HOME RULE.

HC Deb 15 February 1911 vol 21 cc1067-179

Mr. MALCOLM

I beg to Move as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Address—

"But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that our effective deliberations on the proposed changes in the relation between the two Houses of Parliament are seriously hampered by the obscure and conflicting declarations of Your Majesty's Ministers on the subject of Home Rule, the attainment of which is openly avowed as one of the main reasons for altering the existing Constitution of the country, but which, in the opinion of this House, is subversive of the unity of the United Kingdom and of the well-being of all its parts."

It is with feelings of diffidence that I rise once more to take part in the deliberations of this House after a somewhat prolonged absence, and to Move the Amendment. I cannot ask the indulgence of the House on the grounds of inexperience, but at the same time I would plead for its patience while I try to state to the best of my ability a case which I honestly believe is of vital and transcendent importance to very nearly one-half of the electorate of this country. I think that half of the electorate, or nearly one-half, has considerable reason to complain of the Parliamentary procedure of His Majesty's Government. It finds that those Members who represent it in the House are reduced by that procedure to a state really of impotency, because they are hardly allowed to open their mouths effectively in this House. It finds, in the second place, that Bills, in opposition to which those Members have taken a part, and which have not passed, have nevertheless, some of them, been made operative by administrative orders of Departments. That half of the electorate finds, in the third place, in the case of Bills which have not become law, that they have nevertheless had their penal clauses taken out and attached to what is now facetiously called the Budget. Such is the power which the present Executive has taken to itself. The present position, complained of by nearly half the electorate of this country, is that, having reduced the House of Commons to something like the position of a gramophone, which only registers the decrees of the Executive, it proposes to reduce the Upper Chamber to the impotency of a House of Waxworks.

Mr. MacVEAGH

A Chamber of Horrors.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. MALCOLM

A Chamber of Horrors, largely recruited from the Liberal party. Having disposed of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, this new bureaucracy now settles down to wreck ancient features of our Constitution—features which belong to the country and not to the Cabinet—without the irksome necessity of going to the country and asking for its approval. After all, if it be admitted, as I think it must be, that if the Parliament Bill is to become law sooner or later during the present Session, and it' the first-fruits of that Bill, in spite of the remonstrances of the Welsh party, are to be a Home Rule Bill for Ireland, I think no reasonable person can doubt that, with its composite but mechanical majority, the Executive will be able to pass through this House and into law a Home Rule Bill for Ireland before the expiry of its statutory existence as a Parliament. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] I am glad to hear those cheers, because they prove the urgency of this Amendment. It is now admitted on both sides that, if the Government so choose, it can, after passing the Parliament Bill, pass a Bill giving Home Rule to Ireland, and it need not have the courage to go to the country first and ask for its approval. That being admitted on all hands—and I am glad we all agree so far—His Majesty's Government will probably recognise the justice and sincerity of our appeal when we say that in our opinion the country has an indefeasible right not only to ask but to know what are the Government's Home Rule intentions. A Home Rule Bill being, as we understand, likely to be the first-fruits of those great constitutional changes which are to be brought before our notice next week, we have a right to this information before that great revolution begins. If I may paraphrase the words of Mr. Burke, we cannot allow the Government to do what it pleases until we know what it is the Government pleases to do. We on this side, who are Unionists, would be false to our duty and to our pledges if we did not, even at this last moment, make an earnest appeal to the Government to tell us how they mean to utilise, at any rate, in reference to the vital point of Home Rule for Ireland, the new and immeasurable powers for which they are going to ask on Tuesday next. If they find it right to resist our appeal and to give us no information, we shall be driven to one of two conclusions, either that they cannot, on account of internal dissension, give us an answer, or that they dare not do so in the face of the British people.

In the terms of my Amendment I have to prove that the utterances of His Majesty's Government are obscure and conflicting. It is very easy. What is surprising is that it is against the Prime Minister himself that, for, I think, the first time, we have to bring the charge of obscurity. It is the classic adjective for all his observations that they are so lucid. In this case, however, I must join forces with the "Freeman's Journal" and say that he is obscure. The Prime Minister, to whom we look, of course, for a definition of what the Government hopes to do for the Irish Members who support him and keep him in office, did not, it is true, refer even distantly to Home Rule in his election address, but he referred constantly, with almost monotony, to what is now known as his Albert Hall pledge. That pledge satisfied the learned and hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) altogether, but I do not think it was studied with quite so much care by the Prime Minister's colleagues in the Cabinet, who had quite fresh and quite different solutions of the Irish difficulty. May I refresh the memory of the House with regard to the Albert Hall pledge:— The solution of the problem can be found only in one way by a policy which, while explicitly safeguarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full self-government in regard to purely Irish affairs. For reasons which I believe to have been adequate——

The PRIME MINISTER

You have left out two sentences.

Mr. MALCOLM

No, one I think, but only for the purpose of saving time.

The PRIME MINISTER

I will quote them presently.

Mr. MALCOLM

I will save the Prime Minister the trouble:— There is not, and there cannot be, any question of rival—

The PRIME MINISTER

Of separation.

Mr. MALCOLM (continuing quotation)

of rival or competing supremacies, but subject to these conditions, that is the Liberal policy. I am sure I do not wish to misquote in any way:— For reasons which I believe to have been adequate, the present Parliament— That is the 1906 Parliament— was disabled in advance from proposing any such solution; but in the new House of Commons, the hands of a Liberal Government and of a Liberal majority will in this matter be entirely free. Yes, but where is your Liberal majority? You had no Liberal majority a year ago after the General Election in the early part of 1910, and you have no clear Liberal majority now at the beginning of 1911. The real truth is that since the Prime Minister has said that he is open to another arrangement for Home Rule for Ireland, he has not had a Liberal majority in this House. The Irish Nationalists do not call themselves Liberals; and I understand the Labour party do not call themselves Liberals. Your Liberal majority is nonexistent, and that state of things dates from the time when the Prime Minister made his statement at the Albert Hall. The Liberal party are free to patch up their arrangement with the Irish party, which broke down and broke off in the year 1895. Perhaps I may refer to that breakdown, because that was the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman who was not then Prime Minister, made a very interesting speech at Ladybank, in his own constituency, in 1901. It was, I suppose, after something from the hon. Member for Waterford had nettled him. He said: Mr. Redmond has declared that the Nationalist party would ally itself with any English party that would help it towards its goal - that goal being the creation of an independent Irish Parliament. The Prime Minister's definition of the gaol of the Nationalist Members was a very proper one. The experiment of alliance came to an end with the crash of the election of 1895, and no one has any right to complain if the Irish assert their freedom to act with whom and against whom they choose. If the Irish party is free and independent, so also is the Liberal party. I have for some time held the opinion that the Liberal party ought not to assume the responsibilities of government, unless it can rely upon an independent Liberal majority in the House or Commons. That, after all, is a quarrel that we on this side have not got to settle. I am glad it is now being patched up again, and that the separated parties are being wedded in the face of the public; but I think the public have a right to know on what terms they are coming together again.

The PRIME MINISTER

Is the hon. Gentleman going on with that quotation, or not?

Mr. MALCOLM

No.

The PRIME MINISTER

Then I will. [MINISTERIAL cheers.]

Mr. MALCOLM

I notice that hon. Members cheer the Prime Minister's interruption, but I think it is exceedingly doubtful that any of them know how the quotation goes on. As I have said, there was no mention of Home Rule in the Prime Minister's election address, nor did he in his speeches make any reference to it until 7th December at a place called Newport.

The PRIME MINISTER

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is absolutely wrong. I made a most explicit reference to it before the election began at all.

Mr. MALCOLM

I imagine it did not go very much further.

The PRIME MINISTER

Read it.

Mr. MALCOLM

I do not want to make any charge which I can substantiate only by garbling extracts. That is not my wish by any means. I am sure that every Member on this side will agree that, so far as we know from the Prime Minister we have nothing except the constant reiteration of this vague Albert Hall declaration. I call it vague, for this reason. Not because he says that he is prepared to give a separate Executive and separate Legislature to Ireland, but because he does not even tell us how Ireland is going to pay her way. In the second place he does not tell us whether the Irish Members of the Irish Parliament are to be in this Imperial House or out of this Imperial House, or are to be in and out as under Mr. Gladstone's Bill. Leaving the Prime Minister's declaration in the Albert Hall in its obscurity and in its vague terms, let me pass to the declaration of the Home Secretary and of the Colonial Secretary. They both impress upon us the value of a Colonial analogy. On the 10th December, at Dartford, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary pointed out the advantage that the Boers had got. He said something of the same kind ought to be given to Ireland, and that the result would be something the same. The Colonial Secretary, in his address, said very much the same thing, and a number of Members of the Government and a number of hon. Gentlemen in their election addresses—which I have had pleasure in reading—have rather taken this view; that if the Colonial analogy had been so successful in South Africa it would be equally successful in Ireland. Even there, there is rather a rift within the Cabinet. I notice the present Secretary of State for India, Lord Crewe, laid down, at Whitchurch, in 1902, and has never departed from it, that he:— will never be a party to a proposition which places Ireland in the position of practical independence, such as that possessed by New Zealand. Sooner than that I would see Ireland deprived of its Parliamentary representation and governed as a Crown Colony. The present Lord Chancellor wrote, even ten years before, in April, 1892, in an article in the "Contemporary Review," to greater part of which, I understand, he still adheres:— Colonies have a modern, Ireland a most ancient hold upon our interests. Colonies have their own laws and customs, their own problems and difficulties, a different, climate, strange neighbours, and sometimes an almost cosmopolitan population. Ireland resembles us in laws, and largely in manners, has kindred problems, a similar climate, the same neighbours, and a population wholly European, of which every racial blend has its counterpart within England and Scotland. Alike from historical, geographical and racial causes, our relations with Ireland must be different from cur relations to any other Colony. This conviction is universal. Within the Cabinet their is no agreement at all on the Colonial analogy. I turn now to the third scheme, which is in perfect confirmation on the terms of my Amendment, that these announcements are conflicting. The third scheme suggested by a section of the Cabinet is devolution, or the Home Rule all Round scheme. Its god-parents are the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of State for War. As under circumstances which we all deplore the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not present, perhaps I had better confine my observations to the interesting remarks of the Secretary of War—who is always interesting. Just let me mention this, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not only satisfied with suggesting de- volution as a panacea for the ills of Ireland, but he added redistribution, too, and one can only suppose that he meant redistribution to anticipate devolution. If so, I do not know how long the Nationalist party might have to wait before devolution came along. However, the Secretary of State for War says that he stands for a good scheme of devolution and not for independent Parliaments. In the second place, he said on December 2nd at Bolton that he wanted to give the Imperial Parliament the power to veto, to abolish, if necessary, local legislation in Ireland, but he hoped they would exercise that power very seldom. He said in the third place, on the 3rd December:— I cannot say whether Home Rule will be passed before the Reform of the House of Lords. They are all part of one plan, and the order will depend upon the convenience of public business. We observe that it is much more convenient for public business to talk of Home Rule, or the powers that grant Home Rule, and to leave the Reform of the House of Lords to the Greek Kalends. Finally, he said, in order to keep his own hand perfectly free:— I am not bound to the views of Parnell, Redmond or anyone else. These are three conflicting schemes. There is the scheme of what I may call, and shall call herewith, the Minimum demand adumbrated by the Prime Minister and accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). There is the Colonial scheme, of which to-day I have already spoken. Thirdly, these is the Devolution scheme, of which for the moment the Secretary of State for War is the protagonist. Whatever the General Election may have settled—it may have been the House of Lords, it may have been Free Trade, or Female Suffrage, or the Osborne Judgment—it did not settle the question of Home Rule for Ireland, because the people were neither consulted nor convinced upon the subject. As the Prime Minister said, in answering a question in his own Constituency, he had no doubt but that the scheme the Government would produce would be agreeable to the leaders of the Nationalist party.

The PRIME MINISTER

I do not think I ever said so.

Mr. MALCOLM

I take it for granted that the Nationalist party has been consulted. We, at any rate, have a right to look, as we can get nothing but darkness from the Cabinet for a little light from the leaders of the Nationalist party, and to discuss or to discover what are their demands—if that is the right word. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, I am afraid, has dealt out very short shrift to the Secretary for War practically ever since he has been in public life. In 1892, speaking in this House, he declined to touch any Home Rule Bill containing repeal provisions—that is to say really the Imperial Supremacy Provisions—adumbrated by the Secretary for War and his friends. This is what the hon. and learned Gentleman said in this House on 15th February, 1892—exactly nineteen; years ago:— What the Irish Members object to is not the retention of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. … but that there should be the right to review, amend, revise, and repeal specific Acts of the Irish Parliament coming within its proper limits. In the following year, when Mr. Gladstone's second Bill was brought before the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:— You must not expect that any safeguard will be successful for the government of Ireland which sets up, either directly or indirectly, this Imperial Parliament as a Court of Appeal in the Acts of the Irish Parliament. … I say our position would be much worse than at present, if, after having constituted a local legislature in Ireland, this House should act as a sort of Court of Appeal to revise, amend, or repeal any of the Acts of the Irish Parliament. That upsets the Secretary of State's suggestion in his constituency that they should have an Imperial Parliament which should have every right—even though it ought not to use it often—to veto any local acts of the Government of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford put his construction upon the speech of the Prime Minister at the Albert Hall when he was speaking at Kilkenny in the autumn. He said:— The Prime Minister has declared that his policy was not Devolution, was not Home Rule all round, or anything of the kind. His words were, 'full self-government for Ireland.' The Devolution to which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and others attach so much importance, the hon. and learned Gentleman declared in an interview at Chicago, is dead. This is no resurrection for it. He said:— Ireland cannot wait till England, Scotland, and Wales have made up their minds to get Home Rule for themselves. I stand precisely where Parnell stood. Now we have got the crux. Where did Mr. Parnell stand? I think it is important as it shows everybody that the Nationalist demands for National independence will not be abated one jot even if the Prime Minister grants the immediate demand known for the moment as Home Rule. The hon. and learned Member for Water- ford is the best judge of where Mr. Parnell stood. He said himself, at Newry, on 16th June, 1897:— I remember when Parnell was asked whether he would, on behalf of the United Nationalist nation, that he represented, accept as a final settlement the Home Rule compromise proposed by Mr. Gladstone— in 1886:— I remember his answer, he said, 'I believe in the policy of taking from England anything we can wring from her which will strengthen our arms to go on for more. I will accept the Home Rule compromise of Gladstone as an instalment of our rights, but I refuse to say that it is a final settlement of the Nationalist question.' To do the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford justice, he has always been absolutely firm and logical on this point. He has never concealed that this kind of instalment of Home Rule is not what he is out for at all. He is out for the big thing that Mr. Parnell stood for, and his party are backing him up. And we are not to be blamed if we stand with our backs to the wall fighting against Mr. Parnell and his party. In 1893, when Mr. Gladstone brought in his second Home Rule Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking in this House on the third reading, said:— The word 'provisional' is stamped upon every page of the Bill. If it is to be regarded as final, I would vote against it Now we see that is not the mere Home Rule Bill that the Nationalist party want. The hon. and learned Member said in September, at Limerick:— Our policy is full Home Rule, and with common prudence we can extract it— Not on its merits, but—— from the present constitutional crisis. That is the instalment policy; that is the minimum demand; that is the demand which I have just said the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has never concealed from this House or from the country. I suppose it is counted among those concessions of which he spoke at the Buffalo Convention in October last, when he said: These concessions are only valuable because they strengthen the arm of the Irish people to push on to the great goal of national independence. National independence! The great goal of national independence! That is the maximum demand for which the whole of the Nationalist party is fighting, and as for mere Home Rule the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said at Syracuse in November last year:— Let us get this and then demand more. We do not set a limit upon the march of a nation. That is quite right. That was Mr. Parnell's views.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

The first phrase was not Mr. Parnell's and not mine.

Mr. MALCOLM

It is quoted as yours. I do not see why it should not be yours. After all, the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, as I have just shown at the Buffalo Convention, that he is going to push on for the "great goal of national independence," but the Home Rule Bill promised by the Government, as I believe, is not going, I think, to put him quite past the great goal of national independence, but I quite expect he will accept that and then he will demand more. The colleagues of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Waterford, upon his recent American mission were just as explicit. They do not expect that this House Rule scheme is anything more than an instalment. The hon. Member for North Mayo (Mr. Daniel Boyle) at the same convention, said:— We are determined that we also shall be self-governing, and that we can face the world and say 'we are the sons of a free self-governing and independent nation'. And the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Joseph Devlin), who is a great authority, and who ought to be, I understand, Chief Secretary for Ireland—I am not sure it would be a bad exchange—said in 1902—he had already given his views as President of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which goes in for separation, and I do not suppose he has recanted his views—I never met an Irish Nationalist Member who had:— We want a Parliament that will give our people authority over the Police and Judiciary, and all government, and that will equip them for freedom. Then will be the time for those who think that we should destroy the last link that binds us to England to operate by whatever means they think best. I am sure I speak for the United Irish League. I call the attention of those who once belong to the Imperial League, and I call the attention of those Presbyterians that come from my native country of Scotland to these words:— That then will be the time for those who think we should destroy the last link that binds us to England to operate by whatever means they think best. And finally to illustrate this maximum demand I come to the Mendicant Friar of the Nationalist party, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

I accept the compliment.

Mr. MALCOLM

Speaking a year ago, in the United States, he said:— Give to us as you gave to Parnell and I promise you that, within a few years, and a very few years at that, the land of Ireland will belong to Ireland, the Universities will be her own, and her liberty will be won, so that her emblem will take its place along with the several Hags of the world's nations. There is not much Imperial supremacy of the Imperial Parliament about that. I think the hon. Member for the Scotland Division must allow me to give him another title, and to say that he seems to be a very active-minded beggar, when he tried only a year after to persuade the Members of the Canadian Club that his mission was to secure Canada's approval of a federal scheme of Government for the four kingdoms of the British Isles. And, by the way, I seem to remember that last week we were told that it was the height of impudence, or words to that effect, for this country to interfere or even discuss the reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States. I hope when he speaks the Prime Minister will be able to characterise in proper language the efforts of those of his supporters who are trying and have tried to embroil a friendly Colony and country in our domestic differences about the composition of our Government, while there is still time, and here I come to the latter part of my Amendment, which protests both against the minimum and maximum demand of the Nationalists' party.

We protest against the maximum demand, because we think it is criminal in itself to grant or suggest that you are going to grant anything like national independence to the Nationalist Members. We protest against the minimum demand because, as has been conclusively shown, it is not accepted as final by any one of them and will only strengthen the arm of Nationalist Ireland in its efforts "towards the great goal of National Independence." But even if this minimum were final let me, speaking for my own part, be perfectly frank. I should protest always against the hon. Member for Waterford demanding for the moment his instalment even. We protest against that because in these days when the party on this side of the House has gained great kudos all over the world for the federation of the Australian States and the party opposite for the federation of the South African States, we say it is a retrograde policy and a retrograde movement to start a policy of disintegrate here at the heart of the Empire. Let me quote a few words from Mr. Leckey, once a distinguished Member of this House. He says:— In the lifetime of those who have attained middle age three great works have been accomplished in the world which far transcend all others in importance, and of which it is probably no exaggeration to say that the memory can never pass while the human race remains upon this planet. One of them which is connected with the great name of Cavour was the movement of the unification by which the old and illustrious, but weak, because divided, States of Italy were drawn together and fused into one great and prosperous Kingdom. Another which is chiefly connected with the name of Bismarck, was that movement of unification which has made Germany the most powerful nation upon the Continent. The third, which may, I believe one day be thought the most important of the three, was due much less to the genius of any statesman than to the patriotism and courage of a great democracy. It was the contest of America with the spirit of secession which had arisen within its border, and although that spirit was spread over a far larger area than Ireland, although it existed in that area over a far larger proportion of the population than in Ireland, and was supported by an immeasurably greater amount of earnestness and self-sacrifice, it has now disappeared and the present generation of Americans have in all human probability secured for centuries the unity of the great Republic of the West. These great works of consolidation have been the contributions of other nations to the history of the nineteenth century. Shall it be said of English statesmen that their most prolific and most characteristic work has been to introduce the principle of dissolution into the very heart of the Empire. But, Sir, in the second place, having said that we think such a policy is a retrograde policy, we assert, and assert with considerable assurance, that the people of Ireland do not want Home Rule. If they do want it, why do they not pay for it. This is a delicate question, I admit, but I do think if the people of Ireland want Home Rule they would give cash for value received. They do not give cash, so I suppose they have not got the "value received." And the result is—and I have never made a party point of this—hon. Members below the Gangway, in order to pay the expenses of the General Election and the expenses of the party living over here in London, have not been able to get that money from those who are supposed so passionately to desire Home Rule, but have had to go to America and elsewhere for it. I think there is very little cash evidence to show that the people of Ireland want Home Rule. In the second place, looking at the leading Irish newspaper on the Nationalist side—"The Freeman's Journal"—which has, in and out of season, supported their views, that journal cannot pay a dividend and has not paid a dividend for years. These things are facts, and they certainly do not go to prove that the Irish nation or the Nationalists in Ireland to-day are so greatly desirous of Home Rule that they are prepared to support those who come to this House to ask for it.

The real truth is that land purchase has knocked the bottom out of the whole bonâ fide agitation for Home Rule. Everybody who follows economic conditions will say, and say without fear of contradiction, that Ireland has never been in so prosperous a condition as she is to-day. We get evidence of this growing prosperity from most unexpected sources. I believe there were two Fenians who came over last year to this country, or at any rate to Ireland—Captain Condon and another. [Cheers from the Nationalist Benches.] The House has heard those cheers. They came back to their own country, and said they could hardly recognise Ireland, it was so prosperous; and that was after twenty years of resolute government by the Unionist party. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford himself at Detroit really gave the best credentials as to the prosperity of Ireland under the Unionists. Speaking in October, he gave a most glowing account of the improvements and social conditions of Ireland—the improvements of the tenant farmer, of the agricultural labourers, of the school children, of the school teachers, and of the scholars attending the universities. I wish he had further told the people at Detroit—but as he has not done so, let me tell the people of this country—that all these improvements and blessings came, and have been made possible, through the generous hand of the British Exchequer. The British Exchequer has itself received a very good testimonial from the Secretary of the United Irish League in Great Britain in an interview with Mr. Crilly. He said, in an interview in the "Westminster Gazette" of 16th September, 1908:— Great Britain has by free grant and by loan given no leas than £164,500,000 to Ireland between 1879 and 1903, an amount which is now well over £200,000,000, without counting Old Age Pensions, which are given equally to Ireland and to England. Nobody can get up and say that Great Britain has treated Ireland with a niggardly hand after that admission. By every possible test Ireland's prosperity is now far greater than ever it was before. We submit that this is not the time to pluck up this plant of prosperity by its roots. This is not the time to hand over the police and the judiciary in a country where, to use a well-known phrase, "Minorities must suffer." This is not a time to transfer gigantic land purchase operations, involving nearly £200,000,000 of British capital, to a body of politicians who have no commercial training or business instincts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you an authority on commercial training?"] That estimate is not mine. The management of the United Irish League, we have been told, governs Ireland, and the estimate I have given is that of their own treasurer, Mr. A. J. Kettle, who wrote in the "Freeman's Journal" of 18th July, 1907, as follows:— Let us just quietly examine the composition of the United Irish League. On its roll of membership there are no landlords or ex-landlords, few merchants, fewer Irish manufacturers. There are few of the men who are managing the business of Ireland, in city or town, connected with the League. The bankers who regulate our finance, the railway or transit men who control our trade, internal or external; even the lending cattle men, who handle most of our animal produce, are not to be found in its ranks. I submit that with such a testimonial from the Treasurer of the United Irish League, or the ex-Treasurer, surely we have the right to protest on behalf of the British taxpayers against the investment of this enormous fund being managed by a league so constituted. We have a right to know, and I hope we shall know it from the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary to-night, whether, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the question of the land is to be treated as an Imperial or a local concern. Once more we protest. We protest because we think it is high time that public money to something like the same amount should be devoted to the local needs of England, Scotland, and Wales. If Home Rule is granted, we have it on the authority of a late Member of this House, who is now the professor of National Economics in Ireland (Mr. Kettle), who said, in an interview in the "Daily Mail":— Ireland could not possibly pay her way without a large cheque from Great Britain. Mr. Kettle calls it "a wedding gift," but I should call it "a separation allowance." Whichever it is, I think it is high time that the people of this side of St. George's Channel should stand up and say they think enough money has been given to buy law and order in Ireland. At any rate, we will not take the responsibility on account of the caprice of a Government kept in office by eighty Irish votes of seeing Ireland either starve or go into bankruptcy. We cannot help remembering the words of Lord Clare, the High Chanceller, who said:— We have not three years redemption from bankruptcy or intolerable taxation, nor one hour's security against the renewal of exterminating civil war. And lastly, we protest against this attempt to smuggle through Home Rule by what is really a single-chamber Parliament. We have tried to believe, but we do not believe, that there could be any toleration of the Loyalist or Protestant minority in Ireland under a Home Rule Government unless they are strong enough to protect themselves. We know the United Irish League governs Ireland to-day, and we know this on the authority of hon. Members below the Gangway. We do not criticise it, but we do take note that Roman Catholic priests occupy permanent positions in every branch of the United Irish League, an engine, I am bound to say, of the most subtle and ingenious tyranny and injustice wherever it rivets its iron fetters upon town or country. The time was when Members of Parliament below the gangway and the leaders of national opinion could curb the excesses of the United Irish League, but I am bound to say that I think now that League has got out of hand, and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway cannot curb its excesses. They preach toleration, but what do we find as a result of it. It has been stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to a question, that, during 1910 the number of agrarian cases was 420. During the same period there were thirteen agrarian and twenty-eight non-agrarian cases of firing at persons. There were twenty-six agrarian and 191 non-agrarian cases of firing into dwellings in Ireland. Up to the 31st December last there were eighteen cases of serious and 128 cases of minor boycotting, affecting altogether eighty-one and 486 persons; 316 persons were receiving special police protection, sixty-three constant protection, and 253 protection by patrol. I do not say hon. Members below the gangway are responsible for that disorder—[An HON. MEMBER: "Thanks,"]—but in a state of disorder like that it is only fair to say that the United Irish League has got out of hand, and it is no good hon. Members below the gangway preaching toleration if their countrymen are acting in the way indicated in the answer given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. To me it looks much more as if the United Irish League had taken the advice of the hon. and learned Member and done what they could to make the government of Ireland by England difficult, dangerous, and impossible. The hon. and learned Member preached toleration in the year 1898 when Local Government for Ireland was passed in this House. Four years after that he observed with considerable satisfaction that the County and District Councils in Ireland had become a network of Nationalist organisation. Hon. Members will see how little of this toleration exists in Ireland when I tell him that in Leinster, Minister, and Connaught there are 703 Nationalist members of those councils, but in those three provinces there are only fifteen Unionist members. In Ulster, it is true, there are 115 Unionist members on the councils and 134 Nationalists. In this case toleration is on the side of Protestant Ulster. In view of all this, who can wonder that this large section of the population, this loyalist and may be Protestant section shrinks from such impending domination as they see coming over them by a Home Rule Bill, and is determined at all costs to fight for its rights to remain within the United Kingdom to protect its birthright and its heritage. If, as an immediate result of the passing of the Parliament Bill the Unionists should rise and struggle for freedom against such inevitable thraldom, then I say the responsibility of great disturbance, if not for civil war, will rest upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not upon the eighty hon. Members from Ireland, who keep them in power. Then there is the threat of the hon. Member for South Molton, made in a speech at High Bickington on 7th December, when he said that Home Rule would be thrust on the Protestants of Ulster by force, if necessary—one newspaper said by British bayonets if necessary; but that is rather immaterial. But that threat avails you nothing. It is obvious that what is meant is that Ulster will be compelled to accept Home Rule by force. In my opinion that force will not be forthcoming when asked for, because there is not a Gentleman sitting opposite on the Front Bench who would sully or stain the British flag with Protestant blood.

5.0 P.M.

Try it. Call out the British troops to compel Ulster, and see what happens. Twice a Liberal Government has been swept from office on the question of Home Rule, but on those two occasions the Government had the courage to put the Bills before the country and let the country judge. If now you attempt, under cover of this Parliament Bill, to fasten upon Ireland a measure economically so unjust, politically so unsound, and imperially, to my mind, so disastrous, without consulting the sense or the sentiment of the predominant partner, in whom the Prime Minister once believed so profoundly, then I venture to predict that your majority will again melt like the snow in summer, and your reputation for true Liberalism will pass from the pages of history. You will have betrayed the confidence of thousands who voted for you at the last election, but whose religious kinship is stronger than their ties or allegiance to your political faith. Then I say, with your majority diminished, with your confidence shattered, and with your reputation destroyed, the reins of Government will pass from your nervous grip into hands which are wiser and worthier to hold them.

Lord HUGH CECIL

In rising to second this most important Amendment I do not desire to deal with those aspects of this controversy with which it seems to me my hon. Friend dealt very ably—and I must be allowed, as the first Member to speak after him, to welcome him back to this House after an absence of five years, being myself only shortly his predecessor—but to direct the attention of the House to some other matters raised in this controversy. The Amendment deals really with two main themes. It is first an appeal to the Government to state clearly their policy, and it is secondly an invitation to the House as a whole to condemn any policy of Home Rule. It may be asked, Why is it that we feel ourselves justified in pressing for a clear statement of policy? We do it on two grounds. First of all because the Government are going to ask for an alteration of the Constitution which will destroy the principal security against legislation which has not the approval of the people being passed into law in the course of a single Parliament, and, secondly, because there are, rightly or wrongly, certainly at least two opinions as to what the policy of the Government really is. My hon. Friend gave quotations on that subject. I will not repeat them; indeed, it is unnecessary to appeal to any quotations. It is a matter of notoriety that this impression exists. Everybody knows that a great many Liberals do not want the same sort of Home Rule as the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). Everybody knows, therefore, that either the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends or a great body of moderate Liberal opinion will be disappointed when the Home Rule Bill is brought in. We want to know who is going to find themselves disappointed when the day of revelation comes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] That will be after the passing of the Parliament Bill. Quite so. That is to say, it is to be elaborately concealed from us as long as we have any effective power left. There are many ways of conducting revolutionary changes. The least estimable is by fraud.

I remember the time when right hon. Gentlemen on that bench were very vehement critics of ambiguity. I used to sympathise with them. I remember very vehement speeches being delivered censuring my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) for ambiguity. How about ambiguity to-day? What was the charge? It was, broadly speaking, I that in a policy, which however in my I right hon. Friend's case he was expressly pledged not to bring forward in that Parliament, there were two impressions as to what that policy was going to be, and that he did not fully clear up the doubt which therefore arose. There are more than two, certainly two impressions, as to what the Government's policy as to Home Rule is going to be. It is for the Government, acting on principles they used to affirm, to clear up the doubt that hangs over the public mind on the subject, and to state clearly what is to be the policy of Home Rule. One could ask a great many questions. For example, what do they mean by Imperial supremacy? That is one of the sources of ambiguity. Imperial supremacy exists in a great many places. There is Imperial supremacy over India, over New Zealand, over Australia, and over Canada. There is Imperial supremacy over the Channel Islands and over the Isle of Man. None of these Imperial supremacies are precisely of the same type. What sort of Imperial supremacy is it going to be? Does it merely mean that sort of supremacy of which this House of Parliament cannot divest itself? I mean the technical legal power to go back upon any Act of Parliament. Of course, it is perfectly true that Parliament is Sovereign, and that any Act of Parliament that is passed may be modified or reversed by the same authority that passes it. If that is the only Imperial supremacy that is to be safeguarded, it evidently is mainly a matter of words. Do they really mean that we in this Imperial House of Parliament are going to interfere in matters about which the Irish Parliament have taken decision, or about which the great majority of the Irish people have strong convictions; or do they not? If they do mean that, the Imperial supremacy is no doubt a reality, but the time during which the Constitution so set up would last without an appeal to force would, I think, be very short. It would certainly be a source of endless friction, misery, and destruction as long as it existed. If, however, Imperial supremacy merely means that we have a legal power which we are never going to exercise, then it is a fraudulent phrase used merely for the purpose of deceiving the public.

These two sorts of Home Rule may, I think, be classified under two headings—Devolutionary and Nationalist Home Rule. As I have understood, rightly or wrongly, the declarations of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) he contemplates Home Rule all round. He contemplates, and so do some other right hon. Gentlemen, setting up separate Parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and leaving the Imperial Parliament to discuss what are vaguely called Imperial affairs. I have always had great curiosity as to what this means. So far as I can see those affairs resolve themselves into Committee of Ways and Means and Committee of Supply, and we should never have anything else to do except, perhaps, to occasionally alter the Constitution in the interests of the Liberal party, and that, I suppose, would happen every year. Of course I believe, as every Member of this House believes, m the control of Parliament over all Imperial affairs, but the control of Imperial affairs is one thing and their day to day superintendence quite another, and I confess I should view, and I believe this Front Bench would also view, with the utmost apprehension any plan by which this House would consider from day to day, with a minute superintendence, foreign affairs, colonial affairs, and Indian affairs. I am sure it would be a most pernicious thing, and would work nothing but mischief. The sound Constitutional doctrine, which is also the doctrine of political wisdom, is for this House, having advised the Crown as to the choice of Ministers and having laid down the main lines of policy to be pursued, to leave the Ministers of the day to carry out that policy to the best of their ability. That is the sound constitutional view, and I believe it is the wisest.

I should like to know whether there are going to be any reserve categories of business, and, if so, what they are going to be. What would be the reserve categories of business which the Imperial Parliament under Home Rule all round would discuss? I cannot myself think of any ordinary domestic measure which has been passed in my political recollection which could not, and, if strict logic is followed out, would not, be broken up into its English Irish, Scotch, and Welsh parts and carried out in detail by the four different Parliaments. If Home Rule all round is what is meant, do not let us deceive ourselves by supposing that it can be carried bit by bit. I believe the hon. Member for Waterford—I am sure he will correct me if I accidentally misrepresent him—stated that he had not objection to Home Rule all round provided Irish Home Rule came first, and that it was afterwards fitted into the general scheme. That sounds very plausible, but it is not, I think, possible, and for this reason. This important controversy always turns on how you adjust the Irish representation in this House. You cannot determine that critical and crucial point unless you have decided whether you are going to have Home Rule all round or only Home Rule for Ireland. It is manifest that if you are only going to have Home Rule for Ireland it would be very unreasonable, and I believe it would be profoundly unpopular in this country to have Irish Members deciding English, Welsh, and Scotch business here sitting in Westminster as well as having the entire control of Irish affairs in Dublin. That would not apply if you have Home Rule all round. Evidently, therefore, the Imperial Parliament relegated to Imperial affairs, if such affairs there be, apart from the two great committees, would be, and ought to be, differently constituted from an Imperial Parliament which would have also local superintendence over England, Scotland, and Wales. The two schemes will not fit together. I have asked what are Imperial affairs? What are Irish affairs, Welsh affairs, Scotch affairs, and English affairs? There is a phrase in one-of the many quotations from the Prime Minister—I forget whether he said it or not, but I quote, not as a point against him, but because it so well gives the meaning I am anxious to express:— I see on the contrary— he is reported to have said— everything that makes for a greater efficiency in the Imperial Parliament at Westminster, and for the better administration of affairs in Ireland in the delegation to an Irish Legislature and Executive of those matters which are Irish and Irish alone. I beg leave to say there are no matters which excite the slightest interest in Ireland which are Irish and Irish alone. It is a fallacy from beginning to end. The other day we had a debate which was like a great many others I have listened to on Irish matters, with regard to a marriage in Belfast. It was very like all Irish debates. One party said one thing, and the other party contradicted it flatly. These debates have that characteristic, nobody ever seems able to ascertain the true facts. In this case it is perfectly clear that there was a dispute turning on a marriage, and arising out of religious convictions. It was a dispute arising out of the Protestant and Catholic views on marriage—a type of the great class of disputes that arise out of the circumstance that Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland strongly differ on that sort of thing. But do hon. Gentlemen really suggest that the things that affect the Protestant inhabitants of Ireland only concern those inhabitants and do not concern the English, Welsh and Scotch Protestants. I say there is no Protestant grievance in Ireland that is not a Protestant grievance in England, and that does not equally concern England, Scotland, and Wales. The conception that you can divide Ireland and England on questions of that kind is an entire fallacy. It assumes that Ireland and England are two different countries. As a matter of fact, Ireland and England are essentially one country. The Irishmen are bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. There is not a single Scotch or English audience in this country that would not resent a wrong done to themselves as a wrong done to their fellow-countrymen in Ireland. Take the case of Wales. I suppose we shall be told that Welsh Disestablishment only concerns Wales. Is it possible to hold a more absurd opinion than that? It is one of those convictions that lie on the very confines of insanity? What is Welsh Disestablishment? It is a proposal to deprive four Welsh dioceses of the Church of England of nineteen-twentieths of their wealth and endowments, and of their position in the Established Church. Do you really suggest that Members of the Church of England are not interested in that event, and only have a detached interest, such as they might have about the treatment of natives in South Africa. Our feeling for our fellow-Churchmen in Wales is something, I can assure the House, much warmer than our feeling for the native races in South Africa. How extraordinarily doctrinaire and detached in reality is such a classification as that. You take this national classification and impose it rigidly, cutting off all true human interests that connect different parts of the United Kingdom, and amongst others you cut off the religious interest which is a great deal stronger than the national sentiment itself. [An HON. MEM- BER: "Not now."] I think the hon. Member does not know the religious world so well as I do. To adopt any classification like that outside the religious controversy which concerns the people of England or Wales, and to say it is a solely Irish affair is a theory which is not only absurd but which has no relation to fact.

Take another illustration—from Ireland this time. What about Land Purchase? Why, with the consent of both parties, have we embarked a great deal of money and credit on Land Purchase, when, according to the theory of the Government, we have no concern in Irish affairs. Their theory is that this is an Irish local matter. There is some dispute, I believe a Member of the Government described it as a trivial one between the owners and tenants of the property in another country. These are not our affairs at all, according to this theory, any more than would be a similar dispute in France, Italy, South Africa, or Canada. But, if that be so, why did we embark such a lot of money and credit on it, seeing it was no affair of ours. Surely it is evidence that it was our affair that we did so much to solve the Irish land question. It was because it was a matter of English and Scotch concern that we were prepared to spend the resources of England and Scotland in solving it. To maintain, on the one hand, that British wealth may be spent in solving an Irish problem, and, on the other hand, that Irish problems are the concern of Ireland only, is to put forward a proposition which will not appeal to any man in Great Britain. I say, therefore, that the whole theory that underlies this classification is untrue, and the fact is that in truth and reality the United Kingdom is one country with one common King. I believe it has been said, though I cannot trace the authority, that you cannot scratch England without making Ireland bleed. That expresses the truth; the United Kingdom is one body, with one skin and one circulatory system, and you cannot scratch any part of that one body without the whole body suffering.

I believe Devolution is founded on a misconception altogether. It cannot be justified on the theory of delegating business according to national lines. If you merely want to relieve the congestion of business, you should delegate the least important and the least interesting business, and, secondly, and you should only delegate from this House. I wonder, by the by, what is going to happen to the House of Lords—to the Second Chamber, the popu- lar democratic Chamber, that is to be set up in the remote future? What will be its functions under Home Rule all round? It will not be able to discuss Ways and Means and Supply; it will still have the formal function of passing Finance Bills through various stages while it will not be entitled to criticise them, and that is all it will be able to do, except, of course, occasionally discussing constitutional reform. I can see now why the Government are so indifferent to the future prospects of the Reformed Second Chamber. If you are going to carry Home Rule all Round, the Imperial Second Chamber will be something less than a debating society, it will be a debating society that has become an anachronism—a body which never had very important functions, and which has been deprived of the functions which it had. The fact is the theory of Devolution is to do under a cloak what you will not do openly, to treat Ireland as a separate nationality, without affirming in terms that it is a separate nationality. A good many people fall back on the doctrine that Ireland ought to have self-government. Indeed, the Prime Minister, who is very well learned in history, and never speaks hastily, has used the expression full self-government. I confess I am surprised that any one of his wide culture should have used that expression in this connection, because Ireland has self-government by representation in this House. Take the authority of Burke, which may be regarded as decisive on a point of this kind. In his celebrated speech, which is the very charter of the principle of self-government, he points out that when Members had been given to Wales, Chester, Durham, and other disturbed districts in these islands, it gave peace in those districts, and, therefore, it was said that peace would be conferred if the American Colonies were treated in the same way by giving them self-government. The rejoinder to that was that it would be necessary to bring members over from America, but his answer was simply that nature was opposed to that and that it was impossible. For that reason alone he did not propose to give representation to the American Colonies in this House. You are bound to accept, unless you reject such an authority, the doctrine that Ireland has self-government, unless you take the further point that Ireland is a separate nation in right, although she chooses to be embodied in a single political organisation in this country. That is the spirit of the teaching of Burke, and it is also common sense. You cannot say that Kent loses self-government under a Liberal Government because the predominant opinion in that county is Conservative; you cannot say that the West Riding of Yorkshire loses self-government under a Conservative administration because its predominant convictions are Liberal. It does not destroy self-government if you happen to be outvoted in the representative Chamber, and therefore the analogy with the Colonies breaks down. The choice when you are dealing with the Colonies is to give them no Parliament at all, or to give them a Parliament on the spot, such as you have done in South Africa. What the Government gave to South Africa was self-government, and otherwise it would not have had a representative institution. But this representative institution is enjoyed by Ireland at this moment, and has been enjoyed there ever since the Union. They have got self-government except on the hypothesis that Ireland is a separate nation. If I understand rightly, the theory of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford would mean that Ireland is in right a separate country, but that she accepts of her own free will the same King as Great Britain, and is prepared to accept a vague Imperial supremacy which is not defined. The first point I make about that is that there is no precedent in Irish history for anything of the kind. The history of Ireland on that subject is very remarkable, and very little understood. Ireland was emerging from what we may call a tribal stage into the national state, when she was caught in the storm of the Reformation. From that moment Irish history, at any rate down to 1829, was the history of a great conflict between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and you could not reasonably call Ireland a nation in any modern sense of the word until the sixteenth century.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

Ireland has had a Parliament of her own as long as England.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Yes, as long as England has had, but what a Parliament!

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

As good as your own.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I quite agree. There is not very much to be argued either way on the subject, but ever since Poyning's law it was a strictly dependent Parliament, which could only pass things submitted to it. Then came the great religious struggle of the 17th and 18th centuries, and I do protest against a misreading of history which constantly represents the crimes and oppressions on one side or the other as crimes and oppressions committed by England or Ireland against one another. Nothing can be more untrue. They were Protestant crimes and Roman Catholic crimes. They were part of the contest of the Reformation which went on in those days. It was not England who won the battle of the Boyne; it was Protestantism. It was not Ireland that capitulated at Limerick, but Irish Roman Catholicism. The Irish question, as we know it, has all along been the religious question, complicated by the land question. There has never been in any serious degree, except, perhaps, in 1782, any embarrassment arising from a conflict between England and Ireland. Certainly there has never been any serious degree of embarrassment in the nineteenth century. When there is an Irish Debate, what substantially is the controversy? It is always between two different sets of Irishmen—either Irish Protestants and Catholics or Irish landlords and tenants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not remember a single Debate in which the controversy has been between Englishmen and Irishmen. [An HON. MEMBER "Who are you?"] Well, I am a person of some memory and greater accuracy, I think, than the hon. Member.

When you talk of applying Home Rule in the sense of recognising the nationality of a country you are merely talking of applying an irrelevant remedy. The Irish question is not a conflict between England and Ireland but between different sets of Irishmen, and to apply Home Rule is merely to solve the question by allowing a majority to jump on the minority. Let me ask the House to bear in mind the very great dangers which experience has shown to attach to establishing autonomy on a Nationalist basis. Mr. Gladstone, in his celebrated speech in 1886, drew attention to two great examples, as he conceived them, of successful autonomy—Norway and Sweden and Austria and Hungary. Norway and Sweden have ended in absolute separation; Austria and Hungary are held together on terms of great friction and mutual discomfort. Why is it that autonomy has not produced the effect there that it has in some other regions and in some of our Colonies? The reason is perfectly plain, and it is because the claim for autonomy there is a claim for independence. It always ends in the same way; it always ends in a controversy between the two countries, and the old claim of right being put forward by one country for independence. I do not believe there is an illustration of autonomy founded on national aspirations which has ended anything but badly. What is nationality? It is a question which is very seldom asked. I remember asking it once, and Mr. Healy very eloquently said that nationality was that for which a man would die. I do not think that is the true definition. I think a better definition would be, that nationality is that social organisation for the sake of which one good man may kill another. There are many cases in which a good man may lawfully kill a bad man, but except as between nations I do not think there is any case where a good man may lawfully kill a good man. A nationality may be defined as a belligerent unit. Do hon. Members really mean when they speak of Ireland as a nationality that Ireland may, if she pleases, be a belligerent unit and make war upon England without doing anything particularly wrong? I do not think that any Liberal Member takes that view, but I am not sure that the Nationalist Members do not do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Ulstermen are going to take it."] I am glad that it is so generally recognised that that will be the effect of the Government's intention. That will be a rebellion against oppression, but that is not the same thing as war.

My reason for thinking that hon. Members do regard Ireland as a belligerent unit is the language which many of them used during the South African War. They systematically treated it as a war in which Ireland was not a partaker. Then Ireland is a separate nation for the purposes of war. Ireland was not morally a party to the South African war at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor the best part of England either."] The hon. Member makes a mistake. I remember, with great admiration, a speech of Lord Morley of Blackburn against the war in this House, but I am quite sure that Lord Morley's sympathies, although he disapproved of the war, were always with the British soldiers and against their enemies. Were the sympathies of hon. Members on the Nationalist Benches on the same side? We remember—can we ever forget—how when Lord Methuen was defeated, wounded, and taken prisoner, cheers broke forth from those hon. Members who are now asking to have the supreme government of Ireland entrusted to them. Those were the days of the Liberal League, and I do not know whether the lessons of them are forgotten by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the Secretary of State for War. I do not know, but I venture to ask whether the Liberal League is still in existence?

The PRIME MINISTER

I think not.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The Prime Minister thinks not, and it is not surprising. The soul of it went out when Lord Rosebery resigned. There is nothing now but the putrified corpses of Vice-Presidents. The Liberal League was founded, as I understood, to show, not that all sorts of Home Rule had been cast aside, but that what we had been accustomed to call Gladstonian Home Rule had been cast aside. I hope that the Prime Minister will give us a chapter from his soul's history. I hope he will tell us what he thought in 1893, how he came, in 1900 and 1901, to be a member of the Liberal League, what modification of opinion took place, and whether he is now a Gladstonian of 1893 or a Liberal Leaguer of 1900. I am persuaded that the Liberal party, least of any party in this House, ought to be in favour of Home Rule, for Home Rule is essentially retrogressive. What has been the progress of humanity up to our time? First of all, humanity started in the horde—the undisciplined crowd—of individuals. Then there came the family. Then there came the clans and tribes, and last of all there came the smaller nations, and in the period to which we belong these smaller nations have been more and more tending to be welded into the larger nations. That has been the progress of humanity, and in my view a very wholesome progress, because our separate organisations, whether clan, tribe, or nation, being a centre of bloodshed—the patriot being, as one might say—a potential homicide—it is desirable that these centres of mischief should be as few as possible.

As I think it would really amuse the House, if hon. Members will allow me I will read a short extract from Boswell's "Tour in the Hebrides." In Iona the party were conducted by Sir Allan McLean, and Sir Allan was told that a man named McGinnis had refused to send rum to him. He said to the man: "Refuse to send rum to me, you rascal. Don't you know that if I order you to go and cut a man's throat you are to do it?" The man answered: "Yes, an't to please your Hohour, and my own too, and hang myself too." The author proceeded: "The poor fellow denied that he had refused to send the rum. His making these professions was not merely a pretence in the presence of his Chief, for after he and I were out of Sir Allan's hearing he told me: 'Had he sent his dog for the rum I would have given it. I would cut my bones for him.'" Further, it appears that Sir Allan told the man he believed he was a Campbell, just as people a few years ago might have said: "I believe you are a pro-Boer." That recognition by a clansman of a high sense of duty both to the Chief and the clan belongs to a bygone state of things.

The method of the free life of the smaller nations in the greater nations is the stage of the onward progress of humanity which we have to tread. Many of my hon. Friends do not agree with me as to the way in which we can pursue the unity of the Empire, but I feel as strongly as anyone that the great task of our time is to unite the whole British Empire more closely as a single British unit. Let us be sure of it, that is our task. These local patriotisms in favour of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England are all on the same footing. They belong to a bygone stage of civilisation. Home Rule is a sort of atavism. Just as slavery was once an institution useful to society, which as now become a great evil, so nationalism—and certainly any nationalism applying to these small nationalities—is a danger and a hindrance to the future progress of the race. If we think that even zeal for the larger nationality which we call Imperialism, may carry us too far let us discipline it not by any hesitation, not by turning our face backwards from the sunrise to the sunset, but by remembering that, just as to-day and for our advantage progress is from the smaller nation to the larger, there will come a time to our descendants when these larger nations will themselves be merged in organisations larger still, and when it will be as absurd to contend for the larger patriotism as it is now for the smaller. Humanity moves steadily forward. Are the Liberal Party going to be not on the progressive but on the retrogressive side in this matter? Let them be sure of it, that forces much greater than the deliberate purpose of politicians are at work, and that, with friction and mischief perhaps, but somehow or another, the greater nations will prevail and the larger classification will prevail until in the end these national distinctions will be forgotten, and the patriot and the nationalist will lie in oblivion hidden in the slaveholders' dishonoured tomb.

The PRIME MINISTER

I am very glad that this Amendment has been moved. I observe that it has sustained in the course of its history a good deal of editorial revision. It began with a modest three lines. It is now extended to eight. But I do not know that very much change has been effected in its substance or in its spirit. I have listened with the greatest interest and admiration to the speeches which have been made in support of it. I think the whole House will agree with me in welcoming back to our Benches the hon. Member (Mr. Malcolm) who moved the Amendment, and though it is a somewhat belated welcome for the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), it is one which is not less cordially extended. I have been relieved, I confess, from the discharge of a considerable part of the duties which I thought might have fallen upon me by the absence from both speeches of topics which during the course of the General Election bulked very largely on the platforms and in the Press of the country. We have heard very little, for instance, in the course of either of these speeches of the charge that for the sake of Home Rule the Liberal Party has submitted to the dictation of a body of politicians financed by foreign gold. Some people have said that the question of Home Rule for Ireland was not in any sense before the electors at the last General Election. I shall be obliged, before I sit down, to quote one or two passages from speeches of my own and of other persons which, I think, will effectually dispose of that fallacy. But how does it lie in the mouths of the party who authorised the exhibition at every vacant hoarding in this country of that famous placard of British votes going to be bought by American dollars, to say that the electors of this country, when they gave their votes in December, had not before their eyes and their minds the question of Home Rule? I confess I think that was a very foolish and a very discreditable electioneering manœuvre. I believe it disgusted the taste and alienated the judgment of vast numbers of British electors, particularly when they realised that these so-called American dollars were to a large extent contributed by the most patriotic fellow citizens and subjects of this country belonging to both parties in the great Dominion of Canada.

Be that as it may, what is the object and what was the intention of the manœuvre? It was to suggest to the electorate of Great Britain that if they voted for the Liberal party, if they voted for our Veto Bill, if they voted for the curtailment of the powers of the House of Lords, they were, in fact, voting for Home Rule—a manœuvre which, I say, defeated itself; and it does not lie in the mouths of those who were responsible for engineering it, and profiting by it, to say that it was not perfectly clearly before the minds of the electors of this country last December, that if and when the Constitutional ground was cleared, one of the first acts of the Liberal party will be to promote this legislation for Home Rule for Ireland. I do not think I need waste words on the arguments which were brought forward then, but which to the credit, both of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, have not been pressed to-night, that the Liberal party at the last Election, and at the preceding Election, in announcing their intention to make themselves responsible for this legislation for Ireland, were engaged in a discreditable political bargain. There is great silence now, but that suggestion was heard upon every platform in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I am glad I have refreshed their memories and revived their enthusiasm. What was the supposed bargain? If the charge means anything it means this—that for the sake, I suppose, of retaining office after five years of ceaseless labour and anxiety, for the sake of prolonging a brief and precarious tenure of that position, we, the responsible leaders of this party and our followers, who enjoyed neither the sweets nor the spoils, were prepared to surrender our convictions and barter away our personal and political honour. If it meant anything, it meant that. I am glad that charge, at any rate, has not been persisted in here, and I am really reduced, in answering the argument which has been brought forward in support of the Amendment, to one or two very simple and very easy propositions. The Amendment alleges that our deliberations in regard to the relations between the two Houses of Parliament are seriously hampered by the obscure and conflicting declarations of Ministers on the subject of Home Rule. Are they obscure, and are they conflicting? Let us bring that to the test of fact? I am sorry to quote myself—a most ungrateful task—but it is cast upon me by the hon. Gentleman and by the terms of the Amendment. There is nothing obscure or ambiguous in the declarations which I have made on the subject from the beginning. I will go back for a moment to what I said in this House eighteen years ago, in April, 1893, when I was speaking in support of the second reading of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill. After a long argument in support of that Bill I used these words:— I have to add for myself, that I have never regarded the grant of Home Rule to Ireland as an exceptional and desperate remedy for a desperate and exceptional disease. After saying, as I say now, that the cause of Ireland was one of paramount and undeniable urgency, I went on to say:— In my judgment this is the necessary step in our normal constitutional development. The Noble Lord asked me to go into the confessional. He thought he had detected signs of heterodoxy, or as he would call it, orthodoxy, or, at any rate, lukewarmness, in my connection with the Liberal League. The Mover of the Amendment quoted a sentence, and only a sentence, from a speech which, in the very heat of the controversy, I made at Ladybank in 1901. Let me finish the quotation. I said then, and I say it now:— The problem of Irish Government is as serious and as intractable as it ever was. Indeed, in some ways the problem grows more complicated and more perplexing as it is more clearly seen to be closely bound up with the efficiency of our Parliamentary machinery and the relation of the different parts of the Empire to the centre and to one another. I believe as strongly as ever I did, that the true governing principles which I have preached among you ever since I represented you, are the necessity of maintaining the absolute and unimpaired supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and, subject to that condition, the policy of getting as much and as liberal a devolution of local powers and local responsibilities as statesmanship can from time to time devise. That was in 1901. Everyone knows that, in circumstances which it is not necessary to go into, the Parliament of 1906, which was elected mainly, though I do not say exclusively, upon other issues, was disabled from entering upon this question except to the extent to which we invited it to enter upon it by our Irish Councils Bill. I hoped myself, I confess, that that was a measure which would have been received with something like general assent, but it did not commend itself to the general opinion in Ireland, and it commended itself still less to the opinion of the Unionist party here. Therefore, from the practical, political point of view, it had to fall to the ground. Now we come to what is for this purpose the crucial moment. That Parliament was dissolved in conse- quence of the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Budget, and I, occupying my present office, and speaking in the name of my friends and followers in the Liberal party, spoke at the Albert Hall in December, 1909. I should like again to quote exactly what I said upon that occasion:— Speaking on behalf of the Government in March of last year, a week before my accession to the office of Prime Minister, I described Ireland as the one undeniable failure of British statesmanship. I repeat here to-night what I said then, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, and I believe, of my party. The solution of the problem can be found only in one way - by a policy which, while explicitly safe-guarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full self-government in regard to purely Irish affairs. 6.0 P.M.

The hon. Gentleman opposite paused in' his quotation at this point. There is not, and there cannot be, any question of separation. There is not, and there cannot be, any question of rival or competing supremacies. But, subject to those conditions, that is the Liberal policy. For reasons which I believe to be adequate, the present Parliament was disabled in advance from proposing any such solution. But in the new House of Commons, the hands of the Liberal Government and the Liberal majority will be in this matter entirely free. I venture to say that in the face of that declaration everybody who voted in the General Election at the beginning of the year 1910 voted with the full knowledge that if and when we of the Liberal party succeeded in clearing away the great obstacle which at present exists under the forms of our Constitution to the achievement of Liberal legislation, one of our first, and, I venture to say, our first task, would be to carry out that policy of full self-government for Ireland. We never for a moment retracted or receded from that position.

Lord HUGH CECIL

What is full self-government?

The PRIME MINISTER

The Noble Lord put a number of conundrums to me. He professes in his academic and Socratic ignorance to want information. He asks, What is Imperial supremacy? What are Imperial affairs? What are local affairs? He says that a man may hover on the confines of sanity, or he may be on the borderland on the other side before he would be able to answer these questions. I will reply to the Noble Lord in a very ancient classic maxim, Solvitur ambulando.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Does the right hon. Gentlemen mean by ambulando walking through the Lobbies?

The PRIME MINISTER

I mean walking by the light of common sense in the domain of reality. I will give the Noble Lord an illustration of what I mean by Solvitur ambulando. Let him take the Notice Paper for to-day and look at it at his leisure. It is a good illustration he will find there. I took the trouble of adding up the questions, and I found that there were thirty questions addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to matters—I will not say that they are unimportant—relating to the Post Office, the Customs office, roads, lunatic asylums, and a hundred other things which in Ireland are most important for the localities concerned. They are questions in regard to which it is of the highest importance that Ireland should be well administered, and which, if they had all been asked and answered, something like half an hour of the time of Parliament would have been occupied. That is an illustration of what I mean. It is a very petty illustration.

Sir EDWARD CARSON

And a very misleading one. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a very discourteous interruption."]

The PRIME MINISTER

I said it was a petty illustration.

Sir E. CARSON

I did not mean to be discourteous. May I say why I made the interruption? It was because the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Customs, which I have always understood, even under the Home Rule Bill, to be an Imperial matter.

The PRIME MINISTER

It was a question in regard to a Custom House officer. I say that is a very petty and humble illustration. But you come to much bigger things than these. You come to the question of Irish administration in all its branches and all its parts. No one who has sat in this House—I do not care for however short a space of time—can fail to feel what I feel, having sat here for twenty-five years, with increased conviction every year that we are totally incapable to give either the time or the knowledge to the investigation and administration of these matters, which may seem petty to us so remote from the spot, but which to Irishmen living on the spot are of great importance. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Scotland?"] I quite agree. I am a Scotch Member. I have been a Scotch Member since I have been in this House, and Scotland suffers also from this congestion of business, from this limitation of time and human power, from this incapacity which this Parliament, represent- ing the three kingdoms as well as Wales—[An HON. MEMBER: "What of Wales?"] I have mentioned Wales. Wales is a very conspicuous illustration of the incapacity of Parliament—demonstrated by the experience of this Parliament, gigantic in size, and charged with the whole affairs of the Empire—to devote the requisite amount of time, attention and knowledge, to the local affairs of the constituent branches of the United Kingdom. I have said before, and I repeat, that I think the ease of Ireland is a case of paramount urgency and importance, and I believe the policy which I have presented to the country on behalf of my friends and supporters at both General Elections is the only way to arrive at a satisfactory solution of this standing problem, namely, by creating in Ireland an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive responsible to that Parliament, dealing with purely Irish affairs, and subject always to the condition Mr. Gladstone laid down, and which every supporter of Home Rule has laid down up to this time—that the indefeasible supremacy of this Imperial Parliament must be maintained. That is our policy. It is very simple.

Lord HUGH CECIL

It is very obscure.

The PRIME MINISTER

The Noble Lord finds it obscure. I confess I can see no obscurity in it, nor do I think the people of this country find it obscure. Why so? We asked them in the most explicit terms at the last General Election to give support to our policy for abolishing the absolute Veto of the House of Lords, and we stated that the use to which we should apply it was those great causes, of which this is only one, on which the Liberal and Progressive parties both in Great Britain and Ireland have set their hearts. Only in that way when, for the first time, we have a clear road can there be the possibility of attaining our hopes. The Noble Lord says it is obscure. It is a policy which has been tried over and over again in every part of your Empire. Seventy years ago it was applied in Canada. Upper and Lower Canada were just as much at issue then as Ulster ever has been with the rest of Ireland at any time. It has been applied in our own time and under our own eyes within the last few years, in South Africa. What has been the result there? Why should not the same remedy which has been applied with so much success—complete local autonomy subject to Imperial supremacy—be applied at home at our own doors? I confess I do not under- stand the position of those who say that this policy is a policy of separation and disintegration. I look at it, and have always looked at it from an entirely different point of view. I say it follows strictly on the lines of our imperial and constitutional development. We can see, or we can look forward, at any rate, to seeing, French and English, Boer and Briton, Celt and Saxon, each bringing his own tributary to the mingling and confluent waters in the stream of Imperial unity—one throne, one empire, one people, diverse in origin and in race, but all alike charged and endowed in the fullest measure with liberty and responsibility for self-government in their own local affairs—one people in the sense that they are one in heart and spirit. That surely is the goal of real Imperialism, and it is to that goal that our steps are set.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

The character of the speeches made in proposing and seconding this Amendment to the Address and the substance of the speech of the Prime Minister obviates altogether any necessity for me addressing the House for more than a few brief moments. The chief accusation, as I understood, from the wording of the Amendment, which was brought against the Government was that their declarations on Home Rule had been obscure and conflicting. Now let me say that we in Ireland—at any rate those in Ireland for whom I am entitled to speak—never regarded the Prime Minister's references to Home Rule as either obscure or conflicting. We took his declaration at the Albert Hall as a perfectly frank and definite declaration of policy, and not the expression of his own opinion, but the expression of the policy of his colleagues in the Government and his party. We accepted this definition of Home Rule which he put forward at the commencement of the election in the first speech, which I think he made at Hull. He repeated the declaration of the Albert Hall speech, and said that was still the policy of the Government and his party. He went to Fife and in answer to one of his Constituents, who asked, "If you deal satisfactorily with the Veto, does the Government intend to introduce a Home Rule Bill?" He answered, "Yes, it does." And subsequently at St. Andrews he said he had spoken of Ireland first because the case of Ireland is prior in point of time and of urgency. Therefore we never for a moment considered the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman as either obscure or conflicting. He has again to-night given his definition of Home Rule, and certainly I say for my colleagues on these benches and for myself that we accept that definition absolutely.

Here is a definition which I took the liberty of making myself quite recently in an English magazine:— Ireland's demand— I said—I may be forgiven for making a quotation for myself, as so many people have been quoting my speeches so far in the Debate— is for full legislative and executive control of all purely Irish affairs, subject to the supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament. The statute constituting the new Irish Parliament must settle of what are purely Irish affairs. Therefore that question rests in the hands of the present Imperial Parliament. The retention of Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament and what number of them shall be retained must also, of course, be settled by the Imperial statutes. When an Irish Parliament as I have indicated has been created it will then be there a ready made portion of any federal system that Great Britain may create in the future. and I went on— We mean by Home Rule an Irish Parliament with an Executive responsible to it— the words of the right hon. Gentleman to-night— created by an Act of the Imperial Parliament charged with the management of purely Irish affairs, leaving to the Imperial Parliament, in which Ireland would probably continue to be represented, but in smaller numbers, the management as at present of all Imperial affairs; the Imperial Parliament, also, of course, retaining an over-riding supreme authority such as it possesses to-day over every Parliament in the Empire.

Mr. MALCOLM

Is that a final settlement?

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. His speech was a very stale and unprofitable one. The hon. Gentleman whom I knew in the House was a brilliant and vivacious speaker. That was because he dealt with the events of the day as they arose. Why was he dull, vapid, and profitless to-night? It was because he was dealing in quotations fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five years old. He went back as far as 1889. What would be thought of a man who, in arguing the question of the advisability of giving Home Rule to Canada, contented himself with quoting what Papineau said while the rebellion was in force? What would be the thought of the man who, in discussing whether it was desirable to give Home Rule to Ireland, simply contented himself with quoting what was said by Botha and De Wet when the Boer army was in the field? I ask to be judged by what I declare now, and what I declare now is what was declared by Mr. Parnell and every man in authority who has spoken for Ireland since the year 1886; and I say that the Home Rule defined by the right hon. Gentleman and defined in a less powerful way by myself in the words I have read is a Home Rule which I honestly believe will be a final settlement. The hon. Gentleman says that there can be no finality, that this Parliament can always undo what it has done. Of course. It was Sydney Smith who said that the man who talks about an unalterable law is an alterable fool. All we can do, all any honourable and reasonable man can ask us to do, is to say that we believe that a settlement will be a final settlement, that as far as we have power to do so we pledge our countrymen to that effect, and that we will use every endeavour honestly as far as our power with the people goes to see that the settlement so suggested is a final settlement. Really there has never been a great cause which has suffered so from misrepresentation as the cause for self-government in Ireland, and there never has been a body of men advocating a great cause who have suffered so much from being misunderstood. But the last election has shown pretty well that the mass of the English people are no longer deceived. What was the whole effort of the Unionist Party at the last election? It was to turn the full light of publicity upon Ireland, and to make Ireland the issue in every one of the elections. I have got a pile that high (indicates) which if I am challenged I could read of the declarations of all the leading luminaries on that bench, and of all the lesser luminaries behind, and of all the extinguished luminaries who were beaten. I will only read one. Here is a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for East Worcestershire, to the Unionist candidate for North Worcestershire. He says:— I wish you success in North Worcestershire. The issues are, No. 1—Home Rule, to which Redmond attaches such importance and which every Unionist must do his utmost to defeat. Then he puts Tariff Reform.

Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN

That is No. 9 now.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

The real truth is every one of the old bogies with which we were familiar twenty years ago on the Irish question was trotted out at the recent election. The constituencies were flooded with leaflets containing old quotations from speeches. Some of those quotations were true, but as I have pointed out, very old. Others of them were garbled in a most dishonourable and lying fashion. Quotations from speeches of my own were published broadcast throughout England in which words were actually taken out of the sentence in order to change its meaning, and, worse than that, some of these quotations were fabrications from beginning to end. There was one of them which stated that in July, 1900, I made a speech in America. I was not in America at all that year, but that is a small matter. As the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment might be inclined to say, "Oh, well, I might have made it." An alleged quotation was given from a speech which I never delivered, in a place in which I was not at the time, in which I was made to say something perfectly ridiculous about every man with red blood in his veins desiring to see a German army sweeping across England. The moment I saw that I telegraphed a public denial of it That was at the beginning of the election. My denial was published in the leading papers of London, and, I fancy, elsewhere. All through the election that leaflet was used, and only the day before yesterday a local paper was sent to me containing a letter from a local Unionist Leader in which once again it was quoted. All these old bogies were trotted out at the last election, but the people of Great Britain were not much moved.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Will the hon. Member tell me whether he will submit Home Rule to a reference under a Referendum?

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

The Noble Lord is a most ingenious man. He delivered a most interesting and ingenious speech, and he is now asking me an ingenious question. Neither his speech nor his question is practical politics. I will allow him to settle the question of the Referendum with the two sections of the Unionist party—the Free Trade Unionists and the Protective Unionists. As I said, the people of Great Britain were not greatly moved by the resurrection of these old bogies. I will not speak of the election in January of last year, although I might. I speak of the last election, where all these things were trotted out. What was the result? Leave Ireland out altogether—you are very fond of not counting Irish votes when it suits your purpose—and you find that Great Britain at the last election returned a Home Rule majority to this House of over sixty. We can afford, under these circumstances, to regard with calmness and with good humour, I will not say with contempt, speeches of the kind in which hon. Gentlemen confine themselves to these old quotations of these stale accusations. We know our cause is marching on rapidly to victory. We are called Separatists. I deny I am a Separatist. If I were a Separatist I would oppose and thwart in this House every measure of national reform for the people of Ireland. If I were a Separatist I would do my best to maintain a system whereby the mass of the people in Ireland feel themselves aggrieved, poverty-stricken, and misgoverned. No; I am a Home Ruler because I am most anxious to see peace and amity between the two peoples in England and Ireland. The present situation is disastrous for both. I say after this century and more of conflict and miserable struggle between the two nations, in the words of the great American, "Let us have peace."

We admit, as I have said, and accept the Imperial supremacy. We invite you to make it effective. There is one argument to which I may refer. I think it was the Noble Lord who spoke of the possibility of religious intolerance and oppression in Ireland. There is no topic which to an Irish Nationalist is so bitter and offensive as this topic of religious intolerance. I say that no man who knows the history of Ireland can bring any fair charge of intolerance against the mass of the Irish people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know men who say "No" to that, but I venture to say that the very men who say "No" know nothing about Irish history. What has been the history of the last hundred years in Ireland? The most trusted and powerful and the most idolised leaders of the Irish people have been Protestants; and to-day I venture to say that there is not a Catholic Irishman sitting on these benches who would accept any settlement of the Home Rule question under which it was possible for oppression or injustice to be done to their Protestant fellow countrymen. But I must admit, as a candid man, that, although knowledge of Ireland is spreading rapidly in this country, there are still some men—some of them, indeed, not unfriendly to Ireland at all—who do honestly entertain that fear. Let me say this. When, in 1886, this question of the Imperial Supremacy was being discussed, Mr. Parnell spoke these words with reference to it. The same question had been raised. We were told that if a Parliament was created in Ireland with a Catholic majority that Parliament would at once commence to oppress the Protestant minority. What was Parnell's answer? He denied, as I do, indignantly, the possibility of such a thing, but he said if it happened then your Imperial supremacy would be effective. He said:— I understand the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is to be this, that they can intervene in the event of the powers which are conferred being abused. We Nationalists, in accepting this Bill, go, as I think, into an honourable understanding not to abuse these powers. We pledge ourselves in that respect for the people of Ireland, not to abuse these powers, but to devote our energies and influence to prevent these powers from being abused. But the Imperial Parliament will have at its command the powers which it reserves to itself, and it will be ready to intervene in the case of every grave abuse of that kind. So that to those few men who are not content to rest on the history of Ireland, and on the confidence of the hearts of Irish people and their justice, but who want some assurance that nothing of this kind could happen, I point to the continued supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and I say that oppression to Protestants is just one of those things which the supremacy of this Parliament will be used and ought to be used to put down. Let me say that a golden opportunity has arisen for settling this question. Ireland is hopeful; Ireland is crimeless. I was amazed at the audacity of the hon. Gentleman who Moved this Amendment coming down to this House and quoting a number of alleged agrarian outrages in Ireland as if Ireland was in a state of crime, while in this very same week your own newspapers in this country have been filled with criminal statistics for England, showing that while there has been a continual decrease of general crime in Ireland there has been a rapid and continuous increase of all sorts of serious crimes in this country. Yes, Ireland is hopeful, and Ireland is crimeless. We are at the commencement of a new reign. The first act of the new Sovereign was to send a distinguished Member of his house to open a free Parliament in South Africa. The ceremony was the culminating point in the pacification of South Africa, which, I believe, for all time will stand on the page of history as the greatest glory of the reign of Edward VII. Is it too much to hope that the present reign, which we hope may be a long and glorious one, will be made still more glorious by a still greater event—by the opening by the Sovereign in person of the Parliament of a friendly and reconciled Irish nation?

Mr. WALTER LONG

The Prime Minister, in his opening sentence, congratulated himself on the fact that this Amendment had been placed on the Paper, and that the attention of the House had been called to this question of Home Rule. I entirely agree with his view, because, although I think I shall be able to show that very little light has been thrown upon the mystery which surrounds the meaning of the words "Home Rule," yet, at all events, we have been carried a little bit further by the statement of to-day. If we understand the Prime Minister aright, he I has pledged himself, his Government, and his party to-day to a full and complete measure of Home Rule, and the only precedent that he has selected is that which is to be found in South Africa. I shall say a word about that precedent in a moment; but let me refer first to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). I am going to throw no doubt upon his bona fides, or upon the honesty of the statement he has made; I am not going to suggest that he does not to-day mean what he says, but I am going to say, and I am entitled to say on behalf of the million and a half of Irish people, whom I have no right to represent, but who have, on many occasions, given me the most unmistakable assurances of their views, that this is not the first time in the recent history of Ireland upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his position as Leader of the Nationalists party, has given similar assurances of protection and fair play to the minority in Ireland. We remember the debates preceding the passing of the Irish Local Government Bill. We were told, then, that if Ireland were given the same local government privileges and powers as were enjoyed by other parts of the country, the minority need have no fear but that they would be admitted to an equal, or, at all events, a fair share of local government. I am not going into the figures now, because they have been very frequently given to the House, but experience has shown that this promise has never been fulfilled, and those who have suffered under that branch of Government are justified in their belief that this Home Rule, whatever form it may take, means to them at least similar treatment to that they have received under local government.

I am not going to make quotations about the utterances of Ministers. But when the Prime Minister rose in answer to my hon. Friend and my Noble Friend below the Gangway, who in their speeches charged the Government with statements at once confusing and conflicting, and dismissed those charges in a contemptuous sentence and with a wave of the hand, I confess that I wondered how he was able to adopt that line in face of the facts, which are notorious. What is the course the Prime Minister took himself? He took as an illustration the South African case. That was the precedent quoted by the Foreign Secretary and by various other Ministers. On the other hand, we have the Canadian case, quoted by Ministers as being an example that might well be followed. So far as the South African case goes, not only is it inapplicable to the cause of Home Rule, but it points in exactly the contrary direction. My hon. Friend reminded the House in the early part of his speech this afternoon that the concession by the Imperial Parliament to South Africa was a concession to Colonies in South Africa of the right of self-government; it was the substitution of Parliamentary institutions for Crown Colony Government. Yes; but the first use by South Africa of these powers was exactly the reverse of that which His Majesty's Government now say they are going to adopt. The first act of the people of South Africa was to unite and not to separate, to draw together and not to divide. The Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down have made a good deal of the charge of a separate system of Parliament. The Prime Minister was very indignant with my Noble Friend because he put, what seemed to me, extremely pertinent and important questions, and I think it would have been better for all of us if those questions had been answered, although they seemed to the Prime Minister not to be worthy of answer. My Noble Friend asked the Prime Minister to tell us what form this Parliament is to take, how the supremacy is to be established and maintained, and to give us some idea of what are Irish powers and what are Imperial powers. But the Prime Minister treated those questions with disregard. He said he declined to take us into his confidence; but he had already indicated that South Africa was his model. I think we are entitled to ask the Government, before the Debate closes, to tell us whether they really mean that the South African model is the one that they are going to follow. What would that involve? It involves giving to Ireland a form of Government which, though it may not be separate in the sense that it is under the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, yet is as practically separate as the Parliament of South Africa.

The question of financial arrangements to which my hon. Friend referred in moving the Amendment is one upon which we ought to have some information from His Majesty's Government before this Debate closes, because, so far, in the speeches that we have heard from the Bench opposite this question has been regarded and debated solely from the Irish point of view. I beg to say that, generally speaking, but especially from the point of view of finance, this question is not by any means an Irish question. I would venture to put one or two questions on this head which ought to be answered at all events in general terms, if not in detail. The suggestion made is that Ireland should be given Home Rule on the federal plan, or that Ireland should be given Home Rule on the South African plan. Speaking for those with whom it is my good fortune and my privilege to work, we are opposed to Home Rule in any shape or form. We believe that Home Rule is not necessary at all for this country or for Ireland. We believe that of all times in the history of Ireland, you are choosing the very worst to plunge that country into this agitation which will certainly follow, and we do believe, notwithstanding the ridicule sought to be cast upon these suggestions, that if your form of Home Rule, which is the one the Prime Minister seems to foreshadow to-day, be adopted, you will be unable to force it upon the minority in Ireland without resort to very severe measures, which we believe would produce in Ireland some disturbance akin to that which follows civil war. That is our belief founded, after all, not on imaginary facts, but on information coming to us first hand. We believe that the minority in Ireland hold, as we do, that Ireland has never prospered so well as now. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford himself, in one of his speeches when he was in America, boasted that at the present moment Ireland was prospering in her industries and agriculture more than she had ever done in her history. If that be true, surely we are right in saying that this is not a moment to force upon her this agitation and this drastic root and branch change in her Constitution.

I have already said a word about the firm conviction of the loyalist minority, the Unionist minority, that under Home Rule they will not be granted fair play. Further than that, what is it that they ask? It is not a very extravagant demand. They ask that they shall have at your hands the same justice and fair play that you give to your own people in England and in Scotland. They ask that, and they will be satisfied with no less. Therefore we, on their behalf, are opposed to any plan of Home Rule that you can produce. It may be said, "If that be the case, what justification have you for demanding, as you do in this Amendment, and as you have done in your speeches, full information as to our plans." Our justification for our demand is to be found in this fact The Prime Minister was indignant with us for the attacks made during the recent election upon them in regard to this particular branch of the conflict. If we are to have an interchange of charges about the attacks made on the respective parties during the elections, and as to the leaflets and posters that were issued and as to their accuracy I think there will be at least as much on one side as on the other, and I do not think that it will be very profitable. Our justification is this. We are op posed to Home Rule. The Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford claimed that the result of the recent election has been to give a solid majority, which the hon. Member put at sixty, for Home Rule Yes, but what took place during that election. It is not for me to follow its history, but are they not sitting on different benches now many Members who had to have resort to courses which I am going to describe. Member after Member was asked whether he was in favour of Home Rule. Poor man, I have great sympathy with him. His leaders had failed to tell the country what they meant by Home Rule, and obviously a private Member could not give information which the Government had refused to do. What was the result?

There were two Members of the Front Bench, the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and an hon. Gentleman who is no longer a member of the House, but who has been given a high and distinguished office in the Colonies, on which I heartily congratulate him, but who at that time was in the position of singular difficulty. He told his constituents and all whom it might concern of it, and it was thought to be of such great importance that it found its way into all the London papers. He said that next to the Prime Minister was the Head Whip, and next to the Head Whip was himself, and that whatever the Prime Minister knew the Head Whip knew, that they had no secrets from each other, that the Head Whip had no secrets from Sir John Fuller, and that, therefore, for the purpose of accuracy and information the three might be regarded as one. What was the course adopted by those two hon. Gentlemen? One of them, Sir John Fuller, went at the last election in January through considerable trouble over this question, but the other day even twelve months' consideration had not brought him to a clearer decision as to the line he was to take. In the last election both he and the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture gave pledges as to the form of Home Rule which they would support, or would oppose. Member after Member, when challenged on the question of Home Rule, either gave the assurance that before voting for some particular kind of Home Rule he would consult his constituents, or gave some other special assurance which was intended to satisfy his constituents. Is it to be supposed for one instant that those Gentlemen to whom I have referred did this gratuitously? Is it to be supposed that those Members of the Liberal party gave these pledges and made those assurances unnecessarily? Why were those pledges and assurances given? Surely the answer is obvious, and the answer is the justification for the demand we are making on the Government to-day. The answer to the question is that those assurances, and those promises were given by Liberal Members because the constituencies did not know what kind of Home Rule was to be proposed, because they themselves did not know, and because there was a sufficient number among the electors who were in doubt upon the subject, and who were anxious about it, and whom they thought it wise to satisfy. We have gone a little bit further to-day.

I think I have shown that so far as the South African precedent is quoted it is not a precedent for this case at all, but that it points in exactly the opposite direction. I come to the Canadian precedent, the second one which was suggested by Ministers in their speeches, and I venture to say that it is as unsuited to this Irish question for different reasons as that of South Africa. To-day we are told only that it is to be full and complete, but we are not told which of those models is to be taken. We are not told how either the South African or the Canadian model is to be fitted into the general scheme which is to suit the whole country. We are left as we were, except for one general state- ment of the Prime Minister, which I admit, has carried the question further than it has been carried before. I think it has placed this fact before us that there is to be full and complete Home Rule for Ireland, so far as we know, upon the South African precedent. I venture to say that we ought to be told, not only which of those two models is to be taken, but also whether the plan adopted is that favoured by some Ministers of making it part of the general scheme. As was so forcibly pointed out by the Mover of the Amendment, that would have the effect that you would give Ireland double powers before yon conferred the same privileges on the rest of the country. We are entitled to know something more, and on one question I desire to ask the Government for information. Sir John Fuller wrote a letter the other day, and I am not quoting or making any charges against him, but giving it as it is convenient to take, and is the simplest case, and in that letter he indicated that he was now in the position to support the policy which he understood the hon. and learned Member for Waterford supported. What does that policy include?

So far as I understand any of those different policies on Home Rule which have been put forward by independent people, or by the leader of the Nationalist party, they all include one question. I am going to concentrate on that question, and I am not going to take up the time of the House by going into others now, although there are a great many to be considered before the question is understood. All those programmes of Home Rule include the Land Question as one which is to be transferred to the Irish Government. Surely we are justified in knowing now whether it is deliberately proposed to hand over to an Irish Parliament, which for all practical purposes will be independent of this House, full power to legislate in regard to the Land Question in Ireland, and to look to us for the money without which the Land Question cannot possibly be solved. Take one branch of this Land Question in Ireland which is coming to the front at this moment. There is in Ireland a considerable section of opinion in favour of a compulsory system of land purchase in place of the present voluntary system. What does a compulsory system of land purchase mean? It means that if you are going to compel men to sell that you must pay them on the spot. Therefore you must, if you adopt compulsory purchase, increase your financial burden. Does the Government propose to give this power to deal with the Land Question to the Irish Parliament, and call upon the Imperial Parliament to find the money. If not, what power in regard to land do they propose to give to the Irish Parliament? I do not ask these in detail, but to tell us that it is to be full and complete gives us none of that particular information which I think we are entitled to have. What is going to happen? During the remainder of this year we are to have a semi-Home Rule campaign wherever there is a by-election, and whenever an occasion arises which calls for the statement of one party or the other to their Constituents at public meetings. We are going to have this policy of Home Rule in these general terms advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The country is to be asked, not possessing the knowledge they ought to have and might have, to pledge themselves to this particular policy. I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed the suggestion made by the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary, when speaking, I think it was in his constituency in Bristol, at the beginning of the election said that Home Rule was a question which ought to be, I think it was, submitted to the people. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute that that is fairly accurate.

Mr. BIRRELL

You cannot leave the people out certainly.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. WALTER LONG

Leaving the people out is a very different question from putting the question to them. Of course, you cannot leave the people out, that is quite obvious, and the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that he made any such commonplace remark as that as to tell the country and his Constituents that so long as they could read they would be able to know what the Government were doing from the newspapers. That certainly was not the meaning placed on it by us or the meaning put on it by hon. Members, whether of his own party or the other side, because his own party read it as conveying a meaning that Home Rule would be delayed for a very considerable period. That is the line taken by several who sent him franked telegrams and who read it to mean that Home Rule ought to be considered by the people before it is rushed through Parliament. We have to-day a few hours to discuss this question, which is of paramount importance, and upon which we have only a modicum of information, and upon which, I venture to say, we are entitled to have much fuller information than we had today. What likelihood is there of having many opportunities, if any, for the discussion of this question until we are brought face to face with the introduction of the Bill, and how is the wise suggestion of the Chief Secretary to be made effective. How are the people to be given the opportunity really to consider the meaning of what Home Rule is? We shall be told that the Bill will be brought in, printed, published, and circulated, and that the people will soon become acquainted with its contents. Of course they can. But is that what you mean by asking the people to consider the question? At this moment Home Rule is what the particular person recommending it chooses to make it. If his tendency is towards moderate Home Rule, he will naturally persuade himself as long as he possibly can that the measure of Home Rule to be introduced will be one that he can with satisfaction support. On the other hand, those who go much further, and believe in a root and branch scheme, will be able to paint the picture in their own colours.

This is not an honest way of carying a great policy through this House. When you are going to make a great constitutional change of this kind—a change which you, no doubt, think to be right, but which we think to be utterly wrong; which you believe will do good, but which we believe will do harm—you ought to put the country in good time in full possession of, at any rate, the general outlines of your scheme, even if you prefer to keep the details for a later period. I should have thought that this was a policy which would have commended itself to the Government, and that they would have been glad to make clear what is the general scheme they have in mind. The Secretary of State for War during the election frequently spoke of the scheme that they had in mind, and how its parts would fit in one with another. Surely we might be told before the Debate closes what are the general outlines of the policy, in order that through the ordinary channels the information might be conveyed to the electors. If the Government resolutely refuse to take the country into their confidence, we can only believe it is because they are not so confident about their scheme holding water as their brave words would have us believe. They are probably conscious that the scheme exists only in their imagination, and has not yet found its way on to paper. If there had been some suggested schemes on paper, the Government are probably conscious of the fact that they would not bear production, and that if produced they would meet with criticisms fraught with trouble to themselves. I should have thought, strong as the Government keep on telling us they are, with their immense majority—as strong, as the Prime Minister told us, as most of his predecessors had been—so united, so strongly bound together by common ties, they might have risked something and put their fortunes to the test a little more than they are inclined to do. We have welcomed this Debate because it enables us to repeat our determination to resist Home Rule, whatever form it may take, in this House and out of it, because we believe it to be a policy injurious to Ireland and dangerous to the United Kingdom. The Debate enables us to repeat what we have said outside, that the Government indulged in these general statements because they are afraid to take the country into their confidence. We have sought to obtain some more information to-day. We have been only partially successful, but I think we know that the Government have made up their minds to make their measure of Home Rule complete. They have, in fact, surrendered to those who have dictated to them. In the absence of further information, we are, at all events, entitled to believe this. We are grateful for the small crumb of information that we have received, but we regret that His Majesty's Government have not thought fit to tell us further what their plans are. They have, however, told us enough to justify us in carrying on with determination to the end the opposition we have offered and shall offer to Home Rule.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)

Whatever opinions may be held upon the merits of the great subject which is being touched upon this afternoon, I agree most heartily that the House, and especially the supporters of the Government, are indebted to the hon. Member who put this Amendment upon the Paper. The Amendment has certainly been well worth the extra day it has taken to discuss, for it has, as the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, drawn from the Prime Minister a declaration of the highest consequence—a declaration which, although expected, as following naturally upon the public state- ments which he has made before and during the Election, was at any rate a declaration that had not previously been made in this Parliament in the House of Commons. It is now clear that, after the Parliament Bill has been passed into law, we shall enter again upon one of those historic discussions on the Government of Ireland and the relation of Irish affairs to British affairs, which are, I daresay, the most vivid and stirring memories of the older Members of the House, but to which nearly all the rest of us are perfect strangers. It is for that reason that I have ventured to intervene in the Debate. I shall not attempt to follow the Mover of the Amendment into his catalogue of antiquated or obsolete, inaccurate and frequently imaginary quotations, which he seems to regard as governing the settlement of this question; nor shall I follow the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University into those paths of ecclesiastic cal severity and metaphysical subtlety in which he loves to walk, and in which he always indulges the belief that the practical workaday affairs of this world will be governed by the forms of opinion and thought which circulate vaguely but nimbly in his active brain.

I shall venture, if I may, only to look at this question, as the right hon. Gentleman has invited us to do, from the position of the British Member of Parliament. It is looking at it from that position that I most respectfully ask the House in general whether we ought not to try—we may fail, but at any rate we should try—to do justice to the merits of the controversy; whether we ought not to try to give it a fair examination now that it is again brought before us in a practical and imminent form. After all, more than a quarter of a century has passed since the Home Rule Bill was introduced by Mr. Gladstone into the House of Commons, and the question was raised by him to a foremost place in Imperial politics. Nearly twenty years have passed since the subject has been debated on a Bill in the House of Commons. From a calculation I made the other day, I found that less than 100 Members of the present House were Members of the House of Commons during the debates in 1892, and less than fifty are here to-day who took part in the debates of 1886. All the rest of us, the overwhelming majority of the House, are going to enter upon a new experience, a new controversy. Speaking as one of those younger men, one of the young men under fifty—and we have been told that every politician was a man of promise until he was sixty—speaking to my own contemporaries, I venture to ask most seriously after this great interval, are we not bound in duty to the country to survey this problem with our own eyes and, by the light of our own senses, to test it, to sift it, and to probe it for ourselves? Twenty-five years is a long time, and a great many things have happened in Ireland, in this country, all over the world, in that period. We know well that local government, which Lord Salisbury said was worse than Home Rule, has been accorded to Ireland. We know that it is in being, and that it is working—I will not say well, I wish to avoid dogmatising—but it is working in-contestably far better than the old grand jury system which it replaced. We have seen the question of Irish land purchsae, which more than anything else wrecked the Home Rule Bill, settled by a Unionist Administration. We have seen the land of Ireland purchased and distributed among a large body of tenant farmers, formerly leaders of disturbance, now a hard foundation of the rights of property. We have seen great questions like the University question and the King's Protestant Declaration, questions which harassed this House under successive Governments for generations, questions which no Government has often dared to face, passing in these modern times smoothly, swiftly, and easily through the House of Commons, supported by enormous majorities of all sections and all parties. We have seen, as the Mover of the Amendment reminded us, a long succession of remedial measures applied to Ireland, sustained by a generous flood of public money. We have seen those measures producing a sensible effect not only upon the condition of the people, but actually upon the aspect of the country.

Whatever form the Irish question may take, it no longer comes to us in the fierce and tragic guise in which it presented itself to our forerunners who sat here in the early eighties. Rebellion, murder, and dynamite—these have vanished from Ireland. They have vanished from Ireland, judged by every comparative test that may be applied; and in their place we have, as both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment reminded us, better houses, better clothes, more food, more money, more education, expanding prosperity, an astonishing absence of crime, a new activity of enterprise, a new culture. All this we see in the Ireland of to-day. More than that, within the lifetime of the present Administration, within the last five years, two prodigious things have happened. South Africa has happened. I do not intend to labour that point—because it has often been dwelt upon in this House—except to say that in my judgment events in South Africa, which have followed upon the grant of self-government to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies are the principal cause and reason of the great change in opinion on the subject of Irish self-government which has undoubtedly taken place in the minds of the masses of the English people, and among persons of every rank and class of society. Lastly, there are old age pensions, with their profound social, political, and financial reaction upon Irish life, and upon the relations of the two countries. Everything has changed in these twenty-five years—everything except the constant demand of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people for a Parliament of their own, a government of their own! I recognise, of course, that it may be contended that many of these facts cut both ways, or may be made to do so, as some of them have ingeniously been made to do by the hon. Gentlemen who Moved and Seconded the Amendment. But we are not to-night asking for a decision upon the facts. We are not endeavouring to rush this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose through the House of Commons. Home Rule is not going to be passed tonight. There will be plenty of time given. Nothing will be done in a hurry. Hon. Members may be assured of that. All I am submitting to the House is this—that these are great facts, new facts, and that it is our duty to see that they are fairly and honestly weighed and pondered over in the next few months; that they are done justice to, and that they are not used merely to serve the purposes of ancient prejudice and partisanship. Let anyone read the Debates of 1886, and he will see that whole blocks and pages of arguments that were then used against the Irish demands have vanished absolutely from the sphere of action. On whatever grounds you may decide to reject and to refuse the request which Ireland makes at the present time they cannot be the grounds which you raised either in 1886 or 1893. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to study the question from the beginning and create new arguments to serve the needs of a new controversy and new conditions. It will be a great misfortune for our country, and a reproach to our public life if the settlement of the Irish question and the reconciliation of the two races must for ever dwell outside. A chance is now placed within our reach, has now come close to our hands, and it would be a misfortune and a reproach if it were to serve only as a fine occasion for a party prize fight between Liberal and Tory, with the old abusive terms flung to and fro; and that no sincere attempt should be made by the House of Commons—as a whole—to redress the grievances and to end the quarrels which have been maintained so long, so greatly to the public detriment! This is not a time to discuss methods. They will have to be discussed in the fullest possible way. I am quite of the belief that no discussion of general principles can ever settle this question satisfactorily; that both method and detail as well as principle present problems of formidable difficulties and magnitude. But if only the principle can be freed from all the rancour attached to it, it will not baffle the wit of sincere and honest men who mean to end this ancient quarrel for once and for all to do so. But all I will venture to touch upon for the short period that I shall trespass upon the indulgence of the House is to submit to the House, and particularly the party opposite, one or two general considerations to which I think they ought to address their minds, and do justice to in the course of the great controversy upon Home Rule, which has now been actively reopened. What is the first question we ought to ask ourselves? I think the first question which an English or Scottish Member ought to ask himself on the subject is a very grave one: "Is there any military risk attendant upon Home Rule?" At the passing of the Union there was a very grave risk. The fear of it hindered the statesmen of that time. It had occupied the minds of English statesmen for many generations before. It was that, profiting by local disaffection, a descent should be made upon Ireland by some Continental Power, and that Ireland should be effectively conquered, and held by that Continental Power as a stage in the invasion of England. That this was the pre-occupation of Elizabeth, of Cromwell, of William III., and of Pitt, no one who studies the history of these times can doubt, nor can they doubt that that danger was very real and grave. Since that day have things got worse or better? No one can doubt that the danger has utterly passed away; so utterly vanished from our minds, that the House will be almost inclined to be impatient with me for drawing attention to it. In the days of sailing vessels fleets were hindered by adverse winds; there were no serious means of communication or transit by land or sea; a descent upon Ireland from Europe was a constant possibility, and no effective security against it could be devised; and it would not be until many days after the event had actually happened that the first news would reach Whitehall, and many more months would have passed in those days before an army could be despatched. Now, in these days of steamships, railways, telegraphs, and the latest of all, wireless telegraphy, we have been absolutely relieved from all apprehensions of a descent upon Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I speak not without consideration of the facts. So long as we keep command of the seas no descent upon Ireland is possible, and if ever we lost command of the sea it would not be upon Ireland that the descent would be made. I do not refer to this point because I contemplate the possibility of it. I refer to it to show, and I think we ought to recognise the point, that all that peril which was the preoccupation of statesmen of former times, which was a prime and important factor in our method of governing in Ireland, and which forced English Ministers in former times to deny to Ireland the rights and liberties of her own Parliament, have passed absolutely out of the calculations of any practical man. I ask that that may be fairly considered in this great new controversy which has been reopened.

The second point to which I would invite the study of hon. Members—particularly those who share with me the advantage of being under fifty—is the economic and financial dependence of Ireland upon Britain. Great changes have occurred in the relative power of the two islands. At the Union the population of Ireland was 5,000,000, and the population of England and Scotland was 10,500,000. What is it now? The population of Ireland now has fallen to four and one-third millions. The population of Great Britain has risen to 41,000,000. Surely that is a prodigious change in the balance of affairs and in the proportion of the question. Are you then going to use in the twentieth century the same arguments which were advanced when the circumstances were so utterly different 110 years ago? What are the proportions between the two islands in wealth? I understand that it was a matter of unanimous agreement upon the Commission on the Financial Relations that the taxable capacity of Ireland was not one-twentieth part of the taxable capacity of Great Britain. Look again at the trade. Four-fifths of the export trade from Ireland is to Great Britain. Two-thirds of the import trade into Ireland is from Great Britain. Take the financial balance. It is clear that since the granting of old age pensions that the flow of money, even though distributed upon an even assessment, is from this side of the Channel to the other, and that Ireland derives substantial annual benefit from its association in this matter. To assume that an Irish Parliament would be actuated by a malevolent desire for discord with Great Britain, so far as its powers would allow, is to assume that the Irish people would be actually disregardful of their own most intimate material interests. The economic and financial dependence of Ireland upon Great Britain has become so intimate, and the fortunes of the two islands are so profoundly interwoven that I submit to the party opposite that any disagreement upon primary matters has become morally and physically impossible. I hope that may be examined and tested in the time that is to come. I hardly like to make the next point for fear of shocking hon. Members opposite. I know that they are loftily removed from any consideration of party interest. I do not intend to discuss the effect of Home Rule upon British party politics, further than this. I quite understand that the Opposition regard the heavy handicap of the Irish vote as a grievance. It will not be a less grievance to them when plural voting, tricky registration, and other anomalies have gone to their long home. There is no conceivable arrangement with Ireland which would be satisfactory, which would not carry with it a substantial diminution of the Irish representation in the House of Commons. That, so far as it goes, must, at any rate—on these grounds of party interest, which I blush to mention—be an advantage, and not a disadvantage to the Conservative party. There is one effect upon politics in Ireland to which I must refer. What chance is there of national economy in Ireland under the present system of Government? The administration and government of Ireland—I hope my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will not be offended with me for saying so, because I make no personal criticism of him—are, from the point of view of expense a most grave scandal. To govern an agricultural country of 4,000,000 an Administration is maintained worthy of a second-class Power. In evidence before the Commission on Financial Relations it appeared that the cost of civil government was less than 10s. per head in Belgium. In Ireland, in 1906, it was 19s. 7d. per head. Since that time the cost of the government of Ireland has risen to £2 a head, and the population has fallen below the level of 1906. What control can an external Government, or what control can the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant exercise? What rigorous hands can he lay upon the internal cost of Irish Government? The external Government must be primarily interested in demanding acquiescence and tranquillity in a country governed by these strange methods. No efficient or rigorous financial control can be exercised under the present system. Irish hands are the only hands that can adequately husband and employ Irish resources. Yet although the cost of the Government in Ireland is so extravagantly high, compared to a wealthier country such as Belgium, every Irishman, rich or poor, Nationalist or Orangeman, Catholic or Protestant, Liberal or Tory, is tempted to condone profusion, since, after all, there is no responsibility. Money is spent in Ireland, and much of it comes from England. How is it possible that value for the money can be obtained on such a basis where the whole nation have neither to bear the responsibility for spending, nor to face the unpopularity of raising the money, and where no one in the island is consulted, notwithstanding occasional economy, there can be nothing but waste by the one and extortion by the other.

Then we are told that nothing can be done because the Catholics of Ireland would persecute the Protestants. I trust again, that the House will not accept that without honest and searching examination. Ireland to-day cannot be judged by ordinary standards. The whole strength of the nation has been concentrated for generations upon a single point—the effort to gain self-government. All the ordinary party disputations are in abeyance. All the rifts, or nearly all the rifts, between divergent types and moods and interests are concealed. Many of the healthy and natural correctives at work in free countries are suspended. Yet even now, under present circumstances, eight Protestant Members are returned by Catholic voters to sit upon the Nationalist benches, and a large number of Protestants hold office under or serve on local bodies in Ireland. Mr. Parnell himself was a Protestant and a Member of the Church of Ireland. I venture to say upon examination new Members, who have not been present at the old Debates upon Home Rule, will find that neither the Pope nor King William III. are so unpopular as is made out, or as they used to be; and in the grim presentment of Irish political parties there are moving all those feelings which so powerfully manifested themselves in other Catholic countries of the world. There is used, and often heard, a cry that "Home Rule means Rome Rule." I do not believe that any more complete or compendious perversion of the actual truth has ever been devised. The Protestants are powerful as an organised body. They are under the protection of influences of great authority, of great and influential classes here. They will be shielded and guarded by the Imperial Parliament. They will be denied no fair safeguard by their Catholic fellow-countrymen or by the House of Commons which has to settle the matter.

Sir EDWARD CARSON

How do you know?

Mr. CHURCHILL

But even if they were alone, and if England had sunk beneath the waters of the ocean, why should we suppose that the same influence and force which are at work all over the modern world—the new learning, the criticism, the spirit of liberty and independence in the human heart—why should we suppose that these great forces would not enable the Protestants of Ireland to secure the same measure of religious freedom and political liberty which the Protestants have secured for themselves in France, Belgium, Italy, and Southern Germany? Ireland will always be a Catholic country, but why should we suppose—I put it to the modern House of Commons—that in Ireland alone these forces will be suspended which over and over again in other States have led devout Catholic laymen to rank themselves among the foremost opponents of the undue intrusion of the Church into the domain of secular affairs.

I strongly urge that this question shall not be settled by the shouting of ordinary party cries of bigotry and intolerance, but that a fair effort should be made by Parliament to do justice to it, in the light of the conditions of the age in which we are living, and not upon the principles of moving and stirring events which happened centuries ago.

There is only one more point to which I wish on this occasion to draw the attention of the House. I say lastly, may we not, ought we not, to re-examine this question of Home Rule for Ireland in its international and Imperial aspect. We have been trying this afternoon to measure it, not from the Irish, but from the British, standpoint. After all, the interest and honour of Britain, the strength and prosperity of her Empire, is what must first command our duty and attention in this House. There is a new climate of opinion at home on the Irish question—the state of the House this afternoon is proof of it. There is a new climate of opinion also outside this House, and both, I venture to think, are eminently favourable or may be eminently favourable to British interests. We are not in the House of Commons likely to underrate the influence of the Irish race, they are widely and numerously spread throughout the Anglo-Saxon world. In the past they have been bitterly hostile to us. We have survived and surmounted their hostility; but they have done us, in unseen ways, a great deal of harm, and they have it in their power to-day to do us a great deal of good. If we could reconcile the English and the Irish peoples and rally the Irish nation around the Monarchy, if we could secure at the present day that good gift which Mr. Gladstone, in his prescience, sought to win for the generation in which he lived, then we should have gained an addition for the British Empire equal to many divisions of the Fleet and the Army.

This step will be entirely harmonious with the whole march of Imperial development and consolidation. There is not a Colony in the whole of our self-governing Dominions that would not light bonfires and shout with loyal and enthusiastic joy at hearing the news that Ireland had Home Rule. There is not one whose relation with the Mother-country would not be rendered more intimate and more trustful from that fact. This is an important time. Last week we were discussing Canadian reciprocity and the new ties which were springing up between Canada and the United States. In a few months the Imperial Conference will assemble to consider how more strongly and more closely to knit and draw our own Empires together. This year, also, men are discussing projects, noble projects, for an arbitration treaty, which shall make an enduring league of peace between the two most powerful democracies of the world. These are considerable events. I care as little as any man in this House for the cant of Empire which plays so large a part in the jargon of modern political discussion, but I should like to see the great English-speaking nations work together in majesty, in freedom, and in peace. The road is open. Five years ago the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman did me the honour to entrust me with the duty of moving in this House the Transvaal Constitution, which will be for ever gloriously associated with his memory. I remember upon that occasion I ventured to make an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition and to the great historic party which sits behind him. I said that, with our great majority, we could only make the Transvaal Constitution a gift of party, but that they could make it the gift of the nation as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman thought it his duty to reject that appeal, and we went on alone, and in the end it all came right. But history will declare that the Conservative party failed to rise to the occasion. A rare and wonderful thing is going to happen. Opportunity spurned is returning swiftly. The party opposite will have another chance soon of answering a similar question. Do not choose wrongly again!

Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

Perhaps I may be allowed to preface any remarks that I have to make on the question before the House, by saying that my friends and myself recognise our position as a minority of the National representatives of Ireland in this House. We cheerfully acknowledge that, for this is not the place to discuss the matter. A considerable majority of the Nationalists of the constituencies of Ireland have been captivated into the firm belief that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has Home Rule in the hollow of his hand. I am bound to add that the Unionist party have done considerably more than the Liberal party to create that belief in Ireland by their daily homage of the Member for Waterford as the Dictator of England—a by no means unpopular character in Ireland, where the simple-minded people take you solemnly at your word. That being so, our function in this Debate, and indeed in this Session, will have to be passive, and most decidedly not aggressive, either towards our Nationalist colleagues or the Government. We are quite willing to wait in the patient expectancy which the Prime Minister indicated, and we shall certainly do nothing to prejudice the expectations we have been led to form, and which unquestionably the speech of the Prime Minister tended largely to encourage. We shall content ourselves with placing on record our inability to share to the full the belief that we have only got to follow the Government blindly in everything they propose in order to make Home Rule a moral certainty within the lifetime of the present Parliament. This Amendment was apparently founded upon an impeachment of the sincerity of the Government with reference to Home Rule. That is a view which I have never shared. I am not for a moment questioning the sincerity or the good faith of the Government, but only their power to win Home Rule according to the methods they are pursuing. I do not for a moment doubt that Home Rule must ultimately come, whichever party is in power, but I do doubt the possibility of winning Home Rule within the lifetime of the present Parliament by the present methods.

The Prime Minister has made a weighty, impressive, and exceedingly important speech, and all I can say about it is that it seems to me to be a declaration marked by straightfordwardness and by courage, and the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that it certainly will not be from any men of my way of thinking that he will fail to get very hearty co-operation. I am also glad to be able to add, and it is a pleasure to me to say it, that I think there is scarcely a sentence in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford from which I should care to dissent. I do not at all find fault with the Prime Minister for not going into the particulars naturally desired by hon. Members above the Gangway as to the nature of the Home Rule Bill for next Session, but the Prime Minister did make the declaration that we shall have a Home Rule Bill next year, and, if I understood him rightly, he said that the Home Rule Bill will be the first measure next year. That is an exceedingly gratifying announcement. I must add that what I am very much more concerned about than fine speeches in this House, or details of what the Bill will be upon the lines he has foreshadowed, is how those proposals are to be carried into law as a matter of practical politics. I am afraid that after the Prime Minister's speech, just as much as before, we in Ireland know nothing with certainty except that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has abandoned one precious year of the life of this Parliament without, as far as we could learn to-night, any definite guarantee as to how the Home Rule Bill of next Session is to fare during the remaining years of this Parliament if there are any remaining years. So far as I can see we are left in this position—that Ireland has to risk everything upon the chance of forcing the Parliament Bill through the House of Lords without the alteration of a comma. With every disposition to give the Government credit for the best intentions, I must say that I am not at all satisfied that the Prime Minister's spech has furnished Irish Members with a sufficient motive for forsaking everything to follow the Government and to follow them not merely as to the Parliament Bill, but as to the Budgets, the destruction of land purchase, local taxation, and free trade. I think it was the Home Secretary who said it is now twenty-five years since Mr. Gladstone introduced his Home Rule Bill. I am not quite certain that we have advanced so very much during that period. Then we had not merely a Home Rule Bill in the paulo-post future, but we had that Bill made the first business of a Parliament, and we had a Gladstone and a Parnell to fight it through. I can only say we have not yet got the Home Rule Bill, and I am sure the Prime Minister will not think it an offence personal to himself if I say we have not got a Gladstone or a Parnell. I am not certain that in some respects our progress in those twenty-five years has not been crabwards, backwards. However, all may yet come well, and if it does I shall be the first to apologise for any scepticism upon the subject.

But when we are called upon to vote blindly for everything that the Government propose on the assurance that Home Rule will certainly follow within the lifetime of this Parliament, I can only answer that I at once accept the Chief Secretary's fuller revelation of his meaning in his Bristol speech. I daresay the Chief Secretary will speak later on in this discussion, and I should be glad if he would let us know how, supposing you do succeed by force of arms in getting the Parliament Bill through this Session—even if you succeed in squaring Wales—when those difficulties are got over, how is it to be conceived if the Parliament Bill was law that you are going to devote three successive Sessions to the enactment and the re- enactment of a Home Rule Bill within the lifetime of this Parliament. It may be that you may make Home Rule as unpopular on the Government side of the House as it is upon the Opposition side. On this point I hope the Chief Secretary for Ireland will set me right when he speaks. I do not know whether it is too late or too soon to put it to the Prime Minister and to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford whether there is not a better method than belligerent methods for bringing this problem to a practical solution. Several references have been made to a golden opportunity. I do not know, but I suppose the Hotspurs on both sides are now so "blooded to the fray" that we shall have to wait for some months of wrangling before anybody can be got in counsel who does not smell of gunpowder. I quite understand that fighting instinct. Perhaps it would be a way out of the difficulty, and it might remove a good deal of misunderstanding if I at once plunged into the fray myself. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends and myself cannot allow this opportunity to pass without placing on record our belief that it is not by the strong hand of either party in this House, circumstanced as this Parliament is, that you can hope to sweep your opponents off the field. There is another way—one which would demand very little except a certain amount of mutual goodwill and forgetfulness of party principles on both sides of this House—in which you might find a solution of the two difficulties, and they are inseparable ones, which are demoralising and paralysing this House and every party in it. I will go further and make the suggestion respectfully that it is in the power of Ireland's own representatives to induce and even to compel a sensible compromise between both parties in this House on those two inseparable questions. I think that would be far and away the most effectual and the only effectual way in which the power of the Irish party can be exercised in this House and in this Parliament.

The hon. and learned Member for Waterford undoubtedly has great power and a great opportunity, and if he wants to use that power to better effect than perhaps he has done up to the present, I would respectfully submit to him that it will not be by talking of making the Prime Minister "toe the line," but by telling both English parties that whatever may be our sympathies with this or that point in their particular party programme, what we want above all else, what is England's supreme interest and the Empire's supreme interest, as well as that of Ireland, is that both parties should club together to strike up an agreement upon the two questions of the Constitution and the House of Lords and the Reconciliation of Ireland, as to which I hold there are no substantially irreconcilable differences between the mass of men on either side. Hon. Members may disagree with that suggestion, but does anybody seriously doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is in a position to bring the hotheads of both parties in this House to a reasonable frame of mind.

8.0 P.M.

I do not at all underrate the difficulties of both Front Benches in cowing the impatience of the spirits behind them into the acceptance of any such tame proposal as that. I quite realise it, but I do think that there is some reason to suspect that in their hearts the best men upon both Front Benches are longing for some outlet of escape from what has been a sort of constitutional civil war. No matter how men of extreme views on either side may grumble or complain, I hold that on this point the Member for Waterford is in a position to make both parties and all parties toe the line, and that would be a form of dictatorship that in my humble judgment would commend the Irish cause to the sympathy of all England and of the whole Empire, from the humblest working man in London and in Dublin up to the King upon his throne. I have suggested that in essential points the differences between all English bodies and all Irish bodies are anything but irreconcilable. We all know, setting aside for the moment certain high-minded men, for whom I have great respect, who stand out for a single Chamber, that the issue as to the House of Lords has now reduced itself, practically speaking, into a competition between two rival programmes in which the only substantial difference is whether or not you are to insist upon the elective principle in its entirety. I take it for granted everyone has now given up the notion of the hereditary or divine right of legislation. I think there were only seventeen Members who held out for it in the last division on Lord Rosebery's Resolution. It is not a case for going into detail, but, as a matter bearing upon this Amendment, and as to the possibility of success for Home Rule, I may be allowed to say that for our part we, of course, regard the hereditary House of Lords in its present state as a survivor, as almost as absurd as that of the Beefeaters who search for a gun- powder plot in the cellars downstairs every Parliament. We shall, of course, gladly vote for a very sweeping change, indeed for the most sweeping change that is practicable, in the constitution and in the powers of that House, but our attitude towards the House of Lords is not one of mere hatred of them simply because they are Lords. On the contrary, we have not forgotten that the cry of "The King, Lords and Commons of Ireland" was the historic watchword of Irish liberty throughout many generations, through all the time of Grattan, O'Connell, Butt, and Parnell. We are not ashamed of that cry. On the contrary, we should welcome an Irish Upper Chamber of a certain Conservative character as the best and most effective means of guaranteeing equality to minorities of all classes. Even as to England we should be prepared to accept the well-considered judgment of the English themselves as to how far they can utilise for the common weal that passion for blue ribbons and for titles.

No doubt candid friends will say to us, "How are you first going to get Irishmen to agree among themselves?" I do not regard it as any obstacle to the acceptance of Home Rule by Englishmen, or by their Protestant fellow-countrymen, but rather as a recommendation that there are those differences, as honest, perhaps, as you will find in any country. It is just because there are those differences that I regard a friendly conference of all sorts and descriptions of Irishmen, with the restraining influence and friendly co-operation of British colleagues, honestly determined to find the terms of a great peace between the two countries, as affording incomparably better means of arriving at some satisfactory solution than years of barren party conflict and exasperation. We tried the plan of friendly conference in 1903 with the most amazing success, and without the additional elements of stability and of responsibility that would be added now by a conference representative, of course, of the Empire. If Ireland holds the balance of power in this House, as she does, I think that would be a very noble way of dealing with it, and I know of no other that would result in anything except years of exasperation and of conflict in this House and in anything better than unrest, uncertainty, and misery for every class of people in Ireland. On the other hand, I do think, in spite of what brave speeches may be made on either side of the House, that both English parties at the present time are in a similar deadlock on the Irish question. I am equally certain that Ireland has, and will always have, the power of bringing your proceedings here to confusion and to nothingness unless both parties in this House do once and for all rise up to a non-party Irish settlement as well. I say nothing whatever against the party system in the ordinary course of legislation; but I do say that those two questions—and they are inseparable—are not ordinary, but are extraordinary, issues which will not be settled, I believe, unless there be a certain amount of giving and taking and of common action between the two English parties. That being so, Ireland has unquestionably, at this moment, the power of compelling such a general agreement, and I desire to place on record as strongly as I can that I believe in that way, and in that way alone, the hon. Member for Waterford can use the great power and opportunity which at this moment he unquestionably has, with any other result except to increase the confusion and the bitterness of British politics, without producing any practical result for Ireland, except disappointment and disgust after all her weary years of waiting.

Mr. GORDON

As representing that section of the Irish people who are very strongly opposed to Home Rule, I should like to say a word or two upon this Amendment. There is. I think, no doubt in the minds of any Irishman, or any honest, fair-minded Englishman, as to the first part of the Amendment, namely, the object with which the relations between the two Houses of Parliament are to be altered. The Budget in the Parliament which preceded the last was a very important issue, and, when the Budget had been referred to the country and the Government came back, they were wholly unable to pass it into law without the aid of the Irish Nationalists. The Irish Nationalists then made their demands, and they were: "you must get rid of the House of Lords in order that we may have Home Rule." The Member for Waterford has stated, over and over again, that the only barrier to Home Rule in Ireland was the existence of the House of Lords, and in that he was perfectly right, because he had had experience of it on two occasions. In 1886 this House rejected Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, and when the electors were consulted they turned him out on that question of Home Rule. When, in 1893, a Bill was carried through this House, and the Lords rejected it, the country approved of what the Lords had done, and they sent the Unionist party back to power with the greatest majority they have ever had. Therefore, the hon. Member for Waterford is right. He knows that the English people and the Scottish people, and the Irish people, when they got an opportunity of expressing their opinions at the polls, said they would have nothing to do with Home Rule, and he knows that, if it was a clear issue with the electorate of the three countries at the present time, they would now, as in the past, refuse to allow either party to force Home Rule upon a large portion of the Irish population.

The hon. Member for Waterford, in offering the Government his support, makes it a sine qua non that the Government shall carry through first a measure which will destroy all the power that the House of Lords possesses to retard the passing of Home Rule until the people have been consulted, and he says that, whether the Government were sincere or not in their promise as to this, they would make them, and they had got the power to do it, toe the line. It was only last week, I think last Saturday night, that a member of the Irish Nationalist party, speaking at a dinner given in London, stated openly what everyone knows, that the Irish Nationalist party at the present moment have the power to make any party they like the Government of England, that is to say, either the Radical party or the Unionist party. So they have, and therefore I have never had any doubt in my mind as to what the Prime Minister and the Radical party would do in reference to Home Rule. They will certainly do what their master, the hon. Member for Waterford, requires them to do. We know what he asks for the present, but we do not know what he will do in the future. We know what his trusted supporter, the Member for West Belfast, said about what would happen with reference to the last link. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Waterford to come here, or to any public meeting in England, and say. "All we want is simply to get the liberty of managing our own affairs and leave the British House of Commons to deal with all Imperial affairs." That is not their aim and object. I do not want to weary the House by going over the speeches made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and other Members of the Irish party, not only in America, but in Ireland. I will content myself with saying that there can be no doubt in any man's mind that their aim and object is to get the first step necessary for securing Home Rule, and to go on and on until they have Ireland as a separate nation. The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford says:— We want an Irish Parliament with an executive responsible to it created by Act of the Imperial Parliament and charged with the management of purely Irish affairs. Then he goes on to cite the subjects which this Parliament should deal with. In the first place he mentions land. Now, we have had a good deal of discussion in this House on that subject. Undoubtedly, a large amount of British money is dependent on the way in which the Land Purchase Acts are administered. I believe that at the present moment British credit—I will not say English money, because although I have no interest in the land, never, probably, will have, and certainly do not intend to have any interest as an Irish landlord, I am, as an English taxpayer, willing to bear my share of the cost of the Irish Land Acts—I say I believe that British credit in this connection is already pledged to the amount of £102,000,000, and it will probably take £80,000,000 or £90,000,000 more before the work is completed. Yet you are going to put the control of that into the hands of a Parliament such as the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford is asking for. Then there is the question of education. I do not know whether the people of this country understand it, but we in Ireland do know that it was the introduction of the Education question that wrecked the Irish Councils Bill. The hon. Member for Waterford at first was inclined to accept that Bill, but he went over to Ireland and found, as a result of the introduction of this question, that he would have to move its rejection. Then, again, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford desires that the Parliament he asks for should deal with local government, with transit (which includes all railways), with labour, industries, taxation for local purposes, law and justice, and the police. That is to say, the boy-cotter is to appoint the police and the moonlighter is to appoint the judge. That is the sort of thing that is asked for for Ireland. We in Ireland know and understand the situation a great deal better than the people of England do.

We have heard very much to-night from various speakers about toleration, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has talked about the tolerance that would be shown to Protestants. But why are the Protestants of Ireland afraid to be placed under the control of the Irish Nationalists if that tolerance really exists? They are people who are living in Ireland, and if everyone is satisfied that Irish Nationalists will treat Irish Protestants fairly and without oppression—without attempting to interfere with their liberties and property, why, I ask, are these million and a quarter of people so deadly afraid of it? Do not make any mistake. These men are opposed to it. Could there be any greater refutation of the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as to the position the Protestants will have to occupy than the fact that these men, living in the country, oppose Home Rule in the most strenuous manner. The hon. Member has talked about jobs. We know a great deal about certain classes of jobs. We know that the avenue of promotion in Ireland is through the "Freeman's Journal "office. We have seen charges hurled by these people against one another and reported in the public press quite recently. I have heard arrant nonsense talked in this House about the toleration displayed by the new Boards in Ireland—in the South and West, in reference to the appointment of officials, but I have never yet heard any hon. Member give the religious classification of the officials who have been appointed since the year 1898. In that year the officials in existence were secured in their appointment, and if they did not retain office they had to be granted pensions for life. But what have been the new appointments since May? Take one illustration, the town of Newry. The Board of Guardians there, until 1898, had a Unionist majority which had appointed nine Protestants and five Roman Catholic officials. Incidentally may I say that two-thirds of the rates are paid by Protestants and Unionists. Since 1898 the Nationalist party has had control of the Board, and 19 of the 21 officials they have appointed have been Roman Catholics. The only two who were not Roman Catholics were the matron, who held office before 1898, and a Protestant nurse, who, the Local Government Board had insisted, should be appointed to attend Protestant patients. That is one case, and I would remind Nationalist Members who talk about toleration that the same practice has obtained in districts over all Ireland. Even in the appointment of doctors the test has been not one of fitness for the post, but one of religion or of being a good Nationalist.

Let me turn to what I think are far more important matters. I have not heard one word in any of the statements made by those who oppose this Amendment as to two or three topics of very great importance. I listened to the speech of the Home Secretary, who reminded us that seventeen or eighteen years had passed since Home Rule was first brought before the House, and who told us that a number of remediable measures had since been adopted. That is true. Then what is the real necessity for granting Home Rule to Ireland? What benefit will it confer upon Ireland? Have you got anything like a united people demanding it? The people who are opposed to Home Rule in Ireland number about one million and a quarter, and the hon. Member who moved this Amendment read a statement showing that the Nationalist League which controls the Irish Nationalist party, and will control any Irish Parliament, includes neither capitalists nor manufacturers, nor even cattle-dealers. The whole manufacturing industry in Ireland and the whole commercial industry is practically today in the hands of Unionists. In Dublin, where I live—and well we know it—far more than half the rates are paid by Unionists. The people in Ireland who have done anything for the progress and prosperity of the country—the commercial classes of the country—are opposed to Home Rule, and have always been opposed to it. In 1886, I well remember the state of distress that the people were in, while the Bill that year was being discussed in this House. The Bank of Ireland stock fell from 25 to 30 per cent. The bankers of Ireland, the railway directors—every person who had a great interest and a great stake in the commercial prosperity of the country—signed petition after petition against Home Rule, and did everything they could to defeat it. In Dublin, alone, we had at that time sixty-two stockbrokers—sixty of them signed petitions against Home Rule, and the other two did not sign only because they were not in the country but abroad. Coming to 1893 the panic was very considerable, but was not nearly so great, because the people said, "We have weathered the storm once," and you always find the people are satisfied when they weather a very serious storm, so that the next one does not make so great an impression upon them.

Then there was the House of Lords, with an effective power to send the measure to the people, and the people of Ireland knew that when the people got an opportunity in 1886 they refused to sanction Home Rule, and they believed that they would get the opportunity in 1893, and would again refuse to do so. They did get the opportunity, and they again refused it. Ever since then, these people, who were then op posed, have been, and still are just as strenuously opposed to Home Rule as they were then. We found at the last election that there were sent over to Ireland a set of gentlemen to contest the Northern Unionists seats, and the result was that on the aggregate we increased our majorities by between 2,000 and 3,000. There is no use, therefore, in making the suggestion that there is any weakening in our opposition to Home Rule. The Unionists of Ireland are opposed to Home Rule as strongly to-day as they ever were. I put it to fair - minded British people: Suppose even they were not, what they are at the present time, the real bone and sinew of any manufacturing or commercial prosperity that there is in Ireland, but simply taking them as British subjects, are their feelings to be absolutely ignored, and are they to be ridden over rough-shod because the Government want to secure the seventy or eighty votes of the Nationalists or for any other reason on earth. Surely they are entitled to fair-play, and is it fair-play to put men who are loyal subjects, and who always have been loyal subjects—who are industrious people, and have always been an industrious people, who have made a very considerable amount of prosperity in the country in which they live—is it fair-play when they honestly believe that Home Rule is contrary to their interests, that it is a danger and a menace to their liberty, that it would make their trade, if not disappear, at all events become less prosperous and less secure—is it fair and reasonable to force them into a system of government of which they entirely disapprove, and force them to cease to be an integral part of the United Kingdom.

It is said by the Prime Minister, and I am really ashamed almost of the argument, that a large number of questions put down on the paper deal with matters which could be much better considered in Ireland, and that there is no necessity for Irish Members to come here to do that. These are little trifles to men whose lives, liberties, and properties would be concerned. How can we come here if this measure is passed? Let any man think for a moment of how a question could be raised before the Imperial Parliament, in reference to any treatment that men in Ireland might receive, which they considered was not according to law. How can we do it? Suppose there is taxation needed for local purposes, and the Irish Parliament said they would put a tax upon spindles and power looms. There are about a million spindles in Belfast and between 40,000 and 50,000 power looms there, and there would not be a penny of these taxes paid outside of the Unionist North. [An HON. MEMBER: "West Belfast."] In West Belfast they have nothing to do with manufacturing and commercial prosperity, and they do not own any of the spindles and power looms by which industries are carried on. I am an Irishman who has lived in Ireland all my life, I have lived in the North and in the West for a considerable time, and I have lived for the last twenty years in Dublin. I am neither interested as a landlord nor for any class in ascendancy, nor am I even a member of the Irish Church. I am a plain Presbyterian professional man, and I have as much love for my country, and as great a desire to see it prosperous and happy as any Gentleman who sits below the Gangway. I do not think that I should appeal in vain to those who know me best in the city in which I live, when I make that statement, and I say that instead of making for the happiness and prosperity of our country it would be an incalculable disaster to inflict Home Rule upon us. It is said that Ireland would become, not merely a nation of loyal men, but it would become prosperous. I would ask, however, in regard to the relationship with their own affairs, have not the Irish people now the same position towards them as the people of England and Scotland? Does not the Local Government Act put them in exactly the same position? They have their county councils, they have their district councils, they have their boards of guardians, and there is a Local Government Board in Ireland, just as there is in England, looking after the affairs of the various local bodies. There are these two Acts of Parliament, the English Local Government Act of 1888 and the Irish Local Government Act of 1899, and they are exactly the same.

What is the Irishman interested in his own affairs debarred from more than the Englishman or Scotsman? There is one thing that they have not the control of which is vested in some of the local bodies in Scotland and England. That is the police, and I remember putting it to the Chief Secretary whether he would hand over the control of the police to the county council and be responsible for the good government of Ireland? I put that question for six months, and he did not give any answer to it, and I do not think at the present time that any sane man would be responsible for the good government of the country and hand over the control of the police to the Irish county councils. In London they are under the Home Office, but in Ireland the Chief Secretary is the official who is responsible to this House for them. In every other respect, however, Irishmen have just as much control over their own affairs and as close a touch with them as the people of England and Wales. Where does anyone say that the benefit is going to come in? The Home Secretary said that you cannot have economy unless the persons who are interested have their hands on the money. What is the position of affairs now in Ireland in reference to economy? The rates, which I speak of very feelingly, for I have to pay them, in Dublin are 10s. 8d. in the £. The Corporation of Dublin is a miniature Nationalist Parliament, and they run it upon those lines, and they discuss every political problem under the sun, and they change the salary of the Lord Mayor and bring it back again to the old figure. In Belfast, where they pay nothing to the Lord Mayor, and I think the duties of the office are very handsomely discharged, they pay 6s. 3d. in the £. In Ballymena they are 5s. 8d. as against 11s. 9d. in Cork, and in Coleraine 5s. 5d. as against 11s. 4d. in Limerick. These are the gentlemen who are exercising economies. If these figures are wrong they can set them right. We know what the economy of the Irish Nationalist is when he has control of the purse and can deal with the money and spend it freely. It is out of some other person's pocket, and it does not matter. There would be no economy in Ireland if they had the control of the revenues of the country, and had to devote them to purposes to which they are devoted at present. Let us see what the position of Ireland is under the Union and what it was under the Parliament, of which we have heard so much of, that existed before the Union. Grattan's Parliament, which came into existence in 1782 or 1783 owed a debt, in 1791, of about 2½ millions. When the Union was passed they had increased the debt to over £26,000,000. It was no wonder that Lord Clare said they were upon the eve of bankruptcy. This was the work of nine years. Look at what has been going on in Ireland in the last quarter of a century. Last year the aggregate exports and imports of Ireland, a small country, amounted to about £125,000,000, of which Derry and Belfast accounted for half. In the Savings Banks there was in 1889 £3,300,000, and in 1909 £11,180,000, and of that there was in the three Unionist counties of Antrim, Derry, and Down, £4,000,000, more than a third. Why is that? It is because of the industry, the thrift, and the independence of the people, and because they are trying to do the best with the means which they have at their hand and in the country in which they live. In the joint stock banks the deposits in 1889 were £31,000,000, and in 1909 almost £52,000,000. That is not a bad rate of progress in twenty years. What is the reason to complain? What are they going to do better in Ireland? I take a great interest in seeing what is going on in the country, and I know that everything in Ireland has improved. The standard of living has enormously increased. Everyone is much better off, and everyone seems to be making progress and not least the farming and labouring classes. The methods of farming have improved. Everything connected with the country is improving. The one thing that we want in Ireland is not Home Rule but freedom from agitation. If we could get freedom from agitation for the next ten or fifteen years there would be no cause to complain of the prosperity of Ireland.

I have told the House about the class of people who are opposed to Home Rule. If you took their industries out of Ireland there would be very little of commercial success left. Take another test. There are about 700,000 electors in Ireland, of whom over 200,000 are Protestants. There are not 2,000 of these men, that is 1 per cent., who would under any conceivable circumstances vote for Home Rule. I know in South Derry, where there was a contest, and where, I suppose, the desire was to represent the minority as being composed of Protestant Radicals like they were in England, there were not fifty Protestants who voted against me; in North Derry there were not 100, and in Derry City I do not suppose there were ten. In the whole four Divisions of Tyrone—the one which was lost was won on a three-cornered fight before—there were not fifty Protestants who voted against the Unionist candidate. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] We know perfectly well. We know absolutely in the North of Ireland how the Division goes, the dividing lines, and how the men vote. There is no mystery about it at all. In the North of Ireland the Unionist voter is not ashamed to say he is a Unionist voter, and we know perfectly that he walks into the tally room and tells you, and you know every single thing about it, and it is absurd to pretend that there is any appreciable body of Protestants in Ireland who would, under any conceivable circumstances, vote for any measure of Home Rule. We know what it would mean in the country. If these people had the power to control the country, why have they not kept it quiet? Why have they not, from time to time, put down outrage, boycotting, moonlighting, and cattle driving, and all these other things which ought not to exist in a civilised country where law and order ought to be in force. Either Nationalist Members have control and do not exercise it or they have no control, and if they had a Parliament in Ireland would just be as powerless to enforce the laws as they are to-day. We do not want that state of affairs to exist. We do not want the loyal, the industrious, and the law-abiding portion of the population to be put under the control of these men.

Perhaps there is another thing which would appeal to English Members a little bit. You get from Ireland, I suppose, in its normal condition about £9,000,000 a year. Last year, of course, the conditions were not normal, and the amount was not so much, owing to the Budget, but I suppose that is quite made up. Where does it come from. Of the Customs £2,119,000 is collected in Ulster, and in the rest of Ireland £911,000. That is in Ulster alone, where the people who are opposed to Home Rule are attending to their business. Why! in the city of Belfast alone, out of the £9,000,000 of revenue that comes from I Ireland considerably more than £3,000,000 are paid, so that in every way you test this, whether as regards manufacturing and commercial industry, the promoting of peace and order and loyalty in the country, or in paying the taxes for local purposes or the contributions to the Imperial revenue, the 1,500,000 of people represent a very large proportion of the material value in Ireland. Is all that to be ignored? Are you simply to say, "We do not pay the smallest attention to your views or wishes, and we shall hand over the country to the men who have never shown any capacity for promoting its industrial or commercial prosperity." [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] Well, the question can be answered by anyone. There is the country, and we all know what the conditions are in different parts. They tried "New Tipperary." I wonder where it is now. Perhaps some hon. Members will tell the House something about it when they come to speak.

We are told that we have to consider this Home Rule proposal again. I would be willing to consider it if you could show the benefit to be derived from it, and show also that it is not being forced on a very large body of unwilling people in Ireland. But so long as it stands in the present position I shall resist it as strongly and strenuously as I can. I say that the men sent here to represent the Unionists of Ireland would betray their trust if they did not stand up in the House and express strongly and vigorously their objection to Home Rule in any form, and point out also to the English people that the Nationalist party well know that if the issue were put to the people themselves in the three countries they would be defeated as they were before. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment asked the hon. Member for Waterford whether he would agree to the Referendum for Home Rule. There was no suggestion that he would agree to it at once. I believe that his one and only hope of carrying Home Rule is to force this Government, which he holds in the hollow of his hand, to pass through this House a Home Rule measure which never could be passed if an opportunity were given to the people to decide. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Cork expressing his fears. I think his fears are well founded. I believe you will never be able to force Home Rule upon Ireland against the determined feeling of the loyal, law-abiding, and prosperous people of Ulster.

Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER REDMOND

I find it extremely hard to speak on this Amendment to-night. It seemed to me that up to the speech of the hon. Member who last addressed the House that the Debate was a one-sided affair. I am delighted that he has given me as a Nationalist Member for his neighbouring Constituency in the Province of Ulster something to which I can reply. I listened with great attention to the speech of the proposer of this Amendment. His principal argument against Home Rule seemed to be that the "Freeman's Journal" declared no dividend. I would like to ask the same hon. Gentleman if he, along with any of his colleagues throughout the late General Election, used the same argument that has been used just now by his colleague, the Member for South Derry (Mr. Gordon)—namely, that every appointment made in Ireland was made at the instance of the "Freeman's Journal." The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment used the phrase several times—"we protest." I would very much like to ask him who "we" are. Does he represent any section of the people of Ireland? He also dwelt upon the composition of the United Irish League, and said it does not represent any considerable section of wealth or prosperity in Ireland. Did he, along with his colleagues, during the late General Election, not make use of the shibboleth that it was the United Irish League which was running, not only Ireland, but the British Empire and dictating to the Premier of this country? He also suggests that the power which he ascribes to a certain class in Ireland was a birthright, because they were in the ascendancy, and that a small minority, as for centuries in the past history of Ireland, should be able to put their foot on the neck of the vast majority of the population. Another point which he raised was the cash aspect of the Home Rule argument. He suggested that if the Nationalists were really in earnest about Home Rule we should buy up the British Empire. Unfortunately we are a poor country, a poor party, and a poor organisation, but if it lay in our power nothing would delight us more than to do what he suggests. But we have no millionaires in our party, nor do we represent the employers of Ireland. We represent the workers, farmers, and labourers of Ireland, and, therefore, if they were to pay every miserable shilling they possess they would not be able to buy up land to the extent of even one county. The hon. Member (Mr. Gordon) made some reference to the fact that we owed much in Ireland to what British credit had done for us under the Land Acts. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to remember, if he has forgotten, that the one redeeming feature of the transaction is that the security is better than any other that could possibly be given either to Turk or Briton who invests his money—the security of the land of Ireland. The hon. Member made some smart passing references to the fact that since the Local Government Act for Ireland was passed in 1898 the principal positions on the County Councils were occupied by representatives of the religious majority of the people. Even if that were the fact, what was the harm in it? I submit that it was only the natural order of events. But is it anything like true. I propose to show the House that it is anything but true, and that it is the one and only argument that these Irishmen now use—I am ashamed to call them Irishmen—against Home Rule. The hon. Member contended that on the attainment of self-government in Ireland there will be violence and religious persecution of our Protestant fellow-countrymen.

He also referred to the fact that Dublin was a Nationalist, and, as I would like to say, a great Nationalist city and community, and said that the rates in Dublin were higher than the rates in Belfast. But he did not tell you how long it was since Dublin was revalued, nor that in Belfast the rates are struck upon a new and greatly increased valuation, with the result that the poundage of the rates is lowered. One thing which strikes me as admitted by every party in this House is that the present system of Government in Ireland is defective. You will not find any Member, whether Liberal, Radical, Labour, or Tory, say that Irish Government at present is as it should be, and that the country is progressing as it should progress. What are the remedies offered? The Ulster Unionists say in chorus with the party with which they choose to join in this British House of Commons, "Give us Tariff Reform," but I say that the only way in which the people of Ireland would consider Tariff Reform, if ever they did consider it, would be in connection with tariffs not against Germany, or the United States, or against Australia, but against this country. What is the solution of the Ulster Nationalists and of the party to which I have the honour to belong? The solution is the one accepted and endorsed by the Prime Minister himself to-night, the granting of a full measure of self-government to Ireland. The sole argument left to these Gentlemen above the Gangway, these Irish Unionists, is that if Home Rule is granted there will be an impossible system of religious intolerance and persecution carried on by the majority of their countrymen. I ask these hon. Gentlemen to consider have they any right to think because the party which they represent—the ascendancy party, the landlord's party, the party of wealth, the party of the millionaires—have done so in the past that, therefore, we should do so in the future? It is a good old maxim that one should not judge one's enemy by oneself.

9.0 P.M.

Let me come to this Ulster question, as it is called, which has been talked about throughout the constituencies of Great Britain. I would like to call the attention of the House to some of the facts. One strange thing in connection with these appeals about religious intolerance is that the only counties where they come from in Ireland are the counties where the Protestants are in a majority. Where are there any Protestants in the South of Ireland who say they are persecuted? Where are the oppressed Protestant shopkeepers in Cork, Limerick, or Dublin? Where are the men who are living every day amid their Catholic fellow-countrymen who will come out and say they are being persecuted and driven out of business? Another fact that I would like to impress upon hon. Members, even upon Members of the Liberal and the Labour party, is that out of the thirty-three Parliamentary seats in Ulster no fewer than sixteen are held by the Nationalists, and I may add that a seventeenth, Derry City, should be, and is, a Nationalist Constituency. It has been held twice before by Nationalists, and, if the occasion arises, which I hops it will not, it will be held again. There is only one county in the whole of Ireland which is absolutely and completely Unionist in its Parliamentary representation, and that county is Derry Antrim has as a representative my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Joseph Devlin). In no fewer than twenty-six counties of the thirty-two counties of Ireland the representation is absolutely and completely National, and there are no fewer than three of the Ulster counties which send a total representation of Nationalists to this House. Another fact which English and Scotch Members should bear in mind is that almost 50 per cent. of the population of Ulster is Catholic, and yet you hear all this talk about the Ulster question and the Ulster Protestants. It is only a portion of three counties of Ulster that these gentlemen make such a fuss about. As regards the treatment which is to be meted to the Protestant minority in Ireland in the future, how can you judge the future except by the present and the past? You can speculate as much as you like, but the only concrete way of judging the future is by bringing up the facts of the present and the past. The right hon. Gentleman the Member of the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) said that the Local Government Act in Ireland had failed in its object, and was an example of intolerance meted out to Protestants in Ireland. In my opinion the working of the Local Government Act of 1898 is a colossal monument to the capacity and honest integrity and extraordinary toleration of the mass of the Irish people. In the County Tyrone itself, which I have the honour to represent, and which adjoins the Constituencies of the hon. Member for South Derry (Mr. John Gordon) and the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), 55 per cent. of the population are Catholics. Yet the majority on the County Council is a Protestant one, and a bare Protestant one, and that bare Protestant majority, in employing its officers, has forty-seven Protestants to five Catholics. Ninety per cent. of the officers of the whole county, of the paid officials of the whole county, are Protestants and Unionists, and only 10 per cent. are Catholics, and this is in a county in which 55 per cent. of the population are Catholics. I turn next to the County Armagh. In that county 45 per cent. of the population are Catholics, yet the percentage of paid officials is only 6 per cent. Catholics as against 94 per cent. Protestants.

If you go down south you will find there where the Catholics are in a majority, how they treat their Protestant fellow countrymen. Do they treat them worse, or do they treat them as Protestants treat Catholics in the North? Nothing of the kind. Go to the county of Cork, which is preponderatingly and overwhelmingly Catholic, there being ninety per cent. Catholics and ten per cent. Protestants, and what are the figures in regard to paid local officials in that country? The figures are 79 per cent. out of the 90 per cent. Catholic, and 21 per cent. out of the 10 per cent. Protestant population. Go further to the county of Westmeath, and there you have only 9 per cent. Protestants, yet that 10 per cent. Protestant population have 32 per cent. paid officials. In the county of Clare the Catholic population is 97 per cent., the percentage of paid Protestant officials is 10 per cent. out of their 3 per cent. of the total population. I defy any hon. Gentlemen on those Benches or any of the Unionist representatives in Ulster, because there are 16 out of the 33 that are Nationalists, to produce a single Catholic county in the whole of Ireland where the Protestant minority does not get an almost undue proportion of official positions, a proportion which in the North of Ireland the Catholics would never get. The extraordinary fact about the Ulster question is that there are nine counties in Ulster, and five out of the nine have a large majority of Catholics; yet you hear hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway talking about the Ulster question, because in other counties where they have a distinct majority they fear religious persecution if Home Rule is established. During the election the right hon. Gentleman, the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland during the Conservative Administration (Mr. Long), at a meeting in the Albert Hall, conveyed a message from Unionists of Ireland to those present. He said:— In all solemnity we now declare that Home Rule will bring to Ireland, not peace but the sword— That is very much like what the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Derry, who has just sat down, told us:— If an Irish Parliament be set up the Unionist position will be that the men of Ulster will not acknowledge its authority, and they will neither obey its decrees nor pay its taxes. Yes, that is from the Loyalists of Ulster, from the gentlemen who would lay down their lives for their King. I have another extract which is of striking similarity to that which I have just given. The circumstances were almost the same—in fact, in my opinion they are identical. It was about the year 1837 when there was a proposal in this House to confer self-government upon Canada. That proposal was opposed in the House of Lords by the Duke of Wellington and by Lord Stanley, and here is what Lord Stanley said:— What would be the consequence of granting the Canadian demand? The establishment of a Republic. The concession would remove the only check on the tyrannical power of the dominant majority—— That is very like the argument used by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Mark these words:— The majority in numbers only, while in wealth, education and enterprise they are greatly inferior to the minority. The minority of settlers are of British descent, and one thing is certain that if these settlers find themselves deprived of British protection they will protect themselves. Does not that sound like the last ditch? Measures to that effect can be taken within six months after the concession. I submit that that argument is exactly the same as the argument just used by the Member for South Derry. I submit also that every concession that ever was made to Ireland on every conceivable subject has always been opposed in this House by the representatives of the arrogant and aristocratic ascendancy party in that miserable corner of the North of Ireland. It is the same old game of bluff. On the question of Catholic Emancipation the Orangemen talked exactly as the hon. Members for South Deny and Armagh talk to-day. When Church Disestablishment was introduced the Queen's crown was to be "kicked into the Boyne." I do not think the Crown ever saw the Boyne; it may later on. Almost every reform proposed for Ireland was opposed by these gentlemen. Every measure, every remedial measure for the benefit of that country and for her material progress has been bitterly opposed in this House by those gentlemen from the North of Ireland; yet the very people that they represent were the very first to take advantage of those measures. The Land Act of 1881 was opposd by Unionists of the North, and yet the Ulster farmers were the first to come under that measure. The Unionist Member for East Down from 1890 to 1902, and who is now Judge Rentoul, in 1906, speaking at a meeting of Presbyterians in Donegal, quoted the words, "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right." and said they were "wicked words." He went on to say:— He felt that in a country where the bulk of the population professed a religion different to theirs, the throb of the Orange drum right in the faces of their countrymen was wrong. Nay more, he was convinced that this custom of drum beating, instead of retarding, was actually hastening on the day that was coming. When he (Judge Rentoul) went over to English platforms and talked about Ulster fighting, everyone laughed at them; the thing was ridiculous, and could not be done. Men who came across to England and thus spoke of not trusting their fellow-countrymen were men who had not been born and reared in Donegal (hear, hear). It would take a good deal of experience to the contrary to make Donegal Protestants have any fear of their Catholic neighbours A statement like that coming from the immediate predecessor of the Member for East Down should have at least some effect as against the opinions expressed by him both here and in the country. As to the statement that "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right." I would like to put it "Ulster will not fight and Ulster will be right." But if Ulster fought, where would it have to fight first? Would it march into Connaught or Leinster. No; it would have to conquer 50 per cent. of the people of Ulster before it went into any of the other provinces. The real question of the Amendment is whether there was a mandate at this last election for Irish Home Rule. That point has been quite sufficiently dealt with by the Prime Minister and by several other speakers, and it is uncontroverted, especially by the hon. Gentlemen who themselves took a part in bringing it about. The greatest argument used by them against the abolition of the Veto, as far as I could understand their orations, was that it would lead to Home Rule. I am sure they are disappointed now that that argument did not go down with the masses of the Irish people. Lord Londonderry said during that election:— Supposing the new dispensation conies into power, Home Rule will go through at once without further to-do the next time. In 1913, it goes through, if a composite majority can be secured in the House of Commons in its favour. Have we a composite majority, or a sufficient majority? One of the Members for Dublin University used similar language. Every party made Home Rule an issue at the General Election. The Liberal party made it an issue, there was no other issue in Ireland, and it was made the special issue of the Unionist party. There was really one issue at the last and previous election, and that was the abolition of the Veto. But would any person ever suggest that because there was one issue that there were not other subservient issues? What use would it be to abolish the Veto if it was not to bring about other things and if we could not push forward measures of progress and reform? Therefore, there being a mandate for Home Rule, and that the Premier having made the statement which we heard to-day, as far as I can see there is only one argument advanced against Home Rule, and that is the argument of religious ascendancy. I hope I have pulled down a considerable amount of that huge fallacy. The two successive General Elections which we have had were I would say pretty good Referendums, and, according to the mandate received, and in order to maintain the tradition and honour of the Liberal party, there is only one course open, and that is, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to grant at the first available moment a full measure of self-government to Ireland in all Irish affairs, subject, as every proposal has been in the past, to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. In doing so, they will be acting up to the true idea of modern representative Government, which has been so successful in the Great German Empire, of which we hear so much, and which has brought about all that great triumphant progress of the great Republic beyond the seas, and which also was exemplified only the other day by the grant of a full measure of self-government to South Africa as the only possible means of keeping together your own vast Empire, and so securing in every sense of the word complete national contentment and lasting and permanent Imperial strength and union.

Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON

The able speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, will, I am sure, receive a hearty welcome, and if the hon. Member had appeared amongst us unawares, I think I may say he would have been speedily recognised. He and other hon. Members have done well to call attention to the great changes that there have been in Irish affairs, since, I may say, the time before he was born. I was quartered in Ireland almost immediately before I came into Parliament, and spent some months there. Then we were all plunged into the Home Rule Debates, and although I would not say that everything has changed in Ireland, as has been said, since those days, I would say there has been a great change, and one which makes the policy of Home Rule more practicable now than it was then. Although I have heard more animated Debates on Home Rule than that to which we have listened this evening, and have listened to more brilliant speeches, I do not know that we have ever listened to speeches which more practically advanced Home Rule than those speeches to which we have listened to-night. I am here, however, not to speak about Ireland, but about my own country. This is a very comprehensive Amendment. I regret that it has been moved by a countryman of mine in terms of such general denunciation of Devolution, because, as he is perfectly well aware, Scotland has long supported Home Rule for Ireland, and still supports Home Rule for Ireland, while at the same time she is not less keen for Home Rule all Round, and self-government for herself. The Prime Minister will have Scotland behind him in the declaration which he made this afternoon. If we regret, those of us who are Scottish Home Rulers, as regret was expressed also on the other side, and in the Amendment that there is no definite mention of Home Rule, and that Home Rule does not appear in definite shape in the King's Speech, it is for the very opposite reasons to those which the hon. Member has advanced. The Government, however, naturally concentrates upon the leading item in constitutional readjustment, and if, profiting by our military experience in South Africa, it takes cover and preserves its person from the enemy's fire, we on this side say that it is a perfectly sound policy. We are confident that the policy of the Government is there, that it can be produced, that in due time it will be produced, and that in that policy no doubt Scotland will find her due place. At the election, in the addresses and speeches of several leading Members of the Government, dealing with Devolution——

MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE

In the address of what Minister was Home Rule mentioned at the election except that of the Lord Advocate?

Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON

The Noble Lord, if he had taken the trouble to read them, would have found references to Devolution, or Home Rule, in the address of the Foreign Secretary, in the address of the Secretary of State for War—[Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and in the speeches of the Minister for Education. I said in the addresses and speeches. I have not got them here, but if hon. Members opposite have them I shall be glad to quote from them. Certainly in the address of the Foreign Secretary a very clear statement was made with regard to Devolution—a statement which perfectly satisfied the Scottish Members who believe in Home Rule for Scotland. They were equally satisfied by the election address of the Secretary for War. I think, therefore, I am entitled to make the statement that I made, and I cannot conceive why the Noble Lord should have questioned it. As I was saying when interrupted, the statements made by leading Members of the Government on the subject of Devolution were so satisfactory to Scottish Home Rulers that we have no reason to show impatience at the present time. The Scottish support of Home Rule is a strong guarantee for a comprehensive constitutional reconstruction. It will be generally admitted that no part of the United Kingdom is more competent to manage its own domestic affairs. No part of the United Kingdom is less prone to interfere unnecessarily with its neighbour's affairs, or is more thoroughly identified with the defence, the enterprise, and the Government of the Empire as a whole.

The Scottish Home Rule policy has no less an Imperial than it has a domestic object. Our object in Scotland is to disentangle the management of Imperial affairs from the management of national and local affairs. We have experienced a great outburst of administrative activity in recent years, accompanied by no corresponding redistribution of executive responsibility. Can it be held that this Parliament can pretend to continue to supervise, in so much detail, the whole of the business of every part of the United Kingdom and of many parts of the whole Empire? If the British people and the British Parliament be endowed—as no doubt they are richly endowed—with the faculty for government, they are nevertheless handicapped by the lack of due redistribution of administrative and legislative responsibility. The fact of the matter is, Devolution has been for so long the settled policy, not only of this or of that party, but of all parties and of the country as a whole, that we cannot go back upon it now. The problem is how to rectify the existing confusion and inefficiency with the minimum of disturbance and the maximum of good result. Probably one of our great local authorities is the best example one could give of an effective instrument for self-government. Its duties are clearly allocated, properly understood, and well in hand. The worth of the great authorities has been shown, not only by the results of their undertakings, but also by the constant increase of power which Parliament has always been ready to confer upon them, until it has come to this—that when any great scheme of reform is mooted—in education, in land, in health, in social reform—it is to the local authorities that we look to put our general ideas into actual practice. Conventions and associations of local authorities at their meetings review our legislation, and make suggestions for amendment with less imagination perhaps and with more knowledge than is always found between the walls of this House. The whole trend of public policy has been to unload this House and to use the local authorities to meet the public needs and as a medium of Government. The party opposite have not only acquiesced in devolution, but have initiated it. They, therefore, cannot argue that further development upon the same lines is revolution. Taxing powers have been given to local authorities which, in some parts of my own country, have been exercised to the extent of over 20s. in the £1. You cannot go much further than that in taxing power. You have given great powers to the London County Council; you have created the Irish County Councils; and yet you are scared at the apparition of any larger unit. You refuse to see what is lacking now, and that is a central authority in each unit of the United Kingdom, around which to group the local authorities, national Parliaments fitted to guide evolution in local administration upon national lines. You fail to recognise the fact of nationality. Some reference has been made to nation- ality as a belligerent unit. Well, I take nationality as an administrative unit. As there is the union of purpose in the local authority for the conduct of affairs of the area within its administrative limits, so there is in the national unit far stronger bonds of union, founded on custom, institution, and law, upon race and tradition, unifying our nationality and differentiating each nationality from its neighbours. What is wanted now is to take a step further in devolution, so that each unit of the United Kingdom may have the power to initiate measures for its local administration. Devolve national affairs on national Parliaments, elected and fitted to deal with them, composed of men knowing their business, able to direct properly and therefore to act quickly. At the same time let Members of Parliament come to this House to deal with the business of the Empire. The Noble Lord opposite said there was no business of the Empire. After all, there is the defence of the Empire. There is the finance, trade, of the Empire. There is our foreign and colonial policy, which needs the supervision which any sovereign Parliament must exert. Scotland is a good example—and I therefore put it forward with great confidence—of the need for self-government in national life. No part of the United Kingdom is less under the control of its representatives at present. No part of the United Kingdom has been less under the control of its representative since I entered the House. The Scottish system has most of the faults which hon. Members opposite complain of in the Irish system, with the addition that the Scottish bureaucracy is less complete and less centred in its own country than is the Irish bureaucracy. Whilst the Irish Administration has the attention of a gifted party, masters of Parliamentary tactics, unhampered by ordinary Parliamentary ties—I think that is obvious enough—a party coming here for one purpose, we in Scotland have been known as faithful sheep. All our eggs are in one basket. We are dependent upon one Minister and on a bureaucracy, which is situated partly in Edinburgh and partly in London. Even with the strongest Scottish secretary, a man with knowledge, initiative, purpose, and character—such a secretary might, perhaps, amid the multiplicity of his responsibilities leave his mark upon one or two Departments, over which he has control. No Scottish secretary can cover all the Departments which he controls. It takes a minister of interesting personality to influence one of the great English Departments. How impossible for any Scottish secretary, however gifted, however interesting, to influence the whole of the Departments for which he is responsible in Scotland? A weak Scottish Secretary under any Government must become a mere screen to shelter the real arbiters of our fate—the permanent officials and others. Neglect of Scottish interests is notorious. During seventeen years of Unionist administration, since I have been acquainted with the House, one big original Bill was introduced, a Scottish Education Bill. It received a large measure of active support. It was brought up in two Sessions, and then dropped. So much for the present system in Scotland, in the seventeen years when it was tried to the utmost advantage under a Single Chamber system by hon. Members opposite. The difficulty is equally notorious of getting representative Scotsmen in close touch with the active life of their country to undertake the duty of representatives in London. The reason is a very simple one. It is that the never-ending Session of the present day involves rupture of all ties. As regards professional men, a Scotsman who is a lawyer in London can come here without any difficulty; but a man in active touch with the administrative or business life of Scotland cannot attend Parliament without breaking off the ties with his own country. This kind of man would be readily available for local legislatures, and he would be able to deal with a mass of affairs which can never come under representative control here, and which are often at present under no kind of control at all. It is no less difficult and complex to govern a small country than it is to govern a large one, and Scotland is a country which, after all, is worth governing well. Is it surprising under these circumstances that Scotland is keen for Home Rule, whether for her own sake or for that of the Empire. If democracy is to maintain the Empire we must make our arrangements accordingly. The waste of time in this House arising from excess and confusion of functions, the scamped legislation, maladministration—especially in respect of the general interests of the Empire, and of those smaller units of the United Kingdom—because England, with her enormous preponderance of Members, comes better off than the smaller units of the United Kingdom—all combine to create a situation which this House can no longer refuse to face. The Opposition may object and indulge in denunciations of Home Rule, but they will have to face this question of Devolution, and they will have to face it upon the floor of this House. But men with practical instinct cannot fail to see that that is not a matter of sentiment, but a matter of practical legislation and administration. A course which must be taken if domestic and Imperial affairs are to be efficiently conducted. And seeing that they will help the Government to deal comprehensively with the whole subject of constitutional revision, and in the present Parliament.

Sir EDWARD CARSON

I apologise to hon. Members from Scotland on this side of the House for not giving way to some of them to rise and answer the speech which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has sat down. I was under the impression, until he made his very eloquent and luminous speech, that this was rather "a night out" for Ireland. But I cannot but admit that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has taught me many things as regards Home Rule all round, or what he is pleased to call Devolution, or one of those curious names which was used during the General Election for the purpose of hiding the real meaning from the electors. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he was intensely in favour of Home Rule for Scotland. I also gathered that no other country was so fit for Home Rule as Scotland at the present moment; but I was rather relieved by the statement he made that there was no impatience there upon the subject. He told us, as far as I could gather from his speech, that the reason he was able to make that statement was that there was no part of the Empire which was less under the control of its Parliamentary representatives. A some-what extraordinary statement that for a country which was claiming Home Rule. Looking at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and not diving with great acuteness into it, I came to the conclusion that probably the reason for that last proposition was that I am told—not wishing to be offensive to anybody—that among the eminent representatives coming from Scotland there are many Englishmen.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)

On this side—not upon yours.

Sir E. CARSON

That is the only side that has any influence at the present moment. Putting all these various and interesting facts together, I do not really know why the right hon. Gentleman intervened in this Debate at all. But if he is really in earnest in the statement that what this Parliament is now interested in and what the country is interested in is Home Rule all round, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in the time that elapses between this and the introduction of the Home Rule Bill—and it must take some time before you create the puppet peers and get them into order, and go through all the various stages that are necessary for carrying out the scavenging of your dirty work—I would suggest that in the meantime the right hon. Gentleman should use his influence to induce the Government of the day, which has the honour of being led by an eminent Englishman as a Scotch representative, instead of bringing in a wretched fragment of their constitutional change in the granting of what is called Devolution to Ireland, to bring in a comprehensive scheme of Devolution, or, as I call it, Home Rule all round. [An HON. MEMBER: "So he will."] Somebody says "So he will." I venture to prophecy if you do, and if you bring this question into one harmonious whole for the whole of the United Kingdom that in the first place it will be absolutely rejected by this House, and one thing I am certain and confident of is that it will be absolutely rejected by the representatives from my own country.

Mr. PIRIE

It is the men behind you who are endeavouring to do that.

Sir E. CARSON

I can assure the hon. Member, who I know means to be courteous, that no Irishman ever was intimidated by a Scotchman. The kind of speech we have just listened to is an exact instance of the kind of speech that was used for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the electors at the last General Election. I know my fellow-countrymen too well.

Mr. MICHAEL JOYCE

The knowledge is mutual.

10.0 P.M.

Sir E. CARSON

They do not want a milksop from Leith Burghs, and they do not want any milksop of Home Rule. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) talked of the most mild kind of Home Rule for Ireland out in Canada. It was only two or three nights ago he was proposing a toast I have heard ever since my childhood, "Ireland a Nation." Hon. Members from Ireland make no concealment about that. Englishmen pretend they do; we know they do not. But compare that with what he was talking about in Canada. Has he ever heard of any of the provincial legislators in Canada being made a nation. I turn from Scotch Home Rule and the speech of the hon. Member and I come to what I understand to be the subject of the Amendment to the Address. May I Bay, before I come to my short criticism upon it and the speeches made, with what pleasure I heard the speech of the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Archer Redmond) this afternoon. I listened to him to-day with sincere pleasure, because, although the future of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is, I suppose, absolutely at the opposite end of the poles from myself in politics, I have had the pleasure of knowing him all my professional life, and it is indeed a gratification for me to know that he will be so well succeeded by the hon. and learned Member who addressed the House for the first time this evening. Were it not for the fact that I have other matters to deal with, I might be tempted to pursue that subject by stating how well it illustrates the hereditary principle. There were some observations made by hon. Members opposite to-night with which I entirely concurred. It was said that this subject presents itself in rather a different form to what it did in the old days. Yes, Sir, it does, because the extraordinary thing of the whole of this Debate this evening is that I have not heard it put forward as a reason for granting Home Rule that there is a single grievance in relation to Ireland which this Parliament has not shown itself competent and willing to get rid of. In point of fact, the Home Secretary gave a description of Ireland which certainly was of a most flattering character. I dare say if it had suited the right hon. Gentleman's ends the description would have been different. He told us that Ireland was a country absolutely free from crime, and he says all crime has now vanished from Ireland. He also said that the prosperity of the country, the housing of the people, and all the rest of it are in a vastly different position to what they were when this question was last before the House in an acute form. The right hon. Gentleman took that as a reason for giving Home Rule to Ireland. Sir, I say it is a testimony to what he said when this controversy was acute before that there is no single grievance or no single want of Ireland that could not be better remedied by this House than by any Parliament in Ireland. We approach this question with this knowledge that if the Home Rule, which was originally proposed by Mr. Gladstone in 1886 and in 1893 had unfortunately passed, at the present moment Ireland must have been, and would have been without the assistance of this country, in an absolutely bankrupt condition. I do not believe there is a single Member sitting upon the Nationalist Benches who would now accept Home Rule upon the same financial conditions that were offered by Mr. Gladstone in 1893. If we have found out that the Home Rule offered then would have been ruin to our country, and if we have found out that in the meanwhile, instead of that ruin, we have had the increased prosperity which the Home Secretary has so eloquently depicted, do you not think we ought to pause, and pause long, before we run the risk of changing that prosperity into the bankruptcy which would certainly have accrued. I admit, and I freely admit, that upon the question of Home Rule for Ireland, I am bitter. I say I loathe the idea because, in my belief, it would be of no possible advantage to my country, and in my belief it would be to the absolute detriment of my country. If you believe that I am sincere in that you will agree that I have a right to oppose this proposition in every possible way that is open to me. Why should I, if I do not believe it, be so bitter in my opposition. I have no reason why I should not be glad to join with my fellow countrymen in demanding Home Rule if I believed for one moment that it was for the benefit of my country. If I believe that, do you think anything would keep me from being as emphatic in my demand for it as I am now in my opposition to it. But I do not believe in it. I have asked myself this question over and over again: What possible benefit can Home Rule confer upon Ireland? I have never heard of any single benefit that it can confer. Will it confer benefits in finance? Why, what is the present existing state of affairs? At the present time as regards finance Ireland is probably the most fortunately situated of any of the ingredients of the United Kingdom. We pay nothing, as I understand it, to Imperial services. We pay nothing to the National Debt, and in addition we get £2,500,000 over the whole revenue that we contribute. Well, Sir, when I, as an Irish- man, am asked to give up that position with a view to having withdrawn from me the assistance of the wealthier part of the United Kingdom, I ask what am I going to get in return. It may be said that that is an argument in favour of England giving Ireland up. I can understand the argument, but it is a fallacious one, for this reason, that you do not, so long as you have a United Kingdom, discriminate between the various parts as to how the rich and the poor are respectively affected. You have a common purse for all, and whether any portion be rich or poor it gets exactly the same advantages out of the common fund; and it is because the union of a poor country like Ireland with a rich country like England must be for the benefit of the poorer country—and is for the benefit of the poorer country—and is demonstrably for the benefit of the poorer country—that I say upon this question I put to myself as to whether there is any financial benefit to the granting of Home Rule to Ireland, I can find no answer whatever except the one that it would be disastrous to my country.

When you have given us our separate Parliament I should like to know where you are going to get the taxes that are to run the Parliament, and where you are going to get the money or the credit which will enable you to raise the necessary sum for carrying on those great remedial measures which we are always told can only be granted and will only be granted under a separate Parliament in Ireland. Then I ask myself, if you get no financial benefit, will you have greater civil and religious liberty? The religious question is not one upon which I myself have ever enlarged in any way with reference to this matter, but it is not a question which can be left out of sight, and for this reason. You have a right to consider the fears of a very large number of people in Ireland whether they be well-grounded or ill-grounded, because you cannot demonstrate at all events that they will be as well off under the new regime as they are under the old. Will anybody tell me that any country has greater civil and religious liberty than is enjoyed under the Government of the United Kingdom and of this Parliament. I venture to think there is not an English Member I am addressing who will get un and say that any one of the civilised states of the world enjoys greater civil and religious liberty than we do.

If we are not to have greater civil and religious liberty, then, putting aside finance and these two matters, what are we to get by Home Rule? Will we have greater peace? Where will the peace come from? What are the reasons why we are to suppose there will be greater peace? I see none whatsoever. We were told by the hon. Member for East Tyrone of the great methods of forebearance and encouragement shown by local bodies in the South and West of Ireland towards their Protestant fellow-countrymen. I am not going into the figures that he quoted, but I doubt very much whether he would get his Protestant fellow-countrymen to agree with him as to the great generosity he has put forward. Why it is almost impossible in parts of Ireland to confess you are a Unionist. Hon. Members speak as if Ireland was a place where any man can express his views. Yes, he can so long as he is against the Government. That is all. He is against the right hon. Gentleman, and that is probably why he handed over the Government to hon. Members below the gangway. Only the other day I read of several resolutions passed by various branches of the United Irish League in the South and West of Ireland—I am not at all sure there were not some by local bodies—denouncing men who have lived among the people there—and for what? Because they have dared to send in subscriptions to the central body of the Unionist party for fighting the General Election. The Prime Minister was very indignant at anybody's retort about getting dollars from America. I would like to know what he has to say about the liberty of the subject who has resolutions passed against him by a powerful body like the United Irish League because he dares to give, not his American dollar, but his British sovereign to support his political faith.

Therefore, as I have said, I can find no reason whatsoever why I, as an Irishman, should suppose Ireland will be better off under Home Rule. If I am bitterly opposed to Home Rule, the whole conduct of the party opposite in relation to this question makes me ten times more bitter. I do not care if you have an open fight. Let there be an open fight, and let the people decide who is to win. But this has not been an open fight. This has been playing with loaded dice, and you have no more right to cheat us of our right to have this nett issue before the electors than you have to take away our votes or our property without a mandate from the people of the country. What is the history of the matter? No one has ever yet been able to draft a Bill upon Home Rule for Ireland that has been acceptable to the electors of this country, and because no one is able to do that, or has ever been able to do it, you propose now to draft that Bill and not to submit it to the people, but to say, "We will accept it for the people." I call that sneaking the Bill through the House of Commons. In the olden time, in 1886 and 1892 at all events, the Bill was put before the people, and on each occasion the people rejected it. Why was it the people rejected it? It was because, although in 1892 you got a majority at the elections upon general platitudes, such as the Prime Minister used this evening, when you came to put your platitudes in the Bill it was the details that demonstrated the impossibility of the Bill working fairly. Therefore, I say, when you tell us, as you have told us this evening, that you intend to withdraw this question from the decision of the people and to try and pass it through your puppet peers, you are doing nothing less than committing an outrage upon those who feel as keenly and as bitterly on this subject as I do.

It has been said that this was the issue at the last election. I think the Prime Minister said so in his speech this afternoon amongst others, and it was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford that every effort was made by the Unionists at the last election to turn the limelight on to the Irish question. Yes, that is quite true. I did my best, but in every place to which I went the Radical party did their best to turn the limelight off, and when an hon. Gentleman tells me that the question of Home Rule was the main issue, or one of the main issues, at the last election, I do not think he is speaking sincerely. I will tell you why. If you were prepared to leave Home Rule even in the second place, what was the necessity every night before the election of sending round those scandalous and lying leaflets about the food of the people? What do you think they were meant for? Was it for the purpose of putting Home Rule as the issue? No, Sir. The hon. Member for East Tyrone told us this evening—as I understood his speech—that one of the things the Irish Parliament might do on the question of Tariff Reform was to set up a tariff against English people. That did not appear in your leaflets.

Mr. ARCHER REDMOND

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I said nothing of the kind. I said the only pro- posal the Unionists had for the solution of the Irish problem was Tariff Reform for Great Britain and Ireland, and I added that, for my part, the only Tariff Reform I understood the Irish people at the present day would accept was a Tariff Reform against England.

Sir E. CARSON

I note the admission and think it is an interesting one on an occasion on which we are discussing friendly relations between the two countries, and the effect of giving Home Rule to Ireland. No, Sir, the dear food bogey played a far greater part at the last election than any question of Home Rule. Does anybody say that Home Rule for Ireland was made the issue? Does anybody say it is not an issue going to the very vitals of the Constitution of this country? I should think not.

Let us just see for a few moments how it was presented to the English people. This great and vital question was not mentioned in the election address of the Prime Minister; it was not mentioned in the election addresses of the Home Secretary, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the First Lord of the Admiralty, of the President of the Board of Education, of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or of the Chief Secretary. Is that the way to put an issue before this country? No, Sir, it is not, though it may be a slim way of sneaking a Bill through the House of Commons. Then the Prime Minister said:— If I made the educational position perfectly clear before the country I was able to do it, not on half a sheet of paper, but in two sentences. I told the people that I was in favour, and that our party were in favour, of full self-government in regard to Irish affairs, with an Executive responsible to an Irish Parliament, but I would safeguard the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. That is grand language to tell the village electors. That is all they want to know. Read that, and they can make up their minds. That is exactly what was said in 1886 and in the election of 1892, and when they came in 1893 to put it into the Bill it was found impossible that it could be carried out with justice to the different parts of the United Kingdom, and when it was sent back to the country it was rejected with scorn. Yes! Safeguard the rights of the Imperial Parliament. It is a grand-sounding phrase, and of course it sounds even grander from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. But what does it mean? What do the electors think it means? What does any man in this House think it means? Sir, it means nothing. Give me an instance where a separate legislature with an Executive responsible to it has ever or could ever be interfered with by another Parliament that tried to dominate it with its own will. The thing is an impossibility. It would mean, if you adopted it, that one Parliament would set itself up as against another Parliament, and that only means in the end civil war or the retreat of the party that tries to be dominant. Let us consider this perfectly frankly. At the present moment Canada, or Australia—take even your newest Colony to have self-government in South Africa—is there a man in this House who thinks that to-morrow as regards any single act of legislative or executive action in any of these self-governing Colonies, that this Parliament would for one moment dare to try to set itself up against the wishes of the local legislature? And what is more, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:— There must be no separation. That is a kind of easy phrase to calm the conscience of men who think they ought to go one way, but for their own political interests want to go another. These are merely narcotics, nothing more. There must be no separation, and please God there never will be with our own self-governing Colonies. But the question of separation would not lie with you, it would lie with the Colony to whom is given the self-government and the independent executive. It must be so, and you know perfectly well that separation between us and any of our Colonies depends not upon you but upon them. So it would be with Ireland. Do you think if you had an elected Parliament in Ireland with an Executive responsible to it, that no matter what they did, if they claimed to be representatives of the people, any man would get up in this House and say, "I call attention to so and so in Ireland, and I call upon the Imperial Government here and now to send over the forces of the Crown and to interfere with the acts of the Government that you yourself have set up in that country?" It is an impossibility. Everyone knows it is an impossibility. Everyone knows that all those paper safeguards are shams. It is because it was these shams and not the realities which were put before the people at the last election, in so far as it was put before them at all, that the very action has taken place which is more likely than anything else to embitter the feelings of thost who think as I do in Ireland in relation to your proposals. Do not imagine that we oppose these matters on any factious grounds. Do not imagine that this with us is any ordinary party or political question. So far as I am concerned, and you will believe me or not as you like, it is the foundation of my political faith, and I think I have given reasons as to the faith that is within me and as to why I should prefer to depend for my liberties and my rights on the Imperial Parliament of a great United Kingdom.

Mr. BIRRELL

I think the speech to which we have just listened is at all events a complete answer to that part of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Wm. O'Brien) who thought that the easiest and best way of settling this great long-standing question in dispute between us was by the easy and satisfactory method of a conference—that members of all parties might meet together round a table, and in that friendly spirit which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) is always ready to display on occasions of this kind, discuss how best to bring about Home Rule, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) keeping the door, and arranging that everything should be peaceful and in order. I think the right hon. Gentleman to that extent has disposed of the amiable and in itself most desirable end of the hon. Member that this matter should be not the gift to Ireland of any party, but the gift of the entire State. I am afraid reconciliation in the present mood of parties or at all events with us in this place and Gentlemen opposite where they are, is an impossibility. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long) began his speech very much as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) by saying he was opposed—he did not say bitterly opposed; he did not say he loathed Home Rule; that is the difference of temperament, I suppose, between an Englishman and an Irishman—to Home Rule in every shape and form. Dress it up as you may, disguise it as you may, he will not have anything to do with it. Having made that perfectly clear, with an engaging air of candour, which I admit sits naturally upon him, he said: "Now perhaps you will kindly tell us what your particular form is." In other circumstances, dealing with other men, and speaking anywhere else than in this House, I do not think that would be an unfair or an improper demand. Supposing that we were not a violently party assembly, supposing that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not the "outs" and were not anxious to become the "ins"——[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What a repudiation! What about Tariff Reform? Surely you hope some day to be responsible and to be able to carry out your wishes. Therefore, being animated by this party spirit, which we also are animated by—I make no allegation against you—it is impossible to put our plan before men who only want to know in order to go about the country and say how absurd it is. These are not the people to ask us to put the plan before them. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in a frame of mind to be converted, if I saw the faintest indication in their mind, temper or character of a desire to consider whether we could not settle this question between us on the principle of self-government for Ireland, it would only be a right and wise proceeding to place before them the scheme which we have in our mind for this purpose.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY

Will you put it before the country?

Mr. BIRRELL

We will put it before the country at the first opportunity we have, but how absurd it would be to do so before we have passed the Parliament Bill into law. But if you do not know what our Home Rule proposal is, why then are you so angry? Why do you say that it is going to ruin the country? It is just because you think you know the proposal that you are able to affect a semblance of passion and indignation. If you knew nothing at all about it, I do not believe you would be able to simulate the anger which you seem to possess. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) is perfectly satisfied with the present position of his country.

Sir E. CARSON

indicated dissent.

Mr. BIRRELL

The right hon. Gentleman said he was perfectly satisfied with the position his country occupied at the present time under the Imperial Parliament. He said the country contributes nothing to the Army or Navy. He belongs to a country which, according to him, is in a bankrupt plight. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Treasury pays several millions more than it receives from Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that position, and, indeed, he looks forward to getting more money. He reminds me of the blind beggar who was discovered weeping in the square he was wont to frequent, and when asked why he was weeping he replied that it was because the richest man in the square who had been most kind to him had just left. The right hon. Gentleman is willing to con template the occupancy of the position of being a perpetual political mendicant, employing some unfortunate man of his own or some other party as Chief Secretary to act as the go-between in the endeavour to satisfy the insatiable demands of his country upon the great and wealthy British Treasury. Why sever so happy, so glorious, so respectable a connection? There is a better future than that before Ireland, and it is because I believe that that future can only be gained by imposing on the Irish people, as a whole, the responsibility of governing themselves and looking after their own finances that I am satisfied that this mea sure when given a fair trial——

Sir E. CARSON

What measure?

Mr. BIRRELL

The measure of Home Rule that will confer upon the Irish people a measure of self-government; and I believe that in that way, and in that way only, will you secure for the Irish people that self-respect which the right hon. Gentleman seems completely to have lost. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say—and I marvelled at his being able to say it—that there was not a single grievance from Ireland that this House was not capable of dealing with. Well, I will give him one—education. A Chief Secretary surveys this kind of a debate about Home Rule with some feelings unlike those that animate others. If Home Rule is passed the Chief Secretary disappears. Looking back on my forty-two predecessors since the Union, I think I can say that there were none of them who lived in Ireland long enough, or at all events who were any length of time in their office who did not learn to love the country and did not hope the very best things from it. Some of them, I am glad to think, who belonged to the party opposite have done great things for Ireland. I hope that I myself, in a humble way, when my time comes to go, will be found not altogether to have failed to contribute something for the good of the country. If I go I can stand the position. But supposing I do not go—supposing that Home Rule does not pass—and you are quite confident that it will not pass—and we go on with the weary succession of ins and outs, in our present positon, can the right hon. Gentleman really, as an Irishman, with pride in the bottom of his heart, think that that is a right and sensible way of governing the country of which he is, in his way, I admit, an ornament? There is a number of things of the deepest and most vital interest for Ireland, which Ireland alone can do for herself. Education is one of them. You dare not touch it. You know you dare not.

Sir E. CARSON

How can I?

Mr. BIRRELL

The right hon. Gentleman has lost all spirit. Not only is he incapable of doing anything now, but he never looks forward to the time when he will be capable of doing anything again. One cannot argue with a person like that. The Conservative party, the Tariff Reform party, or whatever you like to call it, cannot do it. They dare not do it. They cannot touch it. Yet everybody knows that both primary education, secondary education, and University education also require immediate attention from a loyal and a patriotic party, consulting and looking at the thing solely and simply from the point of view of Ireland, and not from the point of view of gentlemen either behind me or gentlemen before me. Everybody knows it, and what is true of education is true also of Poor Law reform, and true also of many other things. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes it is. Ireland and Ireland alone, can deal with these great problems. Ireland and Ireland alone can deal with the problem which is still only beginning to be dealt with, the problem of the West. I say that is a melancholy spectacle, and is anyone really refusing to regard this thing from the point of view simply of what is the best for the future of Ireland? Look at this House. How are you going to deal with Ireland in this House when in the last Parliament my salary was not even so much as discussed? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] There was not time for it. Well, who cares, what Irishman ought to care, to live in a Parliament in which he has not got a chance, from beginning to end, of having taken into consideration the whole of the administration of his native country? What a chance the hon. Member will have over the water. He will then have many days in which to devote his great capacity and powers to the work of clearing up the economical administration and good government of that country. I see the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) in his place, and I hope he will not think me discourteous because I have not time to deal with all his observations, which I think deserve the fullest consideration. But, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, the Noble Lord does not seem to admit that there is such a thing in the world as an Englishman, Scotchman, Irishman or Welshman. They are all one and the same. Under the Act of Union with Scotland the word "Englishman" was deliberately intended to be abolished. An Englishman in future was to be known as "South Briton" by the Act of Parliament, and a Scotchman as "North Briton." Somehow or another human nature or nationality has prevailed, and we do occasionally hear of Englishmen. I think the Noble Lord is not a bad specimen of one. Anybody less like an Irishman I never saw. When he tells us that if you scratch a Scotchman in Caithness the peasant of Connemara will bleed, I do not believe anything of the kind. I am perfectly satisfied that Ireland has that feeling—you may call it nationality, you may call it what you will—but it belongs to the category of men who have a history which renders it impossible to do justice to them on the floor of this House. I am not going into any question of breed or pedigree, or things of that kind, which are altogether beyond me, and I have not got the knowledge—the knowledge does not exist—to enable me to come to any conclusion. Across the Channel, when you land at Kingston, you know it—you know it in two minutes. You cannot do justice on the floor of this House to Ireland. It never has been done. You are only sacrificing Session after Session, hour after hour, in giving time and attention, and all the time is sacrificed. There are arrears of work which would keep a separate Parliament in Ireland for five years doing nothing else; but trying to take up and catch up and get alongside, and even then they would be half a century, and perhaps more, behind this country. They have got that work before them; they are willing to do it; they are anxious to do it, and they call on all Irishmen alike to help them in doing it, and the Irishman who refuses the obligation is unworthy to belong to the conquering race.

Mr. CHARLES CRAIG

rose and was called upon.

Mr. JOHN FITZGIBBON

rose immediately afterwards. Both hon. Members remained standing. [HON. MEMBERS: "New Member."]

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. C. Craig) rose rather before the hon. Member for South Mayo (Mr. Fitzgibbon). Otherwise, I should certainly have called on the hon. Member for South Mayo. I have already called on the hon. Member for South Antrim.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

May I be allowed to ask whether it is not the immemorial practice and courtesy of this House to give way for a new Member?

Mr. SPEAKER

It has been the practice. It rests entirely with the hon. Member. If he wishes to give way, it is, of course, within his power to do so, but I had, as a matter of fact, called on him first.

Mr. C. CRAIG

I have been endeavouring, Sir, to catch your eye since four o'clock this afternoon. Although I would be the last person in this House to do anything contrary to the wishes of the House or to the established usages of the House, with a protest that we have not had proper time to discuss this question, and furthermore, with the statement that the views which hon. Members who come from the North of Ireland have only been put before the House by one of our Members on this subject, which mainly concerns us, I shall, with that protest, and falling in with what is the wish of the House, give way.

Mr. JOHN FITZGIBBON

I claim the indulgence of the House to place before it my views on this very important question. In doing so I may venture to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who has already delivered my speech. My object in rising was to place before the House the question from an English point of view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long) said that the question was not put before the House from an English point of view. I am an Irishman, and I am prepared to put it from an English point of view for the consideration of the House. My first words are, is this quarrel going to continue? Is it well for England that it should? Remember that you are dealing not with a nation of four and a quarter millions, but you are dealing with an Empire amounting to close on thirty millions of people. A good deal of that Empire is within your own. I am addressing myself now to those Gentlemen who are, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, beyond conversion, although I do not think so. I have been coming for thirty or forty years to England, and though I am a new Member, I am an old visitor to this House.

I have exchanged views with men here as prejudiced as many of the Members sitting above the Gangway on this side, and I am proud to say that I have made a considerable number of converts to my views, as the late elections proved. It is time for the coolness which exists between the two nations to be turned into bonds of friendship. You are most anxious to secure an American Alliance. That cannot be done unless this Irish question is settled on the lines laid down by Mr. Parnell, the hon. Member for Waterford, and every other Irish Leader. That is the sentiment not only of the people at home, but of the Irish race at home and abroad. Germany is giving you trouble. Many of you have uneasy minds in relation to that matter. A short time ago I was talking to an Irish Unionist—I can give my Irish friends his name—and what did he advise me to do? He said: "Turn your attention to learning German, for the Germans will be on top of you before five years." That was the expression of an Irish Unionist. I consider that this is food for hon. Members to think over and to digest.

Then turn to the question from the Irish point of view. Look at the country after your treatment of 110 years. You have made it a wreck. Talk of prosperity! Look at the population of Ireland to-day compared with that of England. You forced the partnership upon Ireland by means which I need not characterise on this occasion, but means of which no Englishman can be proud. That partnership has produced most extraordi-

nary results. The predominant partner has fattened and grown rich, and Ireland has grown poor. She has grown poor in her population, which is the greatest wealth of any country. I am an old visitor to this House; I have been coming here for 40 years, listening to people attempting to treat something with which they were thoroughly unacquainted. I have been coming here for a long time, and have listened to hon. Gentlemen on both sides, and have come to the conclusion that they are unfitted to deal with Ireland; that they know nothing of her wants and requirements; and that they are thoroughly incapable of applying the proper remedies. I intended, by a few remarks, to correct the impressions of hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Opposition benches. I have received considerable attention from some of them. They largely assisted, though I am sure unintentionally, to place me on these benches. I want Irish Unionists to consider the present state of affairs, and if I do not succeed in converting them, the only thing I can do is to pray for their conversion. I trust there will be many other occasions when I shall have the opportunity of addressing them. I am sure they have got a conscience. If they have they will restore to Ireland what she has been deprived of, what she should never have been deprived of—the right to rule herself, and to control her own destinies for the happiness, welfare, and prosperity of her people.

The PRIME MINISTER

rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 327; Noes, 213.

Division No. 8.]	AYES.	[10.59 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Barton, William	Byles, William Pollard
Acland, Francis Dyke	Beale, William Phipson	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Adamson, William	Beauchamp, Edward	Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Beck, Arthur Cecil	Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)
Agnew, Sir George William	Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Chancellor, Henry George
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Chapple, Dr. William Allen
Alden, Percy	Black, Arthur W.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Boland, John Plus	Clancy, John Joseph
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Booth, Frederick Handel	Clough, William
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth	Bowerman, C. W.	Clynes, John R.
Armitage, Robert	Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Brace, William	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Brady, Patrick Joseph	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Brigg, Sir John	Corbett, A. Cameron
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Brocklehurst, William B.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Brunner, John F. L.	Cotton, William Francis
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Bryce, J. Annan	Cowan, W. H.
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)	Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Crean, Eugene
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Crooks, William
Crumley, Patrick	Joyce, Michael	Pointer, Joseph
Cullinan, John	Keating, Matthew	Pollard, Sir George H.
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Kellaway, Frederick George	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Kelly, Edward	Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Kemp, Sir George	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Kilbride, Denis	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Dawes, J. A.	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Pringle, William M. R.
Delany, William	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Radford, George Heynes
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lansbury, George	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Devlin, Joseph	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Rainy, Adam Rolland
Dickinson, W. H.	Law, Hugh A.	Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Dillon, John	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Donelan, Captain A.	Leach, Charles	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Doris, William	Levy, Sir Maurice	Reddy, Michael
Duffy, William J.	Logan, John William	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)	Lundon, Thomas	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Elverston, Harold	Lynch, A. A.	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Essex, Richard Walter	MacGhee, Richard	Robinson, Sydney
Falconer, James	Maclean, Donald	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Farrell, James Patrick	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Fenwick, Charles	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roe, Sir Thomas
Ferens, Thomas Robinson	M'Callum, John M.	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro	M'Curdy, C. A.	Rowlands, James
Ffrench, Peter	M'Kean, John	Rowntree, Arnold
Field, William	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	M'Laren, H. D, (Leices.)	St. Maur, Harold
Fitzgibbon, John	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
France, G. A.	Manfield, Harry	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Furness, Stephen	Markham, Arthur Basil	Scanlan, Thomas
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Marks, George Croydon	Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gibson, Sir James Puckering	Martin, Joseph	Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Gilhooly, James	Mason, David M. (Coventry)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Gill, Alfred Henry	Masterman, C. F. G.	Sheeny, David
Ginnell, L.	Mathias, Richard	Sherwell, Arthur James
Glanville, Harold James	Meagher, Michael	Shortt, Edward
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Goldstone, Frank	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Smith, H B. L. (Northampton)
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Middlebrook, William	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Molloy, Michael	Snowden, Philip
Griffith, Ellis Jones	Molteno, Percy Alport	Soares, Ernest Joseph
Guiney, Patrick	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Gulland, John William	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Strachey, Sir Edward
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Hackett, John	Mooney, John J.	Summers, James Woolley
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Morgan, George Hay	Sutherland, John E.
Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Sutton, John E.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Munro, R.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Needham, Christopher T.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hardie, J. Keir	Neilson, Francis	Tennant, Harold John
Harmsworth, R. L.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Nolan, Joseph	Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Norman, Sir Henry	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Harwood, George	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Toulmin, George
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Brien, William (Cork)	Verney, Sir Harry
Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Wadsworth, John
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Hayward, Evan	O'Doherty, Philip	Walters, John Tudor
Healy, Maurice	O'Dowd, John	Walton, Sir Joseph
Helme, Nerval Watson	O'Grady, James	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Henry, Sir Charles Solomon	Ogden, Fred	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Higham, John Sharp	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Wardle, George J.
Hinds, John	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Malley, William	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Holt, Richard Durning	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hudson, Walter	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Watt, Henry A.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Hunter, W. (Govan)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel	Parker, James (Halifax)	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Johnson, William	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Whyte, A F.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)	Wiles, Thomas
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, St. Geo.)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Williams, John (Glamorgen)
Jowett, Frederick William	Pirie, Duncan V.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Williamson, Sir A.	Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N. E.)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilton, Henry J. (York, W. R.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.
Wilton, John (Durham, Mid)	Young, William (Perth, East)
NOES.
Aitken, William Max.	Foster, Philip Staveley	Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Gardner, Ernest	Norton-Griffiths, J.
Archer-Shee, Major Martin	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gibbs, George Abraham	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Astor, Waldorf	Goldman, C. S.	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Goldney, Francis Bennett-	Parkes, Ebenezer
Baird, John Lawrence	Goldsmith, Frank	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Gordon, John	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balcarres, Lord	Goulding, Edward A.	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Baldwin, Stanley	Greene, Walter Raymond	Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gretton, John	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor	Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Haddock, George B.	Quilter, William Eley C.
Barnston, Harry	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peol
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glou., E.)	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Remnant, James Farquharson
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)	Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Hardy, Laurence	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Harris, Henry Percy	Rolleston, Sir John
Bigland, Alfred	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bird, Alfred	Helmsley, Viscount	Rothschild, Lionel de
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-	Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boyton, James	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanders, Robert A.
Bull, Sir William James	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Sanderson, Lancelot
Burdett-Coutts, William	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Burgoyne, Alan Hughes	Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Horner, Andrew Long	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Butcher, John George	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Campion, W. R.	Hunt, Rowland	Spear, John Ward
Carlile, Edward Hildred	Hunter, Sir Chas, Rodk, (Bath)	Stanier, Beville
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cassel, Felix	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Jessel, Captain Herbert M.	Starkey, John Ralph
Cator, John	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.	Staveley-Hill, Henry
Cave, George	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Kerry, Earl of	Stewart, Gershom
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Chambers, James	Lawson, Hon H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lewisham, Viscount	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lloyd, George Ambrose	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)
Clive, Percy Archer	Locker-Lampson. G (Salisbury)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Clyde, James Avon	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Callings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Touche, George Alexander
Courthope, George Loyd	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. Sq.)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Craik, Sir Henry	Mackinder, Halford J.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Wheler, Granville
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred	M'Mordie, Robert	White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)
Croft, Henry Page	Magnus, Sir Philip	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Malcolm, Ian	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Winterton, Earl
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wolmer, Viscount
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Moore, William	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Morpeth, Viscount	Worthington-Evans, L.
Fell, Arthur	Morrison, Captain James A.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Finlay, Sir Robert	Mount, William Arthur	Yate, Col. C. E.
Fisher, William Hayes	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Yerburgh, Robert
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Newdegate, F. A.	Younger, George
Fleming, Valentine	Newman, John R. P.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Newton, Harry Kottingham	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 326.

Division No. 9.]	AYES.	[11.10 p.m.
Aitken, William Max.	Foster, Philip Staveley	Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Gardner, Ernest	Norton-Griffiths, John
Archer-Shee, Major Martin	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gibbs, George Abraham	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Astor, Waldorf	Goldman, C. S.	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Goldney, Francis Bennett-	Parkes, Ebenezer
Baird, John Lawrence	Goldsmith, Frank	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Gordon, J.	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balcarres, Lord	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)
Baldwin Stanley	Greene, Walter Raymond	Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gretton, John	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor	Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Haddock, George Bahr	Quilter, William Eley C.
Barnston, Harry	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glou., E.)	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Remnant, James Farquharson
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Rice, Hon. Waiter Fitz-Uryan
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Hardy, Laurence	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Harris, Henry Percy	Rolleston, Sir John
Bigland, Alfred	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bird, Alfred	Helmsley, Viscount	Rothschild, Lionel de
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-	Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boyton, James	Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Samuel, Sir Harrey (Norwood)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanders, Robert A.
Bull, Sir William James	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Sanderson, Lancelot
Burdett-Coutts, William	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Burgoyne, A. H.	Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Horner, A. L.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Butcher, John George	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Campion, W. R.	Hunt, Rowland	Spear, John Ward
Carlile, Edward Hildred	Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath)	Stanier, Beville
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cassel, Felix	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Jessel, Captain Herbert M.	Starkey, John Ralph
Cator, John	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.	Staveley-Hill, Henry
Cave, George	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Kerry, Earl of	Stewart, Gershom
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Knight, Capt. E. A.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Chambers, James	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lewisham, Viscount	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lloyd, George Ambrose	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Clive, Percy Archer	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Clyde, James Avon	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Touche, George Alexander
Courthope, George Loyd	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor, Droitwich)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Craik, Sir Henry	Mackinder, Halford J.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred	M'Mordie, Robert	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Croft, Henry Page	Magnus, Sir Philip	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Malcolm, Ian	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Winterton, Earl
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wolmer, Viscount
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wood, Hon. E F. L. (Ripon)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Moore, William	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Morpeth, Viscount	Worthington-Evans, L.
Fell, Arthur	Morrison, Captain James A.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Finlay, Sir Robert	Mount, William Arthur	Yate, Col. C. E.
Fisher, William Hayes	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Yerburgh, Robert
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Newdegate, F. A.	Younger, George
Fleming, Valentine	Newman, John R. P.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Newton, Harry Kottingham	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Anderson, Andrew Macbeth	Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, H.)
Adamson, William	Armitage, Robert	Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)
Adkins, W. Dyland D.	Ashton, Thomas Gair	Barry, Redmond John
Agnew, Sir George William	Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Barton, William
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Beale, William Phipson
Alden, Percy	Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Beauchamp, Edward
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Beck, Arthur Cecil

Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Guiney, Patrick	Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Black, Arthur W.	Gulland, John William	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Boland, John Plus	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hackett, J.	Mooney, John J.
Bowerman, Charles W.	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Morgan, George Hay
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brace, William	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Munro, R.
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Needham, Christopher T.
Brigg, Sir John	Hardie, J. Keir	Neilson, Francis
Brocklehurst, William B.	Harmsworth, R. L.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Brunner, John F. L.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Nolan, Joseph
Bryce, J. Annan	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Norman, Sir Henry
Burke, E. Haviland-	Harwood, George	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Byles, William Pollard	Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Hayward, Evan	O'Doherty, Philip
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Healy, Maurice	O'Dowd, John
Chancellor, Henry George	Helme, Norval Watson	Ogden, Fred
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Henry, Sir Charles S.	O'Grady, James
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Clancy, John Joseph	Hinds, John	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Clough, William	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Malley, William
Clynes, John R.	Holt, Richard Durning	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Hudson, Walter	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hunter, W. (Govan)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Corbett, A. Cameron	Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel	Parker, James (Halifax)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Cotton, William Francis	Johnson, William	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cowan, W. H.	Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Philippe, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Crawshay-Williams, Ellot	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Crean, Eugene	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crooks, William	Jowett, Frederick William	Pirie, Duncan V.
Crumley, Patrick	Joyce, Michael	Pointer, Joseph
Cullinan, John	Keating, Matthew	Pollard, Sir George H.
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Kellaway, Frederick George	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Kelly, Edward	Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Kemp, Sir George	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Kilbride, Denis	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Dawes, J. A.	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Pringle, William M. R.
Delany, William	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Radford, George Heynes
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Lansbury, George	Rattan, Peter Wilson
Devlin, Joseph	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Rainy, Adam Rolland
Dickinson, W. H.	Law, Hugh A	Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Dillon, John	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid., Cockerm'th)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Donelan, Captain A. J. C.	Leach, Charles	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Doris, W.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Reddy, Michael
Duffy, William J.	Logan, John William	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)	Lundon, T.	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Elverston, Harold	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Essex, Richard Walter	MacGhee, Richard	Robinson, Sydney
Falconer, James	Maclean, Donald	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Farrell, James Patrick	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Fenwick, Charles	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roe, Sir Thomas
Ferens, T. R.	M'Callum, John M.	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro	M'Curdy, C. A.	Rowlands, James
Ffrench, Peter	M'Kean, John	Rowntree, Arnold
Field, William	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)	St. Maur, Harold
Fitzgibbon, John	M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
France, Gerald Ashburner	Manfield, Harry	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Furness, Stephen W.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Scanlan, Thomas
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Marks, George Croydon	Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gibson, Sir James Puckering	Martin, Joseph	Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Gilhooly, James	Mason, David M. (Coventry)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Gill, Alfred Henry	Masterman, C. F. G.	Sheehy, David
Ginned, L.	Mathias, Richard	Sherwell, Arthur James
Glanville, H. J.	Meagher, Michael	Shortt, Edward
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Goldstone, Frank	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Middlebrook, William	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Molloy, M.	Snowden, Philip

Soares, Ernest Joseph	Wadsworth, J.	Wiles, Thomas
Spicer, Sir Albert	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)	Wilkie, Alexander
Strachey, Sir Edward	Walters, John Tudor	Williams, John (Glamorgen)
Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)	Walton, Sir Joseph	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Summers, James Woolley	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Williamson, Sir A.
Sutherland, J. E.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Sutton, John E.	Wardie, George J.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N. E.)
Tennant, Harold John	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Watt, Henry A.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Thomas, James Henry (Derby)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Young, William (Perth, East)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	White, Sir George (Norfolk)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Thorne, William (West Ham)	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Toulmin, George	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Verney, Sir Harry	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

The PRIME MINISTER

claimed "That the Main Question be now put."

Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.