asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty to present any supplementary shipbuilding Vote?

No, Sir.

asked if any additional battleships will be brought into full commission in consequence of the absence from the Narrow Seas of the Third Division of the Battle Fleet now in the Mediterranean?

The reply is in the negative.

asked if any inquiry was held into the condition of H.M.S. "Torch"; and, if he will lay Papers giving particulars and the finding of the Court of Inquiry, if held?

I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave on Wednesday last to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that that answer referred to an inquiry by the admiral in command of the station? This question relates entirely to the Court of Inquiry, if held.

I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave on Wednesday last.

asked for what period Sir Philip Watts' present engagement at the Admiralty is to extend; and upon what duties he is now engaged, in addition to supervising and advising as to the construction of warships which he designed while chief constructor at the Admiralty?

The actual terms has hot been fixed, but I hope that the appointment may continue for a year or two. I do not think it would be in the interests of the Service to state in detail the matters in which Sir Philip Watts is being consulted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Philip Watts is now employed as naval adviser to the Chilian Government, in relation to the construction of warships which are being built under contract in this country?

I am aware of it, and that is one of the circumstances that I took into consideration in making the present arrangement.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps he proposes to take in order to keep the Mediterranean Fleet supreme, and at the same time to guarantee the country in home waters; and whether he is satisfied with the present building programme?

I have nothing to add to the full statement I made to the House in July last.

How many "Dreadnoughts" are now in full commission?

That has nothing to do with the question, but I shall be very glad to give the information.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he still proposes to deal with the pay of the Navy during the present autumn?

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on the 30th of last month.

Will it be in the present Session?

Yes, before Christmas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time but one he spoke he told us that he would make this statement early after the meeting of the House in October? Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say in answer to that?

I have already answered that. I will make a statement shortly. It is in the interests of all parties concerned in this question of increasing the pay of sailors in the Royal Navy that the scheme should be fully worked out, and statements one way or the other should not be repeated in questions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me he was unable to accept the suggestion to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this very question because it was not necessary as all the materials were at hand? Is that so?

Certainly. All the materials were and are at hand. The only thing to be decided were the exact details.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make this announcement as soon as possible, as he will be leaving office so soon?

I do not know if I am to interpret from that question that the question of increasing the pay of the Navy is a party matter.

asked what is the age limit of the present "Dreadnoughts"?

There is no age limit denned for the ships of His Majesty's Navy. It depends not only upon the deterioration of the ship itself, but also upon the progress made in the construction of vessels of other Powers.

Is there no time limit for ships in His Majesty's Service?

No; no precise time limit is fixed for ships in His Majesty's Navy. They are used as long as they can be usefully employed.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many destroyers of the British and German programmes for 1911–12 are respectively launched and completed; and whether he is in a position to give the House details of the information laid before him in December last, as a result of which the destroyers of the 1912 programme were provisionally ordered before the close of the last financial year?

Two of the destroyers of the German 1911–12 programme were sold to Greece before they were delivered by the contractors. The two which are to replace these have not yet been launched. The remaining ten boats of the 1911–12 programme are completed. Six of the destroyers of the British programme for 1911–12 have been launched, but none yet completed; another will be launched to-morrow. With regard to the last part of the question. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire on 28th February last.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman given Germany six or seven months' start of us?

I have not given anybody any start at all. All the destroyers have been laid down that are necessary for the margin required.

asked on what dates the British and German armoured ships of the 1911–12 programme were laid down?

The dates of laying down the British ships are as follows:—

"Iron Duke"	…	15th January, 1912.
"Marlborough"	…	25thJanuary, 1912.
"Benbow"	…	30th May, 1912.
"Delhi"	…	31st May, 1912.
"Tiger"	…	20th June, 1912

We have no official information as regards Germany.

asked whether H.M.S. "Psyche" has recently been refitted at Sydney Dockyard; and, if so, what has been the amount spent on her refit during the last financial year and (luring the present financial year?

This ship was taken in hand for repairs at Sydney on 13th April last, and completed on 27th July, at a total cost of £4,766. The cost of repairs carried out during the whole of the financial year 1911–12 was £2,066.

asked what was the amount of coal consumed by His Majesty's ship "Psyche" on her voyage in company with His Majesty's ships "Pioneer" and "Pyramus" to Colombo in August and September, 1911, and what was the amount of coal consumed by the "Pioneer" and "Pyramus," respectively, on the same voyage?

The information asked for is as follows:—

"Psyche"	…	…	1,153 tons.
"Pioneer"	…	…	921 tons.
"Pyramus"	…	…	1,138 tons.

I am informed that the smaller consumption of the "Pioneer" is probably accounted for by the fact that her engines are of a later type than those of the "Psyche" and "Pyramus," and that the "Pioneer" was lighter during the voyage than either of the other two ships.

asked whether His Majesty's ships "Psyche," "Pyramus," "Pioneer." and "Cambrian," were sent from Colombo to recommission for the Australian station in September, 1911; and whether, after recommissioning, three of these ships were sent back to the Australian station across the Great Australian Bight, whereas one of them was sent rid Torres Strait, owing to her not being in a thoroughly seaworthy condition?

I am informed that the "Cambrian" returned from Colombo on this occasion viâ Fremantle and Adelaide. The three other ships all returned viâ Thursday Island, as is the practice with vessels of this class, owing to the length of the voyage from Colombo to Fremantle.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many European and non-European doctors, respectively, are in the medical service of the Government in the British Colonies of West Africa?

The number (including those employed in the British Protectorates) are respectively 206 and 8.

asked whether any doctors and, if so, how many in the service of the Government in the British Colonies of West Africa are permitted to engage in an outside practice; and whether they are further enabled to compete with non-European doctors by using Government drugs, which are obtained at a lower price than they can be purchased in the open market?

The number of Government medical officers in the British West African Dependencies who art-allowed private practice is 189 (including eight non-Europeans). In Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast and Southern Nigeria they are allowed to use in their private practice drugs from the Government stores, on payment. The rates charged are calculated at an amount varying from 25 to 35 per cent, over cost price, and in the opinion of the local administration, with whom I have recently been in correspondence on this subject, there is no reason to suppose that this system gives the Government officers any advantage over private practitioners.

Will the right lion. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing native doctors with private practice to obtain Government stores on the same terms?

I think native doctors who are in Government service will receive them.

With private practice?

I will consider that point.

asked whether natives in the employ of the British Government in West Africa are compelled to accept the services of a European medical attendant, or whether they are allowed to avail themselves of the services of fully-qualified non-European doctors?

Natives in the employ of the British Government in West Africa receive gratuitous attendance from Government medical officers. The allocation of this duty to individual medical officers is a matter of local administration. I have no information as to the extent to which the patient is allowed to exercise a choice of medical officer, where opportunities for such choice exist.

Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain that information?

Yes.

asked how many hospitals in British West African Colonies have and how many have not attached to them qualified medical attendants other than European?

I regret that I am unable to furnish the information asked for by my hon. Friend. The duties and stations of medical officers in West Africa vary continually, and are determined by the local administration in accordance with local exigencies.

asked whether a Bill has, with the authority of the Secretary for the Colonies, been presented to the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast, entitled an Ordinance to make provision as to the grant of exclusive rights for the extraction of oil from palm fruits; whether the Bill enables the Governor to grant to any person exclusive rights to construct the work mills and railways within considerable areas; why such Bill is introduced, whether any protests have been received against it to whom it is proposed to grant such mono polies; and what is the reason for such grants?

An Ordinance of the nature indicated by the right hon. Gentleman has been introduced in the Legisla- tive Council of the Gold Coast. It is permissive in character. I have received representations from the Chambers of Commerce of London, Liverpool, and Manchester with regard to certain parts of the Ordinance to which they take exception. The amendments they suggest are receiving my careful consideration, and I hope I may be able to remove their objections to the measure. In any case I have decided, in view of the objections they have put forward, not to allow any future commitment to be made which will have the effect of granting an exclusive right to make railways. I have not given, nor do I intend to give, any exclusive right to erect machinery for the crushing of palm kernels. The object of the Ordinance and of any grants which may be made under it is to encourage the first introduction of machinery to deal more effectively with the products of the oil palm, to the general benefit of the Colony and its inhabitants. The only definite application which has been received for a grant of the kind contemplated by the Ordinance is from Messrs. Lever Brothers, but the Ordinance is general in its scope, and the application of other firms will receive consideration.

Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has, in consequence of the protests which have been received against this legislation which was presented by his authority, withdrawn the monopolist character both from the grants to railways and the grants to mills?

I have altered the proposal as to what the right hon. Gentleman called the monopoly to railways. There was never any proposal as to the monopoly of mills for the extraction of oil from palm fruits. I think there has been some misunderstanding on the subject. I will give the right hon. Gentleman any explanation he wishes to have.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will lay a copy of the proposed Ordinance on the Table, in order to afford this House an opportunity of discussing it before it becomes law?

I shall be very glad to lay a copy on the Table, but, of course, as to facilitating discussion I cannot answer.

Will any correspondence that has attended the right hon. Gentleman's action in respect of this legislation be laid on the Table also?

I will consider what papers can be laid.

May I ask whether, by concessions under the Ordinance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it would have been possible for Messrs. Lover to obtain absolute possession of the land instead of a more monopoly, only for mills within the ten miles area?

I think that was so. My action has been largely taken to prevent anybody from owning this land.

May I ask if the application has been put forward by Sir William Lever for exclusive rights to twelve miles of land, and was this specially granted to him in return for any services to the Radical party?

No request has been made for the exclusive ownership of twelve miles of land, and the suggestion of the hon. Member seems to be that this concession has been made to Messrs. Lever, who were the first and only applicants—

They started the whole thing.

The suggestion is that this arose from political considerations. Let me say that I received a deputation from the three chambers of commerce mentioned in my answer, and at the conclusion of the interview I asked whether they had in their mind, or whether there was in the minds of their friends whom they were representing, any thought or suggestion that this concession had been given to Messrs. Lever on account of political considerations. The representatives of the three chambers of commerce at once disavowed, both for themselves and their friends, any suspicion on that ground.

Will a copy of the protest be included in the Papers laid on the Table?

I will endeavour to include all material Papers among those I will lay upon the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for War when the present regiment of Guards now stationed in Egypt is to be brought home; whether it is to be replaced by another regiment; and, if so, by what?

The 1st Battalion Scots Guards will be brought home by the end of December and will be replaced by the 2nd Battalion Gordon Highlanders.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware, that Sir Frederick Upcott, the chairman of the Indian Hail-way Board, recently visited India, when he investigated the claims of the engineers of the East India Railway for increased pay, having regard to the enhanced cost of living in that country and the responsibility attached to their position, and that, in consequence of his recommendations, the Board of the East India Railway in London sanctioned a scale of increases, which the railway engineers considered adequate, but the Railway Board of India, whose approval is necessary before such increases become law, rejected the home board's proposals on the ground that they would cause discontent among the staff of other railways worked by private companies in India; and whether, having regard to these circumstances and to the fact that the pay of the engineers of the Public Works Department and of the police has been considerably increased, the Secretary of State for India will use his good offices for the removal of this grievance in securing the scale of pay for the railway engineers approved by the home Board?

The reason mentioned by the hon. Member was not the only one that weighed with the Railway Board, in deciding not to sanction the increase in salaries proposed by the directors of the East India Railway Company for the engineering staff of that line. The Board took into consideration the market rate of remuneration prevailing in India for that class of employment, and other similar circumstances. The Government of India, with the technical advice of the Railway Board, are responsible to the Secretary of State in Council for the control of the working expenses of Indian Railways, and in this case the Secretary of State does not propose to take any action.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the charges against the directors of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society of Australia, now under investigation, that they have been elected by the use of proxies thirty years old, that neither shareholders nor insured persons have any effective voice in their election or in the affairs of the society, that the directors have borrowed the money of the society and wasted it in speculation, and that the society does not now possess the property represented in its accounts and periodical statements; whether he is in a position to state that similar practices are now in practice in the London branch of this society; the amount paid in directors' salaries in the last twenty years; the names of the present chairman and directors; when and how appointed; the annual salary of each; the amount of the society's money borrowed by each, the rate of interest, and the security held; whether the society's heaviest losses have been on these transactions; whether shareholders or insured persons have any effective control; and whether he will institute an inquiry concurrently with that proceeding in Australia?

I have read the reports in a Melbourne newspaper with which the hon. Member has furnished me, from which it appears that certain allegations were made against the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, and I have also seen later newspaper reports with which he did not furnish me, showing that evidence has been given on behalf of the society contradicting those allegations. The Articles of Association of the society provide for the election of the directors by the policyholders, and for the appointment of local boards by the directors. I am causing a list of the present directors of the society to be sent to the hon. Member. The annual reports show that the amounts paid in the last two years for directors' fees were £2,768 6s. 4d., and £3.813 9s. 3d., respectively. The other information asked for is not disclosed in the society's returns, but I may add that the Board of Trade are informed by the society that one loan was made to a director on the security of, and within the surrender value of, his policy; that this loan was repaid some time ago, and that no money whatever is now owing to the society by any director.

asked why the Trade Boards Act has not been applied to the sweated industry of shirt-making?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer upon this subject which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to the hon. Member for the St. Andrews Burghs on 10th July, of which I am sending him a copy. I may add that as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Manchester was informed yesterday, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes at an early date to take into consideration the desirability of a cautious extension of the scope of the Trade Boards Act, when the case of shirt-making will be considered among others.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when that early date is likely to be?

I cannot state anything more precise in the present state of business.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the matter has been under the consideration of the Department for at least fifteen months?

It has not been in the particular sense in which I have used the phrase.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will have inquiry made into the case of a young man named Harvey, who was, on Friday, 25th October, convicted and sentenced to six weeks with hard labour at the Salford Police Court, on the ground of being accessory to the theft of a gold watch; whether he is aware that Harvey was in no way connected with the actual theft and only had the watch in his possession for a short time, that he has always borne an excellent character, and is now the main support of his widowed mother and her four other children; and whether he will favourably consider the case with a view to the remission of a portion of the sentence?

I have made inquiry of the magistrates, and I find that Harvey pleaded guilty to the offence. Having regard to all the circumstances, I regret that I do not feel justified in interfering with the sentence passed by the magistrates.

Is it not the fact that Harvey had not the watch in his possession except for a very short period?

I am not aware of the facts of the case except that Harvey pleaded guilty.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Messrs. Gurney and Embleton were fined 22s. each by Mr. Bros, at the Clerkenwell Police Court, for taking up a collection to help the sick and distressed blind at a trade union demonstration held under the auspices of the National League of the Blind on Sunday, 6th October; whether he is aware that similar collections are being taken up frequently in different parts of London; and, if so, will he say why these particular persons were selected for prosecution?

Messrs. Gurney and Embleton were convicted and fined as stated. The Commissioner of Police informs me that, they had deliberately set themselves and incited other collectors to break the Regulations which govern street collections after they had been cautioned by the police, and there was no alternative but to proceed against them. I am not aware that similar collections are taken in the same way in other parts of London.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only notice these men received was the police handing them a copy of Regulations with regard to meetings of this kind without any special reference to one about the taking of collections, and that the people had no reason to suppose at all that the police intended to make any difference in that particular case from other occasions that were allowed?

In view of what my lion. Friend says I will make further inquiry into the matter.

May I ask whether street collecting is illegal, and whether he is enforcing that at present or has ceased to do so?

I have explained, I think more than once, in answer to questions, what the precise circumstances are under which collections may be taken.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that the Regulations as to street collecting only apply when the money is for political purposes, and in view of the fact that this was for help for the blind, can he see his way to make some exception?

In this case it was not a matter of the purpose for which the collection was made, but whether there was obstruction in the street or not.

asked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether the inquiry into the life-history of the house-fly and its relation to disease is completed; if so, what are the conclusions arrived at; and what has been the cost of the inquiry; and (2), whether he is aware that there has been a successful cultivation of the parasitical fungus Empusa nmscæ, which has been recommended by the officers of his Board to be used for the destruction of house flies; and if he is taking any steps to-enable the public to acquire the fungus spores in a condition ready for use?

The investigations which I have caused to be made into the life-history of the house fly have been partly summarised in the Annual Report of my medical officer for the year 1910–11, and a further summary of subsequent researches will be given in his forthcoming Annual Report. The sum of £655 5s. has been spent in the course of five years on these inquiries. The investigations I have authorised for the present financial year are closed, but the question of continuing them in the next financial year, including the question of the cultivation of the fungus to which the hon. Member refers, is receiving my consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not give more up-to-date information than that?

If the hon. Member will look at the Annual Report of the Local Government Board, which will be circulated at the end of the week, he will find that the investigations are continued, and I think if he inquires into them as microscopically as he undoubtedly has done to put this question to me, his mind will be well informed on this subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman, when he is completing that inquiry into the history of the house fly, extend his investigation into the history of the political limpet?

There are no limpets or flies on this side of the House. I see a few before me whose buzz is in disproportion to their sting.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rats convey the plague?

asked in how many cases, up to 9th November, 1912, proceedings have been taken in respect of failure to comply with the provisions of the National Insurance Act in Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?

No proceedings have been taken by the Scottish and Welsh Commissioners. The English Commissioners have instituted proceedings in twenty-eight cases and the Irish Commissioners in five.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether the fines imposed have, in fact, been paid?

I cannot say that.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we are to conclude from his reply that no occasion for prosecutions had arisen in Scotland?

I understand no prosecutions are made without a preliminary remonstrance, and that in Scotland such a remonstrance has produced the desired result.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has been burned in effigy in Aberdeenshire?

asked whether the Exchequer or Post Office earn any interest on the sums received from the price of national insurance stamps purchased by members of approved societies without crediting such interest to the approved societies or to the National Insurance Fund?

No, Sir. Weekly transfers are made from the Post Office to the respective National Health Insurance' Funds of amounts approximately equal to the proceeds of the sale of insurance stamps during each week.

asked whether any and what rate of interest is to be credited for approved societies on the sums to which they are entitled in respect of their members contributions from the date of purchase of the requisite national insurance stamps to the date or dates on which such sums are actually paid over to the societies?

I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I. gave to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes on this subject on the 31st ult.

asked the Postmaster-General whether and, if so, when he intends to compensate sub-postmasters for the extra labour thrown upon them by the National Insurance Act, which has entailed considerable extra work quite outside the duties for which they were originally appointed?

I beg to refer the Noble Lord to the reply given to a similar question on 23rd October.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the Development Commisioners have allocated to Ireland Grants from the Development Fund amounting to about one-fourth of the whole amount hitherto appropriated to various purposes in the United Kingdom, whereas on a population basis she would be entitled to one-eleventh and on a taxation basis to one-seventeenth only, and that English agriculturists are complaining of such allocation, the Government will ask the Commissioners to apportion the fund on a more rational basis as between the different parts of the United Kingdom?

I understand that in making their recommendations the Development Commissioners have guided themselves by the merits of the applications before them, and the needs of the particular district or part of the United Kingdom concerned in relation to the funds available for the purpose to be promoted. I may remind the hon. Member that when the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, was under discussion in this House, a proposal in apply the Development Fund to the requirements of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland in fixed proportions was negatived after full discussion. I may add that for the reasons stated on page 50 of the Commissioners' last Annual Report the advances actually recommenced during a limited period must not be taken as showing the eventual allocation of the Fund between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

I should like to ask if there is not to be any apportionment between the different parts of the United Kingdom, is there anything to prevent the, whole of the fund being given to Ireland?

The recommendation for Grants by the Treasury out of the Development Fund is entirely in the hands of the Development Commissioners themselves, and definitely placed by the House in their hands.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to having the post office at Londonderry placed in a higher class, in view of the fact that since it was reduced in 1908 the value of units of work has steadily increased?

The number of units of work at Londonderry is still far short of the number that would warrant the introduction of higher scales of pay at that office. It is not the case that the Londonderry office was reduced to a lower class in 1908. The maximum pay of the male sorting clerks and telegraphists remained unchanged, but that of the female sorting clerks and telegraphists and that of the postmen was raised 1s. a week in that year.

asked the number of the cottages referred to in the. Return relating to Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) (No. 157) which are within the areas of the Trish rural district councils, and how many in the urban district councils?

The Labourers Acts do not apply to urban districts, and therefore the Parliamentary Return referred to relates only to rural districts.

asked whether any change is contemplated in the conditions of enlistment into the Royal Irish Constabulary during the six years interregnum; and whether it will be made a condition of transference that only men of character and intelligence will be chosen for service as heretofore?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

asked whether any provisions will be made in the Government of Ireland Bill to enable the Royal Irish Constabulary to retain the word "Royal" in their description, and to ensure the continuance in their uniforms of a crown on their buttons and caps?

No such provision is necessary.

asked whether, when the Royal Irish Constabulary passes under the control of the Irish Executive, members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and of the United Irish League will be eligible for enlistment?

There is no reason to suppose that the Irish Parliament would impose any statutory disqualification which does not at present exist.

asked what contribution towards Imperial services was made by Ireland in the financial years 1885–6, 1892–3, and 1910–11, respectively; what contribution to Imperial services was Ireland to make under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bills, 1886, 1893, and 1912, respectively; and what representatives were proposed for Ireland in each case in the Imperial Parliament?

No figures are available showing the contribution towards Imperial services made by Ireland for the year 1885–6, but the hon. Member will find particulars for the years 1879–80 and 1889–90-on page 20 of House of Commons Paper 189 of 1912. The figures for 1892–3 are given on page 20 of House of Commons Paper 337 of 1896, and those for 1910–11 on page 16 of House of Commons Paper 220 of 1911, but as explained on that page it is necessary to consider the two years, 1909–10 and 1910–11, together. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Bills themselves. The hon. Member will find a simple statement of the financial provisions of those Bills in Part III of the Report of the Committee on Irish Finance.

asked whether it is proposed that any peer of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, Scotland, or Ireland., who may be a member of the Irish House of Commons, shall be capable of being summoned to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom under the provisions of Clause 26 (3) of the Government of Ireland Bill?

Yes, Sir. The persons referred to may be summoned.

asked whether the Congested Districts Board have taken steps to purchase the Parkes estates at Newtown Manor and Glencar, county Leitrim; and, if not, whether they will take proceedings to acquire those waste lands for the relief of congestion in these districts, having regard to the fact that there are no other lands available for that purpose?

The Congested Districts Board cannot identify the estate referred to from the particulars given in the question.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that proceedings for recovery of old rents up to date have been taken against the tenants on the Marsham West and Peyton Ellis estates, Ballinaglera, county Leitrim; and whether the Congested Districts Board have taken decisive action to purchase these estates and save the tenants from ruin?

The Congested Districts Board have no information regarding the proceedings for the recovery of rents referred to in the question. The estates mentioned have not so far been offered for sale through the Board, and they do not at present propose to take any steps to acquire them compulsorily.

asked the Chief Secretary what is the cause of the delay in having the sale and purchase of the Norman estate, Fahan, county Donegal, now pending five years, completed; and whether he will take steps to have the matter expedited and the holdings vested in the tenants?

This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants, purchase agreements having been lodged with the Estates Commissioners in 1908. The estate will be dealt with in order of priority on the principal register of direct sales (all cash), but, having regard to its position on that register and the claims of other estates, the Commissioners are not at present in a position to state when it will be reached.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax was deducted between 6th April and 7th August of this year without any Act of Parliament authorising its deduction, from the dividends due to small investors who have invested through the Post Office Savings Bank, including those investors whose total income does not exceed £160 a year, and who are therefore exempt by law from all Income Tax: and whether the sums thus deducted will now be returned to such investors?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and consequently there is no necessity for the course suggested in the second part.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax is deducted from the investments made by small investors whose total income does not exceed £160 a year through the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if so, are any steps taken to return to such person the Income Tax so deducted; and will he state what means are taken to make such investors aware that they are not liable to pay any Income Tax whatever, and of the means whereby they may recover any sums deducted for Income Tax?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.

I beg to move,

"That the decision of this House on the Amendment moved on the 11th day of November, 1912, by Sir Frederick Banbury, by which it was proposed to insert certain words in the Government of Ireland [Money] Resolution as reported to the House, be rescinded, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order of this House, and that the Order of this House in respect to the Government of Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time) shall take effect as if the proceedings with respect to the Government of Ireland [Money] Resolution on the 11th day of November, 1912, had not taken place, and that accordingly the next day after this Order comes into operation on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or any stage of any Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day, followed by the Bill, shall be taken to be the Sixteenth allotted day."

It is within the knowledge of the House that on Monday last an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, on the Report stage of a Resolution passed in Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill was carried against the Government by a majority of twenty-two—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-one"]—by a majority of twenty-one. Of that Amendment no notice had been given. It was, I think, very briefly debated, and it was not supported in Debate by any Gentleman sitting on the Front Opposition Bench opposite, and although it was carried by the House I think there is some doubt even now whether hon. Gentlemen either upon the one side or upon the other thoroughly appreciated its importance. I am not going in any way to discuss its merits. The effect of the Amendment so carried is that £6,000,000, which it was proposed—£5,500,000 plus £500,000—to hand over to the Irish Government as a Transferred Sum under the Bill was reduced to £2,500,000. In other words, if that Amendment were incorporated into the Bill the Imperial Exchequer, instead of having to provide, as it has at present, a deficit of something like £1,500,000 in regard to Irish Government, would have had a profit of very nearly £1,500,000, and the Irish Exchequer would have had a deficit in its first year of £3,000,000 instead of a surplus of £500,000, and to that extent they would have had to increase the taxation of Ireland. I am not for a moment going to comment upon the merits of the Amendment, but I simply mention those facts to show of what a vital and far-reaching character it was. On that point, I am sure I shall have the assent of hon. Gentlemen in every quarter of the House. It follows that if the decision came to by the House on Monday last remains unreversed, or if upon reconsideration it were found to be the deliberate judgment of the House, it would be impossible for the Government to proceed further with the Bill, and for two quite obvious reasons. In the first place, a mortal blow would have been struck at the financial arrangements of the Bill—

It has been.

Next, a matter to which I attach no less importance, the consideration which we have always put forward and which I strongly hold myself, that in order that a Bill passing through this House should become law under the operation of the Parliament Act, it should receive upon all substantial and vital points the assent of a majority of this House. It follows that one ought, critical as the circumstances are, to consider—I think it is the duty of the House to consider—whether or not the ordinary presumption which I agree, under normal conditions apply, that a decision of the House is the considered judgment of the House, is applicable to this particular case, and I am going to submit to the House strong reasons for thinking it is not. In the first place, since we reassembled at the beginning of October and under the Order for the allocation of time, we have, I think, spent fifteen days in Committee upon this Bill; we have had no less than fifty-five Divisions; and in those fifty-five Divisions the normal average majority of the Government has been 106—a pretty clear indication, I submit, to all reasonably minded men—

The rigidity of the party system.

A pretty clear indication, at any rate, that there is no strong movement in the way of revulsion of opinion or feeling either inside or outside the House. That which makes this a really unique case, I think absolutely unique, in our Parliamentary annals is this: that four nights before, on the Thursday night in last week, the Resolution in Committee to which the hon. Baronet on Monday proposed an Amendment, was carried by a majority of 121. I do not know what hypothesis is going to be advanced to account for the change. Is it supposed that a rapid process of conviction and conversion had taken place between Thursday and Monday that had transformed—and I am looking at the considered opinion of the majority of this House—a majority of 121 into a minority of twenty-one? I do not know anything that had taken place in the interval, either inside or outside the House except, indeed, the Taunton by-election. [HON. MEMBERS: "It had not taken place."] It was taking place; I agree the result had not been declared. And we are told the main issue presented at this great crisis in our history to the electors of that borough was whether or not the persons, engaged, I think, in the shirt-collar industry, had or had not been injuriously affected by the Insurance Act. By the judicious, manipulation of that particular topic the Conservative majority was raised, I think, by fifty-two. That does not seem to account for the suggested change of opinion in this House. Having regard to those remarkable and I believe absolutely unique circumstances, it appears to the Government the House ought to have an opportunity of saying whether or not they adhere to the judgment which they pronounced on Monday or to the judgment, the entirely opposite and contradictory judgment, which they had pronounced on the previous Thursday. It is quite true, as the proceedings which have been going on for the last hour show, that there are technical difficulties in dealing with a matter of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "IS that all?"] I am going to express my opinion upon that point. It is stated in the passage which has been cited already more than once from Sir Erskine May's work:—

"It is a rule, in both Houses, … that no question or Bill shall he offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current Session."

But, as Sir Erskine May goes on to point out, if that is the general rule, a Resolution of the House may be rescinded, and Resolutions of the House have been repeatedly rescinded in our past experience. I will give two illustrations, one a very remarkable one, to show that the House has always claimed the right, without which, indeed, it would be impotent, which is exercised in another way upon the Report stage of a Bill, when, as constantly happens, we reverse the decision which has been taken in Committee. That technically, of course, is not the same thing, because the House is sitting in Committee, with the Chairman in the Chair, and on Report the House is sitting as the House, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. That is a technical difference, but, in point of fact, it is exactly the same set of people deciding on the same matter under different conditions, apart from the opportunity of reconsidering and reviewing. I will give two illustrations as regards Resolutions. It is quite true these are not cases of Resolutions passed during the course and in relation to the operation of a Bill, but in point of principle I confess I cannot see any distinction of any sort or kind. I am only citing two cases by way of illustration. The first case happened in 1834. On 13th February, 1834, Mr. O'Connell, having charged one of the Irish judges, Baron Smith, with grave neglect of duty, moved a Resolution, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of Baron Smith in respect of the discharge of his duties and the introduction of politics into them," and that was carried by a large majority, the Ayes being 167, and the Noes 74. It was carried by a majority of 93. Eight days later, on 21st February, 1834, Sir Edwin Knatchbull, a well-known Member of this House in those days, proposed, as he said:—

"To do that which, though very unusual, was not without precedent. He was about to call upon the House to consider the propriety of rescinding a vote to which they had come on a previous evening;"

and Sir Robert Peel, than whom there was surely no higher authority on procedure said:—

"The Motion gives the House the opportunity of revising what they had once determined."

Thereupon, the Resolution "That the Order that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of Baron Smith be rescinded" was put, and agreed to, and the Order discharged. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was there a Division?"] Yes, there was a Division on the Question which was then put. The House divided on the original Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair." The Ayes were 165, and the Noes 161.

Was there any rule of the Speaker on that occasion as to the competency of the House to rescind this Resolution?

No one raised the point; it was so clear. I am quoting the authority of Sir Robert Peel, who, at that time, was the Leader of the Opposition, who assented to the Motion, and who, I presume, voted for it. In the same way, the House thirty years later, on 12th April, 1864, passed by 101 to 93 a Resolution condemning the mutilation of the reports of Inspectors of Schools, and in the same Session three months later, on 25th July, a Motion was carried rescinding that Resolution. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that in regard to ordinary Resolutions the House has always retained and has not infrequently exercised its right of rescinding a Resolution come to imprudently, or which, on further consideration, it was thought ought not to have been passed; and apart from the technicality—because it is a mere technicality—that this happened to be the report of a Resolution from Committee—apart from that technical difference—there is no distinction in substance whatever between the course the Government are asking the House to take to-night and the course which has previously been taken. Any other rule or law would really reduce the House to a condition of almost ludicrous impotence. To say that this House is not able, if it is so minded, under any circumstances whatever, to rescind a Resolution which upon reconsideration it thinks ought not to have been passed is to deny to the House the first quality of a really deliberative Assembly. I ought to say one word on the question of these words inserted in the Resolution:—

"Notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order to the contrary."

Personally, I doubt very much whether those words are necessary.

Then strike them out.

They are put in, as Mr. Speaker has said, and as lawyers say, ex abundanti caūtēlâ. I doubt if they are necessary. That they are constantly inserted in Resolutions passed by the House is proved by the history of our procedure of the last twenty years. There has not been a single one of the so-called guillotine Resolutions, from the first proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Balfour), by a Government of which he was a Member, down to the last proposed only last Friday, going over the whole of my Parliamentary history, a period of twenty-five years, which has not contained these words. There is nothing in any way contrary to the procedure of this House in the Resolution. The remainder of my Resolution—that part which you. Sir, have indicated if it should be the desire of hon. Gentlemen—I need not say I do not quarrel in any way with that—you will put as a separate Question from the Chair, is merely consequential and ancillary to the other part. If we are to rescind the Resolution of last Monday and to resume the consideration of the Government of Ireland Bill as though that Amendment had not been carried, it seems obvious we ought to start at the point at which we were on Monday last, and to begin the next day on which it is put down as the first Order as though it were the allotted day of Monday last. I quite agree that a Resolution of this kind raises larger and wider questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday whether we ought not to be entitled, on the consideration of this Resolution, to enter upon those larger questions. I welcome his invitation, and, inasmuch as we are asking the House to rescind a Resolution at which it has arrived, I think it is not only right but respectful, even without waiting to hear what may be said on that point from the benches opposite, that I should offer one or two observations upon what I agree is a very serious situation. This is, I think—I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe I am right—this is the first time in the seven years, or very nearly seven years, the present Administration has held office on which the Government has been defeated in the House of Commons. That is a unique record. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but certainly upon any matter of any moment it is the first time they have been defeated, and the question which undoubtedly this Resolution raises is what, in these circumstances, it is our duty to do. We have indicated, for reasons I have stated, that, in our view, our duty is to ask the House to reconsider what it has done. If they reaffirm, on consideration, the judgment they pronounced last Monday, I, for my part, shall have no hesitation whatsoever.

But we must go back in this matter, as in all such matters, to the precedents of the past, the wisdom of our ancestors. We need not go into the very remote past, for we have the wisdom of our predecessors. Of course, the classical case in this matter is the not very remote case of 1905. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you say then?"] I adhere to every word I said in 1905, and if other people will do the same I shall be very glad. Let me state the case of 1905. In July of that year the Government of that day was defeated by, I agree, a small majority on a very important Vote in Supply. I will not go into questions of snap Divisions. They were defeated, having a large working majority in the House, on a very important question, after a prolonged Debate, and it a late hour of the evening. I lay no stress upon those facts. But they were defeated, and it was not the first time they had suffered a similar defeat in Committee of Supply, which they had ignored, and, I think, very properly ignored. What was the state of things at that time? We were then living under a Parliament which was very nearly five years old, and which had been elected, in 1900, under very peculiar conditions. It was elected when the war was going on, and on appeals which were fervently made, and I dare say and believe in some quarters responded to, to subordinate all domestic questions to the important and, as it seemed to the Government of the day, the vital duty of prosecuting the war to a conclusion with the assent of the people of the United Kingdom. The Government had been in office in a Parliament so elected five years. The Cabinet had been completely reconstructed two years before—I will not say whether for better or for worse—and the Government had been continuously unsuccessful in their by-elections. [An HON. MEMBER: "So have you."] I will deal further with that topic in a moment. They had just sustained a very substantial—I will not say a humiliating—rebuff over the projects which they had adumbrated for the redistribution of seats.

Undoubtedly it was the opinion of the Liberal Opposition of that day. I expressed it; my late lamented friend the then Leader of the Opposition (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman) still more emphatically expressed it, and it was expressed, in the course of debate, by not a few of my colleagues on this bench, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then in a position of great freedom, by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was then in a position of still greater detachment from the ordinary obligations of party—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are they muzzled now?"]—No—and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We all severally and jointly expressed the opinion, in which I think we were right, that, in the circumstances of the time to which I refer, it was the duty of the Government of the day either to resign or dissolve. I, for my part, do not recede by an inch or by a hair-breadth from any statement I made at that time. But how were we met by the Prime Minister of that day, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Balfour), whom I am glad to see in his place? He delivered one of the most interesting speeches I have heard in this House. It contained the whole ethics and philosophy of this very vexed disputable question of resignation, dissolution, or remain where you are. The right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will be glad to be reminded of one of his happiest dialectical efforts—passed in review the history of all the leading Administra- tions of the last thirty or forty years. He left out, properly, those administrations of which Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli were at the head, and which admittedly held office in this House in a minority. These were abnormal cases, with which no comparison could fairly be made. The right hon. Gentleman came to Mr. Gladstone's Administration, and he took first of all what he called, perhaps rightly, Mr. Gladstone's first and greatest Government, the Government of 1868, which lasted from 1868 until 1874. The right hon. Gentleman said:—

"As the House is well aware, that Administration began to lose by-elections at once, and they suffered Parliamentary defeat I think no less than nine times."

And yet they retained office, and the right hon. Gentleman did not blame them for doing so. He then went on to Mr. Gladstone's Government of 1880–1885, and he said:—

"I pass lightly over the defeats suffered by Mr. Gladstone's Government. They were numerous and important, hut for five years and a half they were ignored."

Here is an important passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He says:—

"I think it is evident … that the only Parliamentary issues which, taken in isolation from these attendant circumstances, have always been regarded as conclusive, are those in which there has been a trial of strength between the parties with all the circumstances of notice find other attendant incidents required to make it clear that the issue to be decided is one of confidence or no confidence."

He then went on to refer to what happened in 1873–1874. Mr. Gladstone first resigned at the time he was defeated in this House on the Irish University Bill, but he was compelled to resume office because Mr. Disraeli refused to do so. But later in the year, when the by-elections were going against him, he dissolved. That was in January, 1874. The right hon. Gentleman went on:—

"Compare these circumstances with ours. I do not think it will be denied that at this moment the Government does actually possess the confidence of the House"

Is that denied to us to-day? The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that their Bills, whether good or bad, had suffered less change at the hands of the House

"than, so far as I know, any great measures brought in by previous Governments."

Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will be shocked to hear that there were Opposition cries of "Gag" and "Guillotine." I cannot forebear quoting it although I know it is only incidental. The right hon. Gentleman continued:—

"When I hear hon Gentlemen opposite indicating that this result was obtained by the use of tyrannical measures, I am not concerned at the present moment to defend myself against the implied charge. But I would remind the House that a tyrant in this House owes his whole power to the confidence of the majority of this House."

[An HON. MEMBER: "£400 a year."] The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, and I am sure that the House will agree with me it is a very interesting and important issue, that of course there were circumstances, although a Government still ostensibly enjoyed the confidence of the House of Commons, which would justify and indeed compel it to resign its office. He said that one of the commonest causes of resignation was disunion in the Cabinet, and, he added, that without betraying Cabinet secrets, he could say that no such state of things existed at that time. I will be equally frank with the House, and also, without betraying Cabinet secrets, can say that no such state of things exists now in this Cabinet. But here we come to a point of great importance, and one which is very relevant to this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman went on:—

"But there remains one collateral circumstance which appears to assume gigantic proportions in the speeches and conversations of hon. Gentlemen opposite."

Not so gigantic as I think it does to-day. Speaking of the then Opposition the right hon. Gentleman said:—

"But they say 'that is all very well so far as the House is concerned. But the House does not represent the country and it is not the voice of the House but of the country, as determined by by-elections, which, in these circumstances, should determine the policy of the Government.'"

The right hon. Gentleman went on to brand, as what he called a common superstition on the other side of the House, the idea

"that a Ministry kept in office by a majority in Parliament ought to consider, in addition to the views of that majority, precisely how the tide of public opinion is flowing, so far as the direction and strength of that tide can be judged by the course of by-elections."

[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I will tell him what the right hon. Gentleman went on to say.

"I assert this is an absolutely novel principle—a principle which, so far as I know, has never been suggested by any responsible Minister of the Grown either in public or in private."

I confess I agree with the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me that the right hon. Gentleman stated the case in much too crude a form. I think we are entitled to say, as we did say on that occasion, that there may be such an irresistible and continuous stream of evidence afforded by by-elections that the policy of the House of Commons and of the Government, is no longer in accord with that of the country, particularly when a Parliament has lasted very nearly for the length of its original mandate, that no Ministry is entitled to disregard it or to leave it out of account. But what was the state of the facts in this matter then, and what is the state of facts now? In the month of July, 1905, there had been, during the five years, or nearly five years, for which that Parliament had sat, sixty-six by-elections. Those sixty-six by-elections showed twenty-one Liberal gains and two Conservative gains, or a majority of nineteen Liberal gains.

In the five years?

Yes, practically five years. What is the state of things now? I had to deal with this matter the other day when I was speaking in the country, and, as my figures have not been challenged or controverted in any way, I venture to repeat them here in this House for the purpose of seeing whether anybody has any complaint to make of them. I pointed out then, and I point out again to-day, that since this Parliament was elected, about two years ago—the General Election was in the month of December, 1910; Taunton had not then appeared, and I make you a present of Taunton—there have been forty-one contests. In these forty-one contests in two years, we on this side have lost eight seats. In the case of three of the eight seats, Oldham, Crowe, and Midlothian, there were three-cornered contests, and the combined progressive vote, certainly the vote for Home Rule, was substantially larger and greater than that of the Conservative Members returned. I have had added up for me the actual voting strength which was shown in those contested elections. The total Liberal and Labour votes—and mind you, every Liberal and Labour candidate was in favour of Home Rule—was 250,000. The total Unionist vote was 209,000, or, in other words, there was a majority of 41,000 in favour of the condidates who supported Home Rule. Even if you leave out the Labour vote altogether, and contrast the Liberal vote pure and simple with the Unionist vote, it will work out at a majority of 14,000, so that the total result of these by-elections is this: that in the course of two years we have lost eight seats, and in three cases out of the eight the present Unionist Member is a minority Member, and in each of these three cases an overwhelming majority of the electors voted in favour of Home Rule. Therefore, without taking the extreme view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, that by-elections can be and ought to be completely disregarded, treating by-elections, as I think they ought to be treated, as a factor, and a serious factor in determining whether or not a Government and the policy of a Government has behind it the support of the country, I say that as compared not only with the right hon. Gentleman's Administration in 1905, but with any previous Administration you like to name, the result of our experience goes to show that we have, as undoubtedly we had two years ago when we appealed to the electorate, the support of a great majority of the electors of this country.

This is a Parliament which was only elected two years ago. The normal majority of the Government, particularly as shown in the discussions in Committee upon this Bill, has been not a dwindling but a growing majority, and if public opinion outside is against you there is no surer barometer of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—yes, we have often been told, we were constantly told, for instance, last summer—than slack attendances and poor Divisions in this House. I say the majorities in this House, even during the last six weeks, have not been dwindling but growing majorities. By-elections, as I have shown from figures which I do not believe will be controverted, afford no evidence that there is any revulsion of feeling or opinion against Home Rule in the country at all, and in these circumstances—quite apart from other reasons upon which I do not dwell at all, which would make a change of Government at this moment in the public interest perhaps embarrassing and inconvenient—for the reasons I have given, and applying with due modification and abatement the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the year 1905, I venture to say that if the Government were now, in consequence of the Division that took place on Monday night, to resign their trust, they would be false to the best traditions of our public life, to the obligations and responsibilities which they themselves have undertaken, and to the trust which the nation has imposed upon them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Trust the people."] I have ventured upon this general review, though it may seem outside the terms of the Motion, because I desire the arena of controversy to be as wide as it can possibly be made. Upon these grounds it appears to us, and I hope it will appear to the majority of the House, that the only course open to us was to give the House an opportunity of reconsidering the judgment it pronounced on Monday, and by that reconsideration we shall be willing to abide.

The greater part of the speech to which we have just listened consisted in quotations from the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour). I do not think I can do better than to begin the observations I have to make by a quotation from a speech made at the same time by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of my right hon. Friend, said:—

"The right hon. Gentleman rose amid the remorseful cheers of the penitent unpaired, and he sat down, so far as I can discover, amid a general sigh of relief from that still larger number of his supporters who know that dissolution means to them a sentence of death."

[HON. MEMBERS: "So it did."] The right hon. Gentleman deserves to be congratulated for another reason. He has had in this House a unique experience. He has been cheered far more heartily on his defeat than he ever was on any victory. That is, perhaps, a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is possibly due to that self-preservation which is the first law of nature. I think that, as I have reminded the House, the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, or so much of it at least as dealt with the question which is before the House, consisted of quotations from the speech of my right hon. Friend, and I think it is a sufficient answer, and that it would be enough if I did not say another word but to remind the House that when that philosophical speech, as he described it, was delivered, he and every one of his colleagues poured contempt upon the views expressed and put themselves in direct opposition to every one of those views. I consider that the Resolution which we are discussing deals with two perfectly distinct subjects: tie one is the position in which the Government now stands in the House of Commons and in the country, and the other is the method of procedure which the Government have adopted to reverse the decision of the House on Monday. As regards the method of procedure, I would remind the House that when my right hon. Friend in 1905 referred to precedents during the Ministry of Lord Melbourne, he was met with the criticism, "Why trot out these musty precedents?" and the right hon. Gentleman goes, amid the cheers of his followers, six years further back than my right hon. Friend went. More than that, when the right hon. Gentleman was challenged as to the precedent of 1834, and was asked if the Speaker ruled upon it, he had to reply that he did not, yet there is no one who has been any length of time a Member of this House who does not know that Speakers have over and over again ruled—I think you, Sir, have done it yourself many times—that unless the question is specifically put to them the fact that a course was taken without a decision of the Speaker has no bearing at all as to what the decision of the Speaker would be.

5.0 P.M.

I consider that the method the Government have adopted is one of the most serious parts of this scheme. What distinguishes, in my opinion, more than anything else a mob from a Parliament, is the framework of safeguards which have grown up to protect the liberties of the House and the regularity of its procedure. This framework does not consist merely or chiefly of Standing Orders. It consists far more of the unwritten law which has grown up by the practice of the House. That framework depends on precedent, and it always has been considered one of the glories of the British House of Commons that its Members have respected the past and have been guided by precedent. It is a commonplace among historians, for instance, that in the great revolution in this country, the men who were framing that revolution, actually studied with anxious care the precedents of centuries before, so that in what they did the changes should as little as possible depart from the practice of the past. The result of that is that, as the right hon. Gentleman himself in a speech which I well remember in connection, I think, with the Parliament Act pointed out, in a speech which showed that facility of diction and dignity of expression which in his speech, but in nothing else, always distinguishes him—I do not remember the exact words, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for attempting to paraphrase them, but in substance this is what he said. The constitutional forms under which we live have come down almost unchanged for centuries. The body is old, but the spirit is ever new, and in consequence of that method it is true, as was said by Louis Napoleon, that "in France we make revolutions, in England you make reforms." As the result of our methods our system has been adopted in every Parliament in the world. They have adopted not merely our Standing Orders, but they have adopted our rules of procedure. There are handbooks, framed on ours—in Colonial Parliaments, for instance; I have seen them—which lay down the rules of procedure precisely on the lines on which they have been carried out here. It is not an easy thing to preserve the traditions of the House of Commons. It never could have been done amid the strife of parties which has always existed but for one reason, that the Government of the day to whatever party it belongs, not only did its best to discourage a breach of those traditions in others, but was scrupulous never to interfere with them itself. Of the defence of the right hon. Gentleman about his precedent it is enough to say, after what I have already submitted to the House, that your statement to-day that the course they are taking is without precedent, that this House has to decide whether it is to go back on the whole experience of the past, is the best answer to the attempted justification of the right hon. Gentleman.

I would remind the House, if it wants another answer, of what happened in the experience of many of us during the time you yourself, Sir, were in the Chair. In the Government of my right hon. Friend Resolutions were introduced to deal with redistribution. You ruled that they could not, as my right hon. Friend had supposed, be discussed as one question. He accepted the ruling. For want of time that killed the Bill and did great damage to the prestige of the Government, as we all remember. But if my right hon. Friend had chosen he, just like the right hon. Gentleman could, the next day, have moved a Resolution that notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders these Resolutions were to be considered as one, to be discussed as one, and to be voted upon as one. I was not a Member of the Cabinet at the time and I do not know what discussion took place, but I am sure that such an idea never occurred to my right hon. Friend. I think there is no one who doubts that if it had been possible there is no one in the House who would have arrived at it quicker. It never occurred to him as possible, and if he had happened to have had a colleague like the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who had suggested to him a course which would have destroyed once and for ever the best traditions of this House, he would have rejected it with the contempt which it deserved. It is not the House as a whole, it is the Government which to-day is setting up a precedent which does destroy the whole of the framework of safeguards which have been created by this House. Does anyone doubt that? One of the precedents which is most firmly rooted is that a decision once come to cannot be reversed in the same Session. It goes back to the beginning of the seventeenth century. I ask the House to look at the effect of what the Government are doing. They are deciding that if in this House any vote adverse to them takes place they shall at once reverse it. What is the meaning of that? They have a majority, and we all know it, if they are all here. Then, why vote? Why discuss? Why have Divisions? If this Resolution is not only in order, as technically it is, but if it is justified, there is no Resolution which could not be justified on the same ground. The right hon. Gentleman, to avoid a similar accident, might bring in a Resolution that there was to be no Division except at a specified time. It would have to be put according to your ruling, and under these circumstances the House of Commons ceases absolutely in any sense to be a legislative Assembly. Tyrannical Governments, and, above all, revolutionary Governments, have always chafed against restriction. They have chafed against the restriction of the Law Courts and they have chafed against the restrictions of their own forms of procedure. We have a precedent for what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. The Long Parliament acted precisely as we are acting today. The conditions of Debate are precisely the same. I noticed to-day in a journal I do not always read, the "Daily News," a sentence which so exactly expresses the position that I shall repeat it to the House. This is the sentence:—

"The Prime Minister has struck a blow worthy of old Cromwell himself."

The tribute from that enthusiastic admirer of the right hon. Gentleman is deserved. The men were different, their methods were different, their motives were different, the necessity was different, but the effect was the same. They both destroyed Parliamentary government.

Now I should like to turn to the other aspect of this question, the position in which the Government find themselves today after their defeat. In 1905, in the Debate to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, every one of his colleagues, as he himself has pointed out, from the late Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man down to the First Lord of the Admiralty, all took the view that in circumstances similar to those of to-day, but not identical, for my right hon. Friend was defeated by a majority not so large in a smaller House and on a comparatively unimportant issue, without qualification such a defeat left to the Government of the day two honourable courses only—resignation or dissolution. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made that distinct statement that these were the alternative courses open to the Government. I do not accept that as a full statement of the position. I do not go so far as that, but they all did. I say it depends on the circumstances and conditions at the time. It depends upon the situation in the House of Commons and in the country, and taking these circumstances into account I express the view, and I shall try to give grounds for it, that to-day the Government have no honóurable course open to them except one or other of those alternatives. I make a qualification. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the foreign situation. I admit at once that that is vital I do not desire a change of Government or a dissolution under present conditions, and if that were the ground on which this Government still cling to their posts, they could count on having the whole-hearted support of my hon. Friends behind me until the crisis was over, but that, of course, would involve that when it was over there should be an appeal to the people of this country. With that qualification I say the Government have no alternative. What is the position in which we stand? The Prime Minister, not in a hasty speech—if he ever indulges in hasty speech, his language never shows it—but in a written document, said this:—

"It is of the essence of the Parliament Act, both in its letter and spirit, that a Bill which becomes law under its operation must have commanded during three consecutive Sessions the unswerving support of the House of Commons, dependent directly in its turn upon a stable and consistent public opinion in the constituencies."

I will deal with public opinion in the constituencies in a moment. But in the meantime I should point out to the House—it is instructive—that in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day about by-elections, he found it necessary in the country to alter that formula, and in addressing his constituents to say that, in spite of by-elections, so long as by any means he had the support of the people here, he would go on with his programme. I say that the Government have not had the unswerving support of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, with that want of stating the whole fact which must happen to anyone who has a hopeless case, referred to the Divisions upon the Home Rule Bill since it came under the guillotine. There is not a man in the House who does not know, and nobody knows it better than the Prime Minister, that the moment the guillotine is set up interest is diminished, that the attendance falls off, and that it is no test to compare that with free discussion. That is well-known to the House. He did not tell us what happened while there was still free discussion. Again and again on important Divisions his majorities fell and fell until they were far below the normal majority which he ought to have in this House He had not then the unswerving support of the Members of this House, and on Monday he was defeated—defeated not on a snap Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Prime Minister did not claim it as a snap Division. If anyone else does, I shall show why it is not a snap Division. There was talk in the papers of an ambuscade. I made inquiry about it, and there is not a word of truth in it. The fact is, although perhaps we may be reduced to imitating their methods sooner or later, we have not got that length yet. The fact is that an urgent Whip was sent by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury asking his supporters to be here at four o'clock. There was a Whip sent by our Whip asking our supporters to be here at 4.15, but our supporters obeyed the summons and his did not.

That is the extent to which it was a snap Division, and there is something else I must point out. On the discussion of the very subject of Customs relations which came up in connection with this Resolution, Members on the Government side of the House told us—I forget the constituency of the hon. Member who made a most definite statement—[An HON. MEMBER: "Monmouth."] The hon. Member told us that a very large number of the supporters of the Government were opposed to the Customs proposals of the Home Rule Bill, and I saw in a paper that the number was seventy. I do not know whether that is true or not. That indicates what the feeling was on that subject. I do not suggest that these Gentlemen, on a Vote of Confidence, would not have voted as the Government chose, but that argument, whatever it is worth, was discounted in advance by the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary said this in the famous Debate in 1905:—

"The Prime Minister (referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London says he can still get a vote of confidence from his party that if the Government come down and ask deliberately a vote, 'Aye' or 'No'—whether they prefer him or ns they will vote for him. Yes, if they are given plenty of notice. They will do that on a set occasion, but they do not care for his policy enough to be here to support him regularly. What are votes of confidence worth on those conditions?"

I would add something to what the Foreign Secretary said. I quite agree that if the Prime Minister puts to his followers this question, "Do you prefer to support proposals of which you disapprove or a dissolution, and a dissolution under circumstances which make it certain that many of you will not get back, and doubtful if any particular one of you will get back?" under such circumstances they will vote against a dissolution. The real truth is that the reason the Government were defeated is that they have put a strain on the House of Commons which is intolerable. That strain is due to the fact that they are trying to carry three great measures in a single Session. There are two reasons why that strain has been put upon Members of this House, and both reasons are discreditable to the Government. Let me point out—I have pointed it out before, but it is worthy of notice—that there is nothing in your Parliament Act which necessitates this. Under the Parliament Act, if you had an election and were returned by a majority, the Act goes on as before, and you have lost no time. By insisting, therefore, that all the Bills should be in one Session, you are declaring in a way nobody can misunderstand, that you know you have not got the confidence of the country, and that you cannot rely upon the support of the country for your programme. The other reason I think is equally remarkable. It has to do with a pledge given by the Prime Minister. Broken pledges are so much part of our daily experience that one more or less makes no difference, and I should not refer to it but for its direct bearing on the subject we are discussing. When the Parliament Bill was going through the House an hon. Friend of mine, who is now Lord Peel, moved an Amendment to prevent more than one big Bill being discussed in a single Session. The Prime Minister resisted the Amendment, but he resisted it on this ground. I will read his exact words:—

"The hon. Member has drawn an alarming picture of a future Government trying to carry through in a single Session a number of first-class controversial measures. It is difficult enough to pass a single controversial measure and no one knows that better than the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury)—in the course of one Session.…"

And this is the pledge:—

"There is not the least fear or prospect of the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers being realised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1911, col. 85, Vol. XXV.]

"There is not the least fear," said the Prime Minister only a few months ago, practically of the state of things which is now going on being realised. That quotation was made on Friday last. One of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman attempted to get over it. I was not present, but I read the Debate. He was not very successful. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he replies will do better. He has had more practice. I do not know what his explanation will be. I am sure it will be interesting; I am sure it will not be edifying. It is because you are imposing against the principle of your Bill and against a solemn pledge this intolerable strain that you have been beaten. I say, these two facts taken together—the falling off of the majorities before the guillotine was setup, and that the Government have been beaten in a House which was nearly two-thirds full on a vital question—show that they had not obtained what the Prime Minister claims—the unswerving support of the House of Commons.

What about the constituencies? The right hon. Gentleman actually tried to make out that all was well in the best of all possible worlds. He referred first in a most exulting way to Taunton, and said the majority against them has only increased by 20 per cent. This is the day of small things, and they are thankful for small mercies. Take the other big facts which have never been controverted and which the right hon. Gentleman put forth. He says that we in two years have gained eight seats, and that his party in five years gained nineteen. Work out the calculation in simple proportion and you will find that, even on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, his case is worse than was the case of the Government at that time. It is far worse than that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Minority seats."] Take Midlothian; just before the election the candidate sent out a whip to his party, "Whatever else you do defeat the Government." Whatever else is doubtful; it is not doubtful that there was an overwhelming majority against the Government. But the right hon. Gentleman again, in 1905, has expressed the present position far better than I can do it. I will read what he said:—

"The opinion of the electorate is beyond dispute. You tremble for the very safest seats, and you do not affect to regard a dissolution as leading to anything else but a sentence of death."

Does anyone doubt that now. Take what has happened. A junior post in the Government was vacant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is vacant."] They selected a gentleman of ability, who was well qualified I am sure for that post, or a better one. That had something to do with his selection, but I do not think I am uncharitable in saying that they selected him chiefly because of the size of his majority. They pent him to face the electorate, and they refused to return anyone who was a Member of this Government, and from that day to this they have so trembled for the safest seat that the post has never been filled up.

The Forest of Dean.

Oh, I do not say we win every election. That never happens. The right hon. Gentleman gave some statistics. There are others more comprehensible and more to the point. Since the Home Rule Bill has been introduced there have been twelve by-elections. At the General Election these twelve seats were held by three Unionists, eight supporters of the Government, and one Labour Member, or a proportion of three to nine. They are now held by six Unionists and six supporters of the Government. But if you look at the figures of the poll the result is more remarkable. Taking these seats, since the Home Rule Bill has been introduced the supporters of the Unionist party have increased to the extent of 16 per cent. The supporters of the Government have fallen to the extent of 4 per cent. If anything of the same kind happens over the whole of England and Scotland, they would be in a contemptible minority in this House, and if any hon. Member opposite doubts the reality of these figures let him make the calculations himself. Let him add 16 per cent, to the votes given to his opponent, and take 4 per cent, from the vote given to him, and ask himself what chance there is of his ever again seeing the inside of this House as a Member? I say without a shadow of doubt that the opinion of the country is against this Government, and they know it; but there is another point which the right hon. Gentleman made. He tried to distinguish between the case of the Government and that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), and there is a great distinction. The Government of my right hon. Friend was weak, we all admit, at the time the defeat happened. They were not pressing forward any great scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "Redistribution."] They had already abandoned redistribution. They were doing nothing which could not be reversed the moment there was a change of party. But what are you doing? You are carrying through under these conditions a programme more revolutionary and more impossible to reverse than any programme which has ever been attempted by any Government. On this very subject on which you are defeated what is your position? You are proposing to give Home Rule. You are not proposing to give Home Rule to the Nationalist Members below the Gangway. You are not proposing to allow them to govern themselves. You are proposing to give them authority to force a homogeneous community, which hates their rule, to change their allegiance and accept obedience to a foreign Government.

That is the programme which you are proposing to carry through. I venture to say, though I have not looked it up specially, that such a change as that could not be made in any country with a written Constitution even by a bare majority; and you are proposing to do it when you know you have not a majority of any kind. To attempt to carry a programme like that is something which I venture to say no self-respecting Minister would attempt unless he knew that he had behind him the overwhelming support of the people of this country; and they are proposing to carry it through under these conditions. These Gentlemen sit there not as a Government, but as autocrats. The right hon. Gentleman actually had the audacity to talk of the way in which we won the election of 1900; and he knows how he has placed himself in that position—the debts of honour and all the rest of it. They claim that they are in a position so long as by any means fair or foul, by distributing honours, by giving doles and jobs, by taking off our Income Tax, by any means, fair or foul, they can retain a majority, they claim the right to do anything they please, without any regard to the people whom they profess to represent. That is their claim, and they cannot deny it. Does anyone here deny it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] Let us examine it. I say they claim the right to do any- thing they please without regard to the people. Do they deny this that they are to be themselves sole judges in their own cause; that they only are to decide whether or not what they are doing is, or is not, against the will of the people of this country? That is not constitutional Government. They are simply a body of personages, as my right hon. Friend has said, who by deception have usurped absolute power; that is their position. What are we to do? It is the case of the country against a revolutionary Committee, and how is the revolutionary Committee to be overthrown?

There is not any doubt about what right hon. Gentlemen in our places would do. We have tried with great provocation, from methods such as those which have been carried through to-day, to preserve the traditions of this House. I say, with great provocation, not only from what is done in this House, but actually a Cabinet colleague of the right hon. Gentleman went to the country, and because we had preserved the traditions of this House he said that we were insincere, and that there was no reality in our protestations. We have tried to preserve the traditions of this House, and what do these right hon. Gentlemen do? We know what they are doing. It is not conjecture. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said this in regard to the circumstances arising from the defeat of my right hon. Friend:—

"I say that the continuance in office of the present Government is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, and for my part, I believe it is the duty of all who value the Constitution to use every means that may he effective and at hand, to drive the right hon. Gentleman from the post he occupies."

And he said something else which is even better.

"We cannot trust any number of by-elections to drive the right hon. Gentleman from his position long after he has lost the confidence of the electorate. We cannot say that that will be sufficient without any House of Commons tactics. We cannot trust public opinion to drive the present Government out. Therefore, I believe, that if is the duty of all those who are in earnest, in this matter to band themselves together to make the continued life of this Government in this Parliament impossible."

I quite realise that the hon. and learned Gentleman, though he plays a very interesting