst whom they invest their money. They are continually being disparaged in this House. The Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Wedgwood) put a question in which he spoke contemptuously of "whites" in this connection. I object very much to contemptuously describing the inhabitants of other countries as "blacks," and I have never done it in my life, but I object very much more to the contemptuous description of our fellow-countrymen and other Europeans as "whites" and "whites who rob the coloured man." I endeavoured at the time to challenge my hon. Friend, but the right hon. Gentleman put me off by saying I should settle it with the hon. Gentleman. How am I to settle it with the hon. Gentleman? The spirit is entirely a wrong one, and it is for my right hon. Friend who occupies the proud position of Colonial Under-Secretary to put down those who in this House speak contemptuously of their own flesh and blood and of Europeans generally. It is not only the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne who does this, but it is also my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Chas. Dilke), though, I confess, he rather withdrew, when I challenged him. I do ask the Under-Secretary not to give way to this kind of thing and to realise, though it may be true a merchant only gives £50 or £100 for a concession out of which he makes a lot of money, that it was worth nothing to the person from whom he got it, and that his taking this concession brings a lot of money, say, into the Pacific Islands, and is good for the Islands. Although it may appear that he did not give the commercial value, he has got to go there, to fit out an expedition and chance the loss of his capital. I do protest as loudly as I can against the manner in which our fellow-countrymen are invariably disparaged on every occasion, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take an opportunity of doing that which he abstained from doing the other day. I do not blame him, but I give him an opportunity for which, I am sure, he will be grateful.

One of my hon. and learned Friends brought forward one of those altruistic Resolutions which nobody seems to mind on one of the private Members' afternoons or evenings earlier in the Session. He asked that an extension of the continuation classes should be made, that the school age should be extended, that children should be fed in the holidays, that the size of classes should be reduced—and, in point of fact, he brought forward an omnibus Resolution which would have cost the country millions. What did the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education (Mr. Trevelyan) say? He told this hon. Gentleman that he had not to fear lack of money, and that he had not to overcome Government or Treasury reluctance so much as other kinds of reluctance. If I understood the Parliamentary Secretary rightly, he said to this Gentleman who brought forward this vague, altruistic, and intensely expensive Resolution, "Go back to your friends and say, 'Come on; you can get anything you like from the Treasury and the Government, and, if you only press them, you can get as much money as you like out of them.'" I submit it is not desirable that such propositions should be met in such a spirit in a quarter which is bound by every possible consideration to take jealous care of the finances of the country. The hon. Gentleman who proposed this Resolution has been associated, I believe very honourably and very much to his credit, with Mr. Carnegie. But Mr. Carnegie's occupation in life is trying to get rid of as many millions as he can, and I submit the Secretary of the Board of Education should be occupied in trying to preserve the millions of the State, and should only part with them as reluctantly as he can. I submit that that answer was in point of fact an encouragement to extravagance. It was said, in fact, "Come along, we have no difficulty with the Treasury—no reluctance there." I was told by the hon. Gentleman, when I put a question, that my policy was so vague that he could not understand it. But it was his policy in his own words. I can only say I hope he will now say a word to discourage the extravagant applications I have brought to notice.

I am glad to see the Under-Secretary for India in his place. I listened to his very admirable speech the other day with the utmost satisfaction. Few better speeches, in my oponion, have ever been made in this House. I should be glad if the affairs of India were never debated in this House, but if they are, then I submit it is necessary there should be sufficient time for the feelings and views of the masses of the Indian people, of the multitudinous millions who inhabit that country, of the honourable and upright Civil servants who administer it, and of the commercial men who contribute to its prosperity—that their views should have an opportunity of being represented. That is impossible under the present arrangements of the House, and the result is that the views of those who only represent a miserable fraction of opinion are reported out to India and great mischief is done. These Debates are not necessary, but if they are to be allowed it surely is desirable that time should be allowed for these opinions to be heard. I have analysed the time occupied the other night. Out of seven hours, Front Bench speakers took three, the Labour Party two and a half, and in the remaining one and a half hours one speech was delivered by an hon. Gentleman opposite which occupied an hour and ten minutes. I submit that there should have been an extra day allowed for that Debate, and I hope this matter will receive the attention of the Under-Secretary. He knows how anxious I was to deal with those subjects in which the characters of my fellow Civil servants in India were cruelly aspersed—how anxious I was to deal with subjects concerning the people among whom I lived for so many years and whose language I can talk. I resisted the temptation however, and I think there was, under the circumstances, something heroic in my re- sistance. I repeat that if these matters are to be discussed, and I wish they never were, there should be time for the views of the majority, the well-affected, and those friendly to British rule and to the Indian masses, to be heard, and not only those of an insignificant Socialistic minority.

I wish to call the attention of the House and of Ministers to the fact that very insufficient time has been allotted for the full discussion of Colonial, Indian, and foreign questions. We on this side are constantly being abused in the constituencies with indifference to Imperial and Colonial interests, and it is alleged that we do not care for our great Imperial heritage. I venture humbly but firmly to point out to those on the Front Bench that they would be well advised, if possible, when the House resumes, and certainly next Session, if they allowed more time for the discussion of foreign, Colonial and Indian affairs. I shall not attempt to bring matters forward now in which I am interested, but if some hope were extended to me it would be a real solace to me during my holidays to think that I shall have an opportunity of doing so on a later occasion.

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

I desire to draw attention to the fact that there is no representative of the Home Office in the House at the present time. I have a complaint to make on behalf of one of my Constituents who is anxious to get letters of naturalisation. I wrote several days ago about it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I have been trying to see him to-day, and I have been unable to do so, and also the Under-Secretary, whom, I am informed, has gone away for his holidays. I cannot get any tangible reason why these letters of naturalisation should not be issued. The man has been endeavouring to obtain them for six months, and I think he ought to have them. The last day of the Session is the only opportunity a private Member has to call attention to grievances, and Ministers ought to he present to listen to them. It is the duty of private Members to bring those grievances forward, and Ministers should be here.

I do not like to go for the holidays without calling the attention of the House to the question of national defence. Ministers say in their answers to questions that the Army and Navy are adequate, but it certainly does not seem to me that our national defences are in the state they ought to be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he was going to find the money for social reform by cutting down the expenses of the Army and Navy, although he put it in a more picturesque way than that. He also said we were really building against nightmares, and the result is our Army and Navy have been very seriously cut down. They certainly are not kept in anything like the strength they were in when a Unionist Government was last in power. As the Navy is really our only defence, we ought to know how it really stands in order that we may be able to judge whether the Government is doing its duty or not.

It is made clear from what the Prime Minister said that in 1912, while we shall have twenty "Dreadnoughts," Germany will have seventeen, to say nothing of what other Powers will have, and it came out the other day, and I did not hear it denied, that even the seventeen German "Dreadnoughts" could throw a greater weight of metal than our twenty. If that is the case, it makes things even more serious than we thought them before. When you get to the next year (1914), we have twenty-five to twenty-one. Here, again. comes in the great difficulty of having docks where "Dreadnoughts" can be repaired. In 1912 I understand there will be only one where a "Dreadnought" can be repaired, and that is hundreds of miles away from where fighting is likely to take place, and further it is very doubtful whether a "Dreadnought" could get into it at all. In 1913 there will only be two docks where a "Dreadnought" can be repaired, and I understand that Germany has seven clocks. Then there is the question of pre-"Dreadnoughts," which we are supposed to be dependent upon. In 1913 the Foreign Minister said the pre-"Dreadnoughts" would count for comparatively little. Then there is the question of torpedo-destroyers. It is very difficult to get a straight answer from the Admiralty on this or any other question, but, as I understand it, Germany alone has got more modern oceangoing destroyers which are suitable for being used in the North Sea than we have ourselves. If that is so, or anything like so, it seems to me that our battleships and big cruisers will not be able to stop out in the North Sea at night. Then when we come to small cruisers, I understand that we are very short. The First Lord distinctly stated that an enemy might arm its merchant vessels and turn them into commerce destroyers. It does not seem to be at all certain that the German vessels do not carry guns, and it appears that Lloyds do not object to their carrying guns and ammunition.

Then comes the question of defending the country otherwise than by the Navy. Lord Roberts told us the other day that the Indian Mutiny came upon the Army in India all of a sudden. They hardly knew it was coming at all. The same thing might very well happen again. In that case the Regular Army would have to go away. We could not keep the Regular Army here while our people were being slaughtered in India. Then we should have to rely almost entirely on the Territorial Force, 98,000 of whom are not twenty years of age, and 100,000 of whom have not passed their musketry course. That is as regards men. There are 2,400 officers who have not passed their musketry course, and some thousands of men who have never handled a military rifle at all. This is what we have to depend on. This force was to have been 313,000—that was said by the Government to be the very least on which they could depend—but Lord Esher told us the other day that we would very likely have tom be content with less men. It is now 38,000 short of what the Government said was to be the maximum. When I asked the Secretary of State for War in this House if he was still going to rely on this Force which was not up to the number which the Government said was absolutely necessary, he replied that the future strength of the Territorial Army was a matter of speculation, but that he had reason to be more hopeful than Lord Esher. It would seem that our safety from ruin is to depend on the speculation and hope of the Secretary of State for War. An enormous number of Admirals and general officers—the men who ought to know—have signed a paper saying that our position is not safe. I do not think we are acting rightly if we merely rely upon the hope of one single right hon. Gentleman, however eminent he may be. I do not think it is good enough. The right hon. Gentleman himself told us at Bristol that if we went to war with a great nation, they would be quite certain to make a raid on London. The right hon. Gentleman also admitted that the Territorial Force would be of very little use until it had six months' training. We want from 100,000 to 200,000 men of the Territorial Force to garrison the arsenals and other places. It seems to me that we shall have nothing left except the speculation and hope of the Secretary of State for War. Our fleet would necessarily be tied to our shores. In that case, what is going to happen to our food supply? Under the Declaration of London the whole of the food supply of this country is to be made contraband of war without notice, and therefore there would be very great danger that our people would starve. It will be no laughing matter then. Every man out of uniform will be shot if he is caught resisting in any way. The Germans have laid down the rule that villages and towns which resisted will be burned, and everything will be done to terrorise the inhabitants of our country and compel Britishers to work for Germans whenever they are required. The defence of the country is rather more important than many of the things which have been talked about. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had heard the speech the other day of our greatest soldier they would not be so much inclined to jeer at the idea of national defence. We have had plenty of warnings. Mr. Frederic Harrison has been preaching peace all his life, and we have had serious warnings from him. We have had warnings from the Socialists of Germany lately as well as before; and now the French papers are warning us that we are running the same danger as France did in 1869, when the warnings of the French Military Attaché at Berlin were neglected, and the despatches which he kept on writing to the French Government were found after the war hidden in the recesses of the French War Office. It seems to me that we are running the risk that any accident or misfortune may leave us even inferior at sea, and, of course, we are perfectly helpless on land if our regular Army is away. It seems to me that the present Government can neither provide the people of this country with the required work or wages, nor can they provide adequate defence to protect them from coming to conflict. With all respect I think that this question of our safety comes before everything else. I think it is time that the Leader of the Opposition took off his duds to make the question of national safety and national defence come before everything else, and Tariff Reform and Imperial Preference come next.

My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Boroughs asked me a definite question, and in reply I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the same subject, but I may say in passing that my hon. Friend who has asked me that question should represent to the Prime Minister that more time should be given to Colonial Office and Foreign affairs, may rest assured that the Prime Minister will bear that in mind. Owing, however, to the great pressure of other business he himself will realise that it is difficult to get more time to give to these matters. With regard to the practical point my hon. Friend wanted to know on what principle the Colonial Office and the Treasury allocate grants in aid from the taxes in this country for railways in the Colonies. He said he was interested in a railway in Nyassaland which received no grant in aid, The procedure is more or less as he described it. Different Colonies make applications in respect of railways, and a great many of these applications are backed by reports of their own engineers, and frequently of independent engineers, who have examined the proposal further. When the Colonial Office is satisfied that a scheme is desirable and is urgently necessary they put it before the Commissioners of the Treasury for assent. Of course, only a proportion of these applications are officially recommended, or receive sanction, because there is not enough money to go round. I think the particular case of my hon. Friend's railway, if I may so describe it, which is a most valuable line, has this drawback, that it is more or less in the air. It will be very desirable to extend it at one end or the other, either or both, but the only reason that it cannot be done is twofold—first of all, that it is not so easy to make grants out of public funds for railways in private hands, although I do not say that is a fatal objection.

That was not my proposition at all. My idea was to connect the Colony with the sea, and that the Colonial Office should consider the claim of this particular Protectorate, and see whether a connection between this British territory and the sea could be made through Portuguese territory. I was not thinking of private interests.

I accept at once that my hon. Friend had no private interests in view and that he was considering the benefit of this British Colony, which he wants to see go forward. It is quite true if we extended the railway it would be of advantage to the Colony, but the difficulty is that this particular railway is in private hands, and that the expenditure would therefore be an unusual thing, though, of course, not a fatal objection. Another objection is that there are other schemes which are even more important, and as we have only a certain amount of money, we must take those schemes which are the most pressing. I am afraid I cannot add anything more definite on the subject. I am afraid I cannot prevent reference in this House to European traders as "Whites."

I did not say "Whites."

I must say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend in regard to this, because we know that the greatest compliment that can be paid to an European trader is to call him a White man.

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn until Wednesday next, at Twelve of the clock: that, upon that day, the House do consider Lords Amendments to Bills of which the consideration forthwith is moved by the Government; and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which had been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House, without Question put, until Tuesday the 15th November next.

Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, until Wednesday next, 3rd August, at. Twelve o'clock noon.