CLAUSE 42.—(First Meeting of Irish Parliament and First Election of Reduced Number of Irish Members.)

HC Deb 10 December 1912 vol 45 cc361-99

(1) The Irish Parliament shall be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and the first election of members of the Irish House of Commons shall be held at such time before that day as may be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council made for the purpose of the transitory provisions of this Act.

(2) Upon the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and then sitting in that Parliament shall vacate their seats, and writs shall, as soon as conveniently may be, be issued by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the purpose of holding an election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies mentioned in the Second Part of the First Schedule to this Act.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all existing election laws relating to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the members thereof shall, so far as applicable, extend to the Irish House of Commons and the members thereof; but those election laws may, except as provided by this Act, be altered by Irish Act.

His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provisions as may appear to him necessary or proper for making any provisions of the election laws applicable to elections of members of the Irish House of Commons.

(4) The Lord Lieutenant shall determine by lot which of the first Senators are to retire in the second, fourth, and sixth year, and the term of office of those Senators shall be reduced accordingly.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

I beg to move to leave out Subsection (1).

The object of the Amendment is to get rid of the date, September, 1913, and by an Amendment, which is down upon the Paper to Clause 46, to which I must refer for the purpose of making plain why this Sub-section is being deleted from the Bill, to provide for an interval of eight months after the first Tuesday of the month in which the Bill receives the Royal Assent. There is power under the Bill, in Clause 46, to fix the period either seven months earlier or seven months later, as the case may be; by Order in Council, and there is also power to bring into operation certain provisions of the Bill without bringing the whole Bill into operation in order that you may set to work to create both your Ministry and Parliament, and do a number of acts which are necessary to bring an Administration into existence. Hon. Members will have to go through the various Clauses of the Bill to see the different stages that have to be taken before you get your Ministry set up and your Par- liament meeting. The effect of the Amendment we are now proposing is to substitute the period of time to elapse from the passing of the Bill into an Act of Parliament from the time it receives the Royal Assent instead of leaving it as at present provided in Clause 42, Sub-section (1), which fixes the date for summoning the Irish Parliament as the first Tuesday in September, 1913. That seems to us better than what the Bill proposes.

The reason the Bill was introduced in this form was because it was the form adopted in 1893, and that passed muster once. We have now adopted a second plan, but having regard to the inconvenience that might be caused by fixing this particular date, we think it will be far better to allow a given period to elapse from the date of passing, subject to the power given under the Order in Council, either to make it seven months earlier or seven months later. The effect would be that supposing the Bill became law at the beginning of next year, and received the Royal Assent in March, 1913, under this Bill eight months after March the Bill would come into operation subject to the Order in Council, and your appointed day would be the first Tuesday in the eighth month—that is, March, 1913, when the Royal Assent would be received. That, of course, is subject to the Order in Council which is dealt with in Clause 46, to which I have just referred. The effect of Clause 46 with the Amendment would be that, assuming it is desired to fix the date as early as possible, it could be made one month after the month on which the Bill received the Royal Assent, because you could make it seven months earlier than the time appointed under Clause 42. You could also make it seven months later, which would give fifteen months after the date on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Consequently you have considerable elasticity with regard to the period which necessarily you must have, and you do not part with this fixture of the time. The Order in Council does not operate with regard to the whole Bill, but it enables you to bring into operation certain necessary provisions without the others. Clause 46 would then read:— or such other day, not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act. Suppose that this Bill becomes law and sets to work to create an Administration, to have members elected, and do all the various acts that must be done before you have an Executive responsible to a Parliament and a Parliament elected by the constituencies with your senators nominated and working as we are working over here. Bearing that in mind, it will be apparent that we must have some provision of this character. That is the whole point of the alteration we are now proposing, and it will probably meet some of the criticisms w7hich might otherwise be directed to Sub-section (1) of Clause 42.

Mr. CASSEL

We were told that at some point we should be entitled to discuss the appointed day. Unless we are entitled to discuss it on this Amendment, I do not know any point whatever at which we should be entitled to discuss it. The Attorney-General has given us no explanation of the alteration in Clause 46, which is so bound up with this Amendment.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that at some time the question of the appointed day should be discussed, and I thought I was giving effect to that desire by referring to the Amendment of Clause 46, which I understand can be done in discussing this particular Amendment. It was not my intention to cut down the discussion. I thought the Debate was to be a pretty general one, and that the point raised by the hon. and learned Member had been acceded to. At any rate, that is a course to which I would raise no objection. The hon. and learned Member said I gave no explanation of Clause 46. That is not quite accurate, although it did not seem necessary to me to give a more elaborate explanation than I did. The hon. and learned Member opposite cannot have been giving me the attention he generally does when he says that I gave no explanation of Clause 46.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not know how the discussion can proceed without reference to the appointed day.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

The Attorney-General has certainly not enlightened me by his explanation, and I cannot understand why the Government are moving this Amendment. The decision which the Government have come to is of a very hasty character, because the Amendment for deleting this Sub-section has not been on the Paper very long. In the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered he says that for a variety of reasons, which he did not go into, this Amendment must be obvious. I am entirely at a loss to understand the plan which the Government are adopting at the present moment. At any rate, there is something definite in the Clause as it stands, which provides that on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, the Irish Parliament shall be summoned. That is understandable, because it provides that in the ordinary course of events, according to the view of the Government, this Bill will be passed early in the next year, and will receive the Royal Assent. Then there will be a certain amount of time in which various matters will have to be gone through, such as the appointment of a Ministry and the arrangement for the different elections which must naturally involve a certain amount of time. That is understandable, and I should have thought that by the first Tuesday in September, 1913, according to the view of the Government, all those formalities would have been gone through. For some reason or other, which we are not able at present to understand, and upon which the right hon. Gentleman has given us no enlightenment whatsoever, this Sub-section is to be struck out, and nothing is to be really substituted for it, although we are told to rely for the summoning of the Irish Parliament upon the appointed day which is to be put into Clause 46. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten the House as to what has compelled them at this very late hour to come to this decision. The right hon. Gentleman said this was a provision in the Bill of 1893, and, for all we know to the contrary, the Government until quite a recent date believed this provision in the Bill of 1893 was good enough for the Bill of 1912. Something has happened between the date of the introduction of this Bill and to-day, and we are now told the provision is to be struck out, and there is to be a certain amount 6f latitude with regard to the appointed day. There is to be a radius of seven months from the eighth month after the passing of the Act either one way or the other for the summoning of the Irish Parliament. I have no idea what has altered the plan of the Government. I do not know whether they anticipate the passing of the Bill may not be as rapid as their warmest supporters desire. There is to be a seven months' interval, and I should like to know why there should be any further date given. It naturally occurs to my mind they are anxious to have a certain amount of time so as to obtain the support of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to the passing of further measures by this Parliament. I do not know whether they desire to keep those hon. Gentlemen here for a longer period than this Bill will allow; but whatever the explanation is I feel we are entitled to a little further information as to the reason why this Sub-section which is of a paramountly important character is to be omitted. It is naturally a date which should be fixed, and it can be fixed, and, in view of the exceptionally doubtful and ambiguous statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I sincerely hope we shall be favoured with a little more explicit information on the point. If not, I certainly hope a Division will be taken, and I shall most certainly support my hon. Friend.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I can hardly think the grievance of which the Noble Lord complains is very keenly felt by the Opposition, because although the appointed day has always been held out as one of the most important features of the Bill it is impossible to abstain from observing that whilst the Noble Lord was speaking the Front Opposition Bench was entirely empty.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

I was here when my Noble Friend got up.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I really do not see what those remarks have to do with the Amendment. I stopped an hon. and learned Gentleman last night on the same ground.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I will certainly not pursue the matter. The object of my remark was to show the point under discussion was scarcely so important as the observations of the Noble Lord might have led those who were present to suppose. I do not think the Amendment under discussion is of such great importance as the Noble Lord said. The effect of it, as I understand, is to give to the date when the Act comes into operation a flexibility which it does not possess as the Bill stands. The Act, as the Bill stands in Clause 42, will come into operation on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, but as it is absolutely uncertain at what date in the year the Bill will receive the Royal Sanction and become the law of the land, it is obvious, if you put in a fixed date in September on which the Act is to come into operation, the period for its coming into operation may be a very limited one indeed. There is no positive limit so far as I know to the length this Session may go, and it is possible under the Bill as drawn it might become law on the Monday and the Irish Parliament have to be set up on the Tuesday following. That is obviously an impossibility and might conceivably land us in a serious difficulty. Therefore, as I understand it, the Amendment of the Government gives a certain eight months in which the necessary preparation can be made for setting up the Irish Parliament.

Mr. CASSEL

One month.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Yes. I beg pardon, At any rate, it gives a flexibility which there is not at present. I have not quite fathomed yet why the Government first say, in Clause 42, as drawn, the Home Rule Parliament is to meet on this date in September, and they now under the Amendment no longer say in Clause 42 when the Parliament is to meet. I want to know why the Government in Clause 42 as it stands, contemplate this meeting and when the Amendment is carried the date of meeting will be only set out in Clause 46. I do not know why the Government have gone from Clause 42 to Clause 46 to tell us what date the Homo Rule Parliament is to be set up. I am bound to say I sympathise so far with the Noble Lord that I was very considerably puzzled before working it all out to my own satisfaction. I still have not been able to make out why in the Bill as drawn Clause 42 should say distinctly the Irish Parliament would meet in September, and now we should have to wait till Clause 46.

Mr. C. CRAIG

The hon. Member seems to have the same difficulty with regard to this Clause and the Amendments as we have on this side of the House. I gather he does not understand what is going to happen, much less does he understand the workings of the mind of the Government in proposing the Amendment. May I ask the Committee to look at the Clause and realise what the Amendment now proposes to do I They propose, in Clause 42, that Parliament shall be summoned for the first Tuesday in September, 1913. If this Bill ever becomes law that is a more or less straightforward and understandable proposition. I suppose the Government anticipate the Bill will go through this House, that it will be rejected in another place, that it will then go through this House again, and again be rejected before the end of next year, and that early in the year 1914 it will pass through this House, and receive the Royal Assent possibly in the month of April or May. I imagine that some such idea as that was in the mind of the Government when Clause 42 was drafted, and I do not know that anything has happened up to the present time that would seriously interfere with that arrangement, except that a General Election might intervene between now and then. I therefore can understand why I hey propose to make this alteration—why they propose to obliterate the date altogether and to provide that Parliament shall meet on a given date two, three, or four months, it may be, after the passing of the Act, supposing the Act goes through this and the other House. But they have abandoned the plan which appears to me to be a most reasonable plan. They propose to do away with the suggestion that the House should meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, and they propose by an Amendment to Clause 46 that the first meeting of the Irish Parliament shall be on the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed. I think that that is a very ridiculous piece of drafting. By the same Clause they reserve to themselves the right, if they think fit, instead of waiting eight months, to knock off seven months and bring the Act into force and start the first Irish Parliament one month after the Act has passed.

I should like to know what was in their minds when they gave that so-called elasticity to this provision. Either eight months is a reasonable period after the passing of the Act or it is not. It seems to me it is quite easy for the House of Commons to make up its mind what is a reasonable time to allow after the Act passes for the necessary changes to be made, the necessary elections to take place, and the necessary things to be done. I cannot conceive if eight months after the passing of the Act is a sensible and reasonable limit, how one month can be deemed to be a reasonable period; and if you are going to have eight months, you should delete that portion of Clause 46 which allows you instantly to turn that eight months into one month. One of my Noble Friends who has spoken on the subject asked for an explanation of the action of the Government in this matter. They have given us no explanation, and in the absence of such an explanation we are entitled to draw our own inferences. My own impression is that the Government want, after the Act has finally passed into law, to have an opportunity to consider what will best suit their book from a purely party point of view. They want to consider whether it will be more convenient or more suitable to bring this Parliament into being in one month or in eight months; in fact, it is a party move on their part. There might be a General Election after the passing of the Act, at which they might be beaten—and I sincerely hope they would be—and then it would be possible, if the eight months' period had been decided upon, for the Unionist party to repeal the whole Act. That possibly is an explanation of this most extraordinary proposal on the part of the Government, and we are entitled to assume that that is the case, unless they are prepared to give us something more definite in the way of explanation of the motive which lies at the bottom of these various changes. I trust, if the Debate continues, we shall have some further information on this point.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said it was necessary there should be some elasticity, but I do not think he has demonstrated that necessity. It would be much more sensible to say that after the passing of the Act there should be a certain fixed period elapse before the meeting of the first Parliament, but there is no reasonableness at all in giving power to defer calling together the first Parliament for eight-months and simultaneously to take power to bring the Parliament together at once if it is thought proper. The explanation given by the Attorney-General, to my mind, was not at all satisfactory, and I hope some effort will be made to give fuller details. The hon. Member who last spoke said we evidently did not consider this a very important point, and he pointed to the empty benches on this side. I do not think the remarks he made as to the absence of hon. Members were called for. He must have known that at the finish of the several Divisions practically all the Members of the House required what, I suppose, he from time to time requires, namely, a little sustenance, and that is the reason why they are not listening to this Debate.

Mr. CASSEL

The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) tried to persuade the Committee that this was not a very important matter. Let me remind him, however, that the Prime Minister himself stated that this is one of the most important points in the Bill, and, because of that, a full day has been allowed for the discussion of the Motion. The hon. Member consequently was not justified in belittling the importance of this point. He drew attention to the fact that not many Members on this side are present, but I think I would be equally justified in drawing attention to the fact that the Prime Minister himself has not thought it necessary to be present during the Debate on what he said was one of the most important points in the Bill. The Attorney-General said I did not follow him sufficiently when I said he had not given any explanation of the changes which are being made by the Government. I really think he has only partially done so. I agree that he has made it clear that there is now no fixed day for the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. I should like to ask him whether there is any provision whatever fixing the first meeting of the Irish Parliament beyond this: that it must be within a year of the appointed day. The appointed day itself may be fifteen months after the passing of the Bill, and the first meeting of the Irish Parliament must be within a year of that date. Under the Bill, as it stands, the possibility is that the first meeting of the Irish Parliament may not be for over two years after the passing of the Bill.

9.0 P.M.

In a matter of this kind, which the Prime Minister says is a matter of such vital importance, we ought to have something a little more definite. The Attorney-General spoke of elasticity. We complain that this leaves far too much elasticity, and leaves it absolutely at the will of the Executive for fourteen months whether they choose to bring the Irish Parliament into existence. That is an absolutely monstrous proposition. The Amendment extends the period by about four or five months. I think it was too long under the Bill as it stood. I am not attacking merely the Amendment, but the Bill as amended. As the Bill stood, it was a, monstrous power to place in the hands of the Cabinet—that they should be able to determine according to their own exigencies and requirements, whether that Parliament should be brought into existence or not for the period which the Bill originally fixed. Now they have extended that period. Under the Bill as it originally stood it was a period of eleven months. Assuming it to have been passed in March, it would have left the power for twelve months in the hands of the Executive. Under the alteration now proposed it is left in the hands of the Executive for fifteen months, and we have not had one word explaining it. This is a power in a Bill which for the first time sets up a new Constitution for the United Kingdom it is extremely difficult to explain or justify. In the absence of any explanation my hon. Friend was justified in saying that if we had no other reason given for it we can only presume that it is some party motive the Government have in mind, and that they want to be in a position, as it suits them, either to postpone or to defer the appointed day. When you try to work out the provisions of the Bill from the various Clauses, the Attorney-General will see how very unfair it is that this power should be put into the hands of the Government and how illogically it works out. Let me work it out from the various Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 brings the Irish Parliament into existence. That is not the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. It states the day after which there is to be an Irish Parliament in Ireland. That day necessarily has to precede the day on which it is summoned. The appointed day after which there is to be a Parliament in Ireland—a separate Parliament in a part of the United Kingdom—is to be, at the option of the Executive, either within one month or within fifteen months of the passing of the Act. That is an absolutely monstrous provision to insert in any Act of Parliament. [Interruption.] I believe hon. Members below the Gangway believe it is a monstrous provision.

Mr. MacVEAGH

We are very glad to see you want the Parliament opened quickly.

Mr. CASSEL

The hon. Member mistakes my intention and wishes. I should like to see the Bill rejected, but, for the purpose of this Committee I am bound to assume for the purposes of argument, according to the practice and traditions of this House, that the Bill will at some time or other become law. It is not fair for hon. Gentlemen, because I follow the practice and traditions of this House, to ascribe to me motives and intentions entirely different from those I hold. What I object to is that if the Bill is to become law, contrary to my wishes, and there is to be a Parliament in Ireland, that the Executive should for fourteen months have it in their power to say whether that Parliament is to come into existence or not. I thought the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. MacVeagh) was sharing my sentiments, and that from his point of view it was a monstrous thing that such a power should be left to the Executive. Let ns follow the matter a little more closely. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 4, which creates the Executive, he will see that the Executive is set up at once on the passing of this Bill. It is provided in Section 1— The Executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in His Majesty the King, and nothing in this Act shall affect the exercise of that power except as respects Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act. So far as Irish services are concerned you at once have an Irish Executive set up. Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 says:— As respects those Irish services, the Lord Lieutenant or other chief executive officer or officers for the time being appointed in his place, on behalf of His Majesty, shall exercise any prerogative or other Executive power of His Majesty the exercise of which may be delegated to him by His Majesty. So that the Lord Lieutenant at once has to commence to exercise the Executive power in Ireland, because no one else except the Lord Lieutenant can exercise it with regard to Irish services, and he has to exercise it through Irish Departments. There is no choice whatever with regard to that. What are these Irish Departments? They must be manned with Ministers, who within six months must become members of the Irish Parliament, so that if the Irish Parliament is only to be brought into existence after eight months and the provision will work at all, it would be perfectly impossible for the Irish Ministers to comply with this condition unless you exercise your power of moving back the date when the Irish Parliament first commences. You are in a hopeless muddle. I think the Government have made these alterations in the Bill so suddenly that they have not considered their bearing upon the rest of the Bill, because they start the Irish Executive at once, and they may, according to this, subject to the point which I have mentioned, have gone on for fifteen months with an Irish Executive without any Irish Parliament. But there is this provision, that -an Irish Minister must become a member of the Irish Parliament within six months. How on earth is that reconcilable with the provision with regard to eight months?

Mr. LEIF JONES

Change of Ministers.

Mr. CASSEL

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that they might be kept going on for fifteen months by having one Minister for five months, then another for five months, and so on, but that would really be a fraud upon Parliament. I am quite sure the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman will not be adopted by the Front Bench. He can hardly have intended that that suggestion should be taken seriously. Now, let me pass to Clause 13, which deals with the question of when the Irish representation in this House is to be reduced to forty-two Members. That is to happen at once on the appointed day. How is that reconcilable with the provision in Sub-section (2) of Clause 42, that the existing 103 Members are to cease to be Members of this Parliament, not on the appointed day, but on the first meeting of the Irish Parliament? We have agreed that there must be a period between the appointed day and the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, so it is absolutely contradictory on the face of the Bill itself. "After the appointed day" means immediately after the appointed day, not 100 years after it.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

When you have the members returned.

Mr. CASSEL

I quite agree, you must have the members returned, but what that Clause says is that after the appointed day the number of Members returned by constituencies to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two. If 103 Members from Ireland still come here on the appointed day, what would be their position? Would they be entitled to sit or not? This is a vitally important question. Hon. Members opposite treat it with a levity which is not worthy of the occasion. In one part of the Bill you say one thing and in another part you say another, and you have not attempted to give us the slightest explanation why you have made these contradictory statements in the Bill or which of the two statements is right. Is it on the appointed day or on the first meeting of the Irish Parliament that the 103 Members may take their seats? Under Clause 42 it is at the meeting of the first Irish Parliament, but the other Clause provides that after the appointed day no more than forty-two Members representing constituencies in Ireland can sit in this House. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to see the inconsistency. What is the date on which they may take their seats?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Clause 42.

Mr. CASSEL

Very well, are they still entitled to sit between the appointed day and the first meeting of the Irish Parliament or are they not? Let us try to apply this new provision of the Bill to Clause 14, which defines the Transferred Sum—the sum which is to be paid out of the British Exchequer into the Irish Exchequer—as the sum which represents the cost of the Trish services, not on the appointed day but at the time of the passing of the Act, which may be fifteen months before the appointed day. The payment of the annual sum is to commence as from the passing of the Act and not as from the appointed day. I suppose the Government consider it necessary to exercise these powers, because they have intentionally lengthened the period during which it is in their power to determine when this Parliament is to come into existence. If they have that period of fifteen months, is the Transferred Sum to be paid over in that period or not? Assuming that the Trish Parliament is not brought into existence until fifteen months after the passing of this Act, during those fifteen months do you or do you not pay over the Transferred Sum? It seems to me a point of first-class importance upon which we ought to have had some explanation, because it involves a question of £6,000,000 a year during a period of six months. During these fifteen months the position would be that there is an Irish Executive and no Irish Parliament. Docs the right hon. Gentleman say that there would be no Irish Executive? I should very much like to know what Clause in the Bill as it stands would prevent an Irish Executive from coming into existence. There may be some further modification to be made. I would point out that as the Bill stands you fix the Transferred Sum as payable, not on the appointed day, but at the passing of the Act, before there is any Irish Exchequer or Executive at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman's answer that there will be no Exchequer or Executive completes the absurdity. Then you have the position that without an Irish Executive and without an Irish Exchequer you would be obliged to pay the Transferred Sum into an Irish Exchequer which has no existence. That seems to be the result of Clause 14. Let us pass to the question of the Judiciary. Is there any Judiciary set up at the passing of the Act? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is neither Judiciary nor Executive. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn to Clause 28, which at the beginning says:— The appeal from courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease; … Is that at the passing of the Act or on the appointed day? I venture to say that it is at the passing of the Act. There is nothing with regard to the appointed day there, so that for a period of fifteen months, although you have no Irish Parliament or Executive, you will have already transferred the right of appeal to the House of Lords to the right of appeal to the Privy Council.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I have said that there must be an Executive at once. What the hon. Member seems to forget altogether is that provision is made for the purpose of making these arrangements. He is leaving out of consideration absolutely and entirely the provisions for bringing the Bill into effect by Orders in Council. The very object of having Orders in Council is to meet those difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.

Mr. CASSEL

The provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers have no application to the point with which I am dealing. If he will turn to Clause 4 he will see that there is no question of any Order in Council. That absolutely comes into operation at the passing of the Act. He will also see by referring to Clause 14, Sub-section (2), that paragraph (a) says:— such sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board established under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Exchequer Board) to represent the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act of Irish services. Who is going to defer that date? There is no provision in Clause 14 which enables any Order in Council to postpone the period when the Irish Exchequer powers arise. The provisions with regard to Orders in Council only apply where you have the appointed day referred to. I quite agree that when you have the appointed day referred to you may, by Order in Council, ante-date or post-date the time, but when you have not any mention of the appointed day, these provisions as to Orders in Council do not apply. I think the reply of the Attorney-General does not apply in the least, either to Clause 4 or Clause 14. Under Clause 14 the payment of the Transferred Sum is to begin at once as from the passing of the Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the payment of the Transferred Sum will not have to commence at once on the passing of the Act? I submit that on the construction of the Clause the payment has to commence at once as from the passing of the Act. There is no power whatever by Order in Council to ante-date or to post-date that. Clause 28 takes away the right of appeal to the House of Lords and gives the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that does not take effect under the Bill as worded as from the passing of the Act. Is there any power whatever by Order in Council to postpone that date? I submit that at once on the passing of the Act the appeal from Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords ceases, and that the appeal to the Privy Council is substituted for it. There are no words whatever in the Bill which entitle the Government to postpone or ante-date that period. If we had in the Bill the words, "As from the appointed day appeals from the Irish Courts to the House of Lords shall cease," then I agree that the right hon. Gentleman could have brought into use the words in Clause 46 to which he has referred; but as these words are not in the Bill, I cannot see what power 1he Government have to postpone the date. Clause 27 says:— A judge of the Supreme Court or other Superior Court in Ireland, or of any County Court or other Court with a like jurisdiction in Ireland, appointed after the passing of this Act, Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he has any right to postpone that date? The Irish Judiciary is set up at once on the passing of the Act, and I submit that it is absurd to have these provisions under which the judiciary and the Executive are set up at once and under which the Transferred Sum commences to be payable at once, while the Government should have it in their power for a period of fifteen months either to set up the Irish Parliament or not. During that period really nobody will know where they are. The transition period will be fraught with embarrassment and difficulties of every description. Again, Clause 31 with regard to the Lord Lieutenant comes into operation at once. The Clause provides that the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment. To that the Prime Minister agreed to add a Clause that he should be in the position of a Colonial Governor. That comes into operation at once on the passing of the Bill. If all these provisions come into operation on the passing of the Bill, how can it be sensible to leave this option with regard to bringing into existence the Irish Parliament? I quite agree that where you have the words "appointed day" you have the power to postpone. Wherever you find the words "passing of the Act" there is no power to postpone, and where you find no words you must read in "passing of the Act." I know the inward meaning of all this sudden change which has been made without properly considering the other Clauses. It really arises from a desire on the part of the Government to keep in their own hands the power to bring this Bill into operation, either before or after an election. This is not treating this House or the country fairly. The fair way of dealing with the matter would be to make clear that there is to be an election before this Bill comes into operation. I think we had words from the First Lord of the Admiralty which rather indicated that that was the intention.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present——

Mr. CASSEL

Our contention always has been that this Bill ought to be submitted to the country before it becomes law. Whatever may have been said in the most general and vague terms, the real character of this Bill was never known to the country. It was never known to the country that there was a proposal in this Bill that, while giving self-government to the Irish people, at the same time there were to be retained in this House forty-two Irish Members who would prevent the British people from having self-government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is rather outside the scope of this Amendment.

Mr. CASSEL

I am arguing now that the appointed day ought to be after the General Election, and if I discuss the general question of the appointed day there is no point in reference to it which is more important than——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that a wide discussion as to whether this Bill should or should not be submitted to the country before becoming law is more appropriate to the Second Reading.

Mr. CASSEL

I obey your ruling, but it prevents me from raising one of the points to which I attach the greatest importance. My submission is that under the Government Amendments the Government have reserved to this House freedom of bringing the Parliament into existence as they like or do not like during the whole period of fourteen months, yet, notwithstanding that, they have in their haste in making this Amendment still left in the Bill all these provisions which say that the Executive and judiciary are to be brought into existence at once on the passing of the Act, and the provisions which say that the Transferred Sum is to be determined not from the appointed day, but as from the time of the passing of the Act, and must commence to be paid from that date. T submit that we are entitled to a little further explanation from the Government as to how they fit in these proposals with the other Clauses of the Bill, and why the Government reserve to themselves this power for a period of fourteen months, which is absolutely unprecedented and has never before been given to any Executive in any part of the world.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I was going to deal with some other points, and I would ask the Attorney-General to reply to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend before the discussion goes on to other lines.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I was waiting until the hon. Member spoke first.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I was going to speak on other points. I think we should have a very distinct grievance against the Government had it not been been for the statement which the Attorney-General made at the beginning of the discussion, because otherwise we should have had no real discussion on that point to-day and all that it involves had it not been for the statement of the Attorney-General, which was endorsed, Mr. Maclean, by you. The question of the appointed day really arises definitely on Clause 43, and it is quite certain that we shall not have an opportunity of discussing Clause 46, and, moreover, the course which the Government has adopted in moving to leave out this first Sub-section makes it impossible to move to put in a day which will bring the Act into operation only after the time when this Parliament shall have run its statutory course. But, as I understand, the Attorney-General has agreed that the whole question of the appointed day and all that it involves should be argued now, and you have acquiesced in this decision. The appointed day is the day when the whole of this Bill comes into operation, and when there are to be both, a Legislature and an Executive in Ireland. That involves the most important of all questions which we have to discuss. I am not going to deal with the effect of the last election on which you restricted the freedom of my hon. and learned Friend, but I submit that this is the only opportunity on the Committee stage which we shall have of arguing that the appointed day should not be a fixed date irrespective of passing events and should not be a day dependent en the pleasure of the Government, but should be a day dependent on the verdict expressed in some way or other of the whole people of the United Kingdom. It is a matter of common knowledge, to put it at its very lowest, that there is grave risk when the appointed day conies there will be a very serious collision between the Executive in Ireland, whether Imperial or local, and a large section of the Irish people. Some of us on this side of the House have been taunted with looking forward to this with exhilaration, as if we revelled in the prospect of civil strife and bloodshed. I want to repudiate that notion absolutely.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I made no comment on the suggestion of the hon. Member that the whole question of the appointed day was open because I wanted to hear what he had to say on that, but he is not in order in the line of argument which he is now pursuing. The hon. Members suggests that the whole subject should now be raised, but such a course cannot be taken at this point.

Mr. J. HOPE

Am I not entitled to argue that the appointed day set forth in the Bill will be a day after which, according to the provisions of the measure, there will be great risk of turmoil and bloodshed? Am I not to be allowed to argue that it would be better, so far as human foresight can provide, to obviate that risk?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Such an argument would be more properly in its place in the Debate on the Third Reading.

Mr. J. HOPE

Had it not been for the action of the Government in moving to leave out the whole of this Sub-section, an Amendment would have been moved to fix the appointed day at a time beyond the statutory length of this Parliament, and would we not in that ease have been in order in arguing that by putting the day beyond the length of this Parliament, certain dangers would be avoided? If the Government had not moved to leave out the whole of this Sub-section, could there not have been legitimate discussion on that Amendment, and would it not be in order now?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If I allowed the hon. Member to proceed on the line he has just indicated I should of course have to allow replies, and then we would at once get into a Second or Third Reading Debate.

Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON

May I respectfully remind the Deputy-Chairman that the opening words of the Bill say— On and after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament. We have postponed the Amendment to take out those words and to insert a later date, 1920, or whatever the date may be. When that Amendment came up, by the ruling of the Chairman, it was decided that the matter could not be properly raised at that point, and ought to be raised as an Amendment to Clause 42. It is now true that by the action of the Government the date on which we might have moved an Amendment, and which it was ruled might be taken at a later stage, is being removed from the Bill, and T submit that it is very hard on us that by the action of the Government we should now be precluded from doing something which the Chairman ruled we would be perfectly in order in doing on this Clause, and now that we are perfectly in order on this Clause we are prevented from submitting the Amendment that we sought to move on Clause 1.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I must deal with the situation as I find it, and I cannot allow the line of argument which the hon. Member was pursuing.

Mr. J. HOPE

We are precluded from moving the Amendment, and we cannot now have the Debate. I withdraw all I have said about the liberality of the Government in having a discussion. On Clause 1 we were promised that this discussion could be raised on Clause 42, but now the Government by their own action in moving to leave out the Sub-section have gone back on the assurance which they then gave us, and, in consequence of that action of the Government, we are denied an opportunity to debate the question. I protest against the action of the Government, and I withdraw every word I have said in their favour.

Mr. JAMES MASON

The importance of this Sub-section of Clause 42 depends really on the final form which Clause 46 is to take, and I think we ought to be informed as to the reasons for later on proposing the changes which are going to be made in that Clause. We are placed in such a position that Clause 46 will not be subjected to the discussion which it deserves. Therefore, I submit, I have very good reasons for asking the Government to give us some explanation as to-why the word "six" is to be changed into the word "seven" in Clause 46. There seems to be some object, possibly very sinister object, in prolonging this-period of uncertainty from twelve months to fourteen months. The condition which is introduced into Clause 46 means that the appointed day is to be carried on to within a little over one month from the passing of the Act or deferred to something over fifteen months. I do not know what the object of that extraordinary elasticity may be, but I think I am entitled to some explanation in view of the fact that we cannot possibly receive this explanation when Clause 46 is actually reached. There is one point on which I think I may reasonably ask some explanation, and that is the effect of this period of prolonged uncertainty on the latter part of Clause 27. In the first part of Clause 27 it is provided that the judge shall be appointed after the passing of this Act by the Lord Lieutenant, and the Clause then goes on to say— and shall hold his office by the same tenure as that by which the office is held at the time of the passing of this Act, with the substitution of an Address from both Houses of the Irish Parliament for an Address from both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Are we to understand he shall hold that tenure during fifteen months subject to no condition of an Address from any House of Parliament whatever? It seems to me that in the Clause as it stands the power of an Address from both Houses of the Imperial Parliament will be removed, and as there are no Irish Houses of Parliament in existence it seems that the whole tenure is subject to no conditions whatever. That is a point on which we can reasonably ask for some explanation before we go to a Division on this Clause. Undoubtedly the object of the course which the Government is pursuing is a very real one, and it is one on which we should have a frank avowal. It is too much to expect an explanation of what is the object of putting the power into the hands of the Government of bringing their Act into operation within fourteen months, or sooner or later, as the case may be, but I think we ought not to have this power left in the vague state in which it is proposed to be left without further explanation.

Mr. HEWINS

I contend that the question of the appointed day seems to me so very important that it almost raises the whole principle of the Bill on which we are engaged. Let me for one moment explain the point of view from which I regard it. We all know the feelings of hon. Gentlemen on the other side; we all know how reluctantly they are driven into the Lobby, and it is very easy for us to understand that these hon. Gentlemen feeling as they do about the defects of this Bill, and about their own complete ignorance of the Clauses of this Bill, and balancing one consideration with another we can quite understand they may argue it is better to march into the Lobbies at this stage rather than bring about any division of our party but that there is always the question of when the Bill is coming into operation at a later stage of the discussion. The fact is that the question of the time at which you should bring this Bill into operation is the very essence and kernel of the whole of the Bill. I should say also with regard to general political questions it is exactly the same. After all, take the two parties and take so many of the public questions in which we are interested, and really the difference between us turns in a very large number of instances not so much upon the principles involved, not so much upon what we would do supposing a definite measure was to be brought into operation, but always on a question of time——

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

May I venture to put one matter right? I understood that you, Sir, ruled the question of time was not out of order. There ought not to be any misunderstanding upon the subject, subject of course to your view. I explained to the hon. Member for Sheffield that the Government raised no objection to the point being discussed in the fullest sense as to what was the appointed day, and that although we were moving to omit this Sub-section, we quite assented to the view raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) that there should be very full discussion. I am only rising for this purpose. I did not understand, though I may not have quite appreciated the effect of your decision, that you ruled out the discussion in any way as to the time when the appointed day ought to be, and to which the lion. Member was just now referring. I notice that when the discussion took place at an earlier stage the Prime Minister did say that this question of the time of the appointed day no doubt would be brought on and that it could be discussed on Clause 42. It was with that in mind, although I had not the precise words before me, that I made the remarks at the initiation of this discussion. All I want to do is to call your attention to the matter, and to say that I understood from your decision that you have not ruled out discussion on the point of the time of the appointed day.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I should like to recall to your recollection what occurred. Almost on the first day of the Committee this point was raised by a manuscript Amendment put in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. The point that he specifically raised was whether or not there should be an election before this Bill came into operation. I have not the actual words, but my recollection is quite clear that the Prime Minister then stated that if that subject were dropped at the time there would be the opportunity for raising the point on Clause 42. I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members on this side, as well as hon. Members opposite, if the widest possible discussion were allowed.

Sir E. CARSON

If it is the general view of the Committee that we should have this opportunity, which seems to be the only opportunity that will be open, may we not then have it with your assistance?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

With regard to what the Attorney-General said, I must say I in no sense ruled out the question of time. When I rose to rule the De- bate was, I thought, proceeding, or beginning to proceed, on purely Second Reading lines. It was for that reason, and that reason only, I intervened. If it is the view of the Committee, and if it is in any sense carrying out a pledge, I have no desire to stand in the way of a full discussion on the point.

Mr. CASSEL

I was discussing whether the appointed day ought to be before or after a General Election, and you absolutely stopped me.

Mr. HEWINS

I am extremely grateful to the Government for their explanation as to the wider limits within which we can continue the discussion. I may say I have not the least intention of raising or initiating a Second Reading Debate, but I should hope to carry with me a certain section of hon. Members opposite, whether they vote with us or not, and to get their sympathy having regard to the very important questions which are raised by this question of an appointed day. As I have remarked, nearly all public questions turn on this element of time. Nearly all great decisions in the course of history, and especially constitutional history, have turned on the question of time. The Union itself turned on the question of time. I should like to put this question of the appointed time upon the broadest possible grounds. We in this House, in discussing such a question as the granting of Home Rule to Ireland, are necessarily not confined and not limited to the attitude of this House and the votes of this House, or to the question of Home Rule as an isolated question. We have had numerous illustrations in recent months of the way in which all these political questions are interwoven and how they react on each other. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, looking at this matter not from a party point of view, but as a great, big, broad constitutional question, do they consider it desirable that at this particular juncture in international and Imperial affairs this House should bind itself to do this thing definitely even within the period laid down by the Government? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because I have so high a regard and admiration for Ireland that I certainly do not think you could sever the relations between Ireland and this country and set up a new constitutional Government there without reacting on and affecting the United Kingdom. You must expect that such a measure must affect almost all Imperial questions.

I do not want to go into details, but I could give many illustrations of the possible action of this grant of self-government to Ireland upon diplomatic and other relations. I would ask this simple question: Does any hon. Member on the Irish Benches mean to tell me it is a matter of indifference that we should divide this United Kingdom into a Protestant Government here and a Catholic Government in Ireland, and that that would have no effect upon Imperial affairs? Would that have no effect upon the policy of the Vatican, or would it have no effect whatever upon our relations with foreign Powers? Hon. Members may interrupt, but every Irishmen sitting on the benches below the Gangway knows that at the present, moment one of the great determining factors in the development of the world conies within such subjects as I have mentioned. It must most profoundly affect our international relations that we set up what is practically an independent Government in Ireland under different auspices, and with different environment and atmosphere from that at the present time. Let me take a few other questions. I think that the question of the appointed day is enormously influenced by the method upon which this discussion has been carried on. I am not complaining of or criticising at the present moment the setting up of the guillotine. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that with regard to the greater portion of this Bill we have had no explanation from the Government of what the Clauses mean. They cannot tell us; the Irish Members cannot tell us; nobody can tell us. On several of the Clauses which we have discussed time after time the criticisms from this side have completely bowled the Government out. I have only to refer to a very simple incident which occurred the other day. A discussion was raised upon the position of the Joint Exchequer Board. I am not going to discuss the merits of the question; I merely wish to allude to what took place. It was stated from this side that there was no provision of a certain kind in the Bill. The representative of the Government said that there was such a provision. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. A. J. Balfour) asked. "Where is it?" The Postmaster-General said, "The Attorney-General is finding it." He was asked whether it was found. No, it was not found; and it turned out, as a result of the discussion, that this very important provision for which the Attor- ney-General was looking was not in the Bill. As a result of their complete failure to show any knowledge of their own Bill the Government have had to introduce Amendments, and those Amendments are now the subject of great criticism. That is a fundamental factor. We have convicted the Government of supreme ignorance of the measure which they have introduced.

10.0 P.M.

That is not the only instance. I am within the recollection of the Committee when I say that on practically every important and fundamental part of this Bill the Government do not know their own measure If the Government do not know it—I think we know it better than the Government do—where are we to look for guidance? You are asking that within limits of time set down by this Amendment this scheme of Irish Government shall be set going. Take the financial or fiscal part of the Bill. I say without the slightest hesitation that within the limits of time prescribed by the Government Amendment the particular drawback arrangements set down in the Bill could not be organised. I say that for this simple reason. In the first place, the Government have not obtained, and they have not in their possession, the information upon which they can approach the traders of the country, and which would enable them to organise their system. If they had that information, and nobody knows how long it will take to obtain it, on the evidence and according to the opinion of the greatest experts in this matter in the United Kingdom they could not possibly effect that organisation in less than three months. Before they begin to organise they have to get into communication with the traders. They have to understand the organisation of the trades before they can set going their system of drawbacks. The Government have had twenty-six years to do the job, but have not yet begun it. If they have been frightened during all those twenty-six years from inquiring into the matter, how long is it going to take after the passing of this Act? Take another case—the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board. They have to inquire into all these matters. Subject to an appeal to the Privy Council, they have to determine most important points of law. The evidence has to be obtained. I say without hesitation there is not time. Looking at their equipment, the Government Departments who will be called upon to supply the in- formation cannot possibly do this work in the time allowed. My own opinion is—I put it forward with great humility—that if you pass this Bill, you should definitely and quickly get to work to organise; but you should not bring the Bill into operation until at least six months after you are perfectly certain that you have your organisation well in hand. The time allowed by the Government Amendment does not enable you to do that.

If I ask the Government to take a course of that kind I am only suggesting to them that they should take a course which every great Government on the Continent does when bringing in very much less important measures than this. When the German Government brings in a system of commercial treaties it leaves it to what we call an Order in Council or an Imperial decree to bring those treaties into operation. It is a long time after the conclusion of the treaties before those treaties are brought into operation, because all kinds of arrangements similar to those that we have to make in connection with the Financial Clauses of this Bill have to be made in connection with those treaties. I do not want to multiply instances or to detain the Committee. I ask hon. Members to put aside all partisan considerations and to look at this Bill from the point of view of business men. After all is said and done, the working of this Bill does not depend upon Governments, Government officials, or politicians. The people who will really have to work it are the business people of Great Britain and Ireland, and unless you can carry them with you you will create far more friction than the most optimistic Member opposite can imagine you will remove by the passing of this measure. I take this final point. The Government want to fix a time approximately. Why in the world is this particular Tuesday selected? There is no explanation. Have they formed some kind of forecast of what is to be the developments of Imperial policy at that time? Do they know where we shall be? Would they undertake in the present situation in the international world to say what will be the particular class of problem with which we shall be confronted at that time? I put this forward simply as a hypothesis: Suppose complications occurred such as would force you to adopt other financial expedients for raising your revenue. That is not at all unlikely. We have seen it in other countries. It does not matter what the views of hon. Members opposite may be on the matter of principle; on the matter of fact, if they were face to face with a great financial crisis, they would have to put their prejudices in their pocket and do what was best from a business point of view for the United Kingdom.

Are you quite sure that six or twelve months ahead you will have financial and economic matters in the same situation as they are to-day? In regard to economic and financial forecasts the Government have been mistaken; they have not been right on a single point during all the years they have been in office. Will they undertake to say that this complicated—everybody will admit—and difficult Financial Clauses might not have to be undertaken just at the very moment when you are face to face with the important question of altering your financial arrangements? I say that this House ought to keep the control of this question in its own hands; that having gone carefully into the organisation, when they know exactly where they are, when they have found out what the different Clauses involve, when they have set the machinery going for solving the problems that arise, they will be in a position to say, "We will bring this Bill into operation six months hence." I should have thought that this Government of all Governments had had enough of appointed days; they have had an appointed day in connection with another Act of Parliament with consequences that we all have witnessed.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The Debate undoubtedly has ranged over a very wide area during the last hour. I make no complaint of that, because certainly it was intended that there should be an opportunity of dealing in the fullest way possible with the question as to the time this Bill was to come into operation. But I cannot help thinking that a great deal of the criticism which was addressed to us in the early part of this discussion in the very ingenious speech delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras has been most effectively answered by the speeches delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I was not allowed to make my point.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I am sorry I lost the opportunity of having the hon. Gentleman's criticism. If he had been allowed to continue his speech probably I need not have replied.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Perhaps you will sit down now?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I offered just now to give way to the hon. Member if he still had some observations to make. I quite agree he was cut somewhat short in his observations in an earlier part. The whole point of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras was based, I cannot help thinking, on the fact that he misconstrues the effect of this Bill by taking out certain sentences in particular provisions and paying no attention to subsequent provisions which are in the Bill. As I ventured to point out to him during the course of his discussion nothing is easier, particularly to a man of legal training, than to read out particular sentences or passages, and to pay no attention to Clauses that come afterwards, and which are devised expressly for the purpose of getting over the difficulties he has pointed out. Having paid no attention to the provisions for getting over the difficulties, according to his own view, according to his own satisfaction, he places the Government in a dilemma from which, so far as he is concerned, he sees no escape. Let me point——

Mr. CASSEL

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman show me how that applies to what I said with regard to Clause 27?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Yes, certainly. The observations I am about to make apply, it is perfectly true, to all the Clauses, and to each particular case.

Mr. CASSEL

Clause 27?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me——

Mr. CASSEL

I do not mind.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The hon. and learned Gentleman says he does not mind. Well, the observations I am making apply-to the general Clauses, and to the selected Clause, Clause 27. I will show why the question of the Act coming into operation is determined by the appointed day. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras said his point was: You can find in all the Clauses throughout the Bill reference to the "appointed day," and therefore he says Clause 46 only applies to the appointed day, and therefore Clause 46 does not apply to these two other Clauses and the other observations I am making do not apply to the other Clauses.

Sir E. CARSON

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say on this point whether the Act draws a distinction between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, or makes the appointed day the same as the passing of the Act?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I thought I was just pointing that out—that the passing of the Act is a question of date, and the appointed day is the date the Act comes into operation. I note the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. Those behind him who have spoken on the Opposition Benches are also agreed as to that. There is no doubt as to what is intended. If there was any doubt, I should think that reference to earlier Statutes and quotations from them—to take one instance alone, the Education Act of 1902, which contains very similar words—would have sufficed to settle that doubt. When you have a Bill which creates or sets up institutions which take time to come into actual existence, you must allow a certain amount of time between the passing of the Bill and the coming into operation. That is what we do, and I am glad that so far I have got hon. Members' assent. After the passing of the Act, after it has come into existence, you have to get the various provisions for Orders in Council to which reference has been made earlier in the Debate, and to which reference was made by the hon. Gentleman who has just j spoken, who said, with considerable know- I ledge apparently of 'what happens abroad, that the Orders in Council were used for J just the same purpose as we purport to; use them for here. I agree with a great deal of what he said with reference to this matter.

He called attention, and so did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, to the fact, and said. "What you are doing is taking the maximum period, on the assumption that you use up the full maximum period of fifteen months from the passing of the Act until the Act comes into operation." It may be a period of less time than that, I think, because it may be only one month after the Bill has received the Royal Assent by virtue of Clause 46. The hon. Member said, "When you have done that you should have taken power to bring into operation certain provisions that give effect | to the whole Bill." He criticised us with reference to that, and seemed to think that that was an extravagant power we had taken in the Bill. During the course of his argument he went so far as to say that he could not see any explanation for it, and therefore he came to the conclusion that we must have been actuated by some party motive. Again let me call attention to the fact of the Education Act, passed by a Unionist Government. In Section 27, Sub-section (2), exactly a. similar provision is to be found. There are to be found the very words almost that we use in this Bill:— different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act. We are entitled to a little more credit than the hon. Member has given us when we have that excellent precedent for our caser in the provision of Section 27 of the Education Act of 1902. I might also instance the Local Government Act——

Mr. CASSEL

My point was this: What I was objecting to is that the Cabinet should for fifteen months have it in their power, at their own will, as they like, to create the Parliament.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

It is not contemplated that the Executive shall exist for fifteen months—the hon. Gentleman has satisfied himself about that apparently, but it was quite news to me. I do not think he can get it out of the Bill. What does happen is that, there are powers to create an Executive, and in the ordinary course the first thing that would happen would be that you would have to have a Lord Lieutenant.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The British Executive?

Mr. CASSEL

I meant the British Executive. My point was this: What I was objecting to was that the British Executive, through an Order in Council, for fifteen months, should have it in their discretion either to create the Irish Parliament or not.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he meant that I will not quarrel about it, and certainly would not waste time about it. That was not the point I think he made with reference to Clause 4, and it was with his interruption I was dealing; he read the words of Clause 4 and satisfied himself, as it, seemed to me, that we were not taking any power to extend or curtail there, and his point was that the Executive should come into position at once. The Leader of the Opposition was not present at the time, and had he been he would have seen I was answering the point made. I agree the hon. Gentleman later on went on to deal with another point, but I am now on the Clause to which he called attention and on which he expatiated. I say there is power for the express purpose of dealing with all these difficulties. What would happen in the ordinary course I do not profess to state, but suppose this Bill passes and receives the Royal Assent, then after that time Orders in Council can be made, and necessarily must be for the purpose of bringing into effect all the various provisions of this Bill, and it is not necessary that they are all to be brought into operation at the same time. What Clause 4 does is perfectly plain. Assuming you have a Lord Lieutenant appointed, who is not a Member of the Government in the sense hitherto understood, you have a situation created under which to get Members of Parliament elected, and from the Members of Parliament you select your Executive, and, having got your Executive, you can set up the various Departments which it is intended to have, at any rate, until Parliament is in active legislative operation, for the administration of Ireland. All that necessarily follows. I suppose one of the first steps will be to create a Department of the Treasury, and when you have created a Department of the Treasury, there is no difficulty in setting up the Joint Exchequer Board. You will have no difficulty in getting the two Members from the Irish Treasury, and equally there is no difficulty about nominating the two Members in this country and appointing the Chairman. And then at once yon are entitled under Clause 43 to use money for the various purposes. The Joint Exchequer Board has power to see that should be done, and that you may be able for the time being to use money which comes into the Exchequer so that you may give effect to these various provisions. Eventually you get your Parliament working. You have your Senate nominated; your Members of Parliament would have been returned, and, of course, when that happens, there comes the cessation of 103 Members in this House under Clauses 13 and 42.

Mr. HEWINS

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the particular virtue of this first Tuesday of the eighth month?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I do not like to answer that question by asking another, but still perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman, was he present when I made my observation in moving this Amendment? If he had been, he would not have asked that question, because I gave the explanation then that in the 1893 Bill the words were very much the same as we have used here, and the time is the same.

Mr. HEWINS

That is a very bad precedent.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

We have come to the conclusion that the precedent was at any rate one that was so satisfactory that we ought to follow it, but we made a change that commends itself now to the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. HEWINS

What I want to get at is this. Whether the Government has made any careful examination of the amount of time that would be necessary. Have they done that?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Nobody professes to be able to estimate the time exactly, but there must be a certain limit. There is a long period, and then six months beyond it. Having come to the conclusion that we do not want to fix the month as September, but allow a certain period to elapse after the passing of the Bill, we alter it, and the only alteration we are making is that instead of saying the Bill shall come into operation on the first Tuesday in September, 1913, we say that the Bill shall come into operation on the first Tuesday of the eighth month after the Bill has passed.

Mr. HEWINS

Have you made any preliminary calculation?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

We have made the best calculation we can, and we find it is necessary that there should be eight months. Let me point out that it does not follow that eight months will be wanted. Having taken eight months, it might be that more time or less would be required, and so we have provided that we should be able to make it seven months earlier or later. In this way we have met the very objections raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. During the discussion a great number of points have been raised which I think I may describe without fear of contradiction as more appropriate to the Second Reading. I do not propose to travel into those points, because they have been dealt with in the Debates that have already taken place. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) asked, "Have you considered what you are doing, and have you considered the international situation?" I cannot help observing that, when we introduced the Government of Ireland Bill there were no international complications, and nobody could have expected that by the time we got to these Clauses the events which have happened in the Balkan States would have been foreseen. All I desire to say is whenever yon introduce a Bill of this character you will always be met by the argument that the time is never opportune by hon. Members opposite, because they think the Bill ought never to have been introduced. That is an argument with which we have all become familiar during the course of these discussions, but it does not add to the argument or make it any fresher to say that you must now consider the state of international complications, and determine whether, in the light of events which have taken place so recently and which are so important, you ought really to introduce your Government of Ireland Bill. All I desire to say, in answer to the points put, is that we have taken, as far as we are concerned, the best means of determining how this Bill can be brought into operation with the least inconvenience to the Administration that has to be set up in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "It never will."] If it never will, then we really need not bother about discussing this Clause. If that is the case, of course hon. Members might have saved themselves the discussion and calling upon me for a reply. I am anxious to meet the arguments that have been put forward, at any rate to the best of my ability. My suggestion is that, having considered and looked into the matter, we came to the conclusion we should be doing wrong by fixing a particular month, and especially September, which might prove inconvenient, as it is a holiday month, and comes after a holiday month. It is far better, if you are going to fix a period, you should have regard, for example, to what is intended to be the beginning of the financial year in Ireland. These are matters of serious importance to those who, like myself, and hon. Members on this side of the House really are considering what is to happen, and how the Irish Administration is to be set up, when the Bill passes; but, of course, they are of no concern to those who do not approach the Bill from that point of view.

Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON

When is the financial year to begin?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

That is exactly one of those matters which has to be determined by the Irish Parliament. It is not for us to say when the Irish financial year should commence.

Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON

The right hon. Gentleman said they had chosen September because it was a convenient month for the Irish financial year, and I asked him when it was suggested the Trish financial year should begin.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

And I answered that it was the Irish Government which would determine when the Irish financial year should begin. I was pointing out that to take eight months from the passing of the Act, with the power under Clause 46 of either making it seven months earlier or later, would enable us much more easily to fix our time in accordance with the period at which the Irish financial year is to commence in the view of the Irish Government. It is much more elastic and flexible, and that is our object. It is for these considerations we have come to the conclusion we ought to make this alteration. Although I am not controverting the fact that under Clause 42 an important point is made, the alteration we have made is comparatively trivial. It is substituting a fixed period with this provision for elasticity instead of fixing a particular month, and I submit we have given good reasons why we should make the alteration.

Sir E. CARSON

I listened with great care to the Attorney-General, and I am bound to say I have certainly been unable to fathom why the changes are made at all by the Government, or really how the Bill will work out: I do not think the Amendment to leave out this Sub-section is really done as innocently as the Attorney-General would try to lead us to believe. In the first place, I suppose the Sub-section was put in deliberately. I suppose they knew September was a holiday month, if the Attorney-General was really not joking when he mentioned that as being a reason for leaving the Sub-section out, and, I suppose, when we were discussing Clause 1, they knew this Sub-section was going to be left out and that it was unworkable. But that was not the way they treated it. They told us then we should be able to raise all our Amendments on this first Sub-section. When we got to the Sub-section, only two days ago, the Chief Secretary put down Amendments to this very Sub-section, and the next day he put on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the Sub-section altogether. I do not believe that that is the mere innocent operation of leaving out a holiday date, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have us suppose. We have not been told up till this why the Government have thought it necessary to abandon their own Section in their own Bill which they intended to amend up till two days ago. The position in which we are placed, therefore, is that by leaving out this Sub-section they take away from us altogether the power of having any say in the fixing of the appointed day for the meeting of the Irish Parliament, although we were promised it when we raised the question on the first Clause. You have framed your time-table, and now you are practically laying down that we are to have no right in. regard to the question when the Irish Parliament is to meet. Why you have made this change we do not know. The Attorney-General, if I may say so without meaning offence, talked a great deal round this matter. I think he could have told us in a very few words what really was the object, of the Government. But he did not, and one finds great difficulty in ascertaining why the Bill is framed in this way. In my opinion there could be nothing more absurd in the way of drafting. Why not say that the appointed day shall be within a month after the passing of this Act, with power to the Government to extend the time to fourteen or fifteen months?

But that is not the way the Government do it. They say it shall be eight months, or, if the Government please, it shall be seven months earlier or seven months later. What an extraordinary way of dealing with months, putting them backwards or forwards, just as the Government pleases, and not putting any definite date into the Bill. I should like to know why they do it. We have not been told why we are not to have an opportunity of discussing it. The Attorney-General, in the course of his argument, pointed out that the appointed day would be a day some time after the day of the Act coming into operation. But he knows perfectly well that the appointed day has nothing whatever to do with the Act coming into operation. The words "appointed day" have a technical meaning in the Act, and it is only where reference is made to the appointed day that Clause 46 will operate at all. If, for instance, the first Clause says that "after the appointed day there shall be in Ireland an Irish Parliament," that refers to Clause 46, and if those words were not there, if it merely said "there shall be an Irish Parliament," it would come into force immediately the Act passed. Whenever it suits his purpose the Attorney-General dwells on the appointed day and says it means the passing of the Act and its coming into operation. But, as a matter of fact, that is not so. As a matter of construction, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well the Act comes into force the day it passes, and it is only by including a provision of this kind that you can postpone anything in the Act. You can say that the Act, although passed on a certain day, shall not come into force until a certain appointed day, but you do not say that. You only say it as regards certain provisions. The Attorney-General never answered the point, which is one of the plainest and easiest for the Committee to follow. It. was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras and it dealt with Section 27, which provides:— A judge of the Supreme Court or other Superior Court in Ireland, or of any County Court or other Court with a like jurisdiction in Ireland, appointed after the passing of this Act, shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. Does the Attorney-General tell us that "after the passing of this Act" there means after the appointed day? Where does he get it from? It is not in the Clause. The Attorney-General knows that it is not in the Bill. Therefore you have this extraordinary position, that although you have taken provision as to setting up your Irish Parliament and your Irish Executive also, perhaps not for fifteen months after this Bill passes, there are certain Clauses in the Bill which come into force the very moment the Bill passes. Although you have no Executive in Ireland except the Imperial Executive, which will have to continue, until the Irish Parliament is set up on the appointed day, you are giving power to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland to take away from the Imperial Parliament and from the Government of the Imperial Parliament, although you have no other Government in Ireland, the power to appoint judges, if any vacancy occurs within the fifteen months. Was anything ever more absurd than that? There is no reference there to the "passing of the Act," nor is there any reference to the appointed day. It does not say "after the appointed day." If all that was necessary was to put in at the end "after the appointed day," as the Attorney-General says, you ought never to have referred to "after the passing of the Act" at all; you ought always to have said "after the appointed day." The Bill comes into force the day it is passed, and as regards the provisions which are not affected by the appointed day, they become law the very day the Bill is passed. Let mo take the next Clause, Clause 28. The House of Lords as a Court of Appeal is abolished so far as Ireland is concerned. It is abolished on the passing of the Act, because there is no limitation. It merely says:— The appeal from Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease. It does not say "after the appointed day," nor is there anything in Clause 46 to make it after the appointed day. I merely take these two matters which were referred to by the lion, and learned Member for West St. Pancras. You find in the strange provisions of this Bill a number of provisions of important Executive power which are changed before you have brought into existence the Irish Parliament or the Irish Executive. We ought to have some explanation upon these matters. The Attorney-General referred, in a vague way, to the famous Orders in Council under Clause 44, but does he tell us that the Orders in Council are to be able to vary the expressed words of the Act? Can the Order in Council say that "after the passing of the Act" does not mean after the passing of the Act, but means something else? The Order in Council has nothing to say to these specific matters. The whole truth of the matter is that the Government have never thought out at all what is to happen in the interregnum between the passing of this Bill and the setting up of the Irish Parliament, I suppose for the reason that they do not know whether they are going to set it up in one month after the passing of the Bill, or in fifteen months after the passing of the Bill. One would have thought that they would have some definite time in their own minds. The whole thing is left in a state of chaos and carelessness, and we are debarred from discussing this very question by the knocking out of this Sub-section, and we are to have no opportunity of discussing it on Clause 4V, because of the operation of the guillotine.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).