My Lords, this Bill, although it is now printed and on the Table of your Lordships' House, was, by some mistake, not circulated with this morning's Papers. I do not want to seem to be urging your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill which you have had no time to consider, and therefore I should be quite willing to postpone the Bill if that were considered by any noble Lord a desirable course to take. In the absence, however, of any hint on the subject, perhaps I may be allowed to move the Second Reading to-day, giving your Lordships ample time to consider the Bill before the next stage is taken. The origin of this Bill was the International Conference which took place at Berne in 1906, when a Convention was signed by the representatives of Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxemberg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland agreeing to prohibit in their countries both the manufacture and sale of matches containing white phosphorus. His Majesty's Government did not see their way to sign that Convention for reasons into which I need not enter this afternoon, as I have already had an opportunity of explaining the matter in your Lordships' House in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. A new position has now been created. Representations have been made to the Home Office, on behalf of all the manufacturers of matches in the United Kingdom, that if the importation of matches made abroad with white phosphorus is prohibited by law they would be willing that the use of that material in the manufacture of matches in this country should be forbidden. In 1907 some 10,000,000 gross of boxes of phosphorus matches were imported into this country, and of that total 6,000,000 gross were safety matches; but of the remaining 4,000,000 gross probably the bulk were made with white phosphorus. By the fourth clause of the Bill manufacturers will be compelled—they have already offered to do so—on such reasonable terms as the Home Office and the Board of Trade may approve, to grant licences for the manufacture of "strike anywhere" matches by any process which is patented at the time of the passing of the Bill. I do not think, therefore, that there will be any increase in the cost of the manufacture of these "strike anywhere" matches. In these circumstances, and especially in view of the fact that this Bill will go far to prevent the danger of cases of phossy jaw occurring among match makers in the future, I hope your Lordships will agree to the Motion for the Second Reading.

My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will undertake to introduce into Parliament a measure to abolish the oath or declaration imposed by statute on the Sovereign on meeting his or her first Parliament, that is to say, a declaration wherein he or she invokes Almighty God to bear witness that certain doctrines held by the great majority of Christians not only as awful, sacred, and stupendous but also as vital and fundamental, are false. This Question is identical with one which I asked in your Lordships' House seven and a half years ago, when it gave rise to a long debate, which resulted in the matter being referred to a Committee. That Committee was a very historical Committee. It was noted for having given only twenty minutes to the consideration of a question which had been of importance for 200 years. The outcome of their labours was the introduction, by the late Lord Salisbury, of a Bill which was distasteful to the majority of your Lordships—distasteful to those members of the Church of England who felt strongly on the subject, and distasteful to all those who, like myself, belong to the Roman Catholic Church. That Bill, like so many other Bills, foundered in your Lordships' House. Then there was a Bill introduced by myself to abolish, not to modify, the oath or declaration, but that Bill also foundered. Seven years have elapsed, and so far as I can see there is now no prospect of the consideration of the subject being renewed unless an individual Member of the House like myself ventures to press it on the attention of the Government. Attempts have been made from time to time in another place to deal with this painful matter, but I am not aware that any Bill relating to it has been pressed to a Second Reading. This seems to me to be eminently a matter which should be considered in your Lordships' House. It should not be left to an individual Member of either House, but should be boldly brought forward by the Government of the day. The Government which was in power in 1901 was of a very different constitution from the present Government, but whether the Government in office be Conservative or Liberal, I apprehend that this matter is distasteful to both. The subject is one which everybody is sorry should be raised and discussed, except those who feel deeply and intensely concerning it. Those persons are in a minority—but, I venture to say, a strong minority — not only in both Houses of Parliament but throughout the country. It is a matter which everybody in and out of Parliament wishes to see settled without further discussion, and I submit that the only means of settling it will be the absolute abolition of the statute, which was described by the late Lord Salisbury as a stain on the Statute-book. That was exceedingly grave language for the Prime Minister to use in Parliament. A stain on the Statute-book! As your Lordships are aware, the declaration is part and parcel of those savage enactments which were passed by Parliament in a very savage age compared with our own — in the latter years of Charles II., when the blood of Catholic martyrs was poured out all over England, when the nation was divided into two hostile camps and religion and politics were almost inseparable in the history of nations. By this Act of Charles II., one person, the Duke of York (afterwards James II.) wae excepted from its operation by a special clause, but in the first year of William and Mary the general declaration or oath was enacted as obligatory on all future sovereigns. All the other savage enactments have been from time to time repealed or modified. The first great repeal was in the time of George III. Those terrible laws which had been crushing out Roman Catholic life in England and Ireland, and had resulted in imprisonment and death by hanging, in this country rarely, but in Ireland often, were finally repealed, I think, in the year 1779; but many years passed before Catholic emancipation took place. In 1829, the first year of Catholic liberty, six Peers were admitted within the precincts of this Chamber and took the oath of allegiance In spite of all these changes, in spite of the religious liberty of which we boast, this peculiar and stern enactment remains as a stain upon the Statute-book. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of dealing with it as soon as possible. If they do so boldly, I venture to say that they will meet with very little opposition in the country.

My Lords, this subject of the declaration made by the Sovereign on the first occasion of his or her meeting Parliament is one which has engaged the attention of this House on several occasions in past years, and those of your Lordships who took part in the discussions, or even remember what occurred, under the Government of the late Lord Salisbury will agree with me as to the extreme difficulty which surrounds it. At that time, with every good will on all sides of the House—and I am quite certain that that good will did exist—it was not found possible to arrive at any solution of the question. I am able to say that the possibility of arriving at a solution of it is one which has engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government for some time past. We have had the question under our consideration, and I hope it may be possible for us to submit, before very long, some proposition with that object. Pending any submission of that kind from the responsible advisers of the Crown, I should venture to hope that the matter might not be made the subject of discussion here. It is one of extreme delicacy and difficulty, and, when we are able to put our proposition forward, as I hope we may be, I am quite certain we shall have the co-operation of noble Lords opposite if we are able to place it in a form which will produce a satisfactory solution of the question. That is all I am able to say at present, and I hope that, so far as it goes, it is satisfactory to the noble Lord opposite and to other noble Lords of his faith.

My Lords, I have no wish to say anything which may make an extremely delicate and difficult task more difficult for the Government, but I hope I may be allowed to express my very great satisfaction, a satisfaction which I am sure will be shared by my co-religionists throughout the country, at hearing that the Government have the courage boldly to face this very difficult subject. I may remind your Lordships that a Bill dealing with various points, one of which was the question of the Royal declaration, has been lately introduced in another place; it was challenged on First Reading, but was read a first time by an overwhelming majority. I hope that is a good omen that there is a friendly and gracious feeling on the part of our countrymen and a desire to view with a wide mind and generous spirit the opportunity of removing what the late Lord Salisbury called a stain from the Statute-book, and what everybody admits is a gross insult to many subjects of the Crown. I do not wish in any way to pin the Government to more than they have said, but I am sure we are all grateful to know that this matter is really being considered, and I hope that at an early date next session the Government will let the consideration which they are giving to the matter take practical form.

My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl who leads the House, and I after the remarks of the noble Duke behind me, I think most of your Lordships will be of opinion that no good purpose; will be served by further discussion this evening of this extremely difficult and controversial subject. The noble Earl I reminded us that on former occasions there has been a very general desire in this House to bring about some change in the wording of the Royal Declaration which might have the effect of removing from it any expressions needlessly offensive to His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, without, on the other hand, doing violence to the feelings of the Protestant community. The utmost goodwill was, I think, shown to proposals of this kind, but, on the other hand, it is true that, even at the moment when there seemed to be every prospect of a solution, difficulties which proved insurmountable manifested themselves. The question is, clearly, one which can be dealt with only by and upon the responsibility of His Majesty's Government, and, as we now learn from the noble Earl that they have considered this matter, and that they are prepared next session to come to Parliament with proposals affecting it, I think there can be no doubt that it is best that your Lordships should await those proposals, for which we can promise the most benevolent consideration.

My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this discussion expressed the opinion that when the Government came to deal with this question they would meet with very little opposition in the country. I venture to think the noble Lord has not fully realised the strength of the feeling in the country on this subject, and I think he may find considerable opposition to the proposed change. It involves not merely an alteration of words, but an alteration of the law of the land and also of the Church. It would, I take it, also involve altering many other parts of the Book of Common Prayer. It would be very sad that this sacred subject, on which so many feel very strongly, should have to be discussed in this place or elsewhere throughout the country, but respect must be paid to those who feel for the Protestant religion as well as to those who feel for the Roman Catholic religion. I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government will carefully consider the matter before they launch the country on a controversy which, though it may be taken up very reluctantly, will not be shirked by those who conscientiously feel that they cannot acquiesce in a change in the national religion and the Protestant succession. I will not say more on the present occasion; but I did not think it would be right for your Lordships to go away with the idea that the change would be acquiesced in quietly throughout the country and the Empire.

My Lords, I rise to ask the Undersecretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to exclude service in the Territorial Force from qualifying officers for pension who have retired from the Royal Artillery, and are attached to batteries of the Territorial Force, who would be able to qualify either by service in the Special Reserve or in the Irish Horse. I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in explanation of the difficulty which has arisen, and which is capable of very easy solution. I am sure I shall carry your Lordships with me when I say that it is of the utmost importance that the new batteries of the Territorial Force should have the advantage of being commanded by officers who have already served in the Royal Artillery. The County Association, of which I am chairman, was called upon to raise a Horse Artillery battery. Ours is an agricultural county, but we met with very great success mainly through the kindness of the Secretary of State for War, who, at my request, supplied us with two guns, which are stationed at Reading and Windsor. These have brought in a great number of recruits; and we have also boon fortunate in securing the services of Captain Mayall, who has served in Field and Horse Artillery, and who, with great readiness, left the Lancashire Militia to come to us a short time ago. We have since found, to our great distress, that this officer will forfeit his pension, as he is now serving in the Territorial Force. The most extraordinary part of the anomaly is that he would have been able to retain his pension if he had gone into the Yeomanry. I ask any noble Lord who is acquainted with military affairs whether there is any comparison between the importance and usefulness of an officer commanding a battery in the Territorial Army, and that of a mere subaltern in the Yeomanry. I can only conclude that the regulations with regard to the Territorial Force are not yet perfected. Article 510, under which these pensions are granted, runs—

"A captain or lieutenant, of not less than eight years service, may be permitted to retire from our Regular Forces on being appointed to a commission in the Militia or Imperial Yeomanry. While serving in the Militia or Imperial Yeomanry under such commission, he shall, for a period not exceeding ten years, receive temporary retired pay at the rate of £100 a year, in lieu of all retired pay or gratuity under this our warrant."

That is the pension which this officer will forfeit. It is essential that at the birth of the Territorial Force everything possible should be done to promote its efficiency, and it would be a great blow to us if Captain Mayall had to resign because service in the Territorial Force was excluded from qualifying for this pension.

My Lords, Article 510 of the Pay Warrant to which my noble friend has referred is, I regret to say, still in an unamended state. The position is this. Officers who had served for eight years in the Regular Army were previously permitted to join the Militia or the Yeomanry in order to serve for pension—that is to say, that for a period not exceeding ten years they drew £100 for every year that they attended camp with the unit which they had joined. Those officers could only be considered as belonging to the reserve of officers. They had passed through the Regular Army, and, under normal conditions, would go into the reserve of officers. That is the view we take. We now say that those men ought to become Special Reserve officers, and the Pay Warrant, when it is amended, will make it possible for them to go either into the Special Reserve or into the Irish Horse, which is part of the Special Reserve. We do not propose to alter what was the condition previously. Before the Territorial Army came into existence these officers were not allowed to join the Volunteers for the purpose of serving for a pension, and we do not propose, at present, at any rate, to extend the privilege to the Territorial Army. We consider that, until our new scheme of providing officers for the Special Reserve is giving us a sufficient number of officers, the place of the men referred to is the Special Reserve, where at present their services would be of the greatest use. The delay with regard to making this announcement has made itself felt in the case which my noble friend quoted. The officer to whom he referred gave up his commission in the Regular Army and joined the Militia on the understanding that he would be permitted to draw his pension, and it was because he left the Regulars on those terms that his was made a special case and he was permitted to remain and draw his £100 a year. We do throw one or two appointments in the Territorial Army open to officers under this head, and a certain number of staff appointments in the Territorial Army can be included in this category—namely, if an officer becomes a brigade major of Infantry or Yeomanry or staff captain of divisional Artillery; but for the command of a battery it is not at the present time open. We ourselves do not think it will be proved that it is not possible to find perfectly capable civilian officers as battery commanders, and it is our hope that such will be forthcoming.

I assume then that until the Special Reserve is filled up the Territorial Force will have no assistance whatever from officers experienced in the Regular Artillery?

The position in regard to this class of officer is that if he leaves after fifteen years service he is entitled to a pension. If he leaves after between eight and ten years he is not entitled to a pension, but if he joins either the Special Reserve or the Irish Horse he is entitled to serve for ten years and draw £100 a year for every year he goes into camp. That class of officers, however, has been small, and we would get few if this opportunity was given them.

My Lords, I happened to be at the War Office when this arrangement was made, and the object was to strengthen the ranks of the Militia. A great many of these officers left the service in order to take these Militia appointments, and with a view of getting the £100 a year. We are all fully aware that what does really need stiffening in the Territorial Force is the Artillery. It is of enormous advantage to secure in the Artillery batteries, the Horse Artillery especially, of the Territorial Force commanding officers who have been in the Royal Artillery. I think it would be almost impossible for an officer who had not served in the Regular Artillery to command a battery of Horse Artillery with credit, or to make his battery efficient. I therefore hope that some means may be found of meeting the point raised, so that we shall not lose the advantage of having capable Artillery officers in the Territorial Force.