We, the Liberal Party, did not promise old-age pensions at the election of 1906.  The subject was scarcely mentioned by any of the candidates who are now your Members.  Certainly it did not occupy at all a prominent position.  We did not promise old-age pensions; we gave old-age pensions.  When the Old-Age Pensions Bill was before the House of Commons, what was the attitude of the Conservative Party?  Did they do anything to try to reduce or control the expenditure of that great departure?  On the contrary.  As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House of Commons, amendments to the Old-Age Pensions Bill were moved or received the official support of the Whips of the Conservative Party which would have raised the cost of that scheme to fourteen millions a year.  And the Liberal Government, which was making this great effort, which was doing the work, which was keeping the Tory promise, was reproached and was derided for not accepting the proposals which these irresponsible philanthropists, these social reformers on the cheap, these limited-liability politicians, were so ready to move.  And Lord Halsbury, the late Lord Chancellor, one of the leaders of the Conservative Party, a man with a powerful influence in their councils, said in a public speech that the old-age pensions as proposed by the Government were so paltry as to be almost a mockery.

I do not think any fair-minded or impartial man, or any average British jury, surveying the record of the Conservative Party upon old-age pensions, could come to any other conclusion than that they had used this question for popularity alone; that they never meant to give old-age pensions; that they only meant to get votes by promising to give them; that they would have stopped them being given if they could; that while the Bill was on its way they tried to embarrass the Government, and to push things to unpractical extremes; and now, even when the pensions have been given, they would not pay for them if they could help it.  Let me say that I think the conclusion, which I believe any jury would come to, would perhaps be rather harsh upon the Conservative Party.  I believe they meant better than their record; I am willing to admit that.  But their record is before us, and it is a bad one, and upon the facts I have no hesitation in saying that it is not open to them to protest—­they have not even an inch of foothold to protest—­against any expenditure which we may now have to incur in order to defray the consequences of the policy of old-age pensions.  So much for the first cause of the increased expenditure.

I pass to the navy.  The Naval Estimates have risen by three millions this year.  I regret it; but I am prepared to justify it.  There will be a further increase next year.  I regret it; but within proper limits necessary to secure national safety I shall be prepared to justify it; but I hope you will not expect me to advocate a braggart and sensational policy of expenditure upon armaments.  I have always been against that, as my father was before me.