I beg to move, "That this House desires to express to the Government and people of the United States of America its profound appreciation of the action of that Government in joining the Allied Powers, and thus defending the high cause of freedom and the rights of humanity against the gravest menace by which they have ever been imperilled."

I deeply regret that, for the reason I announced yesterday, the Prime Minister is not able himself to move the Resolution which stands in his name on the Paper—a Resolution expressing the deep appreciation of the House of Commons of the greatest event which has happened during the War, the entry of the United States of America into this struggle. Not only the Members of this House, but the whole of the people of the British Empire and of all Allied countries, welcome the adhesion of our new Ally with heartfelt sympathy, not only as the greatest event, but, as I think and believe, the turning point in this War. The New World has been brought in, or has stepped in, to redress the balance of the Old. The United States possesses resources of all kinds—resources which in the long run are decisive in war—to a greater extent probably than any other nation. The quality of her people was shown nearly sixty years ago—their courage, their steadfastness, their devotion to a high purpose was then shown in a struggle which in its essence was not dissimilar from that into which they have now entered. Since then the American people have shown their qualities of resourcefulness, of energy, of readiness to adapt new methods to new situations, which have been conspicuously successful in the arts of peace, and these same qualities will now be directed, in no halfhearted way, and with equal success in the art of war. The United States has been "beware of entrance to a quarrel"; but, being in it, she already shows that her enemy must beware of her, and, in spite of the fact that the path which we are now-travelling, which lies immediately in front of us, has never boon more difficult, I venture to express the hope and the belief that a change is coming, and that the long night of sorrow and anguish which has desolated the world is drawing to a close.

But we welcome the adhesion of our new Ally for another reason, not less strong—for the moral justification which it gives us for our own cause. America, like the British Empire, is engaged in war from no desire and through no fault of her own, but because she "could do no other." I have said many times since the War began—and I profoundly believe it—that the greatest of all the issues which will be decided in this struggle is whether or not free institutions on which the progress of civilisation and the welfare of mankind depend can survive against the centralised power of a military despotism. In this connection the entrance of the great Republic is a fitting pendant to the revolution which has brought the Russian people—whose courage and endurance we have so much admired, and whose sufferings have been so terrible—into the circle of the free nations of mankind. I have read, as I am sure every Member of this House has read, with deep admiration and profound agreement, the speech—a speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln—in which the President of the United States announced the entrance of his country into this struggle. I read the other day an extract from a German newspaper—a characteristic extract—in which it was said that "America was going to war for nothing." From their point of view the statement is true. America, like the British nation—I may make that claim—is animated by no lust for conquest, by no greed of territory, by no selfish end. The aims and the ideals to which President Wilson has given in that speech such noble expression are our aims and our ideals too; and, as we found earlier, so the American people have found now, that there is no method by which these aims can be secured except by fighting for them.

It is natural and fitting that this House, the chief representative body of the British Empire, should at the sarliest possible opportunity give definite and emphatic expression to the feelings which throughout the length and breadth of the Empire have grown day by day in volume and in fervour since the memorable decision of the President and Congress of the United States. I doubt whether even now the world realises the full significance of the step which America has taken. I do not use the language of flattery or of exaggeration when I say that it is one of the most disinterested acts in history. An inveterate tradition of more than 100 years has made it a cardinal principle of American policy to keep clear of European entanglements. A war on such a scale as this must of necessity dislocate international commerce and finance, but on balance it was, I think, doing little appreciable harm to the material fortunes and prosperity of the American people. Nor were distinctively American interests at home or abroad, and least of all what is the greatest of all interests in a democratic community—the maintenance of domestic independence and liberty—directly imperilled by the ambitions and designs of the Central Powers. What then is it that has enabled the President, after waiting with the patience which Pitt once described as "the first virtue of statesmanship," for the right moment, to carry with him a united nation into the hazards and the horrors of the greatest war in history? It is not, as my right hon. Friend has well said, a calculation of material gain. It is not the hope of territorial aggrandisement. It is not even the pricking of one of those so-called points of honour which in days gone by have driven nations, as they used to drive individuals, into the duelling ground. No, it is none of these things; it is the constraining force of conscience and of humanity, growing in strength and in compulsive authority month by month with the gradual unfolding before the eyes of the world of the real character of German aims and German methods. It is that force and that force alone which has brought home to the judgment of the great democracy over the seas the momentous truth that they were standing at the parting of the ways, and that they had to make one of those decisions which in the lives both of men and of communities determine for good or for evil their whole future.

What was it that our kinsmen in America realised was at issue in this unexampled conflict? The very things which they and we—if we are to be worthy of what is noblest in our common history—are bound to vindicate as the essential conditions of a free and honourable development of the nations of the world—justice, humanity, respect for law, consideration for the weak and the unprotected, chivalry towards their enemies, the observance of good faith. These, which we all used to regard as the commonplaces of international decency, have one after another been flouted, menaced, trodden under foot as though they were the effete superstitions of bygone days. America sees that there is here at issue something of wider import than the vicissitudes of battlefields, or even than the rearrangement of the map of Europe on the basis of nationality. The whole future of civilised government and intercourse—in particular the fortunes and the fate of democracy—are brought into peril. In such a situation aloofness is seen to be not only a blunder, but a crime. To stand aside with stopped ears, with folded arms, with an averted gaze when you have the power to intervene is to become not a mere spectator, but an accomplice. There was never in the minds of any of us any fear, from the moment the issue became apparent and unmistakable, that the voice of America would utter an uncertain note. She has now dedicated herself, without hesitation or reserve, with heart and soul and strength, to the greatest of all causes. To that cause, stimulated and fortified by her comradeship, we here renew our own fealty and devotion.

It would be rather strange if on this occasion the voice of Ireland were not heard. I have, therefore, been requested by the Irish Nationalist party to join most heartily in this welcome to the United States upon their entry into this great struggle. I regret that the Resolution, which expresses the sentiments of this House and of this nation, has not been drafted with a little more skill and a little move cordiality. It slightly reminds me—and I regret it—of an essay of Mr. Lowell in which he speaks of a certain condescension amongst foreigners. But the speech to which we have just listened redeems the Resolution and expresses, in the language which this great occasion deserves, what are the real sentiments of the nations which form the British Empire. The full meaning of the entry of America into this struggle it is difficult to describe. It is not like the entry of other Allies. It has a mighty significance to the whole civilised world. It is a breach with the unbroken tradition, as has just been said by the late Prime Minister, extending over more than 100 years since America first became a nation, during which time she has adhered, with almost vehemence and passion, to the principles laid down by Washington, that she should keep herself free from all entangling alliances and all interference in European quarrels. With the history of Europe behind her, is it any wonder that that principle should have been laid down? If we really desire to appreciate fully the significance of America's entry into this struggle, we should read and read again the addresses of President Wilson. His speech to the Senate on the occasion of the breach of relations with Germany and his first address to the Congress of America, when he asked them to authorise him to declare a state of war, are documents which, in my opinion, will go down to history as some of the noblest utterances ever spoken by a statesman. They are speeches which carry encouragement and hope to the heart and breast of every oppressed nationality and oppressed race in the world, and I trust that the people of this country will take some occasion of giving cordial expression to their acceptance of the great principles laid down in those immortal addresses.

There is one thing I miss from the speeches made here to-day and from the Resolution, that is, a recognition of the difficulties with which President Wilson has had to contend during the last two and a half years. I must confess I have often thought that in some of the criticism which was levelled against America and President Wilson during the last two years there was much want of generosity and want of understanding. The task of President Wilson was one of unpara-lelled difficulty, based on two great facts; first, that his nation—a nation which it was vital, not only to America but to the whole civilised world, that he should keep united—is a composite nation. He had to deal with a people who numbered in its composition close upon 20,000,000 citizens of German blood and 15,000,000 citizens of Irish blood. The difficulties he had to deal with in keeping that nation united and in bringing them into the War were never fairly appreciated in this country. It is difficult for anyone who has not resided in America to thoroughly understand it. The second great difficulty with which President Wilson had to deal was this: He had to deal with a nation who have a deep-seated tradition and an ineradicable hatred of war, far beyond anything that is known among European nations. That nation of America was founded by men who fled from war and oppression in Europe, and it has been so regarded from generation to generation and from year to year by exiles and persecuted men from Europe, who had burned into their very souls and into their blood hatred of the wars of Europe and the oppressions which, unhappily, have so long characterised the annals of Europe. Therefore, to bring the United States of America into the War was to ask them to go against one of the deepest instincts of the soul of that race.

In the midst of all these difficulties, I have admired beyond my power of expression the skill, the great statesmanship, the courage and the patience of President Wilson, which have put him, in my opinion, in the very forefront of the great statesmen of the last 100 years. Amidst all these difficulties, President Wilson was able to count upon one thing at least, that when the banner of the Stars and Stripes was unfurled in war, when the United States was attacked, every man of Irish blood among the 15,000,000 of Irish in America would be a loyal supporter of the President. Amidst all the humiliations and misfortunes of our people their record in connection with America is a great one. From the foundation of the American nation down to this hour, whenever America was assailed and in all her struggles, the fleets and armies of America were filled with Irishmen far in excess of their proportion to the population—filled with Irish soldiers, and commanded by Irish Generals and Irish Admirals on every occasion In the Was of the Revolution, one of the earliest aces of Washington himself, and of the first Congress, was to express their profound gratitude to the Irish of America for their invaluable aid in asserting the liberty of that country. In the Civil War, in the Spanish War, in the War of 1812, and in every other struggle in which America has been concerned, Irishmen were in the forefront of the American Army and the American Navy, and the day when the roll is called for battle the Irish will be there, and they will outnumber amongst the soldiers of the Republic the record of any other race in proportion to the number of its population. The coming of America has a deep significance, because of its moral effect on the cause of the Allies. It has another value which was referred to the other day by the Prime Minister, when he said he welcomed the coming of America into this War because of the fact that it would bring America to sit at the Peace Conference. That to us in a special manner, and to every race in Europe that is oppressed to-day, is a blessed thing and a sign of hope and an assurance of liberty, for we feel certain that coming, as she has done, into this struggle unselfishly in the cause of liberty—at a most critical hour and probably with the turning of the tide of battle in favour of democracy and liberty throughout the world—her voice will be a weighty voice when the settlement comes to be made, and we Irish, at least, know that at the Peace Conference we shall have a friend who will not desert us. One sentence from the great speech delivered by President Wilson to the Senate has remained in my memory and will go down for ever as an immortal principle to be accepted and endorsed, I hope, by all statesmen who believe in liberty. He was dealing with the great question of the state of the world after the War and the settlement which was to come, and the hopes which had been held out to the world of some League of Nations to maintain perpetual peace and banish the curse of war for ever from amongst civilised mankind. He said:

"No world's peace can be permanent, or ought to be permanent, which is based on the oppression of any face or nation of the world."

That is an immortal principle. It is true in principle, it is true in fact. Justice to all small and weak peoples, as well as to great empires, must be the basis of any attempt to bring peace to the world. Let us all pray that America may have that blessed task of basing peace upon such a foundation.

I feel that it is exceedingly difficult to follow the speeches which have been delivered, but I am quite sure the House will feel with me that this occasion ought not to pass without some spokesman for labour welcoming, as one should unreservedly, the entrance of the great democracy of America into this War. One thought that has come to me with regard to this matter is that the entry of America emphasises the fact that the days of isolation are entirely over, and that there is an interdependence of nations in the interests of humanity which is now emphasised in a manner which has never been emphasised before. The world, after all, is one, as well as being divided into nations, and it is the jealousies of nations and attempts on the part of some one or two nations at different periods in the world's history to dominate the rest which has been the cause of so much war and bloodshed and unhappiness; and if there can be, as I hope there will be, as the final result of this War and of the entrance of America of some such League of Nations, as the hon. Member has just referred to, which will be specially charged with keeping the world's peace against ambitious Powers, whether they be Principalities or Republics, I hope we may sec it. The most significant thing about the entry of America to me is that it is a sign that the great American nation has seen the real nature of the present War. They have been slow in making up their mind because of the immense difficulties of their domestic position, but I do not think there can be any doubt that from the very beginning of the War their real conscience and heart and moral has been on the side of the Allies. It is not, with them at any rate, a question of nationality or of patriotism. This War, whatever other wars may have been, is not a question of patriotism in the ordinary sense of the term. This conflict is raised above questions of nationality. It is raised on to the high question of principle as to what is to be the future of the world and of civilisation, and, above all, of democracy. We are fighting, America is now fighting, for a real internationalism, for a real policy of good will and arrangement between the nations which has hitherto been impossible.

Once before in the history of the world the American nation, which was then not in the same position as it is now, an Anglo-Saxon nation at that time, has joined with this great nation in the fight against slavery. It is owing to the efforts of America and to Britain that slavery has largely, if not entirely, disappeared from the face of the earth. At any rate, it is discredited. If we can stamp out together, along with our Allies, militarism and despotism, and autocracy as well, then, great as the struggle has been, horrible as this War has been, it will fulfil a purpose which, in my opinion, has been worth all the struggle and all the sacrifice. The great democracies, including Russia, are fighting for the right of free peoples to develop in their own way. That is the real issue of the struggle. It is the character of the methods which have been pursued by the Central Powers which is bringing the world to see what the struggle really is. It is said that manners make men, and the methods of nations prove the character of their civilisation. It is the manners of the German people in carrying on this War which have revealed what is really behind the War, and have caused not only America but the moral conscience of the world to take up arms against a Power which is absolutely unscrupulous, which has no sense of justice, honour, or fair play, and against which the only method to adopt is to fight them until we have won a complete victory.

The hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginncll) has handed in two Amendments, which he proposes to ask leave to move. Neither of them can be taken. The first one is only an irrelevant negative, and the second one is irrelevant altogether to the subject-matter of the Motion.

On a point of Order. Surely that is an exceptional ruling? My first proposition is not a direct negative, and I say that with all due respect.

Order, order!

I can hear the hon. Member on a point of Order, but I cannot hear him, if he tries to dispute the ruling of the Chair. He is entitled to make a submission on a point of Order, and if he does that I will hear him.

It is a misdescription to describe as irrelevant a Resolution or Motion proposing in recognition of the fact that this is a time-expired, unelected and, therefore, unconstitutional Assembly—

Order, order!

The hon. Member is simply persisting in challenging my ruling.

Will you allow me to make my point of Order? I think a Parliament like this—

Order, order!

It is a misdescription—

J. have given my decision. It is not open to the hon. Member to dispute my ruling in this way.

I want, on a point of Order, to ask you by what authority you rule that an Amendment proposing that this matter be postponed until after a new Parliament has been elected is a direct negative?

By the inherent right of the Chair I have given my ruling. The hon. Member has submitted to me an Amendment which is irrelevant to the Motion now before the House.

How is postponement irrelevant?

If the hon. Member persists in challenging my ruling after I have twice warned him, I shall be obliged to take notice of his conduct.

I want on a point of Order to say—

Order, order!

I want to do it for the dignity of the Chair on this great occasion when not only Europe, but America, is looking on at this House—

Order, order!

On a point of Order. I should like to know why you rule that a Motion to postpone is out of order?

I have ruled on the ground already stated that both the Motions handed in by the hon. Member are out of order.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask you how—

The hon. Member, on a point of Order, is simply trying to argue with the Chair. The duty of deciding these questions is imposed on me by the House, and I shall not permit the hon. Member or any other hon. Member to go beyond properly submitting a point of Order and to argue with me on my rulings.

You have not answered the simple question whether the ruling that the Motion to postpone this until a new Parliament has been elected is out of order, without reference to the second.

I have ruled that both Motions handed in by the hon. Member are out of order.

It is a partial ruling.

The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell)—[to leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the word "Section"]— is out of order.

Will you say on what ground?

It is out of order because it is equivalent to a negative of the Bill.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "six years and ten months," and to insert instead thereof the words "seven years."

4.0 p.m.

I move this Amendment for two or three reasons, some general and some particular, the nature of which I want to have an opportunity of submitting to the Committee. This is the third time during the present Parliament that Parliament has extended its life for, as events have proved, an inadequate and irregular period. In the Parliament and Registra- tion Act, 1916, the period which Parliament set to its own life as provided by the Parliament Act of 1911 of five years was extended to five years and eight months. In the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, that period was further extended by seven months, a month shorter than the first period of extension, to six years and three months. Now by this Clause both these provisions are altered or repealed and there is to be a further extension to a period of six years and ten months. This Parliament was originally elected for a period of seven years, and it was only by an Act passed by this Parliament that the period was limited to five years. Therefore, it seems to me that, as it is impossible to forecast within a few weeks or a few months what would be the most convenient period for the extension of the life of Parliament at the present time, the most natural course would be to extend the life of Parliament to the period for which it was originally elected, namely, seven years. There are several much more specific reasons which I want to bring before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, the late Prime Minister, based the whole of his speech yesterday on the practical impossibility—I hardly think that is putting it too strongly—or, at any rate, the inadvisability of holding an election on the present register, because it would only result in the return of a wholly unrepresentative Parliament. The Leader of the House, in replying, said in effect that the franchise difficulty of holding an election during the period of the War was only one of the difficulties. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the fact that at present it is impossible for any Government, however strong and however much it commands the support of the nation, to get a mandate from the nation which is in any sense representative is not a small part, but is a very substantial part of the difficulty of the present situation.

The Speaker's Conference sat, I think, from the early days of October until late in January, extending its sittings throughout the Recess at the express request of the Prime Minister. Some of us were disappointed that the present Government did not take the opportunity of at once dealing with this question of putting the franchise and the distribution of electoral power upon a basis which would enable the people to elect a representative Parlia- ment. There was no mention of any question of electoral reform in the King's Speech. It was only, comparatively speaking, the other day that, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister asked the House to proceed as soon as possible to an act of legislation which would give full effect to all the Resolutions of the Speaker's Conference with one doubtful exception. I am not going into any details of any of those questions of electoral reform, but had the Government dealt with this question at once in the early days of February, the period that is now proposed to extend Parliament, six years and ten months, would probably have proved adequate to enable effect to be given to legislation based on the Resolutions of the Speaker's Conference. I do not want to say that it would be impossible to carry out registration and redistribution in the period indicated, which expires on 30th November, but it is at any rate leaving a very short time, even assuming that the necessary legislation goes through in the easiest possible manner both in this House and another place. But if the Amendment which I propose, which carries it over to about 30th January next, were accepted by the Government, there is certainly a strong probability that by that time, when, by the natural efflux of time, this Parliament comes to a termination under this Bill, it will be possible to have it succeeded by a Parliament which will have the full authority of the people, not omitting those who are fighting for their country at the present time and the sailors of our merchant service.

Yesterday I think the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) said that though a Parliament elected under the present register would be very unrepresentative, this Parliament also is extremely unrepresentative, at the present time, of the electorate as a whole. I am quite sure that there is no Member of the House who would not feel the power of Parliament enormously increased if he was satisfied that Parliament really represented the people as a whole. We are now going to extend the life of Parliament for the third time for the perfectly arbitrary period of seven months. It is worth while to take a little courage and grasp this question and admit frankly, what I believe has been at the back of the minds of everyone responsible for the proposed extension of Parliament, namely, that the period proposed may mean that it will outlast the period of the War. That is another consideration on which I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to extend the period of this Parliament by a couple of months beyond the period proposed in the Bill. I may also point out that, whether there is an Act passed to extend the life of Parliament by one period or another, of course it does not necessarily follow that Parliament will last for the period indicated. At any time when the Government ceases to have that support in: this House, which ex hypothesi is not fully representative of the people, which is necessary for them to carry on the War, it may be absolutely necessary for them to seek a fresh mandate from such register of the people as exists. That being so, it is not very important that we should consider whether Parliament should be extended by one period or another, and is not what appears to be the obvious period of extension, namely, the full term for which Parliament was originally elected, the one that is least open to contrary arguments.

I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, if it is his opinion that six years and ten months is really preferable to seven years, why that strange period has been selected, unless it be on the shortest possible precedent, namely, that a few months ago we passed a similar Bill extending the life of Parliament for a similar period, namely, seven months? There is also the point, in view of the fact that onlyyesterday the Leader of the House pointed out that there is an extraordinarily heavy legislative programme before this House, that the embarrassment of the Government would be, for what it is worth, diminished if they felt they were not living on the edge of an electoral volcano, and were not merely extending their life by what appears to me to be an inadequate period. In the circumstances, suppose they adopt the further period which I propose it does not follow in the slightest degree that Parliament will last until that time. It, at any rate, puts one legislative question a couple of months further out of the programme, and may possibly save having to waste two or three days' valuable time late in the autumn in passing another Bill of this kind. There is no question that, whatever may be a profitable way of spending the time of this House, these two days, yesterday and to-day, are a dead loss, for what they are worth, in getting on with the necessary legislation which is directly connected with the War. The proposals which I now make gives us an additional chance of not having to spend another two or three days this year in passing a Bill exactly similar to the present one, extending the life of Parliament once more, and it would give us time to put through the necessary machinery to enable the succeeding Parliament to be representative in the fullest sense of the word. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I hope that the Government will see that there is very little to be said against it—that, at any rate, I have put forward some arguments which ought to have some weight with them, and that they will see their way to adopt the period suggested, namely, seven years.

I would like to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I desire to convey to the Committee my conviction that this would be a great improvement on this Bill. I am not criticising the Government for not having brought in an Electoral Reform Bill since February last. Those of us who realise the enormous task which the Government have in hand ought to be very slow before we condemn them or find fault with them because things which are wise and necessary cannot be done with the promptitude which in easier times we should expect. But for that very reason, because we know how very difficult it may be to do even necessary things with the swiftness that is desirable, I do impress upon the Government the desirability of accepting this Amendment. It would be a thousand pities if the Electoral Reform Bill, which we understand is now being prepared, did not have a fair and full chance of becoming law during the lifetime of this Parliament. Every one of us would be placed in the unfortunate position of having to favour the claim of indefinite extensions of this Parliament, or of having an election in circumstances which were described with such power and vigour yesterday by the late Prime Minister and other speakers. The alternative is bad for the country to have forced upon it, and is an alternative which we ought to get away from as soon as we can, and the only way in which this alternative can be avoided is to have the Electoral Reform Bill become law, if pos- sible, during the extension of Parliament by the Bill which is now before the House and which will become law in a few days.

I submit to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that so far from this extension of two months embarrassing the freedom of action of the Government, it helps them. The extension of Parliament under this Bill for seven or nine months does not mean a compulsory extension. Every Government that ever ruled since the days of the Triennial Act might be glad to have a month or two in hand if forced by stress of weather to consider the desirability of dissolving Parliament. The difference between the two proposals is that the period proposed in the Bill makes the possibility of passing the Electoral Reform Bill less than if Parliament were extended for the full term of seven years. By extending it for the full term of seven years you are merely reverting to the law of the country as it was for two hundred years. You are not interfering with the freedom of action of the Government. You are giving to this House and to the other House full opportunities of carrying an Electoral Reform Bill, the principle of which this House approved of by an overwhelming display of opinion the other day. It is for those reasons, and because against it there is only the fact that nine months is a little longer than we had the last time, that I respectfully urge the Government to accept this Amendment. I do so not in the attitude of a critic, but in the attitude of a perfectly loyal supporter both of the War and of the Government, who are conducting it under circumstances of great difficulty and of stress, and I am quite sure that the sooner the Reform Bill is passed and the sooner it is possible for the Government to have an election which would be less of a farce than it would be now, the stronger the probability that it would be helpful to the progress of the War.

If this Bill is carried in its present form, the present Parliament will expire on 30th November this year. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend is carried, this Parliament will last until the 31st January, 191S. My hon. Friend undoubtedly used very cogent arguments in favour of a further extension of the life of. Parliament for another two months. He said in the course of his observations that, after all, this Parliament was elected on the septennial principle, and it was only in 1911 that the septennial Parliament became subject to the new quinquennial rule. He further said that twice this House had extended the life of Parliament for what had proved' to be an inadequate time. All those arguments are quite true; but the most cogent of his arguments, in my opinion, was that in which he said that by extending the life of Parliament to the 31st January, 1918, we should give a real opportunity, not only for the Electoral Reform Bill to be carried, but for a register to be prepared on the basis of the Electoral Reform Bill. I do not deny the great difficulties which surround the whole question of registration If a register is to be prepared in consequence of the House of Commons accepting, as I hope they will, the main conclusions of the Speaker's Conference, and if it passes that Bill, then undoubtedly we shall have an entirely new system of franchise, coupled with a new system of registration created under very difficult circumstances. A new staff will have to be formed, and if women are going to be added, as I hope to see they will, to the register, and if you are going to have, for the first time, a list of absentee voters, then, in view of all those facts, to my mind you will undoubtedly require to have an almost, if not quite, complete house-to-house canvass and inquiry on the part of new registration officers. When all that is done we are necessarily faced with other difficulties, among which is that of printing, one of our greatest. Undoubtedly, so far as we can ascertain, without the making of the most searching inquiries, we think it would be almost impossible to produce a register under six months of time—that is, a register of a complete character, based on the new franchise, and on the whole new system of registration. Therefore, I recognise the cogency of my hon. Friend's arguments.

It may be asked why the Government, after the life of Parliament has been prolonged twice, have put a shorter period into the Bill, so that the life of this Parliament will last only until 30th November, instead of 31st January, 1918; and my hon. Friend has submitted, as one of his arguments, that what has been done by a Coalition Government is clearly a precedent, because they have already extended the life of Parliament for a period of eight months, and that the acceptance of this Amendment would only mean nine months. First of all, the earliest exten- sion of the life of Parliament was eight months, and the second extension was seven months, and the Government, having to choose the period to put into the Bill, undoubtedly were influenced by the idea that no Government, except under the most urgent and compelling circumstances, should extend the life of Parliament and its own life for a longer period than is absolutely necessary. I am quite sure that is the view of the House of Commons, which is naturally and properly jealous of the control of the Government, and any Member of the House of Commons naturally feels objection to the idea of his going to his constituents and saying: "Prolong my own life for another six months or eight months." Therefore, taking all these things into view, we thought it better not to prolong the life of this Parliament for a longer period, at all events, than eight months. If, looking at the whole of the facts, the House of Commons very much dislikes the third period of prolonging the life of Parliament, they might also very much dislike giving further powers to the present Government.

Bearing in mind all these circumstances and facts, the Government came to the conclusion that it would be better to follow precedent by sticking to the shorter period of seven months, instead of nine months, for which I admit the hon. Gentleman opposite advanced some really cogent arguments. After all, what will probably happen? I quite understand the interest of both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the success of the Electoral Reform Bill, which is the outcome of those admirable deliberations and consultations of the Speaker's Conference. I quite sympathise with them, but I do not think there will be any disadvantage to that Bill merely because Parliament does not prolong its life for a longer period than is proposed. By the end of August the House of Commons will know that in order to give real effect to such a measure they must prolong the life of Parliament, because they could not get a register ready for a General Election. Supposing the House of Commons came to that conclusion, a Bill similar to this could at once be passed without much discussion, prolonging the life of the House of Commons for another two months in order that an election should take place, not on the old register, but oh a new register. I do not think we could at present take steps to begin it imme- diately, but once that Bill was passed through the House, we could at once begin to compile a new register in order to get it completed as soon as possible. If we could shorten the present period of prolongation to six months, we would be only too glad to do so, but I think, on the whole, my hon. Friends need have no fear about the Electoral Reform Bill suffering from the fact of the further prolongation of the life of this Parliament, and I think, while admitting the cogency of the arguments which hon. Members have put forward, it would be well to adhere to the proposal in the Bill.

I am very glad my right hon. Friend has taken the line that he has. I do not want to go into the question as to whether or not it is likely that an Electoral Reform Bill will become law, beyond saying that I think the extension of the life of Parliament has always been consequent upon the exigencies of the War, and not on something which has really nothing to do with the War. I would point out to my hon. Friend below the Gangway that if his Amendment were carried, the result of it would be that we should have to sit from the 1st of December up to the 30th January, but in December we adjourn for something like three weeks, and I think that last year we adjourned for a considerably longer period than three weeks; so that of the proposed extension of two months there would be lost at least three weeks. But it would be within the power of this House, if it found at the end of November that there was a certain amount of necessary business to be done, to then extend the life of Parliament for the period necessary to do that work, instead of accepting the Amendment as now proposed. The method I suggest would, I think, be the proper way to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) is a believer in the rights of private Members. May I point out to him that the longer he extends the life of Parliament the less control he has over the Government, and by keeping the life of Parliament short he will possess greater control over the Government. He would have more power over the Government in regard to the bringing in of an Electoral Reform Bill, for he could say that he should not vote for the further prolongation of the life of Parliament without an Electoral Reform Bill being brought in. My hon. Friend has really moved an Amendment which defeats his own end. The hon. and learned Member on the other side (Sir Ryland Adkins) said that this Parliament was elected for seven years and on a principle which had been in existence for 200 years Who altered that practice but the hon. Gentleman himself, who was a supporter of the alteration to five years? He was the supporter of the alteration of a principle which had been in existence for 200 years. He supported the Parliament Bill, which was a revolution—

May I remind my right hon. Friend that we are at war.

I do not see that our being at war has anything to do with the alteration of a principle which had existed for 200 years. This principle was altered years before the War broke out. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite supported the alteration of that principle when there was no war, and when he seemed to think that there could be no war.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman his authority for that statement?

The general speeches in Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.

I was becoming aware of that fact, and I apologise, Sir, for having been led away into this subject. However, I have nothing further to add to what I have said beyond congratulating my right hon. Friend opposite in adhering to the proposal in the Bill.

Just for once I am in accord with my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), and in that I hope I am doing nothing wrong. I am not quite-in accord, on the contrary with my hon. and learned Friend in regard to the practice under the Septennial Act of 1716 to 1911, when the Parliament Act was passed.

I did not say that Parliament sat; I said that the law of the duration of Parliament was seven years.

My hon. and learned Friend knows that law is one thing, and practice is a very different thing. This Parliament has existed now for a longer period than any Parliament since the Septennial Act of 1716. I oppose this Amend- ment because it practically restores the Septennial Act. Will the House believe that the only longest Parliament in the last century was the Parliament which met in 1820, and lasted six years and a few months. Sir Henry Fowler, so far back at 1892, in the House of Commons, brought forward a Motion in favour of triennial Parliaments, or of shortening the life of Parliament. Sir Henry Fowler proved conclusively that though they were under the Septennial Act, no Parliament during the last century ever sat for a longer period than six years and a few months. In the Debate in 1892 Sir Henry Fowler said:

"A new Parliament was called together in 1820, and that was the longest Parliament of the century, and under Lord Liverpool lasted until 1826, its actual duration being a few days over the Six years."

That was in the sleepy days of Lord Liverpool, who was in fact a walking coercionist and corruptionist. Sir Henry-Fowler continued:

"No Parliament after that expired by effluxion of time until the Parliament of 1841, the Parliament which put Sir Robert Peel in power. Then Parliament was dissolved in 1817 and if Sir Robert Peel is accepted on the one side of the House, surely on the other Lord John Russel will be accepted an a great constitutional authority. When Lord John Russel was called upon to construe the Septennial Act his construction corresponded with that of Mr. Pitt and Lord Liverpool, and he dissolved the Parliament of 1841 in the year 1847."

Sir Henry Fowler went on to prove that not one of the other Parliaments existed longer than six years and a few days. In that Debate my recollection is that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) took part, and was then against the curtailment of the life of Parliament, and, if so, he has been so much consistent. I simply desire to give these references to what occurred well within my recollection and to show how far the Government, by proposing an unconstitutional Act like this, give encouragement to others like my hon. Friend below to go beyond the beyonds. If this Amendment were carried it would give an opportunity for the existence of Parliament for a longer period than a Parliament has ever existed since 1716, and that is a very strong expression.

I quite see the difficulty the Government are in in not liking to propose a longer term of extension than has been proposed by any previous Government. But I should like to suggest to them that if they were to leave it to the decision of the House as to whether the extension should be for seven or eight or for nine months, that would be quite a reasonable position for them to adopt. I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), but I really do think from the point of view of Members and of the proper respect which Parliament ought to pay to its own Rule? and constitution, we should be wiser to extend the period to the full term of seven years. This Parliament was elected for seven years. I did not vote for the alteration because I was not a Member of the House at the time. If I had been here I should have objected. I have always thought it a very foolish alteration, and that our ancestors were wiser when they gave a longer period. What has just been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. S. MacNcill) bears out the wisdom which was shown by them in their Septennial Act, because it is wise to give to every Parliament a good deal of margin for emergencies. Those emergencies have occurred, and this difficulty has arisen in consequence of the alteration from seven years to five. I therefore think that we should be wise to go back to the previous arrangement. I press it also on the consideration of the House for this reason: It is not really, after all, a very serious matter for a Parliament which was elected for seven years and which altered the time of its own free will to change its mind and again make the term seven years. It will be a very grave and serious matter if we are obliged, as we may be, to go further than the distance for which our constituents elected us. I do think, and I ask the Government and the House to consider this view, that we should be wiser to make our term seven years. I think, as a matter of constitution and for our dignity, we should be quite wise in extending to the seven years. If we extend to the 30lh November we may be just in the middle of an Autumn Session, and before Christmas is not a convenient time, so that it would be clearly better to extend to the 31st January, and if anything were to happen which did not require an Autumn Session you would be able to consider a further extension in January. I do press the Government to leave it to the House to decide as to the number of months. It is not such a very serious matter, and I do not think that any of the constituencies would think we were doing anything wrong in making it nine months instead of seven.

I do not agree with the last speaker if he is at all claiming to voice the rights of private Members. I have some sympathy with the point, but you could only get independence of Members if, instead of permitting Parliament to last so many months, you decree that it shall last for a particular time. That would give you a fixed time, such as they have in the United States and in France. But so long as the Government can come down, and because even an Under-Secretary has been impudent to some Member at Question Time, and can say, "We make this a question of confidence, and if you touch this little office boy of ours we all got out"; as long as that can be done and Members threatened with a Dissolution, you have the position of Members undermined. I believe the question of payment of £400 per year to Members has a distinct bearing on the matter, and that Members at the present time vote for this Motion and for these Bills extending the duration of the House much more freely because they are getting the £400 per year. I do not say that that influences a great many minds, but unconsciously it operates, and if we are going into the whole question these things should be pointed out and admitted. I am sure that is one of the effects of the payment of Members, and always will be.

The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to my mind, rather took up a position of extreme Radicalism. I would say, as one of the most conservative-minded Members, that he must not be led by the Russian example and these days of democracy to wander too far in the paths of extreme Radicalism. He practically assured the House that at the end of November they could pass another Bill extending the life of Parliament for a couple of months without any trouble. But the right hon. Gentleman must not forget, good Conservative as he used to be, that there is another House. Surely it might be the case that another place, not liking the great bulk of voters sweeping on to the register, might prefer the old lot whom they knew, rather than those on the new register whom they did not know. For my right hon. Friend to come down and say that this House can pass a further extension in a few minutes is a deplorable lack of those Conservative tendencies of which we regard him as one of the bulwarks. Every time the Government bring in a Bill of this kind they must recognise that this House is not the arbiter of its own destinies, but is combined with another place. I was not sent here to champion the other House in preference to this, but at the same time one cannot shut one's eyes to plain facts, and they have power co-equal with ours on such a question as this Amendment. Therefore I utter the warning that every time the Government bring in a Bill like this they are really decreeing that another place as well as this House shall say whether there shall be a General Election or not. I can quite understand, if a majority of the peers were against women's suffrage or manhood suffrage or things of that kind, they might do what an hon. Friend did here yesterday when he said he would sooner have a General Election than this Reform Bill. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that if he gets this Bill in the form in which he wishes it will not be interfered with at the other end of the corridor. Having that assurance from my right hon. Friend, I would encourage him to resist this Amendment.

I have already expressed my view that any extension of the life of this House should be reduced to the narrowest possible limit. There is one all important question which really overshadows and ought to dominate our Debate on this Amendment and the whole Debate, and that is the question whether the Government seriously intend to put through the Reform Bill before we have a General Election. I think it is really a very extraordinary state of things and extremely symptomatic of the conditions into which this House has been allowed to drift that, in a Bill of this character and of this enormous importance, the House should be deserted absolutely by Ministers of the Crown. We have left to take charge of the Parliament Bill an Under-Secretary who is wholly incapable of giving us the assurances for which we are entitled to ask. Surely, when we are cut down to this condition of things, that at the present time there is only one member of the Cabinet who has the right to enter this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Two!"]. At all events, we are only favoured by the presence of one member of the Cabinet, and no representative of the Government can give us such assurances as we are entitled to ask for except a member of the Cabinet. I want to know, before we go further in this discussion, what are the real intentions of the Government as to the Reform Bill. I must confess that my attitude towards this Bill would be very considerably modified—I still hold the view which I expressed yesterday as regards an election from the Irish point of view—if I could obtain any reasonable assurance that the Government are seriously resolved to put the Reform Bill through.

The present Government are, or at all events have the outward form of being, a Government of great power, and they are practically in a position of putting a pistol to the heads of this House and of the other House, and any legislation which they undertake to say as a united Cabinet and Government is a war measure necessary for the successful prosecution of the War, and the maintenance of good will and union amongst the nation, the House of Lords would not dare to throw out. That is an absolute fact, and we are absolutely in the dark—I am, and I believe the whole House is—as to the real intentions of the Government on the Reform Bill. The Government cannot pass the Reform Bill by simply using pious expressions or by simply introducing it and doing what was done in the case of half a dozen other Bills whose fate we all remember, where the late Prime Minister came down and declared them to be absolutely necessary and then about three days afterwards dropped them. If that game is going to be played again on the House of Commons, it is not good enough. It has been played two or three times too often, and we ought to know, before we decide these questions, as to the length of the life of this Parliament, whether the Government mean to declare to the House of Lords and to the House of Commons that the Reform Bill is an essential war measure and must be passed. Everybody knows perfectly well that if the Government took up that attitude the Bill would go through, but at present my impression is that the Bill will not pass and that the Government have no intention of dealing with it in such a way as to enable it to pass through both Houses.

I want now to ask you a question which is a very important question for all of us, and I should like to move an Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Swift MaeNeill) has pointed out to me that the Long Parliament—the last case in English history in which Parliament prolonged its existence, as we have been doing now, habitually—did not give the Government of that day the power to terminate their existence at their free will, but the Long Parliament said they would continue to exist at their own pleasure and that no Government could break them up. What I want to know is this, whether I should be in order in moving an Amendment prolonging the life of this Parliament until the Reform Bill became law. If there is no real intention to pass the Reform Bill, then this whole thing is moribund, because one of the main purposes put forward by the ex-Prime Minister yesterday was the farce of holding an election on the present register. I agree that it would be a great farce and that it would not represent the nation, and, therefore, if a prospect is held out to us that by continuing this most objectionable procedure of prolonging the life of Parliament by its own act we could get an assurance that we would by that means secure a General Election on a greatly extended franchise and with a reformed register, the Government would be in a much stronger position. I fully expected when the Leader of the House was making his speech that he would make a firm statement on this question, and would announce the determination of the Government to pass the Reform Bill. This Government can do it. There is not the smallest doubt they can do it. Does anybody contend that, if the House of Lords knew they would overthrow the Government by rejecting the Reform Bill, they would attempt to do anything of the kind in the face of the War or even seriously to embarrass the Government? Everybody knows they would not, and, therefore, this Government have it in their power to give a definite pledge that before the end of this time they will pass that Bill into law. Are they prepared to do that, because that really is a matter that we ought to know before we proceed to deal with these Amendments? I would like to ask you, Sir, whether, before I submit my Amendment, I would be in order in moving that the life of this Parliament should be prolonged until such period as the Reform Bill is passed into law and a new register prepared, and that the power to dissolve Parliament should be done away with?

On a point of Order. May I submit to your consideration, Sir, that in the various Statutes in reference to the Home Rule Act there is a provision that the Act should not come into operation until the time of the peace, that being a defined time? On the same analogy, of course, the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend, which would probably be a fresh Clause to the Bill, would be completely in order and within Parliamentary cognisance.

In reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I am always very chary of giving an opinion on an Amendment which I have not yet seen. I have been doing my best to draft it for him in my head, and the only way that I can see is something like this, that, instead of six years and ten months, we should insert a period called x, x being the time at which a certain Bill not yet introduced shall have been passed by this and another House of Parliament. It seems to be a difficult matter, but I will wait until I see the hon. Member's Amendment.

May I very humbly submit to you, Sir, that an Amendment of that sort would destroy the prerogative of the Crown, as it would prevent the Crown dissolving Parliament if it thought right to do so?

Why I was encouraged to raise this matter was that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. MacNeill) pointed out that the Long Parliament did it while the Crown was in existence and that the Crown assented. I should have taken the view of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) but for the fact that we have this precedent.

I am not presuming to inform you, Sir, but I am trying to inform the House in matters of prerogative. The consent of the Crown can be at any stage of the Bill stated to the House at the proper time. The consent of the Crown is not a condition precedent to the introduction of a Bill, but may be given at any stage of a Bill up to the Third Reading, and can be given through a Minister of the Crown stating that the Crown lays its prerogative in this respect at the service of the House, or that it withdraws any objectionable barrier that may be in the way.

It is correct to say that that is the usual procedure when dealing with Royal prerogatives, and it was hardly anticipated when this measure was read a second time yesterday that so large a question would be raised, and at present I can only express my doubts whether an Amendment could be submitted to me in the sense indicated by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

I am not going into the argument touching the prerogative of the Crown or into the precedents derived from the Long Parliament, but if I may have the attention of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who asked just now whether the Government could give an assurance that they were in earnest about the Electoral Reform Bill, and that they will pass that Bill, perhaps he will accept a few words from me as one of those who is now busily engaged in framing it. The Government are thoroughly in earnest regarding the passage of that Reform Bill, and are busily framing that Bill, and hope, so soon as they can find time to frame the Bill, which of course is not an easy one to frame, and so soon as the House of Commons can find time to give due attention to that Bill, to present it to the House; but whether the Government will be able to pass that Bill is entirely another matter. The passage of the Bill depends on the good will of the House and must depend on the good will of the House. That is quite obvious. The Bill itself is framed upon Resolutions that are the results of something in the nature of a compromise on questions which arouse an immense amount of controversy, and unless the Government find the House in the same mood and the same kind of temper in which they found the Conference, and unless these great questions are treated in a practical, businesslike way, and in a somewhat short way, so far as discussion is concerned by the House, it would obviously be impossible, looking to all the other business that the Government must transact in connection with the War, particularly financial business, to force a Bill of that nature, which must be a very large Bill, dealing with many subjects, through the House. But I can give this assurance, on the part of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Government, that the Government are most anxious to see that Electoral Reform Bill pass into law, and that they are not putting it on the floor of the House merely because they feel bound to do so after the Debate which took place, and after the labour bestowed upon that subject both by the Conference and by Mr. Speaker. It is not that they feel bound to present the Bill, but because they are really in earnest in trying to solve the problem. They hope the House will be in earnest and will treat the Bill in a businesslike and practical way, and then they will be able to feel a reasonable amount of confidence that they can pass the Bill within a reasonable time and within such a period as to enable them to get to work upon the register, without which the Bill could be of no practical value, so that at all events in the beginning of next year we may be able to have an election should we desire it, not on the old register, but on the new register, containing the new electorate, which will be added to by many millions doubtless under the Bill.

I am afraid- I cannot accept that as an assurance at all. On the contrary, I listened most attentively to the right hon. Genleman, and I concluded that the prospects of the passing of the Bill are exceedingly bad. If I ask any further questions on the matter I think I ought to address them to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), because it depends upon his temper and the temper of his friends whether the Bill is to get any chance at all. The declaration now made by the Government merely indicates that if that Bill is met by determined opposition the Government will make no serious attempt to pass it.

I should like to support this Amendment, and I should be more pleased if it went a little further. This House has prolonged its own life on two occasions. The principal excuse it gave for prolonging its own life was that it was impossible to go to the country because there was no register on which to do it. I have had personal experience in the difficulties that I encountered in conducting an election with the existing register, and I would point out that if is not only impossible but, what is more, it is most unjust for this Government or any Government to go to the country presumably to test the opinion of the people when they will only be able to ask about -25 per cent., not of the population, mark you, but of those people who were entitled to vote at the last election. I think it can reasonably be assumed that the only people who could vote if we went to an election to-morrow are the people who have been in no way affected by this War. Because, what are the actual facts. Any man who has been in any way affected by this War will not be in a position to vote, for the simple reason that he is either out at the front, or is engaged in some munition work or war work, or, as an hon. Gentleman suggests, is a conscientious objector. Personally I should disfranchise the lot at once; but to proceed with my argument let mo say that there is hardly a case where the work on which a man who has taken an active part in war work, where he was not interested in war work before, is engaged, has not necessitated the changing of his address. The result would be that in practically every constituency 50 per cent. of the votes would be out-voters, and many who have been moved to munition works in Scotland and all over the country would find it utterly impossible to come from those parts to vote at their own expense, while I understand it is not allowed that it should be done at the expense of the candidate, or rather at the expense of the organisation which the candidate has behind him. I understand, therefore, that if this Government does go to the country the most they will get will be a vote from about 25 per cent. of the people themselves. What would this 25 per cent. be? They would be all the old shell-back Liberals and Conservatives whose ages make it absolutely impossible for them to have any interest in the conduct of this War actively. In these circumstances, I think it is a most immoral thing, considering the opinion of the public as to party methods, the party organisation, the party machine, and its general conduct of public affairs, that we should make a direct appeal only to the supporters of such machinery.

The Government is asking now for six months' extension. The Government knows perfectly well that at the end of six months it will have to come down here again and ask for another six months. It might just as well put its cards on the table now. We have had an admission from the Front Bench this afternoon that it is impossible to prepare the register in seven months. It will have to come down here again. It knows that whereas if it prolonged its life for nine months according to the statement from the Front Bench it would be possible in the next three months to pass the new Franchise Bill, and then six months would be left to the Government for the preparation of this register, with regard to which I personally do not see the enormous difficulties which were pointed out by the right hon Gentleman on the Front Bench this afternoon. Directly there is anything the Government does not want to do, that always presents enormous difficulties; but surely this Government at least appreciates that the governing of a country and an empire does present enormous difficulties. It is because this House has such great confidence in their ability to meet those enormous difficulties that presumably they sit where they do. It is the business of the Government to overcome enormous difficulties, and so far as the enormous difficulty of the register, of the house-to-house canvass, is concerned, surely the members of the Front Bench know that this house-to-house canvass is, and has been, going on all over the country for purposes of rates, and every other purpose. As for the printing of the register, the exceptional necessity for taking the temper of the people and a referendum of the nation at any given moment in the next twelve months would justify possibly exceptional methods. There is no need to print twenty or thirty registers. These registers could be prepared without printing. The machinery already employed in many offices for duplicating correspondence could be employed for procuring these registers, and I suggest to this House that there are many firms who would willingly undertake to produce the register when once the names, addresses and qualifications were available, in nearer one month than six months. Just because we have always gone through an elaborate procedure, and have set up the register in five different fonts of type, and bound it, and made it pretty to handle, in days of peace that is no reason why we should do so to-day. Provided we have sufficient copies of the names, addresses and qualifications of voters to render it possible to have an election I would suggest that is all that is necessary.

I have heard an hon. Member on the other side of the. House say that at moments it was necessary to have a longer duration of Parliament than in the past because of exceptional incidents occurring when it might be unsafe to consult the people. Really, it is an extraordinary thing if this House is of the opinion that it is wrong to consult the people of this country. Personally, I think that when any extraordinary thing happens it is right to consult the people of the country, and what amazes me the more I see of this House is that while hon. and right hon. Members rise up and say that it is absolutely impossible to go to the country because we have no register with which to do it—and I have heard that said for fifteen months—yet no step has been taken to provide a register. The longer the Government put off providing this register, presumably the longer they will live. I do not suggest that there is a necessity for turning the present Government out. That is beside the question. I think every man—and if the franchise is to be extended to women, every man and every woman—has the right to say that the Government should immediately set up the machinery to consult it if and when it is necessary to consult it. It seems to me a most extraordinary proceeding that we should continue in this House to urge the utter impossibility of consulting the people, and yet take no steps whatsoever to set machinery up which we say is absolutely necessary. An hon. Member behind me made some reference to the salaries of Members, rendering them anxious not to upset the Government. I quite fail to see that. Surely the hon. Member must know that there are very few seats in this country which can be fought under a couple of thousand pounds, and if he had said that—

I do not recognise the relevance of these remarks to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Perhaps I had better put it in this way—

The hon. Member must not put the same point in another way.

Knowing how difficult it is to keep in order. I will be very careful and consult my notes. There is one other point I wanted to raise, and that is that this present extension comes to an end in November. I think it is reasonable to assume that that particular time will be a highly critical time in the conduct and affairs of this War, if by that time an armistice or peace has not been arrived at. I think it will be a most unfortunate thing for the Government to come down, as they would, and to plead the crisis that may be then occurringwhich may not be altogether unassociated with food and famine as a reason for an extension for another six or twelve months If possible, I would like to suggest that the Government should give an undertaking that if their life is extended on this occasion they will press forward with the Bill for the new franchise, and that, failing that, if within three months from now they find it impossible to pass that Bill through the House, they will pre-pare a new register on the old lines. I quite fail to see why, if we cannot get the Franchise Bill through, we should continue to disfranchise the millions of men who at present, from some technical disability, have no vote in this country. I suggest that 75 per cent. of the men in this country who would be entitled to a vote, even if a new register were prepared on the old lines, have no vote to-day. I am quite sure that the feeling of the people outside is one of intense irritation and dissatisfaction that this House is calmly prolonging its own life and taking no steps whatsoever to enable the people to express their opinion in any way. I consider, therefore, that the Amendment put down is one which ought to be left to the House of Commons, as distinct from the Government, to be decided. But I would also suggest, if it would be in order to make such a suggestion, and I do not know whether the Amendment will provide for it, that a should not be within the power of the Government to terminate their own lives during that period, because we have had some little experience quite recently of the Government's methods. Personally, I have not the slightest confidence in either Front Bench when it comes to a question of whether they will terminate or whether they will prolong their own lives in the interests of the country, and as distinct from their own. I have said in this House before, and I say it again, that it is simply a question of expediency: whether it will pay the Government at any given moment, perhaps one month after this Bill has been given to them, to come and take a snap vote of confidence here on some trivial matter and then turn round to the country and say, "How can we conduct this War; how can we go on with all this opposition in the House?" They might take some popular election cry, as has been seen again and again, and go to the country on some issue which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get a representative opinion upon. Therefore, I think that if this House prolongs its life, and that of the Government, it should certainly be on the understanding that it shall not be within the power of the Government to play fast and loose with the House of Commons. If some sort of Amendment can be put down to give effect to that view. I shall be very pleased to support it.

In view of the statement made by the Government Front Bench, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move to leave out the word "ten" ["six years and ten months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."

The Amendment which I move is exactly the contrary to the Amendment which my hon. Friend has withdrawn. My Amendment is calculated to reduce the time from seven months to five months. I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I am fortified in putting forward this proposal by what took place when the last prolongation of the life of Parliament was passed. Upon that occasion the present First Lord of the Admiralty made an extremely able speech, in which he said that if it was necessary to prolong the life of Parliament it should be prolonged for as short a time as possible. On that occasion he continued:

"I put down six months as a compromise between the eight mouths in the Bill and what is preferred by a huge number of those who consult with me, namely, four months."

I carry it a little further, for my Amendment will provide for five months. I should also like to draw the attention of the Government and of the House, and especially of the Government, to the following words of the right hon. Gentleman in the speech to which I refer. He said:

"may I point out to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that the extension by ourselves of our own life is a very serious proposition? It is only the absolute exigencies of the War that can justify it, if it can be justified at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1916, col. 2168, Vol. LXXXV."]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:

"In point of fact at the present moment we hardly represent anybody."

I do not think the situation has changed. Even if it has changed at all, it has changed for the worse. That is to say, that as seven months have gone by, we are still less representative than we were at that time of the opinion of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continued:

"I suppose we represent above 25 per cent. of the electors. We boast that we are representative of the people. We are not, or only a little more than the House of Lords are. You were not elected upon these issues that have arisen."

I will not read the whole of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, though it is a very interesting one, but I hope he will read it himself. I am sorry he is not here to listen to what I have to say. He continued:

"Therefore, at all events, I think that. compatible with convenience, we ought to extend the life of this Parliament from time to time for the very shortest period that is convenient and not for the longest period."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 17th August, 1916. col. 2169, Vol. LX XXV.]

Who said that?

The present First Lord of the Admiralty the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. Following that very excellent example I am proposing that the extension of the life of this Parliament should be for only five months, and not for seven. That is to say, that it should terminate on 30th September. That seems to me to be a most convenient date, because, if by any good fortune the War was to finish before the end of the summer we then should be in a position to decide—this House would be in a position to decide—and I should like to impress that fact upon hon. Members—it would not be for the Government to decade whether or not they should go to the country, it would be for this House to decide.

And the other.

And the other—for Parliament to decide—Parliament, that is right, whether or not its life should be prolonged. If the two Houses agreed that a little further time should be given it would be in their power to settle it. It would not be an inconvenient moment either, because this House generally adjourns somewhere towards the end of August, and it could meet again in the middle of September, and if it were necessary so to do could prolong its life. The question of whether or not the other House should have a voice in the matter is, I think, extremely important. It must be remembered that when the septennial period was cut down and the quinquennial period substituted the powers of the other House were curtailed. That was one of the reasons for cutting it down. It was said by the late Prime Minister that after, I think, four years this House no longer represented the country. Therefore, as the whole power under the Parliament Act would remain in the hands of the Members of this House, it was not right that they should be returned for more than five years. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman said the last year—perhaps he said two—but anyhow he said that in the last year the House of Commons, or the proceedings in the House, neither interested the country nor represented it. I think I have shown very good reason why this extension should be only for five months, and not for seven. On the last occasion, I admit, it was extended for seven months, but it must be remembered that that extension was a month shorter, than the previous extension; therefore, if we are going on precedent, we ought to make this time six months, being a month shorter than the last extension. I see the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Hazleton) has a somewhat similar Amendment. I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway will support this Amendment of mine. If I may say so, I think it is a little better and more sufficient than the hon. Member's, because he would make this House terminate on 30th August, which is rather an inconvenient time. On the other hand, as I have said, 30th September is an extremely convenient time.

I am somewhat surprised that my right hon. Friend has moved this Amendment, because I should have thought that he, like myself, was one of those who deplored the Act which reduced the term of the life of Parliament. It seems to me that after all we are in that position.

Certainly not; I think I have pointed out the difference.

Well, my right hon. Friend's Amendment does tend to reduce the life of this Parliament, which was originally elected for seven years. It is quite true its life has been shortened to five years under deplorable circumstances, and the right hon. Gentleman is now for reducing the period. Surely whether Parliament ends in September or October is now a matter of very little importance? Whether it is a particular date or another matters little in the crisis in which we live. What I venture to submit to the House is of importance is that there should be no election during the War. When the late Prime Minister announced in the House that he had given way to representations coming from the opposite side of the House—and the difficulty now is to know to which side of the House one belongs—coming from the side of the House upon which I sat then, I was the only Member of the House who ventured to urge him to stick to his guns and to have the longest possible prolongation of the life of this Parliament. It would be unfortunate to reduce this period which the Government themselves have proposed. There is, I confess, a sort of retribution in making the period seven years, which to me has an extreme attraction. Those who regretted the reduction from the septennial to the quinquennial period could only rejoice if, in a period of crisis, of stress and storm, it should come out that after all the true inwardness of the former charge was deplorable political circumstance, and no real necessity.

No one can tell when the War will be over. Originally it was proposed that the life of this Parliament should be prolonged for the period of the War. Nobody is now protesting that Parliament does not represent the people and that there must be an election. The only Voice that is heard in that way is heard within these walls. One does not hear an echo outside. People are perfectly content.

The newspapers!

Well, perhaps some newspapers. Perhaps the "Nation." I do not know. My hon. Friend no doubt is right. He would not have been right if he had said most newspapers, and he does not say that. If he had, he, at any rate, would have failed to convince me. What is required is that the life of Parliament should be prolonged for the longest period, but that the Parliament, whose life is so prolonged, should cease from introducing subjects of a controversial character, such as it proposes to introduce during its extended life. I refer to subjects such as female suffrage, further interference—shall I say persecution—of the liquor trade, the introduction of Bills like the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, all which questions, whether they be right or wrong in what they are going to do, anybody who is kind enough to hear me, will admit are controversial to the core! Let the Government drop all these matters which are pressed upon them by small sections—I do not like to be betrayed into using any disrespectful expressions—but which are not, at any rate, pressed upon them by the country. If they would drop all these controversial matters and confine themselves to the prosecution of the War, I believe the whole country would say, "Let them have seven months." They would indeed give them another seven years if necessary, but surely the War—now a war of nations—cannot last very much longer I The Prime Minister did say in his proposal here, and I thank him heartily for it, that during the remaining period proportional representation, at any rate, was not going to be introduced. That is almost the only controversial factor which he left out of the programme. I venture with great respect to oppose the Amendment of my right hon. Friend with whom I am most generally in the most hearty agreement. Questions of September or October do not matter. Let us leave the Government free to prosecute the War by giving them the whole period for which they ask, and begging them in return to drop all controversial subjects, and not to put too strong a strain upon loyal supporters who are asked to swallow female suffrage, total abolition, proportional representation, Criminal Law Amendment, and every other kind of controversial thing, while they are honestly and honourably supporting the Government in their great task of finishing the War.

I am not going to delay the Debate by entering into the question as to what use is going to be made of the time.

It is vital.

It may be vital to the Bill, but it might mean the death of the Bill if we had to debate all these topics. The Bill carries the life of this Parliament to the 30th November. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes would have extended the possibility of the life of Parliament for two more months, until the end of January, 1918. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London wants to lop off two months of the period which the Government purpose. I think the compromise which the Government have made between 31st January and 30th September, namely, 30th November, is a compromise which, on the whole, is acceptable to the House of Commons, who, after all, are perhaps the best judges of matters of this kind, and the date which the Government have chosen, after very careful consideration, is the date to which they intend to adhere. I cannot agree that 30th September would be a very conveninent date, because if it were necessary, owing to circumstances connected with the War, to bring in another Bill to extend that period beyond 30th September, I think it would be extremely awkward perhaps to call Parliament together in September in order to debate the question; and if it were necessary to have an election in September, I cannot help thinking that the Minister responsible for the Board of Agriculture and the production of food would have a good deal to say as to the question whether it would be convenient to hold an election in the month of September, and so take away from all field and harvest operations those engaged in that work.

I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Government, of which he was a member, in the Boer War in 1900, had an election in September.

But will my right hon. Friend say that the food problem was then of so much consideration as it is at the present moment? Even if the War should be over then, or even happily over in June or July, or indeed whether we have peace next year, the pressure of the food supply is likely to be a problem of the greatest importance, so that I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend in saying that September is a favourable month. Anyhow, the Government adhere to the date that they have put in the Bill, namely, 30th November.

There was one statement made by the right hon. Gentleman which rather astonished me, namely, that the Government would adhere to the compromise which this Bill represents. The Government have offered no compromise. There are a large number of Members in this House who consider that there ought to be, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, no prolongation of the life of Parliament at all. The Government, however, have not taken that view; they have brought in a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament for seven months, and although proposals have been made on the one side to extend that time, and on the other side and from these benches to reduce it, the Government are holding fast to their Bill, and I certainly fail to see where the nature of a compromise is in that transaction.

It is a compromise between the Amendments proposed. I do not think the hon. Member was present when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes was before the Committee.

I was here through the whole Debate. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the course which the Government are taking on this occasion is a wholly different course from that taken by his Government and that of his predecessors on the former occasions when similar Bills to extend the life of Parliament were before the House of Commons. What happened the first time? The Government introduced a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament by twelve months, and, under pressure from various quarters in the House of Commons, that period was reduced to eight months, so that the Government gave way on that occasion by four months. The next time when it was necessary to introduce a similar Bill the period proposed by the Government was eight months, and, as the right hon. Baronet pointed out, that provision was opposed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and again the Government gave way and changed their provision in the Bill from eight months to seven months. The right hon. Baronet quoted some remarkable passages from the speeches made on the occasion of the Second Reading of that Bill by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who was very concerned on that occasion to see that Parliament should keep some control over the conduct of the Government. Now that he is a member of the Government, of course he does not come near the House of Commons. He has lost all that interest for Parliamentary control, but I think it is difficult for him to escape the position in which he placed himself by his speeches on that occasion. The right hon. Baronet quoted one speech. I will quote another, on the introduction of the Bill last year. He said:

"I think the Government are asking too much in asking us to give them eight months. I see no necessity for it. The next eight months may be fraught with questions of vast importance to the whole body politic. All the questions may arise during those eight months which will affect the lives and interests of the entire community for ages to come. This is not the time to elaborate that. but I hope my right hon. Friend will not lay down that period of eight months as a matter to which the Government absolutely adhere, but that it will be open to argument either on the Second Heading or the Committee stage of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1916, col. 1459, Vol. LXXXV.]

Now, the fundamental misconception in the mind of the Minister in charge of this Bill is that he takes it for granted that if you put six months, or five months, or four months into this Bill as the period for which the life of Parliament will be renewed, it means that you are going to have an election then, and he says, "Oh, August or September would not be a convenient month for an election." The right hon. Baronet suggested, I think, that August would not be a convenient month for an election, and August is the month mentioned in my Amendment on the Paper. But we need not necessarily have an election then. The life of Parliament was already expiring twice, and we continued it beyond that time. What we want is not that you shall have an election at the time fixed in this Bill, but that there shall be control over the conduct of the Government, and that it is to the interest of this country and the interest of this House to give the Government the shortest possible time, consistent with convenience, so that we may have some regulation and some opportunity of holding them up if we believe that they are taking a course contrary to the public interest.

I think for these reasons that the Government are taking a reactionary course to-day in refusing to listen, as they have done, to the voice of the House of Commons, as their predecessors did on former occasions when their Bills were altered in Committee and the times proposed by them were further reduced. I would also like to impress this consideration upon the Committee, that the longer it is necessary to prolong the existence of Parliament the more careful we ought to be as to the period that we give the House, because undoubtedly, however necessity may be urged, the fact remains that it is a reactionary proceeding—that it is, at least, an unfortunate proceeding, due to an unfortunate necessity, and that it is getting worse and worse upon each occasion that the necessity arises. I hope that the last word has not been spoken by the right hon. Gentleman from his point of view; and that he will recognise that what we want is a review of the time given to the Government, and the time given for the existence of this House, and that we do not necessarily say that at the moment that time expires the Government is not perfectly entitled to come down to the House of Commons and show, if they are in a position to show, that it is desirable to give them a lease of life for the House of Commons.

May I, in answer to what my right hon. Friend said in regard to an election in September, point out that what the hon. Member below the Gangway said is my intention? It was not my intention to force an election in September, but we want to have the power, if we find the Government are not doing their duty, of saying to them, "You shall not go on." That power is a very vital one to this House, and it is important in these days, when the Government do not pay much attention to the House of Commons, to have some reserve of that sort in your hands. With regard to an election in September, may I point out that in all probability, if the War were continuing, a further extension would be given, and that an election would not take place unless the War were over? Therefore the question would not arise. May I also point out, as my right hon. Friend is perfectly well aware, that there is during the month of September at least two or three hours every morning in which the agricultural labourer cannot get on with the harvest, because the corn cannot be collected until the dew is off? Therefore there is plenty of time for the agricultural labourer to record his vote, without in any way interfering with the collection of food.

The poll opens at eight o'clock.

This Bill would give a new lease of life to this Parliament, and incidentally, to a Government which has failed in its obligations towards Ireland, and by its shilly-shallying delay in declaring its intention towards that country, has strained to a great extent the relations existing at the beginning of the War.