and not against only one of them. I do not want to waste time, and I have already dealt with that point. Members opposite might try to attend to the argument. I have said that during the last two years we have been under the protection of the Parliament Act . When that ceases to protect us we cannot tell what might be done by another place. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, he does not know what the other place may do. There are 100 or so peers who attend there regularly, but the great mass are in the wilderness, and at any time may come in and overturn anything. I put it to Members opposite: supposing the position were reversed, supposing a potential majority were against them in another place, all drawn from the party on this side -- and, let me say, not from the most intelligent followers of this party. Would they like the position that at any moment the whole of their programme might be upset? Of course, they would not. The fact is that this system does work unevenly. It would have been folly to have waited until action was taken by the Lords when we could meet the situation by making this simple amendment. Let me say that no one has really tried to attack the point of this amendment, which is an alteration from two years to one year. The Leader of the Opposition