HC Deb 22 February 1922 vol 150 cc2039-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Mara, 1922, for the Expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I should be glad if we could have some explanation of this Vote.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The hon. and gallant Gentleman surely had no intention of crowding out my explanation. This Supplementary Estimate was required because of an under-estimate of charges under these three heads, E, F and G, for prosecutors, fees to counsel, and general law expenses. The original Estimate was made up about December, 1920. It has not proved sufficient to meet the charges under these three heads, and the reason for that is that the work of the Courts in Ireland has been greater than was anticipated in 1920 when the Estimate was prepared. Under the head of Prosecutors, one of the main items of expense is that of witnesses. These witnesses were essential in all cases dealing with malicious injuries in order to arrive at a decison in the way of awards. The fees of counsel were larger, partly because of the growth in the work of the Courts during the period under review, and partly also because of the fact that some six cases of constitutional importance were dealt with in the Courts of Appeal in Ireland, and two of high constitutional importance came to the House of Lords. These were cases which involved the briefing of leading counsel, and involved also the expen- diture of a larger sum than could fairly have been anticipated when the Estimate was orignally prepared.

Under the heading of "General Law Expenses" the growth of £8,000 in the expenses was due directly to some 400 cases of malicious injury to property, a large amount of which belonged to the Crown. For instance, there was the burning of the Customs House in Dublin. In that case expert and other witnesses were engaged to prove the cost and the disastrous result therefrom.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Was the burning of Cork included?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I would submit the Supplementary Estimate to the Committee with confidence. I do not think the amount is large, having regard to the main reason, namely, the increased work in the Civil Courts of Ireland under these three particular heads. It is only under these three particular heads of the original Estimate that there is an increase in the Vote. Naturally I shall be very anxious to answer any question that may be raised.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

I am very obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation and I only rose to make certain that some explanation was forthcoming from the Government, knowing their habits.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

Not mine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

No. The right hon. Gentleman is always very facile, and very ready. He has always loud protestations and full explanations which usually mean nothing at all. I am not surprised that the number of cases has exceeded the original calculation. Just by chance I have here a list of the cases waiting hearing at the Clare County Court. It, would take me quite a long time if I read them out. There are malicious injury cases, mainly to private houses, business houses, furniture, and hay. Just take one small town, that of Milltown: John Breen, damage to shop window, £10; Margaret Vaughan, dwelling-house, shop and premises, totally burned and destroyed, £350; Mary Honan, dwelling-house damaged, £10, and stock-in-trade damaged, £20; Michael Sullivan, three windows damaged and destroyed, £25. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will not trouble the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I will read out a few. These are injuries to humble people, small people, working people whose little stock-in-trade, I dare say, are valued altogether at only some £40. These are shopkeepers, miserable little poor people, mostly harmless. Every one of those has a claim against the right hon. Gentleman's servants. I have a whole list of them. And so it goes on. Cree, Doonbeg, Ennistymon, Lahinch, Glasscloon—all these little out of the way Irish villages. Here is one: Thomas Cullinan, Ennistymon, dwelling-house, furniture, clothing, etc., gold watch, set of harness bicycle, etc., burned"— —everything the man possessed apparently— total £3,000. No wonder there are more cases than the right hon. Gentleman first of all provided for. That is just one County Court list awaiting trial.

Of course this costs money. I do not know who is going finally to pay the compensation; I daresay the successor of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will be able to tell us. In the meantime the mere fees to counsel, travelling expenses for witnesses, the calling in of expert witnesses, and so on is making up the substantial sum of £13,900 over and above the original Estimate of £41,900—

Lord R. CECIL

No, the original Estimate was 228,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

I am much obliged to the Noble Lord. This sum of £13,900 is over and above the £28,000 already estimated for. Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Hope, when challenged just, now on a point of Order, said that we had a number of small Votes, of which this was one. In comparison with the main item of some million odd pounds this is, of course, a small Vote, but it is only one of a series, all of which are part of the process, so aptly named by an hon. Member the other night, of clearing up the mess we are in at the present time. I do not want to appear in any way unjust to the Chief Secretary, who will be included, I suppose, in the Act of Indemnity. If Mr. Michael Collins is prepared to wipe the slate clean, it is not for us on this side to stand in the way. There are plenty of other charges on which higher Members of the Government will one day be in the dock, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is worth the waste of a tear or a curse.

The CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine his remarks to what is included in the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am much obliged. I rather thought you were about to pull me up for using what you regarded as an offensive expression. I apologise, but I was using the word purely in a figurative sense. I wish to ask one or two question. Under Sub-head F it is stated that an additional sum is required owing to an under-estimate of the number of trials still taking place in the Southern Courts. Are we to understand that the ordinary Courts in Ireland are still sitting and adjudicating? I thought that when the Provisional Government was set up the Sinn Fein Courts became, not legalised, but regularised, and that they had taken over the administration of justice in the South and West of Ireland. What is happening to all the Courts that sat before the Truce and the Treaty? Are they still functioning all over the Provisional Government's territory? The words "still taking place" would imply that they are. Are they still solemnly meeting and trying cases of malicious injury to poor people whose property has been destroyed? Are they still solemnly giving judgment and putting the charges on the local authorities, although we know that there is some arrangement to be reached between our Government and the Government of Southern Ireland?

If this expense is for Courts that have been functioning and for extra litigation that was not foreseen, I do not see how we car object to it, but that matter ought to be made perfectly clear. Is this expense still running on and is it worth the while of the Courts to function when the whole of the conditions have changed and a totally different system of jurisprudence is to be set up under the Provisional Government in Ireland? Is any of this extra expense connected with the Government of Northern Ireland, and if so will it be possible to recover it? Is there any arrangement for claims against the Northern Government? That Government, I understand, is only too willing to pay for its own Courts of Justice. On all these points we want more explanation. If this expenditure is for past cases in the Courts I do not think we can object to this sum of money, considerable though it is, but we want to be absolutely certain that under the changed conditions there are not what I might call dummy trials and sham Courts.

Mr. HOGGE

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Here, again, we have an instance of being called upon to foot the bill for the mistakes of the Government. If the Government had pursued a policy of intelligence and sympathy in Ireland, instead of the stupid policy they adopted before they came to an agreement with the Free State, all this would have been unecessary. We are to foot the bill because of the senselessness and the want of foresight of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN

It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman would not be in order in pursuing that line of argument.

Mr. HOGGE

That is true, but I was not pursuing it. I was only stating my reasons for opposing the Vote. I am entitled to say that this is a Bill for the misdeeds of the Government, and that therefore we are entitled to vote against it, and will do so. If we look at the items of expenditure, what do we find? There is the same material here as we encounter in every Estimate brought before this House, not only on this subject, but on every other subject. Look at item E. To what is it due?" Owing to an under-estimate." Look at items F and G. To what are they due?" Owing to an under-estimate." This Government cannot even count. That is really all it means. It is because of the inability of the Government to grip the situation; it is because of this action on the part of the worst of all possible Governments, and because they ask this House to foot the Bill for their misdeeds in the government of Ireland, that we object to spending this money.

Sir F. BANBURY

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an explanation of what sum is included in "a Grant in Relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates"?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The right hon. Gentleman knows that is the same heading as in the main Estimate, but it does not necessarily follow that it is carried out in the Supplementary Estimate.

Sir F. BANBURY

There is nothing in this Estimate that comes under that.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) does not see his way, at any rate, to oppose this sum of money.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

What I said was that if this were all work they had finished before the altered conditions and the signing of the Agreement, I did not see how we could object to it, but if work were still being done, I thought it was unnecessary, and we wanted an explanation.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

All the Courts in Ireland are sitting now and doing their duty, and they have been sitting and doing their duty to a greater extent than was anticipated in December, 1920. It is because the Courts have been open, and Judges of the High Court and County Court, and magistrates of all kinds, have been faithfully and fearlessly doing their duty that this Supplementary Estimate is demanded, and I am surprised that any hon. Member is opposing a Supplementary Estimate that would not have been asked for if the Courts had been less open, and the Judges and magistrates had been less fearless than they have proved themselves to be in Ireland. It is a delusion to think that the ordinary County Court case, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, under the Criminal Injuries Act, accounts for all this additional expenditure. That is not true. There is no such thing as sham Courts in Ireland, and I hope the Committee will agree with me that it is one of the most hopeful signs of Ireland that the Courts have been continued since the Treaty, have not been interfered with, and have been very largely, and to an increasing extent, used by people throughout Ireland, both North and South. It is true that there are certain Sinn Fein Courts sitting in different parts of Ireland, but we have nothing to do with them, and I certainly have no authority for interfering with them, but the usual Courts still sit, and will continue to sit, and fearless men doing their duty will continue to carry on until a complete change is made following the spirit of the Treaty in the constitution of Courts and the administration of law in Ireland.

I did hope that this Estimate would commend itself to everybody in the House. As I say, it is to me one of the most hopeful signs for the future of Ireland. Not a judge has been dismissed; not a magistrate has been dismissed. If the Provisional Government made a serious protest against any judge, it certainly would have to be seriously considered. But we are dealing, as the hon. Member knows, with an interim state in Ireland, and it is a hopeful sign that this continuity in the administration of the law is maintained there. All these judges and magistrates are Irishmen carrying on their duty, and I must say it would be hard if the Committee found fault with this Supplementary Estimate of some £13,000 because the Courts have not only done their duty, but more than done their duty. In answer to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull as to whether this amount refers to Courts in Northern Ireland, may I say that up to the 22nd November last all Estimates referred to Northern Ireland in so far as Northern Ireland was affected by the expenditure. Up to that date this Supplementary Estimate applies, but since then it does not apply. I will deal with the question of Northern Ireland in a further Supplementary Estimate, I hope, in a few moments. I hope we shall not quarrel with this Estimate, but encourage one hopeful sign at least in the rather difficult position in which all Irishmen find themselves.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

This is an Estimate for making good the expense involved in the fact that the Courts are operating in Ireland. If the Courts had not been operating in Ireland, this Esti- mate would not have been proposed, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman says it is a Supplementary Estimate of which we ought to be proud, and which the House ought to pass with acclamation. But why was it that when he prepared the Estimates he did not allow for the functioning of the Courts? He told us that the whole machinery of government was complete and yet he did not, on his own admission, make a sufficient demand on the Committee of Supply to meet these charges. Now he says, "This Vote is necessary, and we ought to be proud of it, because it turns out that what I said was true in March has come true in the following January." There is another question I would ask. Many unfortunate individuals in Ireland had their property destroyed, as they allege, by the forces of the Crown. As, of course, the Committee knows, under the Criminal Injuries Act it is their duty to bring an action in the County Court, and many actions were so brought. There is a famous report made on this subject by Judge Bodkin in which he said he had given £187,000 of damages against the Crown. When the right hon. Gentleman found it was getting too hot for him—to use a common expression—and that these verdicts were constantly being given against the auxiliaries and other forces of the Crown, he issued an order through the General Officer Commanding that these actions must cease, and that no County Court Judge could be permitted to hear a case in which the allegation was that the destruction had been made by the forces of the Crown. But the serious question is, what has happened to the order? Is the order still in force? When did it cease, and, particularly, what is going to happen to these judges and these pursuers against the Crown forces in the County Court?

Mr. SWAN

We were told, when the Criminal Injuries Bill was passed, that all the liability for destruction would be handed to the local authorities of the country. Evidently that is not worked as we prophesied. We asked the right hon. Gentleman if the damage to property that had been destroyed by the forces of the Crown would have to be charged upon the revenues of Britain or would it be transferred to the counties. Evidently, all the damage that was being done, instead of being charged to the local authorities, is coming again before this House, and I should like an explanation why these charges, not only the £28,000, but the increased Estimate, should be appealed for in the light of the promises in 1920?

Mr. INSKIP

The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) prefaced his observations by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the recovery of his form in these Debates. May I say that my hon. and gallant Friend and his Friends have never lost their form, their persistent form, which has been to take every conceivable opportunity of which they can avail themselves to introduce all the malice and bitterness they can. It is not very long ago, Sir Edwin, since in this House we were discussing the Irish settlement, which was based upon an invitation from an august source that we were—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—that we were to forgive and forget—

Mr. MOSLEY

On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman in order in introducing the name of His Majesty?

Mr. INSKIP

—to forgive and forget.

Mr. MOSLEY

May I have an answer, Sir Edwin?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I heard nothing which calls for the intervention of the Chair.

Mr. INSKIP

If we are to forgive and forget, if hon. Members opposite are to observe that invitation, to which, on this side of the House, we have responded wholeheartedly, and I think unselfishly, perhaps they had had better cease from taking a delight in every opportunity to rake up all the bitterness of the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith, with his friend the Member for the other division of Leith—

Mr. HOGGE

There is only one division of Leith.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. INSKIP

Well, then for one of the divisions of Edinburgh—I thought that the two were now united—has united in describing with every wealth of epithet—in endeavouring to make up for their paucity of reasoning—their dislike of Government policy. I do not think that anybody on this side of the House desires to go

into the past because it is the past. We should be allowed to bury the past. One would have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have considered that they did not want to go into the past, in the interests of the nation. Let me, however, pass from that. Complaint is made that these expenses are being incurred in connection with the administration of law in Ireland. So far as I can understand the observations, the hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to ally himself to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull. But another member of the party to which my hon. Friends belong, in another place last night, was accusing the Government of having abdicated the true functions of government. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. Either the Government have abdicated, as appears to be the opinion of their leader the ex-Lord Chancellor, or else they have not. The Chief Secretary tells us that the Courts are functioning in Ireland. If they are functioning, these are proper expenses to be incurred in the administration of the law. What objection have hon. Gentlemen to this? None, surely! If the Courts were not functioning, as was said in another place last night, where are we? Like the children in the market place of whom it was said: "We have piped unto you and you have not danced." Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. If I might give a word of advice to my hon. Friends opposite in connection with Irish affairs, it is that they should forget the past, like everyone else, try to see some hope in the future and try to join with those who are eagerly seeking peace in Ireland to find that peace. Perhaps I may make one further observation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite attach too much importance to this Vote. They think it worth while to spend a considerable portion of the time of the House in discussing this Estimate, to which they have no real cause of complaint, while they might be spending the time much more fruitfully in discussing other Estimates. The Noble Lord opposite is very anxious to answer these observations of mine, which appear to have stung him, and as I am anxious that my hon. Friends opposite should appreciate what I have said as to their putting aside malice and the bitterness, I will not stand further in the way of the Noble Lord.

Lord R. CECIL

The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee has rather a strange way of pouring oil upon troubled waters. He apparently wishes to carry out the maxim of forgive and forget by suggesting motives of the most unjust kind to those with whom for the moment he is politically disagreed. May I say to my hon. and learned Friend that though this particular Estimate does not raise a very great question, it does raise a question of considerable importance constitutionally? The hon. and learned Gentleman is very anxious that we should forgive and forget. I am not at all surprised that he should wish that as a supporter of a Government with such a record in its Irish administration. I should think the present Government must be very anxious indeed that nothing further should be said it.

Mr. INSKIP

I think the Noble Lord knows perfectly well that when he sat in this corner of the Committee on more than one occasion, I joined with hon. Members opposite in criticising the Government in regard to some matters to which he now makes reference.

Lord R. CECIL

None the less the hon. and learned Member is now a very strong supporter of the Government, whatever he may have thought of them earlier. Now I turn from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has made a rather infelicitous attempt to defend the Government to the defence of the Chief Secretary for this Vote, a defence made with all that rotund eloquence which we so very much admire. The right hon. Gentleman says it is one of the most hopeful signs in Ireland that the courts are being more used. I do not know why he should be so particularly glad at there being more prosecutions. There is nothing to show that any of the prosecutions were successful. We were told that that was due to the fact that they had to pay large fees in the House of Lords, but that is not encouraging. Then we come to general law expenses (Item G), and I will read the note: Expenses incurred in connection with claims for compensation for destruction of Government property. I cannot conceive why that is considered so encouraging. There is an enormous increase, very nearly treble the original Estimate under this head, and that accounts for the larger part which is due to the expenses in connection with the destruction of Government property, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is not ashamed to tell us that this is one of the most encouraging signs in the state of Ireland. It is difficult to characterise such a claim in Parliamentary language. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the larger part of this expenditure was due to the expenses incurred in connection with the destruction of the Custom House in Dublin.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I said a large part.

Lord R. CECIL

The right hon. Gentleman singled that out, and it was the only particular case he mentioned.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

There were 400 other cases.

Lord R. CECIL

Then there is the case of the Dublin Custom House and 400 other cases of destruction of Government property, and we are to take these as being symptoms of encouragement in the Government of Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE

This Debate is getting more extraordinary than when we first entered into it. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) appealed to us to forgive and forget.

Mr. INSKIP

I did not do so; it was somebody else.

Mr. HOGGE

Then I am sorry you did not do so. I thought the hon. and learned Member made his speech to induce us to forgive and forget. We have nothing to forget. The Government have to forget and forgive. I am afraid this proposal helps to remind us of these things. We are coming to some other items every one of which is a separate bill showing the stupidity of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and to ask us to forget in regard to these matters is asking us to neglect a very elementary duty. The right hon. Gentleman has told us there were 399 cases of the destruction of property in addition to the Dublin Custom House. These are all instances of Government property which the Government forces were not able to protect, and the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of all that property, and yet he has allowed 400 sacred pieces of Government property to be injured during his wise administration in Ireland. Now he comes to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the British taxpayer, and asks us to contribute £8,000 in compensation for their own property which the Government have not been able to protect.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

This is for law expenses.

Mr. HOGGE

This Vote is in connection with claims for compensation for the destruction of Government property, and if the property is in the hands of the Government then they have to ask for compensation. The law expenses have been incurred in asking us to provide them with £8,000 as compensation for our own property which it was their duty to protect. Did you ever hear of any more foolish claim made by an Irish Secretary in the British House of Commons? The right hon. Gentleman asks us to pass this Vote because it is a small one and does not involve any principle. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol may think what he likes about us, but the kind of speech he has just made will make him and his friends the laughing stock of the British race. I am surprised that any man accustomed to pleading cases in the Law Courts will get up here and make a speech of that kind in face of the facts. The figures given are hard figures, and they mean that in every town and village in Ireland acts have been committed against innocent people because of the inability of my right hon. Friend to carry out his work, and because he has been unable to carry out his work he comes to the British taxpayer and asks us for money to wipe up his reputation and the reputation of the Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

I hope the Chief Secretary is going to give us some reply to the very interesting questions which have been put.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I hope I shall not be failing in courtesy to my hon. and gallant Friend. Let me assure the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that whatever form I may be in he is in unusually good form. The hon. Member speaks about this being not the only Estimate, and he says there are three more coming on asking for more money from the British taxpayer. May I point out that not one of the other Estimates asks for a shilling from anybody; they are all token Votes, and no new money is being asked for. In this matter the hon. Member for East Edinburgh shows less than his usual care and foresight in making the statement that the House is going to be asked for more money on the next three Votes. When we come to the Estimates I will make it perfectly clear to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that there is no necessity to get excited over what is going to happen. With reference to what the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) said, he put emphasis on the law expenses under the different heads that have occurred during the period in question owing to criminal injuries of various kinds in Ireland. No one regrets those expenses more than I do, but there has been an increase in the number of trials in the Civil Courts, not only dealing with malicious injury, but many of the cases never passed the County Courts, and some of them are ordinary High Court cases. The first word only is put down in Supplementary Estimates. It is, I admit, rather misleading in that respect. But prosecutions constitute only a small part of the Estimate. In Ireland the most liberal use is made of public money, and Irish money too, and liberal allowances are made for witnesses and for the defence of persons charged with various kinds of crime. To me it is a reassuring and hopeful sign that the Provisional Government of Ireland has continued in all their activities the Courts of the Crown of all kinds. The work of these Courts is increasing. I should have thought that the arbitrament of the law was better than the arbitrament of the pistol. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), who has not the courage or desire to share in any of the dangers in Ireland—

Mr. MOSLEY

May I point out I was in danger which the right hon. Gentleman did not share prior to that?

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The Estimate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether it is not usual in this House not to make personal attacks. I, at any rate, have never made personal attacks. Is it not usual when such an attack is made and refuted that the refutation should be accepted and that there should be some acknowledgment of it and a withdrawal.

Mr. MOSLEY

Never mind.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY

There are certain amenities of debate—

Mr. MOSLEY

Never mind.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]—I am not going to sit down at the call of anyone except the Chair. I am not going to respond to such a call from Members from the Northern Parliament of Ireland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Is the hon. Member rising to a point of Order?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Yes, Sir, in defence of the amenities of the House. I believe these personal reflections are against the general practice of this Committee. I say when such a reflection is made and an explanation is given it is usual to accept the explanation and to make a withdrawal.

Mr. MOSLEY

On that point of Order. I think I am immune from any charge of the kind. My own record is sufficient to justify me. May I say I have not the slightest, desire that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw. It is a source of profound satisfaction—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is only a question of a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech.

Mr. MOSLEY

I have not the slightest desire that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw what he said. As to the Estimate—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MOSLEY

I rose to speak on the Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have not heard anything which requires a withdrawal.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am only desirous of answering the questions which have been put by various hon. Members, and I am doing my best to conduct my share of the Debate with courtesy. I want to answer in all seriousness the various questions that have been put. I can quite understand and share the desire on the part of the Opposition to cut down expenses to the very minimum, and I have no grievance against those whom it impels to question us. I think the only point with which I have not dealt is that raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), who wanted to know what happened, at the time of the Truce, to the Martial Law Order issued in the martial law area, namely, that no action could be commenced in that area without the consent of the Commander-in-Chief. The hon. and gallant Member has been a soldier, and knows that when martial law is in force, the Commander-in-Chief alone issues orders in the area under his command, and that was an order issued, and rightly issued, to preclude the bringing of vexatious and frivolous actions against officers in their commands by anyone in a remote quarter, who could thereby bring a general, say, a hundred miles across country to answer some charge in reference to this matter or that. As far as I know, consent was never refused to anyone who wished to bring an acton in the martial law area, and the Order was not used harshly, or in an arbitrary manner; and I am glad to clear that matter up. It ceased with the Truce, and since the Truce we have done our best, so far as it was in our power, to get reestablished and to carry on the ordinary Courts of all kinds throughout the whole of Ireland, including the coroners' courts, which were at one time supplanted by miltary courts of inquiry. It is because of the increase of business—the natural increase—that I am asking for this supplementary sum, and I still hope that the Committee will encourage the arbitrament of the law by giving me the Vote.

Sir G. COLLINS

The Chief Secretary endeavoured to make light of the increased burdens to which the Committee is being asked to assent. He has, I am afraid, forgotten that within the last hour and a half he presented to this Committee an Estimate for £215,000 for compensation for criminal injuries to life and property during his administration in Ireland, and later on, if the Committee decides to grant the Vote presently under discussion, he will ask for a further sum of money under Vote 18A. I am afraid that when he taunted my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh with getting excited over the present Estimate, he forgot the Estimate which he presented yesterday afternoon for a total sum of £8,500,000 for the Royal Irish Constabulary. I grant that this is a Supplementary Estimate, but the total under discussion was the total for the year, namely, £8,500,000. The total figure which is under discussion is the only figure the taxpayer is interested in. Whether the Supplementary Estimate be large or small the total sum for the Irish Constabulary for the present year is £8,500,000, an increase of £5,000,000 during the last three or four years, and, therefore, if the Chief Secretary would adopt perhaps a more conciliatory attitude in asking the Committee to pass these sums he might meet with more success, and get his Estimates at an earlier hour. To forgive and forget is very pleasant, but the taxpayer outside does not so readily forget the policy of His Majesty's Government. They have to pay taxes by the sweat of their brow, and through the burden placed on their shoulders, partly through the policy of the Chief Secretary there is unemployment. The Chief Secretary makes light of these large sums, and in the Supplementary Estimates, which will be considered at a later stage, there is a further sum of £500,000 for the Irish Office. I hope the Chief Secretary will remember these unpleasant realities, and endeavour to face the situation.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS

Before the Government get this Vote we should have some explanation as to how long these extra law charges are going to continue. Apparently the Government are very well satisfied that the Courts are functioning better than they have for many years, but how long is this country to go on paying for that happy state of things? When is the Provisional Government going to take over its Law Courts and the expense of running them? Apparently the right hon. Gentleman looks forward to the continuance of these Courts for some considerable time, and he referred to the next Estimate. There is a very illuminating note to it—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can discuss that later when we come to it.

Colonel WILLIAMS

The right hon. Gentleman referred to this next Vote and was not called to order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I nearly called him to order.

Colonel WILLIAMS

I was only quoting this Vote to show that by the next Estimate the Government clearly show that these Courts are coming to an end very quickly and that new Courts are being set up. If that is so, we ought to have some assurance that this House will not be called upon to vote these sums in future. We have paid enough for Ireland, and now that they have got self-government—and I hope the experiment will succeed—they should take over the administration of their own Courts. They should pay their own legal charges and absolve the British taxpayer.

Mr. HOGGE

There is only one way in which the Government can stop discussions of the Estimates, and that is either by refusing to give the information or by closuring those of us who wish to take part in it. I do not think the Government can claim that the Opposition has wasted any time on the Supplementary Estimates. We have now gone beyond the Estimate which they expected to get by 11 o'clock, not that I grudge them anything they can get, but if they want their Estimates they have to face this question, and they have not faced it. I will put again those that have not been answered. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] This is a more serious matter than some hon. Members seem to think. We are in a period of interragnum in Ireland. The Provisional Government is not yet set up, vested with full powers, and is not functioning. Therefore, the Courts that are functioning must be British Courts, and the expenses of them must be paid by the British Government. If that is so, what is the nature of the trials that have still to take place in the Civil Courts in Ireland? I will not discuss the question of Northern Ireland, because we have present to-night the Speaker of the Northern Parliament, who probably can inform the House better than the Chief Secretary how the law functions in the North of Ireland.

With respect to the South of Ireland, the House is to be invited next Monday to get on with the Bill which sets up the Government of Southern Ireland. Are these cases which are going on in the courts, with claims against the British Government, to be carried on, or, if not, who is to carry them on? Presume for the moment that some house in some village in Ireland has been destroyed and that compensation is being sought for in the courts. That, at the present time, is a charge against us in this country, and we shall have to discharge that liability. A fortnight hence that country will be in the position of having its own Provisional Government. Surely in the name of common sense it is one of the very worst beginnings for any new Government that there should be a transfer of that kind of case. Are His Majesty's Government going to decide all these cases before the Provisional Government is functioning? We are told that the trials are still taking place, and we are asked to sanction this amount of money for trials which are going on. Inside a very short period they may be going on under the auspices of an entirely different Government. Are the courts functioning in such a way that the cases will be cleared up before the new Government operates? It is a fact that new courts are to be created. If those new courts are created, are they taking over the cases which are pending now between the British Government and the Provisional Government?

With regard to Government property, the Chief Secretary has never mentioned one of the 399 Government properties which have been destroyed. If a Government property has been destroyed and we are handing over the government to the Parliament of Southern Ireland, why not hand over the destroyed Government property? Why worry about compensation? If you have a Government building in the South of Ireland that has suffered any sort of damage as a result of recent events in Ireland, why not hand it over as it is? Do I understand from the Chief Secretary that before we hand over the post office in Dublin—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We are not now discussing the compensation to be paid for property destroyed. We are discussing legal expenses in connection with claims for compensation for the destruction of property.

Mr. HOGGE

That is quite true, but it will occur to you that if you incur law expenses in connection with the destruc- tion of Government property, that means that those expenses are incurred with a view to securing compensation for Government property. My right hon. Friend has said that there are 400 cases of that kind, and we are entitled to ask what they are.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into a discussion of what you would have for this property, and what steps the Government should take in handing over these properties to somebody else. We are now discussing merely the action of the Government in regard to legal proceedings in these cases. If hon. Members were to go into the 399 cases and discuss every one of these destroyed properties, this Debate on these lines would get- out of order. We can only discuss the legal expenses.

Mr. HOGGE

I quite agree. I never dreamt for a moment of entering into a discussion of these various properties, but I have asked for the names of the properties concerned, which I am entitled to know, because the law expenses are incurred in connection with those properties. If those buildings were handed over as they were there would be no law expenses and no demand for £8,000. We object to the way in which the Government say, "We have got to wipe off those liabilities, and you have got to give us the money without any explanation." The Government in this matter are carrying out a policy which we have reprobated from start to finish, and if there is any loss to rest on anybody in connection with this, it must rest on those who by their deeds have incurred those expenses.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

We are dealing with expenses under Subhead G and are asked to pay £8,000 which is the greater part of the total Estimate of £13,900. It may be a small amount, but it is a question of money, though the right hon. Gentleman said that these were Estimates which meant no money.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

No. Quite wrong.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

If the right hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find that he did make that blunder, and then I hope he will apologise. This Estimate of £8,000 is quite inadequately explained, as being due to an under-estimate of the number of trials still taking place in the Civil Courts, and expenses incurred in connection with claims for compensation. I have taken the trouble of looking at the Main Estimate and I cannot see how the amount under this Sub-head comes to be swollen to £8,000. In 1920–21 the expenses of Crown Solicitors at Winter Assizes came to £20 and in 1921–22 in spite of a much greater number of cases, owing to the unfortunate disorder in Ireland the amount allowed for this purpose was exactly the same—£20 for Crown solicitors at the Winter Assizes, which are, I suppose, the Assizes sitting at the present moment. In the case of Sessional Crown Solicitors' expenses for special duties, the sum in that Estimate is £10 for each of those years. The total sum for law charges and criminal prosecutions for 1921–22 is £79,115. The expenses of juries at Assizes in each of the years I have mentioned is put down at £300 in spite of the increase in disorder, and the defence of prisoners in cases of murder at £250—in each of those years—while the extra expenses of traversers and their witnesses in cases at Winter Assizes is estimated at £800 in each year. This is the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made so much of—that the travelling expenses of witnesses increased, and that money was being lavishly expended in Ireland.

I should think it is being very lavishly expended when £8,000 is suddenly put on for an extra two months' work, notwithstanding the fact that the charge under this particular Subhead is only increased by £500 in the previous year as compared with 1920–21 in spite of the great increase in trials of all sorts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is studying the main Estimate, and if he does so, he will find that his officials have misinformed him on this point or that he has not given us the full information. In the main Estimate, under Subhead G, the last item is miscellaneous charges, which is £3,120 for 1921–22, as against £2,620 in the previous year, and that is the increase of £500 to which I have referred. Where is the necessity for £8,000 coming in now under Subhead G? There is a great increase in crime and consequently in law actions between those two years, but only £500 extra was spent. The salaries of judges and court attendants are fixed and because there are mire cases it is ridiculous to ask for a special Estimate to this amount. Whether the judges get white gloves or are overwhelmed with work, what I may call the overhead charges—with respect to hon. and learned Members—the general running expenses of the Courts remain the same. By looking into the main Estimates, I really claim to have made out a case. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation of extra business in the Courts will not hold water for a minute. The Chief Secretary has been misinformed by somebody. This money is not on account of extra business, and I have proved that to any fair-minded Member of the Committee, I claim, by examining the details.

I am going to volunteer what I think is the real explanation, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman will thank me for doing him a service. There is an irregularity, and I believe I knew what it is. There is money being spent in Ireland on the special courts set up since the Truce by the Provisional Government, and, as usual, we are being asked to foot the bill. I believe that is the explanation. A mere cursory examination of the Estimates shows that, taking last year and this year and the ordinary expenses that have been incurred owing to the extra business in the courts, an increase of this amount is impossible of explanation. It is going on somewhere else. I daresay it is going on legal charges, and that certain people have salved their consciences by saying that these special courts are resorted to by people who will not go near the King's Courts, and that therefore the expense ought to go into the account. The right hon. Gentleman will find out that I am right in this matter and that this is a charge which ought not to be put on the British taxpayer in this form. I have never been more serious in my life than I am now. If we are asked to pay for special courts which have been found necessary in Ireland and are doing good work there, I am prepared to do that, but we ought to be told that. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has had a great burden of very responsible work, and he has had my sympathy in the last few months, and I believe he has not been able to give the attention to these Estimates which he would like to give, and he has been misled by somebody in Ireland, with the result that we are being asked to find money for irregular courts without being advised of the facts.

Unless the right hon. Gentleman call show us the full facts, I am going to move to report progress. All hon. Members of the Committee should have some regard for the extreme importance, at the present time, of the Estimates and especially of these Supplementary Estimates, being presented in a regular way and in full detail, and in this case that rule has been departed from.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his seat has propounded a proposition which is absolutely wrong and false, and I am able to give him a reassuring negative. None of this money is for Courts other than the Courts of the Crown in Ireland; none of it. When the hon. and gallant Member made a comparison between the special expenses of Crown solicitors at the assizes, of £10, he might have told the Committee that the actual expenses of the Crown Solicitors of Ireland in the original Estimate for the current year were £29,885, and that the £10 was an isolated amount for special work at one of the Winter Assizes. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate that is not perfectly clear, and I should have thought that after the explanation made to him it was perfectly understandable to every hon. Member of the Committee.

The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) is naturally anxious about the cost of the administration of the Courts until the new Government of what will be the Free State completely takes over the administration of the law. This cost of the administration of the law will be carried by this House up to the end of this financial year. I cannot say whether that will finish it or not. That is a matter which must be between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Southern Ireland. All I can say is that this Supplementary Estimate asks for money up to the end of the present financial year and no longer.

No one is prejudiced in Ireland so far as the administration of the law is

concerned by the present position. In other words, the great growth of civil litigation in the Courts is testimony to the fact that the people seek the Courts to settle their affairs.

Lord R. CECIL

This is not civil litigation. There is not a word about civil litigation.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

The Supplementary Estimate is for the increasing number of trials in connection with the Civil Courts.

Lord R. CECIL

There is a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the sub-heading E, which deals solely with criminal trials at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, Petty Sessions, and so on.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

In the original Subhead E, that is quite so, but I am dealing with the larger point. I have gone over it again and again, and, I hope, with courtesy.

Mr. HOGGE

You are not giving us any explanation.

Sir H. GREENWOOD

I am trying. There is just this point with regard to Government property. The property, in the main, which has been destroyed has been police barracks, and in order to secure a valuation it is necessary to have a claim brought before the County Court in the particular area in which the premises were situated. In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) as to the new Courts, there are no new Courts contemplated by this Estimate. This Estimate refers to the division of Courts in Ireland between Northern and Southern Ireland. There are no new Courts other than those of the Crown. I hope the Committee will now give me the Supplementary Estimate and so assist continuity in the administration of law in Ireland.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,800, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 171.

Division No. 15.] AYES. [10.56 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Cape, Thomas
Amman, Charles George Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Barton, Sir William (Oldham) Cairns, John Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Holmes, J. Stanley Royce, William Stapleton
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) John, William (Rhondda, West) Sexton, James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhougnton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Kennedy, Thomas Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Sutton, John Edward
Gillis, William Lawson, John James Swan, J. E.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lunn, William Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.) Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Mosley, Oswald Wignall, James
Grundy, T. W. Myers, Thomas Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth) Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Hayday, Arthur Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) Raffan, peter Wilson Colonel Penry Williams and Mr.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Rendall.
Hogge, James Myles Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
NOES
Amery, Leopold C. M. S. Fraser, Major Sir Keith Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Armitage, Robert Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham O'Neill, Rt. Hon Hugh
Armstrong Henry Bruce Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Glyn, Major Ralph Perkins, Walter Frank
Atkey, A. R. Gould, James C. Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Green, Albert (Derby) Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Poison, Sir Thomas A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Greenwood, William (Stockport) Prescott, Major Sir W. H.
Barker, Major Robert H. Greig, Colonel James William Purchase, H. G.
Barlow, Sir Montague Gretton, Colonel John Rae, H. Norman
Barnett, Major Richard W. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. Raeburn, Sir William H.
Barnston, Major Harry Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Ramsden, G. T.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert Hancock, John George Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Renwick, Sir George
Birchall, J. Dearman Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Blane, T. A. Haslam, Lewis Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) Rodger, A. K.
Broad, Thomas Tucker Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Rose, Frank H.
Brown, Major D. C. Hinds, John Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Bruton, Sir James Hood, Sir Joseph Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. Hopkins, John W. W. Seager, Sir William
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Howard, Major S. G. Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes Hudson, R. M. Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Hunter Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Carew, Charles Robert S. Hurd, Percy A. Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Carr, W. Theodore Inskip, Thomas Walker H. Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Birm., Aston) Jodrell, Neville Paul Sturrock, J. Leng
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Sugden, W. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.) Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) Sutherland, Sir William
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Taylor, J.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Clough, Sir Robert King, Captain Henry Douglas Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Coats, Sir Stuart Lane-Fox, G. R. Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Townley, Maximilian G.
Cope, Major William Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferre[...])
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Lloyd, George Butler Walton, J. (York. W. R., Don Valley)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lloyd Greame, Sir P. Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Lorden, John William Waring, Major Walter
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lort-Williams, J Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Dawson Sir Philip Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Dockrell, Sir Maurice Manville, Edward Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Edge, Captain Sir William Martin, A. E. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H
Ednam, Viscount Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz Whitla, Sir William
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Elveden, Viscount Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Windsor, Viscount
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Wise, Frederick
Evans, Ernest Murchison, C. K. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Falcon, Captain Michael Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Farquharson, Major A. C. Murray, William (Dumfries) Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Neal, Arthur Younger, Sir George
Ford, Patrick Johnston Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Forrest, Walter Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie
Wilson.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the house.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.