May I ask the Prime Minister as to the course of business?

As it is impossible on Thursday to procure detailed figures about the result of Recruiting, we shall postpone the Army Vote until next week—probably Tuesday.

On Thursday, we shall take the Committee stage of the Government War Obligations Bill and the War Loan (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, and the Report stage of the Increase of Rent Bill.

Can my right hon. Friend inform the House what length of adjournment there will be over Christmas Day?

No, I cannot.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule on the Debate on the additional men for the Army? [HON. MEMBERS: "Two days!"]

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

In rising to move the rejection of this Bill, I desire to assure the House that I am actuated by no party or personal motives, but by a sincere conviction that the proposals enshrined in this measure are at once unconstitutional and undemocratic. I do not believe that any party Government would have dared to introduce such a measure as this, for the simple reason that a vigilant Opposition would have made it impossible for them to have passed it through this House. The fact that the Government of the day is able to make such a proposal is part of the price we pay for the privilege of living under a Coalition or mixed Government. I was one of the theoretical and strongest supporters of the Coalition when it was formed, believing that it would conduce to the better conduct of the War and the conservation of the national interests. I have been bitterly disappointed. The only advantage that I have been able to discover from the formation of the Coalition Government is that it is possible to-day for a Liberal Member to criticise it without appearing to doubt the infallibility of his party leaders, and I have a right to-consider myself absolved from that which is so binding in ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances, blind obedience. I propose to avail myself with the strictest moderation, and I hope with a due sense of responsibility, of the privilege accorded to me under these exceptional circumstances. I hope that, in exercising the luxury of free speech, I shall not offend any hon. Member of this House. I desire to give the Government the benefit today of what I may call a benevolent but not uncritical neutrality. I object to any extension of the length of this Parliament, brought about by its own action, and I also object to any tampering with the Constitution of this country. I do not consider that the proposals contained in this. Bill are made in the interests of the nation. The Bill before us to-day is a bad one, but I congratulate the Government upon the fact that they have resisted a very strong temptation to introduce a much worse Bill. The original Bill which was to be presented to this House—and this is a matter of common knowledge— put no limitation whatever upon the duration of this Parliament, except the duration of the War, and a certain indefinite period beyond that. Nevertheless, any Bill by which this House seeks to extend its own mandate is essentially bad, and ought not to be passed into law or even seriously considered. If this thing— which I hold ought not to be done at all —is to be done, the least objectionable way would certainly have been to revert to the Septennial Act by amending the Parliament Act, thus enabling us to recover our right to sit for seven years. I hold that this is impossible, and I take it that this must be the view of the Government because we did not voluntarily surrender those two years of our life under that Bill. That was done under the Parliament Act, and under that Act we took from the House of Lords, properly as I hold, a power which no hereditary Assembly ought to possess. We took away from that Assembly certain powers, and we gave something—not very much, I agree—in return. What we gave in return was this limitation of the duration of our own powers and the powers of any Parliament, that was the concession we made.

The Parliament Bill on which the Parliament Act was founded was before the country in draft, a most unusual and almost unprecedented circumstance, and simply because it was before the country in draft we are entitled to say that the country gave the House a mandate to shorten the life of this and future Parliaments by two years. For that reason it is not now practicable to deal with the duration of this Parliament under the Septennial Act. Those who take this view of their duty and of the rights of the electorate, and who consider it proper, having put this draft before the country and got the country's approval of it, to go and ask for the repeal of one portion of the Act, have to reconcile to this House, the country and their consciences, the promise they gave in the draft of the Bill to set up a Second Chamber constituted upon a popular and not a hereditary basis. I have never thrown any doubt upon the good faith of those who felt unable to fulfil this pledge. The members of this Government and the late Government are all honourable men, and I am satisfied that they have justified to themselves and their own consciences their action, or, rather, inaction in this matter. The fact that this Government, or any Government, when they have asked the country for a mandate and got it, when they have given pledges to accept it, implement only such a portion of the mandate as it suits them to fulfil such pledges or such portion of their pledges as they find it convenient to fulfil, makes me hesitate as a Member of this House to offer these Gentlemen — [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!" and "Withdraw!"]— I suppose I may call them Gentlemen; hesitate to offer them a blank cheque on the bank of time, or to give them a vote of confidence for an indefinite period. If the Government had shown by its action in the past, if the late Government had shown by its conduct of the War and its preparation for war; if the present Government had shown by its conduct of the War that it was worthy of the confidence of the country I should still raise the constitutional point I am venturing to raise to-day, but in that event my case, while not less convincing on its merits, would perhaps make less impression than it ought to do, reviewing as we may review the conduct of the War by the Government, and the hopeless failures they have made in every department of the field of diplomacy as well as on the field of war.

Rubbish!

What the hon. Member is now dealing with I do not think is relevant to this Bill. As far as he went up to the present point of his speech he has been perfectly relevant, but I do not think a general review of the War, and of what might have happened under some other Government, and what has happened under this Government, is relevant to the continuance of Parliament for another year.

The question I am dealing with is whether the Government and this House should submit themselves to the country.

The hon. Member is mixing up two things, the life of the Government and the life of Parliament.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I hold that if this Bill passes we do set up an unconstitutional Assembly, and we should be supporting the Government which in the past has shown that it has not deserved the confidence of the nation, and from that point of view. I submit that my observations are not altogether out of order.

If the hon. Member limits himself to that statement I have no objection, but if he is going on into an inquiry into the way the War has been conducted and so forth I do not think that is relevant to this Bill.

I was not going against your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I think is wide enough for any purpose I have in view. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I think that, as the country is now convinced that this Government will not win the War merely by silencing opposition, and by denying the country information which it ought to have on the specious plea that it may be useful to the enemy—

That does not seem to me to be relevant to this Bill.

The hon. Member (Mr. Cowan) had better turn it up.

I will deal only with the constitutional point involved. My contention is that the only constitutional solution of the position in which the House and the country finds itself today is a General Election. And, as in the normal course of events the life of this Parliament expires on 31st January next, the Government ought, and the House ought, to allow the existing law to take its course. During the Napoleonic Wars, a period of twenty-three years, there were no less than six General Elections in this country. Those General Elections took place at a time when party spirit ran high in this country. There was no such thing as a truce between parties; there were not six Coalition Governments. In spite of all that, these elections were held, and we know, history teaches us, that they led to no disastrous results. If such elections were possible then, I submit that a General Election in the circumstances of the present time is not, as we are told, unthinkable. The Home Secretary, in introducing this Bill last week, said:— so valuable as they may imagine. The enfranchised relatives of the men in the trenches, in the training camps, and in the munition factories are for the most part men of fairly mature age, sound judgment, interested in the men who are with the Colours. Is it conceivable that they will not reflect fairly and properly and reasonably the views of the absent electors? I hold it is not conceivable that they should fail to do so. Again, I am proposing to make a suggestion to the Government which I hope that they will consider. If they are not satisfied that the views of the remaining enfranchised persons in this country would adequately represent the views of the absent electors, I ask them, without prejudice to any controversial question or its eventual settlement, to enfranchise for the purposes of this election and of any other election occurring during the War, the wives of those absent electors. [Laughter and cheers.] I am reassured by the reception of the suggestion in this House. I venture to think that such a suggestion might be embodied in a Bill introduced by the Home Secretary and passed by agreement. However that may be, I do not found or pin my case upon the suggestion. I throw it out for what it is worth, and, personally, I think that it is worth something. I say that the remaining electors in this country would represent, and are capable of representing, adequately and sufficiently for the purposes of a General Election the absent electors of this country.

I want to ask the Members of this House if they are not familiar with the charge that we have voted ourselves salaries of £400 a year. I believe that under normal conditions we have a complete answer to that charge, but if by any action of our own we reinstate ourselves in our places of profit and continue to draw the salaries voted by ourselves when we have ceased to be an elected or constitutional Assembly I gravely doubt whether the country will stand it. An hon. Member asks what the country will do. I submit that that is not a proper attitude to assume. It is either right or it is wrong for us to draw these salaries in respect of the representation of constituencies which on this hypothesis have not elected us. The House of Lords has acquiesced very reluctantly, as we all know, in being overridden in many vital matters by this House. Does the Government believe—do hon. Members believe—if this Bill is passed and we become a non-elected Assembly, that the House of Lords will tamely submit to be overridden by us any more? Again, I gravely doubt it. I have stated that I believe that this House acted wisely in putting a limit to the powers of a purely hereditary Upper House, and that I regret that the Government has not seen its way to set up an Upper House of a different character, but I do say that I cannot imagine the House of Lords acquiescing in the exercise of powers which we have voted ourselves under the Parliament Act by an Assembly which does not owe its existence to the act of the electors.

There are rocks ahead. The Government, the authors of this Bill, have little conception of the dissatisfaction which will arise in this country if, for no reason which will be convincing to the average elector, we deprive the elector of the right which matures in his favour on 31st January next. Such action would undermine the confidence of the country in the Government. That may be a small matter, but it would do more: it would do much worse than that. It Would, in the eyes of the country, discredit that Assembly, which, in the past has been regarded, and regarded rightly, by the country as the incorruptible guardian of the liberties of the Democracy.

When I put down my name to second the rejection of this Bill which has been moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Cowan) my action had nothing whatever to do with the fact that one Clause of the Bill keeps alive a certain party measure known as the Plural Voting Bill. I hope I shall not shock many of my hon. Friends in this House if I say that, at the present time, I do not care one straw about the Plural Voting Bill, and if that Bill had been introduced into this House this afternoon I should not have troubled to get leave to be away from my work to go over the familiar arguments for and against it, or to give my vote one way or the other on the question. I do not believe for a moment that the people of this country, with their eyes fixed upon what is happening outside, with their sons and brothers encountering just now what they are encountering in Salonika, or Mesopotamia, or elsewhere, have the slightest interest in the prospective fortunes of the Plural Voting Bill, or will feel any gratitude to anyone who, either in the terms of the Bill or in speeches made in this House, reminds them of that particular stale controversy.

But I think this portion of the Bill is open to criticism just for one reason. It will grate upon the feelings of this country by the assumption that underlies it, an assumption apparently in the minds of the members of the Government—of those who were members of the Government when the Bill was introduced and of those who were opponents of the Bill but who now sanction the present measure—the assumption that at, it may be, no distant period, when this War is over, we are going back to the position we occupied before the War, that we are going back to our miserable old squabbles at the very point at which we left them, and that everything will go on after this great crisis just as if the upsetting of civilisation mattered not. I am sure there is a growing conviction outside this House, if not within it, that our party system, as it has developed in recent years, with all its futile concentration of interest on the things that matter least, with its sublime indifference to the great problems of the security of our Empire and the welfare of its people, with its ceaseless striving, not for efficiency or for action, but for office and power by those who are organising one caucus, or those who are organising the other; with all those things which have helped to bring us to the position in which we stand, and which are responsible for the shedding of blood and wasting of treasure which is going on day by day, and which we may have to pay very dearly for by long years of hardship and difficulty in the future—I say I think the nation will resent the assumption contained in this Bill, that, when the War is over, we shall have to go back to the stale vomit of 1914.

I believe that if there are people in this country to-day who have the time to take their minds away from what is going on at the battle front, to think how our constitutional machinery is to be remedied in future, their minds are concentrated, not so much on one or other party measure, but on the possibility of some national convention, some means by which we may take into review all the defects, the very serious defects, of our political machinery, and remove them by some comprehensive fair-minded plan, whose object would be, not to benefit the Radical party, the Unionist party, or the Labour party, but to enable Englishmen, as Englishmen, to carry out that system of free government for which we are fighting, and on which we have prided ourselves in the past, in the moat efficient way. When we have saved our heritage from destruction we can put our heads together to build up a better and fairer fabric of free government, not for the benefit of party, but for the benefit of the nation.

But the reason why I wish to object to this Bill as a whole, why I feel I cannot allow it to pass without protest, is one that is concerned with the whole conduct of the present War. Speaking of the conduct of the present War, I may say, with all deference to your ruling, Sir, I feel it would be impossible to dissociate this Parliament from the Government or the Government from this Parliament. The Coalition Government to-day is representative, not of one section of this House, but of the whole of it. It is here with the consent and by the connivance of the whole House, as far as the country is concerned. If this Government does not conduct the War as it should be conducted, it is Parliament as well as the members of the Government who will have to plead before the tribunal of the country, and whom the country will hold responsible. It is from that point of view that I should like to offer just a few observations. I am not going to discuss the conduct of the War. I am not going to enter into the question of the leeway we have unfortunately made in recent months, and may still make before final victory. But I do want to say a word on one or two questions.

4.0 P.M.

In the coming summer the great crisis of the War will arise. In one direction or the other the main issue will be decided, and then it will be for the victors to try to garner in the full fruits of their victory, and for the defeated to make a stubborn resistance in order to save what can be saved. I am profoundly convinced that when that issue comes we can win, but I am also convinced that we can only win if, during the months that are ahead, we have on the part of this country, of its Parliament as well as of its Government, unremitting energy and absolutely undeviating adherence to a single great policy, clearly thought out in time and resolutely adhered to. I say it with profound regret—I do not believe that those qualities, that that decision, that that energy, that that spirit of sacrificing all to victory, and doing all that can be done to crush and injure our oppo- nent wherever he may be found, and by whatever means can be adopted—I do not believe that that spirit can be found in the present Government, or in the House as it is now constituted. I know, as every Member 6f the House must know, that these qualities will have the very fullest play on the side of our enemies during the coming year, and that they are not going to miss one opportunity, or waste one hour, or let their decision be deflected one iota from the object of crushing us. We have to meet them in the same spirit. We know what Cromwell once said about the necessity of meeting the Royalist Cavalry with something better than tapsters and decayed serving men. He said:— policy, you will find the men, and a possible Government to" carry on the affairs of this country in a better fashion than they have been.

I admit there are very great inconveniences about an election at a time like this —the gravest inconveniences. I know many people think that the present body of electors might hardly be as patriotic as the whole body of electors if they included the men who are at the front. I am prepared myself to believe that the men who are too old to go, the men who are not physically fit to go, the men who, for one reason or another, have found it their duty to stay at home, or for whom the State has decided it is their duty to stay at home—I believe these men are as patriotic as those who have gone to the front, and that a vote of the country at an election, even if it were not a complete vote, would still be a representative vote, because at bottom, when it comes to great issues of this sort, Englishmen remain Englishmen anywhere, and the vote of any fifty men or 5,000,000 men you may pick in this country would be a fair representation of the voice of the whole community. For that reason I believe it would be a pity if we did not allow Parliament to run its ordinary course and bring the nation face to face with the great decision of what Government it is to have and how the War is to be continued, before it is too late to influence the decision of the War during the fateful months of the coming spring. It is for that reason, reluctant as I am to raise this question, that I feel I cannot allow the present occasion to go by without protesting against a measure which is, in effect, a perpetuation of the power of the present Government, and which, in effect, prevents the people of this country from having a say in deciding their fate at this most fateful time in all their history.

For five months I have been in France. I came over to the War Office in connection with the work upon which I am engaged at the end of September, and I found this House then engaged in what seemed to me to be a most unprofitable discussion on the question of compulsory service. I came back from France last night, and I come back to the House to find again, what seems to me to be, a wrangle going on in connection with a proposal that, I think, might be unanimously accepted by this House. This is no time for moving the rejection of Government Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I think it is not. The Government are in close touch with every section of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If any individual has any desire to bring before the attention of Ministers any particular information or their own views, they know that the channels are open to them, and that they can do so without that publicity which is too often turned to account against our national interests by our enemies. If individuals want to nag and worry the Government, it seems to me that the process we have seen already this afternoon is the right method to adopt.

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to refer to hon. Members as desiring to nag or worry the Government?

I do not see anything disorderly in that—I mean in the observation which the right hon. Gentleman made.

Of course, the cap may fit. I did not say that the hon. Member did desire to nag or worry the Government. What I said was that if hon. Members desired to nag and worry, in my judgment their procedure was the right one in order to succeed in that object. If they have no confidence in the Government—apparently the hon. Member for South Birmingham is in the position of having no confidence in the Government—it does seem to me that the only straightforward attitude would be to move a Vote of Censure upon the Government, and an opportunity would be afforded if it were desired by any great number of Members. That is the way the Government of this country ought to be brought to book if there is any question of lack of confidence in the Government. As long as they are the Government, and as long as they have, as I believe they have at the present time, the confidence of a very large majority of the people of this country and their representatives in this House, this is not a moment when we ought to try and express our views by moving the rejection of measures of this character.

I certainly propose to accept the proposals in this Bill. As the House knows, I have been interested in the introduction in two or three of the past Sessions of the Plural Voting Bill. I am disappointed even with the proposals in this Bill, but I do not think this is the time in which we should express our disappoint- ment in regard to the chances of the Plural Voting Bill, or Redistribution, or electoral reform, or many other measures which we believe to be overdue. What we ought to do is merely to look at a measure of this kind from a practical standpoint and see whether the proposals are fair and reasonable. For my part, I, naturally with many other Members, object very strongly to Parliament thinking that it can extend to an unlimited extent its own life. But we are living in exceptional circumstances and at an exceptional period, and it does seem to me to be unthinkable, when some three or four million men are now ready to sacrifice their lives, if need be, in the national interest, that we should think it possible that a General Election might now take place. I believe it is desirable that the General Election should be postponed. The Government propose to postpone it for a year. There are hon. Members—I understand the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock) is among them— who believe that an extension of six months would be ample.

I want, for a moment, to put this argument to the House, and to those who take that view. It is to me inconceivable that we can attain the ends for which we are now fighting, at any rate, within three months. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU cannot do it in six months!"] Let us put it at the shortest period, three months. If peace was then declared, it -would be necessary to have an early election. But how soon would it be possible to hold a General Election that is going to reflect the views of the people of this country? You must give time for individuals now removed from their homes to come back and take up their normal duties; you must give time to the troops who have enlisted only for the War to come home again and be located in this country; you must prepare a register for an ad hoc election, and you must very carefully prepare that register so that it should be a true reflection of the people of this country. A great number of Members are, perhaps, not aware of the extent of time that is required before an accurate register can now be obtained. In London there are over 100,000 lodger votes. In the four boroughs of Islington there are over 11,000 lodger votes. If those lodger votes are to be correctly placed upon the register a good deal of work has to be done with a view to securing anything like an adequate register for London alone. Again, if you take the question of the preparation of the register in connection with those who are serving with our Forces in the field after they come back, it will be quite obvious that, at any rate, nine months would be necessary, after peace is declared, before it could be possible to obtain a General Election on a register which is going to accurately reflect the opinion of the country.

Absent voters make it impossible for us to have an election now. It is impossible to have what might be called a dummy election—an election upon which all parties are to be agreed. We have already had an instance in Cleveland, within the last few days, of how a candidate may be brought forward and may obtain a comparatively small number of votes, and of how contested elections are sure to ensue. If you have anything of that kind all over the country, it will have a very bad effect upon our national interests abroad. What is important, in my judgment, is that we should be united. This Bill does not go so far as I should have liked in safeguarding the interests of the Plural Voting Bill. I was under the impression that the House would have readily accepted a proposal which is generally supposed to have been in the minds of the Government recently— namely, that for the period of the War party controversy should be tabooed, and that no one should endeavour, by a side-wind, to take advantage of the situation. It seems to me that when individuals are trying, by veiled methods, to prejudice the position of Bills — whether it is the Home Rule "Bill, whether it is any Amendment to the Home Rule Bill, whether it is the Plural Voting Bill or any other measure—they are adopting an unpatriotic course, and are tending to weaken the Government instead of supporting it. It is because I believe that we ought unanimously to support the Government in the proposals which they have introduced at the present time that I am standing here to-day to advocate absolute unanimity on a measure of this kind. Ministers have difficulties enough to contend with and have endeavoured to meet a difficult situation by the introduction of a Bill which only postpones for one year the life of this Parliament, and I believe that is a measure which ought to receive unqualified support from every Member of the House, and ought to be accepted in the spirit in which it has been introduced by the Government.

I desire to support this Bill. I am not one of those who think the Government has lamentably failed in this War. On the contrary, I think that, on the whole, they have done extraordinarily well in very difficult circumstances. I rise to-day particularly because I do not wish people to imagine that a small and very talkative clique below the Gangway—

You always sat there.

I do not want to sit where I cannot hear the speakers for the conversation going on. I want them to understand that I do not think they represent the views of the Liberal party at any rate. We are asked to contemplate the possibility of a General Election in January. I wonder really if any section of the country worth considering is in favour of a General Election in January.

"John Bull!"

The hon. Member cannot keep quiet. An election on what sort of register? During this year we have passed, without protest from hon. Members who now want a General Election, Bills suspending the whole machinery of registration. We have got to have an election upon the stalest register upon record, and when the bulk of our constituencies have been swept almost clean of all the available fighting men, so that we can hear the whisperings of the voice of the country. I regard any suggestion of a General Election in January as a political outrage, and I believe the bulk of the people of this country think exactly the same. To work up storms of indignation against the Government one day because they are not giving up their salaries, and another day because they are not making public things that they have undertaken with other countries not to make public—

An HON. MEMBER: Traitors!

I do not mind; hon. Members cannot stop it. They do it everyday whenever anyone is speaking in this House. My own view is that they represent very few except themselves, and I have come here to say so. Whenever I am here I can hear nothing but the hon. Members talking. When I was interrupted I was saying it is all very well to beat up this sort of indignation against a Government as an excuse for a General Election, but do those Members want a General Election? They do not. They simply want to make as much opposition as they possibly can, and then if they were offered a General Election I do not believe there is one of them who would accept it. Not only would it be a political outrage to have a General Election at a time like this, but I hope when we have an election we shall have one in different circumstances from what we could have now. I believe in manhood suffrage. I do not believe in sending men to fight and then telling them they are not fit for the vote, and I cannot see why, at a time like this, we cannot have a Committee of this House who can get together the whole machinery for a complete and fair redistribution and proper amendment of the franchise which can be brought into force by general consent before a General Election takes place at all. I am in favour of an extension of the suffrage, and that extension was accepted by most people in this House about a couple of years back—the general principle of an alteration of registration which would certainly have brought a number of our best workmen upon the register. Not only was that generally supported by the House at that time, but from all quarters of the House came statements, and no doubt perfectly sincere statements, that Members of all parties were in favour of equal electoral areas. Why are we to assume, at a time when our Law Courts are going on as usual, and our businesses in many cases are going on as usual, that we cannot have for a moment a few Members of this House forming a Committee to go into the whole question of the franchise and all sorts of electoral questions? I remember the Attorney-General, who, in 1913, moved from the Front Opposition Bench the rejection of the Plural Voting Bill, saying that there were other matters upon which hon. Members upon his side of the House felt equally strongly—things like the payment of returning officers' expenses and all these matters which alone will make it possible to have really fair and democratic elections. I cannot see why the Government cannot seriously consider settling the whole of this matter before there is an election at all, and I hope before this Debate finishes we shall get some sort of statement from the Government telling us that that will be done, or, if it is not, why it cannot be done; because at present I cannot see why it cannot be done, and to talk as though everyone of us, whatever his age, has to give his whole attention at the moment to military matters is to say what everyone knows perfectly well is not true. As a matter of fact, the election after the War will be the most vital and important election, in my opinion, in English history, and I think it is natural that hon. Members on this side of the House should, at any rate, stand up for what they consider to be the principles of fair election, and I for one think the Government have done the right thing in preserving the present position of the Plural Voting Bill, and those Members of the Conservative party who are members of the Government have done the right thing, and, indeed, a handsome thing, in taking that view of the duties of this Coalition Government.

It is all very well for people to say, "If the Liberal party had remained in office the Plural Voting Bill was dead." It was only dead because the Liberal party was pledged to introduce no controversial legislation during the War, but when the Coalition came in we were told that none of our political principles were to be touched, and that the position was to be taken exactly as we had left it, and it was the only fair thing to keep the Plural Voting Bill in the same position as it was in when the War broke out. Possibly a year hence, if this Bill is passed, we may have to discuss how much longer we shall have to prolong the life of Parliament. Is it fair to ask the Liberal and Labour and Irish parties—because it affects them too—to give up altogether the present position of the Plural Voting-Bill, which passed through this House by as enormous majority as long ago as 1906, and to call them party men, and to talk as though they are breaking what ought to be political silence during the War, because they simply ask that their rights shall be preserved in exactly the position they were in when the War broke out? It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Amery) to practically tell the House it makes him sick to hear such controversies in war time, but he has to remember that if the plural vote is killed, he and his party gain by it. The status quo is good enough for them. They stand to gain if we do not talk about it, and if we abandon the advantage which now for many years we have won. No one has been more silent during the War than I have, because I do not in the least believe in embarrassing the Government or talking to the man at the wheel the whole time he is endeavouring to steer the ship. It is mere hypocrisy to pretend that we have given up all our ideas of party Government. I am not one of those who think that party Government is a hopeless mistake, and that we are going to suddenly reform themselves as a business Government under the heads of people who have not been very successful in business. I only want to see that the rights of all parties, so far as that controversial measure is concerned, are absolutely preserved, and this Bill preserves them. It gives the Government another year, and possibly a year hence we may have to give them longer, but I hope then the same procedure will be followed. Not that I hope we shall ever have to pass the Plural Voting Bill into law. I hope by merely keeping it alive we may be able to secure, before the next General Election, that ample and just measure of electoral reform which seems to me essential to the good government of this country. I think we certainly owe it to all the men who are fighting at the front to see that after they are back that they are able to take a part, as far as possible, in the life of this country, and that our franchise at any rate is wide enough to include all these men.

We are now told by the hon. Member (Mr. Cowan) that it is an unconstitutional measure for Parliament to extend its own life. I wonder what makes him say that! Does he say that there is no historical precedent for it? If he does, he is wrong. The Septennial, Act was passed under precisely similar circumstances. It was passed because the Parliament of that day thought the condition of the country in those great times of Jacobite stress would make a General Election very unfortunate. Parliament at that time extended its life to seven years, and we went for many years with the Septennial Act, and this Parliament was elected for seven years. We are gravely told that it is unconstitutional to do what as a matter of fact there is absolute precedent for in the constitutional history of this country. We are also told that it is unconstitutional for the House to do what as a matter of fact it was elected to do, and that is to sit for seven years.

No, no.

It was elected for seven years, although as a matter of fact there was before the country at that time a Bill for reducing the life of Parliament to five years. There was, however, no certainty that the Bill would be passed. If that Bill had not been passed, Parliament might have gone on sitting for seven years. Therefore, I am perfectly correct in saying that we were returned for seven years, although we reduced our legal life to five years. Now, to get no party advantage, but merely to do what, I believe, not merely nine out of ten but ninety-nine out of every hundred people outside this House think is right, namely, to avoid a General Election at the time when a General Election would be perfectly indecent, we are following constitutional precedent, and we are simply doing what, as a matter of fact, we were returned to do, to sit for six and possibly for seven years. So much for the argument that this procedure is unconstitutional. I do not know why people are constantly using that expression unconstitutional. It must mean something, or it means nothing. If it means that what we are doing is not in accord with our Constitution and our historic traditions, it is not true; if it does not mean that, I do not know what it does mean.

The Government are following historical precedent. They are doing what I believe the bulk of the country wants them to do, and they are doing it with a sense of most scrupulous fairness to all parties in the House. I think that is recognised by most people in this House. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] If hon. Members do not think so, they have the remedy in their own hands. They can challenge the Government upon this question, and try to show that the Government do not represent the House in this matter, and ultimately do not represent the country in the matter. If that is not the case, and if the Government do represent the bulk of the House in this matter, I do hope they will not give way and take a six months' extension, or give way to any other compromise upon this Bill, which is already a compromise. I think what the House wants is that the Government, having brought in the Bill, should stand by it and carry it through, and I believe that is what the country wants. I am glad to have an opportunity to-day of speaking on behalf of this measure, which seems to me an admirably fair one, and to have an opportunity of saying at the same time that whatever may be said by one or two people on this side of the House about the unconstitutional methods of the Government, or about the incompetent methods of the Government, I believe that the Government at the present time have the confidence of the vast majority of this House, and I am sure that they have the confidence of the vast majority of this country.

There are always a number of people who, when things are going wrong, are prepared to turn on anybody. They are not the best people in this country. There are always a certain number of people who, for purposes other than political, are always prepared to take advantage of times like this and bring up all sorts of matter against the Government, and who are constantly in the public eye in doing it. My own view is that at a time like this we are much better employed in trusting the Government and in supporting the Government. I am not one of those who think that the Government have failed. I am not one of those who think they are going to fail. I believe that, with the full confidence of this House and of the country, the Government will succeed in carrying this War to a triumphant conclusion. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say to-day that he is going to have no part in the preposterous proposal for reducing the salaries of public servants. I will not stray for a moment beyond that point, but I want to say, arising out of that remark, and without in any way transgressing what I am sure will be the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that I think that what the Government want at this time is not carping criticism about their salaries or their policy, but loyal support from the people of this country. I believe that this Bill demands the loyal support of this House because it is a fair and in some respects a generous compromise from the Coalition Government, leaving all parties in the same position as they were in when the War broke out.

I do not rise to support the Motion that has been moved, but I cannot sit still after the last two speeches. I entirely agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery), in that I believe the general public is entirely indifferent with regard to the Plural Voting Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease), who has just come back after many weeks absence, tells us that when he returned at an earlier period after many weeks absence he found a wrangle going on about compulsory service, and now he finds another wrangle about the Plural Voting Bill. I want to know where the wrangle comes from. Not a single Gentleman from this side of the House has said one word of the Plural Voting Bill, either good, bad, or indifferent. I do not know why the hon. Member (Mr. Hemmerde) takes the view that we on this side are desirous that a General Election should take place immediately. Where does he get his information from? That is the last thing in the world that I should propose or wish to see done, and I know that I am speaking the opinion of nearly all my Friends on this side. We are just as much opposed to a General Election immediately as he is.

I said so.

Then why did you make such an absurd statement?

I said that the Proposer and Seconder of the rejection said so. I never imagined for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman would wish anything so absurd.

At any rate, the hon. Member's observations were directed very much to this side of the House. He said that the Liberal party, under the arrangement between the two sides of the House, had been guaranteed that they should remain with their principles untouched in any kind of way. What really was agreed to was this, and if the hon. Member had been in the House the other day he would have heard it in the statement of the Home Secretary—

I was here.

Then why does the hon. Member omit altogether what the Home Secretary said? He said something totally different. No party was to be prejudiced with regard to their views. What has happened in this case is something totally different. Already with regard to two very great Bills we have been entirely prejudiced in our view, and now in regard to the Bill which we are discussing, if the hon. Member has his way, we shall be prejudiced again. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pease), who comes back happy and content from his period in France, because he has got nearly all that he wants. If this Bill is carried he will get quite all that he wants. On this side we are supposed not to be pre- judiced at all. What is our position to be? It is a case of "Thank you for nothing!" We have lost what we have been fighting for all these years, just the same as you have been fighting, but according to hon. Gentlemen opposite we ought to sit still and say nothing about it.

I entirely agree that it is a deplorable misfortune that controversial subjects should be raised at a time like this. Whose fault is it? It is not ours; the fault does not in any way lie with us. If the introduction of this Bill to-day, in its present form should lead to controversial discussion it is the Government, and the Government alone, who are entirely to blame. It is of the utmost importance that we should be able to present to the country, and to the world at large, a united front, and to speak with one voice in the interests and for the sake of succeeding in the great crisis and the terrible War in which we are engaged; but if we cannot speak all with one voice at this moment, again I ask, who is to blame? What is the raison d'être of this Bill? The Bill was introduced because, in the view of the Government, and I suppose in the view of all reasonable men, it was undesirable that a General Election should take place at the end of this month. There was nothing more simple than to arrange for that. The Government had only to introduce a Bill for that purpose and it would have gone through without a word. But the Government must needs introduce into the Bill a subject which has been one of the most controversial subjects for I do not know how many years. Therefore, do not let the House run away—and they shall not run away as far as I am concerned—under the impression that it is we, on this side of the House, who are to blame, if there is any controversy on this matter.

The Government and the party opposite, I readily acknowledge, have always avowed all through the piece that it was their intention to place the two great Acts which had complied with the requirements of the Parliament Act upon the Statute Book as soon as they can. But this question of Plural Voting stands in a totally different position from those two great Acts. Why does it do so? Because it has not complied with the requirements of the Parliament Act, Why did it not comply with the requirements of that Act? Because of the bungle made by the Government in their own legislation. When they introduced their Bill they must needs mix up with it the question of Women's Suffrage and provisions for Women's Suffrage, to which they were pledged. It turned out that the Government, who ought to have known better, and who ought to have considered this matter, were totally wrong, and Mr. Speaker was appealed to on that and two other points, and in regard to them he gave his positive decision that the Government had made a mistake, and had put their Bill entirely and completely out of order. That is a fact, and I know the right hon. Gentleman will not deny it. I have looked through a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT to refresh my memory only this morning. Now, because of that bungle in legislation made by the Government at that time, we are to suffer, and this contentious Bill is to be introduced by the Government. I might say a great deal more upon this subject, but I do not wish to enter into acute controversy at the present time. I might have reminded the House of what the late Leader of the Opposition, standing in the place where I am standing now, said about some of his present colleagues on a certain day in 1914, when he challenged them with breaking every pledge given by the Government and breaking the truce which had been formed. So serious was the position that my right hon. Friend and his party left the House in a body to show their views and opinions of the way in which the Government of that time had acted. But at the same time, for the sake of the country and for the sake of the interests of the nation, they abstained then from doing what it was perfectly in their power to do, entering into an endless controversial discussion, and I am similarly disinclined, much as I have been tempted, for a better and more unanswerable case I have never known in the whole course of my life than that I could present if I thought it right to do so upon this occasion. But I cannot admit it. Whatever hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House may do, we at least have always been true to our statements, and so long as this War lasts, and until we have accomplished the victory which is essential to the future life of the nation, we will do nothing, because of our own personal interests as a political party, which, by any possibility, could put it in the smallest peril or danger.

I apologise to my right hon. Friend for my absence, which was unavoidable, and he may be sure that I have no intention of answering the speech he has just delivered. I had listened to the previous speeches on this subject, and as regards those which dealt simply with the idea that there should be no prolongation of the life of this Parliament, and that we should have an election when the time comes, I do not think there is much I need say. I think the speeches of those who advocated that view answer themselves. I think, for instance, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion said he did not rest his case solely upon it, but that he threw it out as one of the strong arguments in favour of the view that the wives of the soldiers might represent them at the election. I think that in itself a sufficiently clear indication of the inadvisability of having an election at this time I put it on very much stronger grounds than any question of the nature of the register. I think it quite possible that circumstances may arise which may make an election inevitable, whatever the register, and so far as I am concerned I should not have any distrust of the verdict of my countrymen, whatever register was used, on an issue such as this in which the whole country from top to bottom is united in its desires. I should have no fear of it on that ground, but I do ask any Members of the House in favour of an election now to ask themselves how it could possibly do any good, and whether it might not do a great deal of harm. How could it do good? What in the world would we fight about? I could see the sense of it if there were in this House or the country an organised opposition which would fight the election on a clear issue with the result that if it turned one way, one Government would be in power, and if it went in another way another Government would be in power. But what earthly object would there be in having an election if the conditions which prevail to-day were still prevailing. Would every seat be fought? Would the seats of Cabinet Ministers be opposed by men of their own party, or what would happen? I venture to say that from no point of view that any sensible man could consider would such a result be of any value, and clearly it might introduce an element of discord throughout the whole country, and particularly in regard to labour, which, as we all know, is one of the most important things in connection with the War. It might bring an element of discord which everyone in the House and the country would deeply regret.

The only ground on which I have risen to speak is in connection with an aspect of this Bill on which, so far as the speeches I have heard are concerned, it is almost unnecessary for me to dwell, and that is the controversial element in connection with our old fight about plural voting. I think, however, that, although so little has been said about it, it is necessary for me to try not so much to justify the course which I took, as quite frankly to explain to the House and my own Friends, the Unionist Members of the House, the principle on which we acted in connection with it. Let me say at the outset that it was difficult for me, and it is difficult for me even now, to feel keenly interested in that Bill, or anything else of the same kind which arises at this time. I do not mean to suggest for a moment that we, because we happen to be members of the Government, are more alive or feel more keenly the position of difficulty and danger in which our country stands than other Members of the House. I do not suggest that for a moment. We have all in this House, with very few exceptions—very few—the same feelings; and, indeed, any criticism which is directed against the Government is not on the ground that we are too much in earnest about the War, but from the fear that we are not sufficiently in earnest in regard to it. While that is true, it is quite impossible for anyone who not only has the responsibility for carrying on this War, but who every day is called upon to make decisions, often very difficult, which may affect the whole future of this country, and which immediately affect the lives of great masses of our countrymen—I think it is pardonable if we even neglect other things which at other times would fill our minds. I know quite well that that feeling can be carried too far. I recognise as fully as any Member of this House that we who are representatives of the Unionist party in this Government have a responsibility to our party, and I recognise that I in particular, as the Leader of that party in this House and the trustee of the party interests, have no right to give them away. That is true; but I would remind the House as a whole, and I would specially remind my hon. Friends, that at the time this Coalition was formed we as a party made, as I thought, the biggest party sacrifice which a political party can ever make—that is to say, we abandoned what we believed to be the prospect of getting office ourselves, and dispossessing those who had so long occupied it. I am not now expressing a view that has arisen after the event.

At the meeting of our party in the Carlton Club I used these words:—

I think what my hon. Friends resent most of all is that it is kept alive by the action of a Government which contains Members who have been bitterly hostile to that Bill and have always opposed it. I think that is what they have always resented. I think that is our case, and I hope I have presented it to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends. I say quite frankly that I think it is an unanswerable one, but the fact that it is unanswerable does not end the matter. In politics I am sure everybody must have felt as Macbeth felt when he saw Banquo again and again—

5.0 P.M.

I am quite sure that his one wish was my own—to come to any agreement that would keep it out of the way without risking a quarrel on the floor of this House. They put their case in this way, and it is implied that it will be fairly dealt with. Their case is this: They have a majority which would carry the Bill; they are not going to do so; they think that the very principle on which the truce exists justifies them in saying, not that they should be allowed carry this Bill, but that the rights which they have in it should be kept alive. That is their case. It was not the merits which influenced me in taking the course I did—it was the facts. I did my best to find out whether it was really true that the Liberal Members felt as strongly on their point of view as my hon. Friends felt upon theirs. I was told that it was true. If that is the case, whatever the merits, surely if there is any desire, not that the Coalition Government should continue, but that the attempt should be continued of carrying on this War as a united nation and a united House —surely if the facts were as I have described them, it is a clear case of an attempt to compromise, whatever the merits. I thought so, and the compromise, such as it is, was my own proposal, and I think it meant only this, that we should try to shove the quarrel over for the present, and let it arise again, if necessary, later on. Of course I recognise that that gives an advantage to those in favour of the Bill. Of course I recognise it will put them in a better position than they are in to-day, because they now could only carry it while the War is going on; but it will be in the same position as it would have been at the beginning of this Session. I admit it gives an advantage, but I can see of no other way of arriving at anything that did not mean a quarrel.

But, after all, let us look at it clearly. I do not forget our party interests, and when the time comes I shall try as hard as I have ever tried before to prevent this Bill passing into law as it is at present. But look at the probabilities They obviously cannot carry it next year any more than now, while the War is going on. It is quite possible that when the War is over there will still be time; but, the moment it is over—and in that case remember, and on that assumption, we Unionist Members will have assisted to win this War if the Government holds on as long as that—the moment it is over, the Prime Minister will announce one day in the Cabinet, "I have no longer any use for the services of my Unionist colleagues. They will go. He will form a party Government for the express purpose of carrying this partisan legislation. I do not think that is very likely, however, and, what is more, I doubt if this House of Commons, although it contains a majority very much hostile to the party to which I belong, would back him in doing it. I am perfectly certain of this, so far as I can judge, that if the Prime Minister wished to do it, and if the House of Commons backed him up in doing it, when the election came, we as a party would gain infinitely more from the way in which we had been treated than we should lose by the passing of a dozen Plural Voting Bills. That is my view. I ask the House to consider what was the alternative. It was this: That I should say to the Prime Minister, "We will have nothing to do with this Bill. If you like, turn us out, and carry it if you can." What reply would he have given? I know what reply I should have given to him in the same circumstances. I should have said, "Do you think it is fair? Remember that we have a majority which could carry that Bill to-day if we chose. Of course, you are quite right; you can do that; to that extent you are right; but why can you not do it? It is because the necessities of the country, owing to the War, prevent us from taking advantage of our majority to carry a party measure. Are not you taking advantage of that situation in insisting on our party losing rights, such as they are, to which, whether they are justified or not, they think they have legitimate claim? "

That would be the answer I would have made. I do not know what would have happened. I do not need to consider that, for I should not have done it under any circumstances, and that for two reasons. The first is, I do not think it would have been fair. There is another. I can well believe it is quite possible that circumstances may arise which may make it necessary for me, or for some of my colleagues, to leave this Government, and perhaps even to try and get rid of us. But I cannot conceive it possible that I, at a time like this, should leave the Government on any question which is or could be regarded as a party issue. If I were thinking of party interests alone, I should say that we, as a party, could, make no greater mistake than to quarrel on such an issue. The country cares nothing about the Plural Voting Bill one way or the other. Whosoever's fault it was, the result would be a condemnation of all parties, of one as much as the other. And I say this to my hon. Friends: I think the Unionist party has a right to be proud of the part which it has played since the War began. There never was an Opposition conducted in such a way as ours was conducted, for ten months. I do hope, whatever happens —I can quite believe that our party for other reasons may think it necessary to go into Opposition—I do hope that record will not be broken, and that no one in the future will be able to say that our party was influenced by party motives or sacrificed the interests of the nation for the sake of any party issue. That is all I wish to say on that subject.

But there is another aspect of it, on which I would like to say a word. I have the advantage, at least I think it is an advantage, though a doubtful advantage sometimes that, owing to the fact that when I was made Leader of the Opposition in this House, I was taken from the ranks, so to speak, I am more on a footing of equality with my hon. Friend's than is usually the case with a party leader. They speak to me without the reserve which I am told is common in such cases, and therefore, perhaps, I understand their feeling a little better than I would do in other circumstances. I know that many of them not only are dissatisfied with the Government—that is not confined to the Benches opposite, and it is part of the day's work of any Government, and will certainly continue, whatever the merits or demerits of the Government until it begins to show results in victory—but I am inclined to think it goes further, and that my hon. Friends—some of them—really look upon this Government with rather a stronger dislike, if that is possible, than they had to the Government which preceded it. Some of them really have the idea—at least, I am told so—that for any of us who are members of the Government to say anything in favour of the Government of which we are members is something like treason to our own party. I had an example of that in connection with this very Bill. I was told that some of my Friends were very much annoyed that my name was on the back of it. I am sure, if they will consider it, there is no one in this House who thinks so meanly of me to suppose that if I have responsibility I am either afraid or ashamed to acknowledge it. That really is not a reasonable attitude. You cannot be half in and half out of a Government.

And I wonder what my hon. Friends would really think of us: I believe they would think worse than they do now if, while we sat on this Bench, and not only had the knowledge of all that was being done, but shared the responsibility of what was being done, we had our eyes constantly fixed on the front Opposition Bench, with the idea that, if this Government became sufficiently unpopular, we should leave it and step over there. We are not going to do that. I am not treating the situation at all tragically; we all know how serious the whole position is, and it is just an incident in the day's work. But there is one thing I do feel a little personal interest about, and it is this: I do not wish my hon. Friends or any Member of the House to imagine that we went into this Coalition Government blindfolded. We really counted the cost. I know that from the public point of view it was a great experiment; it would either be a great success or a great failure. Up to now it has not been a great success, but it has not been a great failure. Not only did I know that from the public point of view, but I discussed it with some of my colleagues who took the same view. We knew perfectly well that at the time we joined the Government, and the same is true now, there could be no striking success for a very long time to come, and we knew we would share in the unpopularity which was already on the Government, and which would grow as time went on. Again, I am not being wise after the event, and I would like to read to the House what I said at the same meeting to which I have already referred:— yet—when they honestly believe that the War is not going to be won by this Government, and that some change, any change, would be better, I would be glad to see them openly in opposition, openly moving a vote of no confidence in the Government. They could not turn out the Government in this House of Commons, perhaps, as I suppose they would still have a majority, but we Unionists are Members of that Government, not because we are Members of the House of Commons. We are there as representing our party, and I for one say quite plainly, if I found that in this new position I had lost the confidence of our party, I should feel that I was of no further use to the Government, and though so long as I myself believed that, whatever its defects, I could see no better way of carrying on this War, I should not oppose them, yet if the party to which I belonged showed that it had lost confidence in me I should not for a moment dream of continuing in the Government.

I think I may assure my right hon. Friend that there is not a member of the Unionist party who has abated at all the personal confidence he has in my right hon. Friend because of the course he has felt it his duty to take in circumstances as difficult as ever fell to the part of a political leader. It would be affectation to disguise, or to profess to disguise, from my right hon. Friend, or from the House, that there are Members amongst us on this side of the House who are pained and dissatisfied with regard to some of the incidents of this controversy. But the distance between that and any severance from my right hon. Friend, willingly, on the part of Members here, or any dissociation from the resolute efforts of a patriotic Government to carry this War to a successful issue, that distance is abyssmal and unbridgeable. The Unionist party, I believe, is as staunch to-day in its resolution to support a resolute Government as it was at the commencement of the War, and, I am sure, just as staunch to-day in its affectionate regard for my right hon. Friend as it has always been. Services such as those my right hon. Friend has rendered to the Unionist party and to political life in this country, could not be wiped out of our minds, even if he made mistakes, and, really, if a man made mistakes in a time like this—and I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend has made mistakes—who could wonder? I am not going to discuss this miserable controversy about the Plural Voting Bill. My great regret about this Bill is that it was thought necessary to put a Sub-section into the Bill with reference to that controversy. I could not help feeling that it did show that there is not yet a real Coalition, that there is not yet a real national devotion and absorption in those great interests, for which, in words for which we shall always feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, we have pledged ourselves to devote the last ounce of our strength, the last penny of our means, and the last drop of our blood. I could not help feeling that there was a jarring note struck when somebody, and I do not know how, and I do not care to know who it was, thought it necessary instead of leaving this matter of political controversy to be generously settled by men who have all learned the regard which Englishmen feel for one another in circumstances such as those in which we live, felt it necessary to frame a Clause and to present it to the country as an object lesson of the measure to which we have coalesced. I did regret that, and I regret it now, but the notion that any of us would step aside from his support of a resolute Government, which was carrying on the War, because it even passed a Plural Voting Bill, is unthinkable. I may be speaking with a degree of assurance in which some will not join me. Perhaps I am; but I believe that the Unionist party, as a whole, if it were put to that test, whether it were ready to sacrifice that remnant of its interest, rather than abate the national strength in this time of crisis, would come worthily through that test, and if it did not, I hope we would make another party to represent Conservative principles that would. Now, as I said, I do not intend to discuss this matter. I decline to discuss it.

I do want to say something of much more gravity with regard to the general proposal of this Bill. As to the notion of a General Election in January it is not to be debated. It is a thing you could not have. It would be a burlesque of a General Election. The real question, as many of us on this side of the House see it, is what is the shortest period of time for which we can extend, or ought to extend, the appointed duration of this Parliament. It is quite true with regard to political ethics that this House, which shortened the duration of a Septennial Parliament, would no doubt be morally and ethically warranted in extending the duration of a Quinquennial Parliament. I do not think there is any answer to that in point of argument. The real question is, what is for the good of the country, and what is good for the prosecution of the War, as to the period for which we are taking upon ourselves an extraordinary power by which we prolong our own being as a House of Commons? A year is a period which, in most circumstances, would naturally occur, but I want seriously to present to the consideration of the Government, and of those who represent both parties in the Government, some considerations which have made me gravely to doubt whether a year is the right time. It follows from what I have said that, in my view, the men who are charged with the conclusion of this War are the men now entitled to sit on that Bench opposite. As to the policy which they are to carry out there is no doubt. They have to carry out the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated, and which is favoured in the minds not merely of Englishmen, but of civilised men at the present time. So we have a policy, and if the men who are to carry it out are not those who sit on that Bench, I confess I do not know where they are. It would be a much easier situation for the country at the present time, to my mind; if there were no Coalition, and if my right hon. Friend who used to sit here and lead us were still sitting here and leading us. That is past praying for. We have got now the joint resources of the nation in point of statesmanship, and the question is to what extent we are to commit the country to give them carte blanche.

This Coalition has existed since last May, which I think is something more than six months, and during that time it has had the spending, at our present rate of expenditure, of nearly a thousand millions of money. It came into existence in a time of crisis, when the existence of a Coalition was thought necessary, which in itself is a matter of grave significance. Has the Coalition, we ask ourselves sometimes, realised our full expectations? It has not introduced new methods of carrying on the War. I am not at all sure it has introduced a new measure of decision in carrying on the War. In carrying on this War resourcefulness is wanted, readiness is wanted. There has not always been anticipation: one cannot help seeing that is so. One looks at the various incidents in the development of events of the War before the Coalition one since, and one asks oneself, not whether Members of the Government have done all they could, but whether it is conceivable that better forethought, more prompt decision, greater resourcefulness, might have produced different results. I am sure it will not be thought, in presenting these considerations, that I fail in loyalty to His Majesty's Government, for which I am ready to make the sacrifice the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. It is a National Government, but, after all, it is a National War which is being carried on. If it be that the means which are being pursued are not the means which have been sure, or are now sure, of attaining the intended result in a minimum of time, then it is a matter for consideration whether it is wise on the part of His Majesty's Government to come here, after six or seven months of Coalition, after a thousand millions of expenditure by the coalesced Administration, and to say now the proper mode of dealing with the situation is to extend the term by twelve months more, with two thousand millions of expenditure during that additional twelve months.

The last Debate of interest, outside of the serious events of the War, which we had in this House was a Debate about the conduct of the managers of the "Times," a fortnight ago to-night. When I take that period of time, into my mind, it is two weeks, and in normal political life two weeks is a very little matter, but in the times in which we stand those two weeks account for seventy millions of war expenditure, at five millions a day, and they account for a course of events, I will not say disappointing, because we have learned to watch the horoscope with no undue expectations, but a course of events which shows that every effort the country can make has got to be made now with its best resources, and has got to be made in a degree of strain and responsibility which do not admit of any mitigation. In view of that state of things, is it wise on the part of His Majesty's Government, when they can always come here and say to this House, unless this House should abandon confidence in them, which God forbid, "This period must be extended; that is our united judgment," to come to us now, after six or seven months of Coalition Government, which is an experiment, and the fruition of which has not been seen, and to lay it down as axiomatic that there is to be a period presently stated at twelve months, with probable extension in case of need? For my part, I confess that there are circumstances which induce me to doubt whether twelve months is the proper period. I will mention one or two of them The country is satisfied with the policy of His Majesty's Ministers—not merely satisfied with it, but devoted to it. You have only to remember the closing days of last week to see how the country is realising one of the right hon. Gentleman's pledges in the intensest form—that of the devotion of the national life to the purpose of the War. You have only to remember the Budget discussions, where the House has taken up such a burden as no Legislature ever faced before—a burden of £1,900,000,000 for a year—and the country pledged itself to another of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions.

That is so as to the policy of His Majesty's Government. Let us consider with regards to methods. I am not at all sure that the country is satisfied. The country does not know, and we cannot know. I am not sure that the country is satisfied that a perfect anticipation—to put it in its highest form—of the events of the last three months might not have put us in a better position than we are in to-day. I think the country asks itself about the East, about Gallipoli, about Serbia, and about some other matters, what was the degree of anticipation, what was the degree of prevision and preparation? These are questions we cannot have answered. I have hopes that if they could be debated and answered an excellent case would be made on the part of His Majesty's Government; because, after all, one has known the members of His Majesty's Government during long years, not only in the House of Commons but outside, and they are not—I shall not be speaking disrespectfully—Englishmen bereft of their senses. But the country does not know about these matters. There is another thing. The country hears of incidents—Suvla Bay, Neuve Chapelle, Loos— from which the informed mind makes certain deductions. The country does not know and cannot be told whether His Majesty's Government, or any members of it, go to the front where councils of war are held, where generals are upon their trial, and can be fairly tried, and takes stock of the materiel that the country has in the number of generals, and the capacity of the generals at the front. The country devolves that responsibility upon His Majesty's Government, and cannot be told how it discharges it. But it is obvious that where there has been a long course of exhausting effort, wisdom would suggest that every capable man who has been on the spot should lend his contribution to the best mode of bringing a trial of that kind to a triumphant issue. The country does not know whether that kind of thing is done. There is another matter. We are pouring out money. From this Bench not long ago I pointed out that, unless expenditure is diminished or the term of the War shortened, our immense national resources may be crippled before we come to the trial of the ultimate issue. We do not know what steps His Majesty's Government is taking in the way of economy, or in the way of control of expenditure upon munitions, where it is commonly reported that money is pouring out at a tremendous rate; we do not know what steps it is taking in a variety of matters of that kind. We do not know, and probably we cannot know; but in that state of the case, when, as has been said before, we are at the climax of the War, and the maximum effort is required, is it a judicious thing to treat the War as being in such a condition that you can fix a sort of standard measure of time, and say, "Let the present extension be twelve months "?

His Majesty's Government necessarily deprived itself of the wholesome influence of an organised Opposition when the Coalition was formed. The House of Commons since that time has been, in fact, paralysed as an instrument of effective criticism or of real control. But the result of this matter-of-course extension of twelve months not merely of the duration of this Parliament, but probably of the tenure of office of His Majesty's Ministers, withdraws the control of public affairs not merely from the House of Commons, but from the country. We are here—however unpalatable our tasks may be, we have to discharge them—to see that the country, upon whose confidence we have presumed —and, I believe, rightly presumed—is with us when we say that we will extend this Parliament for twelve months and, by implication, that we will extend the efforts of His Majesty's Government—such as we know them, and with such knowledge as we have of them—for at least that period. I hope His Majesty's Government will gravely consider whether a shorter period —a period sufficient for the duration, say, of one ordinary Session of this House—is not the maximum period for which there ought to be an extension. I am not suggesting for a moment that this House, satisfied as it will be and will have to be with the effort of His Majesty's Government, will not generously respond to any suggestion the Government makes for a longer term when the due period has arrived. But I doubt very much whether it is in the interests of the country or of His Majesty's Government that that extension should be made as a matter of course at this time.

I am not going to deal with all the most interesting topics which have been raised in the course of this Debate, not because they are unimportant or unworthy of consideration, but because I am anxious if I can, in the few words which I am about to utter, to concentrate the attention of the House upon what I conceive to be the real issue before us. I shall say nothing about the Plural Voting Bill—not that I undervalue its importance, nor because I have changed my opinion as to its merits and expediency, but because I think that that is a matter which neither upon one side nor upon the other is regarded at this moment as of vital importance. Nor shall I enter upon the much larger and more serious issues raised in the very powerful speech to which we have just listened— the expediency of the Coalition Government and the degree of provision in calculation, promptitude in action, resolution and resourcefulness which that Government has exhibited in the conduct of the War. Upon all these points, when the proper time comes, I am quite prepared to join issue with any of our critics. But as my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Duke) has most properly said, the conditions under which we live and act at the present moment are such that that time has not yet arrived. It is not only impossible, but it would be detrimental to the interests of the country and to the successful prosecution of the War if they were submitted at a moment like this to anything like public discussion. But let nobody think that either I or any of my colleagues desire to shroud ourselves behind a veil of artificial mystery and secrecy. There is nothing we should like better than to be able to take the House and the country into our full confidence; and if we do not do so, if we abstain from doing so and sit still and silent—as I confess I do day after day—under imputations and suggestions which could easily be refuted and blown into thin air, it is not because of the weakness of our case, but because restraint and reticence are our bounden duty as trustees for the time being of the national interest.

I put aside deliberately all these topics, and I come to the point which I think is the real point before us, raised temperately but very cogently in the speech to which we have just listened—the particular proposal of this Bill, looked at not from the point of view of the prospects of any particular political measure, or of any particular political party, but from the larger and wider point of view of the general interest of the country as a whole One thing is obvious and indisputable. This Parliament expires automatically under the operation of the Parliament Act, unless that Act is temporarily abandoned, at the end of next month, and if it does -we shall then be plunged into the turmoil and confusion of a General Election. I do not believe there is a single man on either side of the House who would regard such a prospect with anything but reluctance and dislike. I was responsible as Prime Minister for the proposal to shorten the duration of Parliament from seven years to five, mainly because I have become more and more convinced, during now a long political life, that it is of the highest importance to the best and permanent interests of the nation that the House of Commons should be, as far as it can be made, a reflection of national opinion, and that it should not outlive its mandate and distort instead of reflecting the judgment which it is here to register and record. That is a very good and sound doctrine as applicable to normal political conditions. I do not need to argue the question that in the abnormal, exceptional, and wholly unexampled conditions in which we now live— I do not refer merely to the fact that a great part of the electorate, our gallant soldiers and sailors, are away and could not record their votes, although that is not an unimportant fact—for an election to take place next month in the present state of the War, with all the gigantic issues which hang upon its effective prosecution and continuance, would be nothing short of a national calamity.

So far we are on common ground. If that be so it follows that the life of this Parliament which otherwise would automatically expire, must be artificially prolonged for some specified time. The proposal in the Bill before the House is that the time so prescribed shall be twelve months, which, be it observed, means not that Parliament must continue; nothing of the kind! Parliament "may" continue for twelve months without the necessity of a Dissolution. If, to take the hypothesis which seems, at any rate, to float in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Government lost the confidence of the House of Commons through its misconduct, or imperfect conduct of the operations of the War during the next few months, there is nothing whatever to prevent the House of Commons from expressing by vote that that confidence had been lost, with the result that either there must be a change of Government, or, if that be impossible, a Dissolution of Parliament. Therefore it is not as though we were asking both Houses of Parliament to say that this House must continue in existence for another twelve months. It is permissive. I will go further. I do not attach, and I do not think any of my colleagues attach, any special significance to the number 12. I see, or seem to see, great inconveniences which might follow from much curtailment. I have, for instance, heard, or seen, that six months has been suggested as a sufficient time. Apart from the fact that under no possible conditions, even if the War were to end n the course of the next few months, could our soldiers and sailors be brought back effectively to record their votes, or to appear on the register—and this apart from all the many reasons which must occur to the minds of hon. Members—so short a period certainly would be inconvenient, and might even be more than inconvenient to the House and to the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a different suggestion, as I understood him— namely, that the term to be fixed in the Act should represent something like the average duration of an ordinary Session.

nodded assent.

Well, there is a good deal to be said for that. I should like the House clearly to understand that the Government is not inflexibly wedded —if there is such a thing as being inflexibly wedded—to a particular time. It is perfectly ready to consider reasonable suggestions for a variation of that, if such can be put forward, and if it commends itself to the general sense of the House. After all, however, that is a Committee matter, and not a Second Reading matter. The only principle to which we ask the House of Commons to assent when we request them to give a Second Reading to this Bill is, first: that we should avoid the obvious calamity of a General Election next month; and next, that the life of the House of Commons should be permissibly extended for such a length of time as in the development of things makes it possible that its successor should be elected under reasonable conditions, and under conditions which will make it a fair representation, or reflection, of the national judgment and the national will. That is the Bill which I now present to the House. I should hope that so presented and so understood it might be universally accepted without suspicion either on one side or the other, without a desire—for I am certain no such desire exists either upon one side or the other—that advantage should be taken of this necessary prolongation of our Parliamentary existence for party purposes. I should hope that it might be accepted as a combined, united expression of the House of Commons, representing, as I am sure it does in that respect, the opinion and will of the country, that ever necessary step should be taken to enable the Government of the day to carry on with undiminished vigour and with undistracted attention the supreme duty of prosecuting this War and bringing our arms to a triumphant issue.

I hope the House will listen to a very few words from me—words that I intended to speak last Thursday. I feel that it is quite clear we are in favour of giving an extended time to the life of this Parliament. The broad reasons which the Prime Minister has given to the House has not been overlooked by anybody in any quarter of the House. We were clearly of opinion that it was necessary that some extension should be given, whether that extension be operative for twelve months, or for an ordinary Session, or for whatever date may be fixed in Committee. The very reason which the Prime Minister has given to us to commend the main purpose of the Bill to the House seems also to necessitate or require some sort of apology for every Section in the Bill. I am not going to say anything which would strike a jarring note beyond this: It is idle for us to pretend that Sub-section (2) of Section 1 is not in the Bill—because it is! We are invited by the Bill to do something which we have not yet hitherto done in Parliament. We are going to make a pretence of rising, and we are going to say that one Session which we know did not succeed to another was a successive Session. This Bill embodies a new principle. I think, without any fear of what we are doing, we ought to contemplate the facts as we understand them to-day, and realise that the country understands what we are doing, even if we are afraid to say what we are doing. One more word about the Plural Voting Bill. I cannot, for my own part, say that this Bill is of absolute unimportance, because there is enshrined in that Bill a question of principle on which the representation of Members of this House should be based. Going over a long period of time we remember that those principles have been debated, discussed, and fought on both sides, not merely as a matter of private and domestic concern, but as a matter largely concerned with the political future of the country. Let me only add a very few more words, because I do not want at all to make a speech which would in any way be misunderstood. I am very anxious to have the opportunity of reaffirming, if it be necessary, my respect and regard for, and—I may say of those who agree with me—our devotion to our leader the Secretary for the Colonies, a devotion which amounts to affection.

With that personal charm which the right hon. Gentleman possesses he referred to the fact that he allows us to speak to him as one friend speaks to another. He will not, therefore, mind if I, in that tone, speak just a very few words to him this afternoon. After the speech of the Prime Minister one is more surprised that the Bill should require more than this one Section. The Prime Minister is responsible for the whole of the Cabinet. While a Coalition exists, I think we may claim, as humble Back Benchers, to be his colleagues. It is, therefore, a little more surprising that this Bill should contain anything but the Section required to extend the life of Parliament. If you are asked to walk with a person with whom you have in times past differed you will not expect him to be so unwise as to select for conversation a topic of controversy which divided you in the past. When the Prime Minister is the head of the Coalition, and the person in whom is vested supreme authority in this House, we trust him to do everything possible to avoid any sort of disconcerting of our feelings when we have got to pass a Bill to extend Parliament, and, perhaps, under those circumstances, the fewer words I say the better. We shall have to deal with questions which arise in Committee. I think it would be unfortunate if the responsibility were placed upon any other person or member of the Government than the Prime Minister, because, however loyal the colleagues of the Prime Minister may be, it is upon him that the supreme authority must rest, and upon him that the supreme responsibility must lie. When I spoke last in the House one did not know that this Bill would carry on its back the names of certain members of the Unionist party. I cannot say I attach very much importance to that, and for this reason: I do not know how those names are selected. It may be as a matter of rota, or it may be that the names put on are of particular Ministers who are supposed to have some particular interest in the contents of the Bill. We do know that all the Departments are expected to work under the control of the Prime Minister, and that the Prime Minister is responsible. As we are going to give this Bill a Second Reading and deal with it in Committee I desire to say no more now. I hope in anything I have said I have not indicated anything but sincerity, respect, and devotion to the Secretary for the Colonies.

6.0 P.M.