§ (1) If it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that during any three successive years after the passing of this Act, the aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland as determined by the Board, and the total proceeds of Irish taxes are so determined, together with any share in any miscellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom to which the Joint Exchequer Board may consider Ireland to be entitled, exceeded in each of those years the amount of the Transferred Sum, together with the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services, the Board shall present a report to that effect to the Treasury and to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Treasury and the Lord Lieutenant shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Irish Parliament respectively.
§ (2) The presentation of such a report shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act, with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom and extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes.
§ (3) For the purpose of revising the financial provisions of this Act in pursuance of this section, there shall be summoned to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom such number of Members of the Irish House of Commons as will make the representation of Ireland in the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom equivalent to the representation of Great Britain on the basis of population; and the Members of the Irish House of Commons so summoned shall be deemed to be Members of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purpose of any such revision.
§ His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision for so summoning the Members of the Irish House of Commons 1911 as His Majesty may think necessary or proper, and any provisions contained in any such Order in Council shall have the same effect as if they had been enacted in this Act.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment I propose to take on this Clause is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), raising the question of method of computation by which the Exchequer Board is to decide when the time for a revision of the financial arrangements has come. There are other Amendments dealing with the same point, and I am afraid it is not possible to separate them. The second Amendment is also in the name of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), and there are two Amendments in the name of the Postmaster-General dealing with the same point, and two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton. I think it would be convenient that on the first Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield I should permit a discussion also on the several alternative methods of computation.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Before I come to the substance of my Amendment, I suppose I may take it your ruling does not prevent the later Amendments being put with a short explanation of the points 'involved. I take it you do not cut them out altogether.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I will not put the Question on the first so as to exclude the others. The only point is that it does not seem to me possible that the one should be proposed without the others being brought into the discussion.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "during any three successive years after the passing of this Act the aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland, as determined by the Board, and the total proceeds of Irish taxes, as so determined, together with any share in any miscellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom to which the Joint Exchequer Board may consider Ireland to be entitled, exceeded in each of those years the amount of the Transferred Sum, together with the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services," and to insert instead thereof the words "the deficit as in this Act defined has been extinguished in any financial year."
1912 This Amendment raises a point of very considerable complexity and that complexity is increased by the fact that what we have to bear clearly in our minds is not the Clause in the Bill, but the Clause as it is proposed to be amended by the Postmaster-General, which Amendment makes a total change in the whole substance and material of the Clause. I think it really would be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to read out first of all the Clause as it is proposed to be amended by the Government; and, secondly, 1he Clause as it is proposed to be amended by my Amendment. I am not now proposing the whole of my Amendment as it appears on the Paper, because to do so would increase the complexity of the subject which is sufficiently complex already itself. I will read the Clause as proposed to be amended by the Government, which will read thus:—
"If it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that during any three successive years after the passing of this Act, the aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland as determined by the Board, and the total proceeds of Irish taxes 'and any other revenue available for the payment of the cost of Irish services' as so determined, together with any share in any miscellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom to which the Joint Exchequer Board may consider Ireland to be entitled exceeded in each of those years the amount of the Transferred Sum, together with the cost of any services which are for the time being reserved services, the Board shall present a report to that effect to the Treasury and to the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury, and the Lord Lieutenant shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Irish Parliament, respectively."
If the Clause is amended by my Amendment it will read:—
"If it appears to the Joint Exchequer Board that the deficit as in this Act defined has been extinguished in any financial year," then the revision shall take place.
I must now ask the Committee to turn to Clause 47, and there they will find an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir Harry Samuel) to this effect:—
"The expression 'deficit' means the amount by which the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland falls short of— 1913
- (a) the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the services transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government at the time of such transfer; and
- (b) the net cost for the time being to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of the reserved services."
I would ask the Committee to consider what the position will be if the Clause is passed as proposed to be amended by the Government. I do not think the Government Amendment falls in very well with the idea of revision as it was first set forth by the Postmaster-General when he made his original speech explaining the financial provisions of this Bill. That speech led the House to believe that revision would take place before many years were out. lie even mentioned the figure of ten years as the possible date when revision would take place, and he seemed to imply it certainly would take place in ten or twenty years, and the impression left was this, that if you could get the Irish Government fairly going when they were able to avail themselves of the economies that the Government expected they would be able to effect, and when the country had settled down and got on a normal path of prosperity, then within a certain period—ten or twenty years—by an ordinary automatic process a balance would be taken and the Joint Exchequer Board will declare what has been the effect, and the Imperial Parliament would set about the revision of the financial conditions of the Act. But as a matter of fact the process will not be an automatic one at all. It can be hastened or retarded by deliberate action on the part of 1hc Imperial Government or of the Irish Government. First, take the position of the Imperial Government. If it desires revision and thinks the time has come when there ought to be revision, and if it thinks the Irish Parliament are not dealing quite fairly with it, it can in certain circumstances bring about that revision by its own act. Suppose it is necessary to raise for Imperial purposes a new tax or to raise revenue by an increase of taxes, and if the Imperial Parliament chose to do it by way of a tax which presses with special incidence upon Ireland that will increase the pressure of Imperial taxes in Ireland, and that will of itself tend to reduce the deficit and bring about revision. For instance, if the Imperial Government finds itself in a difficulty with regard to Imperial expenditure 1914 and increases the taxes on whisky and tea, which press with special incidence in Ireland, then by that very act it would be able to bring about a revision, supposing the Irish Government had no weapon with which to reply, because if you increase the proceeds of Imperial taxation you would have this very strange situation, that because extra taxation was imposed upon Ireland the result would be the Imperial Government would have the right to bring about revision with the object of imposing further taxation. I do not take any special objection to this, because I am against the whole proposal, but it is a curious result and would involve a real grievance and injustice to the Irish taxpayer. That is a very whimsical thing and one which the Government could hardly have contemplated, and now the Irish Government would have the weapons in their hands to delay the period of revision, and they could do it in several ways. Supposing one year passed and that it was obvious that in that year if a balance was struck the deficit would be wiped out. The Irish Government might feel anxious as to the position next year and the third year, and they could take steps to prevent the deficit being wiped out, and thus prevent the period of revision when they might be called upon to pay further taxes. They could keep the deficit going in more than one way. They could reduce their own Irish taxation, grant exemptions, and reduce the balance in that way. Perhaps I am wrong there, but for the purpose of preventing this revision, at any rate, they could do it by reducing Irish taxation or by reducing the cost of the Irish services. It might pay them to bring about a deficit in their own Budget which they might make up by loans in order to bring about that deficit with a view of keeping it alive and preventing the revision. In that case the motive for economy is gone, because by economies in the total cost of Irish administration they would be hastening the time when the deficit has, in accordance with this Bill, to be wiped out, and they will be called upon to make further contributions. You might have the result of the Imperial Government during the three years contemplated trying to obtain a revision by extra taxation, and the Irish Government plunging into extravagance to prevent it, and pushing against each other in this strange fashion. If a position of this sort were intended to bring about a true union of hearts, then all I can say, to use the Chief Secretary's 1915 phrase, "Good God, there never were such provisions for causing friction and turmoil."
Why these strange proposals? I can only suppose that they have been designed to say different things to different classes of people. To the English supporters the Government say, "When Ireland, by economies and by prosperity which self-government will bring about, is able to pay her way, you obtain from her a substantial contribution to Imperial purposes." To their Irish Friends the Government say, "We had to put in these provisions for the sake of giving something to satisfy our stupid British supporters, but you quick-witted Gentlemen can plainly see that you can prevent this revision coming about, and thus avoid having to pay any contribution for Imperial purposes." If there is any other reason which can explain the peculiar contradictions of this Clause, I trust the Postmaster-General will be able to set it forth. I now come to my Amendment. I do not profess that it will make the Clause a good one, but I think it will do something to mitigate its present absurdity. In the first place it does not destroy the motive for economy on the part of the Irish Government, and that motive will remain there, and they will be able to exercise it without jeopardising their future position. It does not seek to inflict on Ireland any increase in the cost of the reserved services, but it says that the £200,000 which has to be paid as part of the Transferred Sum as a free grant shall not be taken into account when the revision comes about, or rather that it should not prevent the revision coming about, and in due course of time the £200,000 shall be wiped out and a revision shall take place, notwithstanding that the £200,000 has in the meantime been paid. This Amendment starts with what has been called the basic fact of the deficit between the gross cost and the Imperial receipts from Ireland, and it says when the natural Imperial receipts from Ireland exceed that present stereotyped deficit, and when the national receipts from Imperial taxation exceed that sum, then the revision shall come about, and then the Irish Government shall be asked to pay a proper contribution to Imperial services.
In this Bill, and particularly in these financial Clauses, the Government, in spite of foreign warnings, are deliberately creating difficulties from which this 1916 country has been free, although other countries have suffered under them. In the great federal system of Germany, so mixed up is their federal finance that it weakens them at every turn, and in particular imposes a special heavy call upon certain sources of taxation, and it remains a standing weakness in the great empire of Germany. In the case of Austria-Hungary this weakness is still more manifest, because there they suffer, and have done for many years, from the financial arrangements made between the two countries, which are supposed to be revised periodically. It is interesting to turn to this comparison, because Hungary ought long ago to have paid a greater contribution, owing to her increased prosperity, than is provided by the terms of this financial arrangement between the two countries; but whenever the question arises in some way or other they always manage to prevent a revision taking place. The consequence has been to the last degree weakening and a source of difficulty to the strength of the Austria-Hungarian Empire. In this country, without any need or political necessity, you are now creating exactly the same kind of weakness in this Empire. I do not profess that the passing of this Amendment will go a very long way to strengthen the Imperial position in this respect, but I do put-it forward as at any rate some mitigation of the difficulties and dangers which this Clause will bring about, and it is in that spirit that I move it.
§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I should like first of all to say a few words with regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of the Postmaster-General. Perhaps the hon. Member who has just spoken will allow me to enter into some explanation of that Amendment, as the greater part of his remarks have been addressed to it. I had hoped until I heard the hon. Member's speech that hon. Members opposite would have allowed this Amendment to be carried without a Division, because it appears to me to have in front of it the object that is sought by many of the Amendments on the Paper standing in the name of hon. Members opposite. I understand their object is to accelerate the day when the financial revision shall take place. That is also the purpose of this Amendment, but I approach the subject from a slightly different point of view, and it is that I believe that not many years will have elapsed before a very powerful sentiment will arise amongst the 1917 successors both of the present Nationalists and the present Unionists in favour of a wider degree of financial freedom for Ireland. As the Bill stands at this moment, no effort on the part of Ireland can bring the day of revision a moment nearer. This Amendment will enable the Irish Parliament, by efforts and sacrifices which would be well within its powers, to meet the deficit and to secure the period of financial revision. At the present moment the payment from the Imperial Exchequer on behalf of Ireland after the Bill is passed will consist of the Transferred Sum and the cost of the reserved services. At the beginning of the Bill the receipts of the Imperial Exchequer from Ireland will fall short of the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer on behalf of Ireland by about £2,000,000. The Bill provides at present that when the receipts have equalled and have passed the payments then there shall be a period of financial revision. The point of the Amendment is that it might well be that the amount of money which Ireland is receiving from the Imperial Exchequer, that is to say, the Transferred Sum would be actually more than she would really need in order to cover the cost of the Irish services, therefore the Amendment suggests that you should not wait for the period of revision until Ireland is receiving no subsidy at all from the Imperial Exchequer, but that you should leave it within the power of the Irish Parliament, if it wishes, to secure that the period of revision should come when she no longer needed any subsidy.
Let me take an illustration. Ireland would not hasten the period of revision by any economy in her expenditure or any increase in her taxation. Suppose, for example, that Ireland were to effect economies in the administration of the constabulary, and suppose that she wished to put by the money she had saved, not for increased expenditure but in order to meet the deficit and secure greater financial freedom. As the Bill stands she could not do so. The fact that she could save money on the constabulary would make no difference to the amount of the Transferred Sum, and it would make no difference to the amount that she receives from the Imperial Exchequer, because that amount would have been settled once and for all until the revision when the constabulary was originally transferred. The fact that she has saved money on the constabulary, on the other hand, will make a difference to the cost of the Irish services. That is why the Amend- 1918 ment suggests that for the words "The amount of the Transferred Sum" there should be substituted the words "the total cost of Irish services." Take the opposite case of an increased Irish taxation. Suppose we had reached a period when the deficit has been reduced to £100,000. That would mean that the receipts of the Imperial Exchequer on the one side of the account fell short of the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer on the other side of the account by only £100,000. Suppose, then, the Irish Parliament levied increased taxation which yielded £100,000 and she wished not to spend the money or increase the cost of her services but to-put it by in order to wipe out the deficit, as the Bill stands her efforts would defeat themselves. What would happen? The receipts into the Imperial Exchequer would, of course, be increased by £100,000, because the produce of Irish taxation goes to the Imperial Exchequer in the first instance. If that fact stood by itself, then, of course, the receipts into the Imperial Exchequer would have been brought up to a level with the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer, but the produce of Irish taxes is added to the Transferred Sum, and the Transferred Sum would therefore also be increased by £100,000, The payments out of the Imperial Exchequer would be increased by £100,000. The receipts into the Imperial Exchequer and the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer would still be separated by £100,000, and the day of revision would be no closer than before; but, although the payments out of the Imperial Exchequer would have been increased by £100,000—this is the point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee—the cost of the Irish services would not have been increased by £100,000, because Ireland would not have spent the money upon increasing the cost of her services. Therefore, the receipts into the Imperial Exchequer would equal the cost of the Irish services, and, according to the Amendment which is on the Paper, the period of financial revision would have arrived.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Is the hon. Gentleman still arguing on the probability of the Irish Government wishing to bring about the revision in order to get further powers?
§ Mr. LEES SMITH
Yes. I wish to point out that, as a matter of fact, the powers which this Amendment would give 1919 to the Irish Parliament might, under certain circumstances, become very important, because it might easily happen the deficit had been diminished by such a sum that it would be well within the power of the Irish Parliament to meet it. Then it might quite easily happen that from various causes the yield of Imperial taxes in Ireland remained stationary for a great number of years. During all those years the Irish Parliament would be able to meet the deficit, would be willing to meet the deficit, but would not, by the present Clauses of the Bill, be allowed to lift a finger in order to do so. In that situation this Amendment would, of course, give them a most valuable power. I do not wish to speak at great length on this Amendment, because I am bound to say the more elaborate I endeavoured in preparation to make my explanation of it the more intricate it became, but I just wish, in conclusion, to say a word with regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield. I gather he proposes the financial revision shall take place if the deficit has disappeared, not during three years in succession, but in any one year. The difficulty I see in that proposal is that it substitutes a standard which might be exceptional for a standard which would be normal. Take, for example, the case of forestalments. The revenue in any year, as the result of forestalments, might be driven up by hundreds of thousands of pounds, as, in fact, happened in connection with the Budget of 1909. According to the hon. Member's Amendment, he would then say, "Owing to this increase in revenue, there is no longer any deficit; let us proceed to the financial revision," but the very next year, because the revenue had been driven up, the revenue would be down by several hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the deficit would be larger than before. That is a point which it seems to me the hon. Member has not calculated upon in his Amendment, and it appears to me to be a conclusive argument against it.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
After the hon. Gentleman had been speaking for some time, he at last approached the Amendment supposed to be under discussion today. He said the more elaborate he endeavoured to make his explanation the deeper were the difficulties into which he got. That only shows how extraordinarily difficult it is to discuss this 1920 Clause under the present rules and regulations. I find it almost impossible to discuss either of these Amendments without discussing all this Clause; yet, according to the very ridiculous gag and Guillotine Motion of the Government, we are actually precluded from passing Subsection (3) of this Clause until the magic hour of 7.30 has passed, unless you, Sir, with your usual width of view, allow us to have something like a Second Reading Debate on the whole of the Clause. It is as though a lecturer dealing with the anatomy of the wasp was told that up to 7.30 he was only allowed to discuss the head, and after 7.30 the body and sting. That is the position in which we find ourselves. It is impossible to discuss any of the Clause without we take a general survey. The Government have put down this Clause in order that they may have an argument with which to go among their constituents, who are rather shocked at the idea that Ireland, when she becomes opulent, as hon. Members opposite are so fond of prophesying she will become under the Bill, shall not pay any share of the common expenditure of the United Kingdom while Scotland pays many millions—and even the Malay States offer now to give us a ship—and by which they can say to them, "Oh, we have provided for all that. You will find, in Clause 26, that under certain circumstances and conditions we shall be able to revise the whole of this financial system, and Ireland will pay a contribution towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom." If the Government want to say that, why do they not say it in unmistakable terms? Why do they not clarify the whole of this Clause?
I object to the Amendment because I think it introduces another element of uncertainty into the whole of this Clause. The whole Clause is full of uncertainty. First of all, it lies with the Joint Exchequer Board to say whether or not the time has arrived, and a particular arithmetical calculation is to be made to see whether Ireland should be called upon to pay some contribution either under the one Amendment or the other. I do not know what "in the opinion of the Joint Exchequer Board" means. Does it mean the majority? It is quite likely the minority representing Ireland on the Board will say, "It does not appear to us the time has arrived," whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend is carried or the Amendment of the Government. It would be 1921 perfectly possible for the Irish Treasury to say, "We did not make those calculations; they are not our calculations." Then, on those calculations, the Joint Exchequer Board is to present a Report. There may be a Minority Report. Altogether, the whole of this Clause wants clarifying. Supposing they do present a Report, what is the real value of it? It is presented to both Houses of Parliament, to the Commons House of Parliament, and to the Irish House of Parliament. The Commons House of Parliament possibly might take some action, because it is to be "a ground for revision," but the Irish Parliament might say, "Well, but our officials on the Board do not agree that it is; we do not think there is any ground whatever for making a revision." There is nothing mandatory in the Clause, and all that would happen would be that the Commons House of Parliament might say, "The circumstances are such and the calculations are such that a revision ought now to take place." Thereupon what can it do? It can do nothing except send a polite message to the Irish Parliament to send her representatives here to discuss the situation, either under my hon. Friend's Amendment or under the Amendment of the Government, it does not matter which. The Irish Parliament might say, "Thank you, we are not going to send representatives over; we are not Irish flies to walk into your parlour; we do not intend to walk into your parlour," and nothing whatever would happen under the Clause. The Irish Parliament would dimply refuse to send over representatives.
We do really want this Clause a little bit clarified. What do the Government really mean? If they really do mean they are most anxious for a revision of the financial arrangements, why do they not say in unmistakable language that, when certain calculations have been made, and certain balances have been struck, it shall be mandatory that some revision shall take place between the two Houses. For my own part, I do not attach very great importance to any of these Amendments until the whole Clause has been put into a different shape and order altogether. If we are to discuss the Amendments, I prefer the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I think he at all events makes it more certain on the whole that some period of revision will take place, and the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lees Smith), which I understand is to be fathered by the Government, only adds 1922 another uncertainty to the position. I know the Postmaster-General and the hon. Member for Northampton both think halcyon days are about to arrive in Ireland. Both of them think that in a very few years Ireland, under this Bill, will find herself in the position of having a surplus and of wanting to accelerate the day when she puts herself in the same position as Scotland and the other portions of the United Kingdom and contributes something towards the common expenditure—the Army, Navy, National Debt, and so on—of the United Kingdom. But that is not the May in which I read the financial portion of the Clause. I have said again and again, in the course of these discussions, that I believe the money for these transferred services will not allow Ireland to effect any economies. I believe, for instance, that education will swallow up any surplus Ireland is likely to possess. I believe too, if the Amendment of the Postmaster-General is carried, the cost of these services will be found to increase, and as the standard rises in England and Scotland for education and for other social developments, so it will rise in Ireland, and, instead of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer finding himself a few years hence in possession of some remarkable surplus, which he will be only too anxious to dispose of for the common purposes of the Army and Navy, the cost of the services will rise, and the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will not find himself in possession of any surplus of this kind. I would rather omit the Clause from the Bill altogether, and leave it to the goodwill entirely of the Irish Parliament as to whether or not it will offer any subscriptions to these common services for the United Kingdom.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)
I will, in the first place, answer one of the contentions put forward, not for the first time, by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He said that by our Bill we are introducing a system of finance of much complexity into a state of things which is now comparatively simple. The argument which he has used on several occasions is that this has been found to be a great evil in other countries, and particularly in Austro-Hungary. He suggested that parallel powers are given to the Austro-Hungarian Parliaments and that has been a great drawback. All through these Debates right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quoting Mr. Gladstone 1923 in this connection, and have suggested that he instanced Austro-Hungary and Norway and Sweden as examples of Home Rule that we might imitate without disadvantage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the experience of both those countries has not been a happy one. What is the answer to that? The answer is, in the first place, that Mr. Gladstone never used these words without most carefully qualifying them by saying that the proposals he was making with regard to Ireland would place Ireland on a different fooling to Austro-Hungary and Norway and Sweden. If these two pairs of country are seeking revenue harmony, far more so would Ireland be doing so. But the subsequent history of these European countries does not disprove the argument which Mr. Gladstone advanced in this particular matter of finance. The difficulties that arose between Austro-Hungary arose from the fact that you had coequal Parliaments, each with sovereign authority, and neither in any degree subordinate to the other or bound by the legislation of the other.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I do not think that case is analagous. One might just as well suggest the case of Ontario and Canada. But the hon. Member's illustration was Austro-Hungary and I should like respectfully to make an answer to that. Austro-Hungary has two Parliaments of equal authority, and when a question of financial arrangement arises it has to be dealt with by an equal number of members from each Parliament, who form a joint delegation, and, if these two bodies cannot arrive at an agreement, there is a deadlock, and there are no means of relieving it. These two countries are more or less equally impoverished, and there is no such great disparity as there is in the case of Great Britain and Ireland In the case of Great Britain and Ireland the Parliament of one country is definitely bound by the legislation of the other. When we come to the end of the deficit period and review the financial arrangements we do not do it on the lines adopted in Austro-Hungary. The ultimate decision is left in the hands of this Imperial Parliament, and it is the Imperial Parliament which settles the matter. What is the purpose of this Clause to which this Amendment has been moved? As the Committee is well aware, after 1924 the discussion which has taken place on the finances of this Bill, the present scheme will come into operation when the Bill becomes law, and that scheme is largely based on the consideration that Ireland does not now pay her way. But that cannot be a permanent arrangement in the case of a country which has a measure of self-government, no matter how limited, with some power of collecting its own taxes, and keeping for its own benefit any increase in the taxes which it collects itself. I must say that no confederation throughout the world of subordinate Parliaments has larger powers than are given to the Irish Parliament in this Bill. In the main they have larger powers of collecting their own taxes and of enjoying the increase than have the subordinate Parliaments of Canada and Australia. Therefore it is right and proper the present arrangement should last only so long as the deficit continues, and no more money should be drawn from the British taxpayer for Irish purposes when that deficit is wiped out. When Ireland claims she should be given wider powers the Imperial Parliament is entitled to ask her to take her place as a full member of the United Kingdom, and pay such charges as her resources will allow towards the common expenses of the United Kingdom and of the Empire at large.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) said there was nothing mandatory in the Bill and that Clause 26 did not enforce this. He suggested, further, the Imperial Parliament may take action in that direction, but that the Irish Parliament may refuse to send Members here, and, therefore, the Clause would not operate at all. If the Imperial Parliament does not choose to make a change, of course the change will not be made, and nothing we can put into this Bill will bind our successors. The right hon. Gentleman must know we cannot put into an Act of Parliament a mandate to say that Parliament at some future date shall revise the provisions of this Bill in a certain direction. If Parliament does not do so, you cannot compel it to do it. If you say your scheme shall come to an end and no more revenues shall be raised unless Parliament does this or that thing, you may find yourself in a great difficulty, and you may find your whole machinery at a standstill. You cannot make this mandatory as far as Parliamentary affairs are concerned. Surely the hon. Member has only to glance at the Clause itself to see 1925 that it requires that an additional number of Irish Members shall be summoned to sit in this Parliament, and if, out of perversity, the Irish Parliament refuses to send them, the Imperial Parliament would go on its way and do what it thought proper. That would, of course, be entirely within the power of the Imperial Parliament.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
Will the British Parliament under such circumstances have power to make the revision?
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I did not know that we were to be allowed to discuss Subsection (3) at this juncture. I thought that under the Guillotine Resolution we should not be allowed to discuss it until after half-past seven.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham did make some considerable reference to the subject, and I have felt a little uneasy both about what he said and about the reply of the Postmaster-General. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I state that after half-past seven I propose to call the first Amendment, which is down in the name of the hon. Members for Northampton, Kingston, and South Bucks, to leave out Sub-section (3), as that raises the whole of this question. If I may suggest it at this stage, we might delay these points until then.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I will strictly follow your ruling. My remarks on Subsection (3) were very closely limited to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who said that the whole Clause would not work, either with or without the Amendment, because the Irish Parliament under this Sub-section might refuse to send representatives here. The hon. Member asked when the Clause was to come into operation and when circumstances requiring it were likely to arise. On several occasions, inside this House and outside as well, I have been represented as having said, on the First Reading, that a period of ten years might elapse before the deficit period was ended. I would like to remind the Committee what I did say with regard to that matter. I pointed out that last year's revenue very clearly showed an increase of no less than. £700,000 on the previous revenue. I said it was not to be expected that that increase would be regular, and I suggested that in future years it might be £200,000. That was, 1926 perhaps, an over-sanguine estimate. But, at any rate, I said that while there were no means by which we could tell what the increase would be, I thought that in ten years the Irish deficit would disappear and Ireland would no longer be a charge upon the British taxpayer. If there were to be a decrease, then the situation would be the same as if no Home Rule Bill had been passed, and the deficit would be accordingly increased. If the increased revenue was less than £200,000, I said the deficit period would be longer than ten years. It is quite obvious I could give no estimate other than that ten years might be the period or that £200,000 might be the amount per year. It was for purposes of illustration that I said it would work out in that way, and if it were £200,000 more or less the period would be more or less accordingly. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), in moving the Amendment, said it was totally impossible to form an estimate of what the Irish revenue would be in the next fifteen or twenty years, and one could only judge from the steady increase of revenue, since Ireland is now more prosperous, and it shows what an agricultural country can do under Free Trade. We hope and believe that this prosperity will continue. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield said that the day when the deficit would be over could be hastened or retarded by the Imperial Parliament or by the Irish Parliament at their will.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I took down the hon. Member's words. With regard to the Imperial Parliament, I agree that the ending of that period could be either hastened or retarded by the Imperial Parliament, if it wished to do so. Whether it would be right or just to do so is another matter. But since the Bill does reserve to the Imperial Parliament its present taxing powers, this Parliament could, if it wished, according to the law, impose additional taxes upon Ireland with a view to wiping off the deficit immediately; but such a thing would be so grossly unfair, so patently unjust, so contrary to every intention of the Bill, that it is inconceivable that any body of fair-minded men, unless animated by bitter hostility to Ireland, would take such a course. The Imperial Parliament could hasten the day by reducing expenditure on the reserved services; on the other hand, it could retard 1927 the ending of the deficit period by lowering the taxes of Ireland or increasing expenditure on reserved services. These matters are entirely in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, just as they are today. The passing of this Bill will not make any difference to the powers of the Imperial Parliament in these respects, for they remain as now. But with regard to the Irish Parliament I do not at all agree with the hon. Member. As the Bill stands, the Irish Parliament can neither hasten nor retard the day when the deficit is over. It cannot hasten the day when the two sides of the account will balance, because if it were to increase the taxes on the Irish people, and so increase Irish revenue, the Transferred Sum would be increased to an equal extent; and, although the deficit would be diminished by the larger revenue coming from Ireland owing to Irish taxes, it would be increased to an equal extent owing to the larger sum to be handed to the Irish Government. It could not hasten the day, as the Bill stands, by reducing expenditure on its own services, or reducing expenditure, let us say, upon Poor Law or education, or whatever service might be at its own command. Those are not particularly good instances. Perhaps the cost of administering justice is better. If they were to reduce that expenditure, as the Bill stands they would not hasten the day when the deficit would be over, because the Transferred Sum would remain the same, and the sum which was economised by the Irish Government would be in their own pockets, so to speak, to spend on other purposes, and would not revert to the Imperial Treasury. On the other hand, the Irish Parliament would certainly not be able to retard the day when the deficit is over. They have no control over the reserved services.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
They have no power to increase the cost in regard to land purchase. We have argued that before, and I am sorry that the hon. Member does not accept my view. If they increase the cost of their own services, such as education, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for 1928 Fulham, that does not increase the deficit, because they must do it out of their own moneys, and not out of moneys which come from the Imperial Exchequer. If they have not got moneys of their own to spend, then they cannot spend, and they therefore have no power, by that means, to retard the day when the deficit is over. These are the reasons why I suggest to the hon. Member that as the Bill now stands, while it is true that the Imperial Parliament can take such action as will bring Clause 26 into operation earlier or later as it wishes, the Irish Parliament can do neither. The Amendment which I have put on the Paper has been clearly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), who has had a similar Amendment on the Paper for some time. His object and our object is this: To enable the Irish Parliament, if they wish—and I would emphasise the fact that it is entirely left in their own control—to use any surplus in their own hands, not for expenditure upon other purposes, not for reducing taxation upon the Irish people, but to bring nearer the day when the deficit is ended. Our Amendment would enable them to do so if they so desired. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know that there is any harm in giving them that option. Suppose the Irish Parliament find themselves within measurable reach of the situation contemplated by the Clause and they wish to bring that day nearer, and they find that their own revenue from their own taxes is increasing, while their expenditure is stationary, they may wish to say, "Next year we will not take the surplus of £100,000; we will leave that as a surplus," and under the finance of the Bill that will be taken into account by the Joint Exchequer Board, who would be able to say, "The accounts are now balanced." It merely means that the Irish unspent surplus is to be taken into account for the purpose of writing off the last item of deficit that remains on the accounts between the two countries. The way in which it is done is this: We take into account on the credit side all the receipts of the Imperial Exchequer from Ireland, also all the receipts of the Irish Exchequer; and on the other side we take all the expenditure of the Imperial Exchequer, and also the expenditure of the Irish Exchequer. Added together, the whole will show accurately what is the total revenue from Ireland in that year, and on the other side what is the total expenditure. That, I think, is the fairest 1929 and simplest way of determining when the day has arrived when, as a matter of fact, Ireland is no longer a charge upon the Imperial Exchequer. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield says that the arrival of this day can be evaded by the Irish Government, supposing that they wish to postpone the date. It is improbable, because their ambition will probably be to get larger fiscal freedom. Suppose they should wish to postpone the day, the hon. Member says they can deliberately manufacture a deficit on their own accounts, and fill it up, not from taxes, but from loans. That is an extremely farfetched proposition.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
If it were done, and the Irish Exchequer were to take that course, it would not have the effect the hon. Member suggests, because he speaks as if they will take on the credit side of the account the Irish revenue from taxes only. That is not so, for the Clause of the Bill speaks simply of Irish revenue, and revenue may be from either loan or taxes.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
Any sum which goes into the Exchequer for the payment of the services of the year out of borrowed money is certainly revenue.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I do not know whether it is in the definition, but certainly I am advised by the draftsman that that will be the meaning of the Bill. Here is an Exchequer which has to pay for certain services, costing so many millions a year, and which has to meet the cost of those services from its own resources. Its resources may be obtained from taxes or from Exchequer Bills, or they may be obtained from other sources, borrowed money, for instance.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSON
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a loan, for instance, to drain the river Bann would be treated as revenue?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
Certainly, the sums that go into the Exchequer in that year from the loans would be revenue for the purposes of this Clause, if they 1930 were spent in that year upon Irish services. What else would they be? Would they be non-revenue? Hon. Members speak as if the word "revenue" were synonomous with the word "tax." They cannot find any authority for declaring there can be no revenue of any kind except revenue derived from taxes.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Can the Irish Parliament hasten the day immediately by borrowing enough money to square the accounts, and clear off the deficit at once? I purposely put an extreme case.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
Borrow for three years successively! Well, the Irish Parliament would be in a very sad way if they did. The Imperial Parliament here would know what was going on, and would naturally act accordingly. It might conceivably occur, if the Irish Parliament were to take such an unheard-of step as borrowing enough money and transmitting it to the Imperial Exchequer. That is what they would have to do. It would not be for their own purposes—it would not be enough to borrow money and spend it in Ireland for their own purposes: that would make no difference at all to the deficit due to the Imperial Exchequer. They would have to borrow £2,000,000 a year for three years and provide interest and sinking fund and hand it over to the Imperial Exchequer as a free gift in order to bring Clause 26 into operation. Could there be a more impracticable suggestion? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have any doubt as to the minor point as to whether the money could be borrowed by the Irish Parliament to make good the deficit, I shall be very happy to consider it in order to see whether the word "revenue" means only tax or not. I will look that question up, but I confess it never occurred to me that the word "revenue" could be limited to mean "tax" only. Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the point I will look into it further and see whether that requires amendment. [An HON. MRMBER: "The word 'revenue' is not in the Clause."] It is mentioned in our Amendment. I come lastly and briefly to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member which has been the basis of this discussion. He gives another definition of deficit, and suggests that his is better than ours. I will give the Committee three reasons why his Amendment is not acceptable, which I think will bring conviction home to the minds of most Members 1931 of the Committee. In the first place, his Amendment says that on the debit side shall be taken into account the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of transfer of the reserved services. In other words, he means that if in the meantime they have taken over, for example, the National Insurance Act, that there shall be charged against the Irish Government in this account which has been presented by the Joint Exchequer Board, the sum which insurance was costing the Imperial Government at the moment when insurance was taken over by the Irish Government. That is his proposal. That will not necessarily bear any relation to the tax. The hon. Member, who is usually so very careful in putting down his Amendments, and who is a conscientious student of any Bill he is criticising, as I have had reason to know for some years, has omitted to notice that in Clause 17, Sub-section (4) where this matter is dealt with, there is this provision:—
"And in determining that equivalent—"
that is the sum to be paid from the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Exchequer—
"regard shall be had to the prospect of any increase or decrease in the cost of that service which may be expected to arise from causes not being matters of administration."
Take this question of insurance. The cost this year in Ireland is a comparatively small sum, about £200,000. If the Irish Parliament were to take over insurance now they would not be receiving £200,000 a year, but in the course of years the sum would be fixed with regard to the future increase in the cost of insurance, and automatically we know that the cost of insurance will go up. Per contra, if they were taking over old age pensions, the cost is going down, and they would not receive the actual sum which was being paid in the year in which they took it over, but they would receive a sum based upon the cost of old age pensions—the future calculated cost—taking into account causes which are in operation which are not due to administration and which may, for convenience sake, be described as natural causes. Therefore, the Amendment as it stands would not represent the facts at all, and the actual deficit on the Imperial Exchequer might be greater or it might be less than it would be calculated 1932 to be if we took the Amendment as the basis of calculation. That is the first reason why the Amendment will not do. Secondly, the Bill provides that there shall be handed over to the Irish Exchequer, year by year, a sum of £200,000—at first £500,000, but the margin gradually reducible to £200,000, at which figure it remains. The Amendment ignores that altogether.
§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I know, but I do not think it should treat that £200,000 as if it did not exist. Two hundred thousand pounds is the sum which is actually being paid out of the British taxpayer's pocket for the benefit of Irish services, and so long as that sum is being paid, so long there will be a deficit, and the hon. Member, while he has been speaking in the interests of the British taxpayer, is not really safeguarding those interests if he treats that sum of £200,000, which is actually being paid in cash, as if it were non-existent. The third reason is that he does not give the Irish Parliament what we propose to give it under our Amendment, the power to use any surplus they may have in hand to accelerate the day when the deficit is paid off, if they so desire. For these three reasons, and for the other reasons which I have already given, I trust the Committee will accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the Government and not the one now before us.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
It is very charcteristic of the course of our discussions under the procedure the House has been induced to adopt that the right hon. Gentleman only comes to the Amendment which is before the House at the very conclusion of his speech, and like my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), almost the whole of his speech, and the whole of that part m which he argued at all seriously upon the question, was devoted not to disposing of the Amendment before the House but to recommending other Amendments. Why? Because in all probability, under the rules under which we work, when that Amendment is put from the Chair there will be no opportunity of saying a word about it and the House will have to vote upon it there and then, and, accordingly, the Postmaster-General evades, for the purposes of the Government, a check which the Government have imposed upon the whole Committee and in what, under any other circumstances, would be a grossly disorderly manner dis- 1933 cusses his own Amendment out of its turn because he knows that when his turn comes he will not be allowed to discuss it.
§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I should like to ask whether it is not merely allowable, but usual, if there are two Amendments on the Paper which are alternatives to one another, as in this case, when we are discussing the first alternative to make reference to the second of the two between which the Committee is asked to choose.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I pointed out before the discussion began that the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) was one of several alternatives proposed, and it did not seem to be possible to limit the Debate to any one of them at one time. So far the Postmaster-General of course was justified, and that was the reason why I did not interfere with what he said.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I perfectly recognise that for the Postmaster-General to have referred to another Amendment which he will submit to the House later as a better alternative, would have been in accordance with the usual practice of the House, but what the Postmaster-General did was not, in accordance with the usual practice, though I do not say it was not for the convenience of the House that yon, Sir, allowed it to be done. It is only for the convenience of the House, because of the perfectly absurd rules under which we are attempting to discuss this Bill. I thought it worth while to call attention to the course to which the Government were forced by the restrictions which they have put upon debate in this House. I am afraid under the circumstances I must follow the Postmaster-General. In the Amendment which stands in his name I cannot take a very profound interest. I understand that the object of the Postmaster-General in putting that suggestion on the Paper was to give the Irish Parliament, an opportunity, if it wished, of extinguishing the deficit by some special exertion of their own instead of waiting for it to be extinguished by the growth of the Imperial taxes in Ireland and the lapse of many years. What would be the object of the Irish Parliament in hastening that extinction? Are we to suppose that the Irish Parliament will really be so anxious to volunteer a contribution to the Imperial expenses for the defence of the Empire, for instance, or for the maintenance of diplomatic representatives abroad if they were actually 1934 to put on new taxes or diminish Irish services for the sole purpose of hastening the day when they might make their contribution. If really either the Postmaster-General or the hon. Member opposite think that is a likely thing for the Irish Parliament to do, they are dwelling in a land of fancy where I think it is quite futile to follow them.
I am bound to say, however, after listening to the Postmaster-General, that there is one reason for which conceivably they might desire to have this Amendment, and that is in order to take advantage of the very vague words with which the Subsection concludes: "Whenever the balance described in this Section has been reached and maintained for three successive years," then that is to be considered an occasion for securing the proper contribution from the Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. Not only for that, but also for extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes. The Postmaster-General said that when this time came the Irish Parliament would be entitled to claim wider powers in the matter of taxation. I call attention to that phrase because I think it throws rather a sombre light upon what our future is likely to be. These declarations of the intentions of the Government which introduced the Bill are likely to be quoted in future Parliaments as an indication of the obligation of those Parliaments when the circumstances have arisen. Before I make any comment on the wider powers let me ask what the present powers are? I asked the other day for an expression from the Government, for our guidance, as to the principle on which the present financial powers were allotted to the Irish Parliament, and the Solicitor-General, who is always very courteous, very frank, and very direct in his endeavour to meet the arguments addressed from this side of the House, took up my invitation and stated the principle on which the Government have proceeded in perfectly clear language. The principle was that you were to give to Ireland the widest possible control compatible with Imperial interests.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)
I think I said I thought the principle was to give the Irish Parliament the widest measure of financial discretion which was consistent with Imperial interests and practical working.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Therefore the Committee will see that embodied in the Bill are provisions to give to Ireland the widest possible measure of control over Irish finances compatible with Imperial interests and practical working, but the moment, if ever, when after three years Irish income is balanced by Irish expenditure Ireland is to be entitled to come and claim something more, says the Postmaster-General—a greater liberty in Irish finance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because, in the words of the Solicitor-General, you have already given in this Bill all the liberty that is compatible with Imperial interests and practical working. Therefore, what the Post-in aster-General points to as our future is, that whenever a balance has to be struck under Sub-section (2) of this Clause, Ireland is entitled to come and claim a liberty which is inconsistent with the practical working of our finances or with our Imperial interests. That is a pleasant prospect. That is a hopeful settlement. That is wise statesmanship, is it not, deliberately to march towards that result? Let me say another word. I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) himself quite understood the effect of his own Amendment. The Postmaster-General gave a reading of it which rather surprised me. I should agree with my hon. Friend that under the Amendment the Irish Parliament could delay the day for the resettlement of the financial arrangements by raising money by loans. The Postmaster-General says that is not so, and that money raised by loan is properly revenue. That is an amazing statement to come from a Member of the Government. I do not think it is compatible with our ordinary fiscal vocabulary. We distinguish between Imperial expenditure and expenditure from revenue. During the war, for instance, each year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be asked and would tell the House how much of the expense of the war during the year was met out of revenue and how much was raised by loan, and these two terms are always used in contradistinction, and not as if the one covered the other, and I cannot believe for a moment that the word "revenue" would cover capital raised by way of a loan. I do not think the Postmaster-General was very sure of his own ground even as he spoke. He boldly and baldly stated that money raised by loan was revenue, but afterwards, in a second sentence—I do not know whether accidentally or as a material qualification—he said it 1936 was revenue if it was spent within the year. I should be much obliged if he would tell me whether that was an accident to which he attaches no importance or whether he meant that qualification to be one of substance to which he wishes to adhere.
§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I was dealing with what I regarded as the somewhat impossible case put by the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope), that the Irish Parliament would deliberately have a deficit by increasing their expenditure on education or what-not, and instead of making good that cost by levying more taxes they would borrow money year by year and make up their accounts, and this marginal loan, made each year, would not be taken into account, while, if they raised it by taxes it would be taken into account. My reading of the Amendment is that it says that all Irish revenue is to be taken into account for the purpose of determining what the total receipts are—wThether raised by loans or Exchequer Bills, or anything of that kind. Whether the revenue is raised under taxation would make no difference for the purpose of this particular Clause, I will look into the matter further, and if a drafting Amendment is needed, I will see that the Clause is made clear.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I still do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's position in regard to loans. Does he consider that every loan is revenue, and. if he does, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorse that proposition?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
He does not. Anyone who reads the Bill will see that it was obvious they did not intend to include a single loan. Loans were excluded, and they have drawn their Amendment to include loans by accident. The Postmaster-General used that argument without thinking where he was going.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I have read it very carefully. If the Postmaster-General tells me that the Amendment was drawn to exclude loans, it is singularly obscure. If it was their intention to include loans, I think it is wrong, for loans are not revenue, and ought not to be treated as revenue. Take the case which calls for the Postmaster-General to make 1937 the modification to which I have alluded. My right hon. Friend said supposing the Irish Parliament raised a loan for the drainage of the Bann or the Shannon. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bann."] We have heard a great deal about the drainage of both rivers in this House, and we are told that these are great, works of importance which an Irish Parliament would carry out, though this House has neglected to do it. Would loans raised for that purpose be included in the revenue of Ireland? I invite the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the answer which the Postmaster-General gave, "Yes, certainly, if spent within the year." Did you ever hear such an absurd statement? To say that whether a loan is to be counted as revenue or not is to depend upon whether it is spent in one year or spread over two or three years is the reductio ad absurdum. I do not think it is possible for the Government to maintain a distinction of that kind. In my opinion it is perfectly ludicrous to treat the produce of a loan as if that were revenue for this or any other purpose, and I doubt gravely whether the Amendment of the Government does that. I think if they really intended to do that they should have made it much more clear. All these provisions turn upon the time—the three successive years in which Irish income shall have equalled Irish expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statements he made on the First Reading of the Bill as to the time when that event was likely to occur. Anybody who listened to the right hon. Gentleman will understand his vexation at having it supposed that he ever said in that speech anything definite on the subject. He said that the various statements he made amounted to no more than this, that when the revenue would be equal to the expenditure the expenditure would be equal to the revenue, and that when this happened in each of three successive years there would be a revision. That was the very cautious and moderate attitude the right hon. Gentleman adopted on the First Reading, and I think it has scarcely been maintained by himself and his Friends in subsequent discussions.
They have been rather pressing forward this uncertain date, and in order to reassure their English supporters they have professed that the thing was likely to happen in a very short time. The Postmaster-General does not confine himself to the cautious prophecies he made on the 1938 First Reading. Only a week or ten days ago he was calculating the increase of Irish revenue in the past, and foreshadowing from that the early arrival of the day when revenue and expenditure would be equal, but he vitiated the whole calculation by omitting to make any allowance for the new taxes which have been imposed in the interval. This accounted for the greater part of the margin of which he spoke. I invite him to obtain from the Treasury a Return showing the amount by which, after making allowance for the new taxation imposed, the Irish revenue, as calculated by the Treasury as nearly as they can, has increased since 1903–4, which was the date he took. I invite him to get from the Treasury and to lay before the House a Return upon which we shall have something better to go upon than the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, which made no allowance for the new taxation, though he did take notice of it in his speech. I do not think that time is likely to occur soon, if you look to that process. I note the boast of the right hon. Gentleman that Irish revenue is steadily increasing and has been for several years. He said that is a tribute to Free Trade. I say it is a tribute to Unionist constructive legislation in Ireland. It is a tribute to the work of the Congested Districts Board established by my right hon. Friend. It is a tribute to the work of land purchase carried on by successive Unionist Ministries and arrested by the present Government. It is a tribute last, but I think not least, to the inevitable and wise action, good counsel and energy of Sir Horace Plunkett, who, it, is curious to note, is, as the reward for his services in that respect, hounded out of office by the future governors of Ireland, and his association is refused by the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
There is another way in which the balance might be brought about. I really do not quite see what the intentions of the Government are in regard to this matter. I refer to the levying of new Imperial taxes in Ireland. Is this Parliament, or is it not, entitled to levy new Imperial taxation in Ireland after this Bill passes'? The other day I think it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that it was. If, for instance, to-morrow or next year, we had to raise some millions additional for the Navy, we would be perfectly entitled, and it would be the right thing, to spread the new taxes, not only over Great Britain, but over Great 1939 Britain and Ireland. Rut the Postmaster-General says that would be so patent an injustice that, though Parliament has the technical power under the Bill, it is unthinkable that anybody would ever exercise it. See how little the Government have thought out their own scheme. See the pitfalls which are in the way.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I said it would be a gross injustice if this Parliament, in order to pay off this deficit in this year or soon afterwards, were to levy heavy taxation in Ireland, but that is a very different matter from saying that it would be an unjust thing to tax Ireland in common with the rest of the United Kingdom for common purposes.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I am very far from desiring to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and I accept the correction he has made. I understand the position is that this House is entitled, the moment this Bill passes, to include Ireland in any additional taxation which is proposed for England, but the Postmaster-General's qualification is that we are not to levy special taxation in Ireland merely to fill up the deficit.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The Chief Secretary confirms that. Observe, in the first place, that technically this Parliament has the power reserved to it to levy that taxation if it pleases. That is one of the inherent powers of what is called the sovereign Parliament; but the Postmaster-General says it would be patently unjust to exercise your inherent power. What is the value of your supremacy if you cannot exercise it? Suppose we had new taxation for new Imperial expenditure, what effect has that under the Amendment which some Minister is going to move? What effect will that have on the future day contemplated by this Clause? Supposing that next year a new Imperial tax—not necessarily a new tax in itself, but an additional tax—becomes necessary to pay for the Navy, would you extend that to Ireland? What, then, is the position of that taxation in relation to this Clause? Does it count under this Clause at all? Does it come into one side of the account or the other? It cannot come into both. It must come into one, and have an effect upon it or not at all. I should be glad if the Government would explain their intentions in regard to 1940 that. I do not know what their intentions are, nor do I know where these intentions are carried out in this Bill. So far as I can see the effect would be to upset their calculations as to the day when the particular balance contemplated in this Bill would arrive. I am sorry I have been led to take a longer time than I intended over details, but they are very important details.
Before I leave the Amendment I want to say a word upon broad principles which interest me very much more than this or that Amendment, whether the one moved by my hon. Friend or the one to be moved on behalf of the Government later. What is the scheme of the Bill in this respect? It is at the present time that Ireland is to make no contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, but that if for three successive years revenue and expenditure balance, then special Irish representation is to be summoned to this House, and this House is to determine what shall in future be the Irish contribution, and what further power beyond those now given by the Bill shall be given to the Irish Parliament. This is one of the matters in which the Government have deliberately departed from the recommendations of the Primrose Committee. The Committee was appointed, not with a free hand, not with a reference to say whether separate finance was desirable or not, but assuming there was to be Home Rule, what conditions ought to govern the financial relations between the two Governments? And it was solemnly laid down that one of the most important considerations to which they should have regard was the necessity for obtaining finality at once, and leaving no difficult questions unsettled for future determination. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment referred to the case of Austria-Hungary, which was a very favourite case with Mr. Gladstone eighteen years ago. The Postmaster-General lightly swept aside the reference to Mr. Gladstone and Austria-Hungary, because he said that Mr. Gladstone had always explained to the House that the scheme which he proposed to set up was different from the scheme which existed in the cases of Austria and Hungary and Sweden and Norway, and, indeed, from any scheme in existence. I do not refer to those qualifications, for I have not verified all Mr. Gladstone's references, but Mr. Gladstone undoubtedly cited Norway and Sweden to show the unifying effect of Home Rule, and how countries, one of which was always trying to tear itself 1941 apart from the other, were entirely reconciled the moment Home Rule was given. Similarly he referred to the Austria-Hungary arrangement as showing that countries which had been engaged in bitter struggles worked easily and harmoniously as soon as the principle of local autonomy was recognised. No doubt the subsequent history of those two countries has not been such as to encourage a belief in Home Rule, and I do not wonder at the anxiety of the Postmaster-General to get rid of it. But would it be believed that the Primrose Committee appointed by this Government to advise them, itself took the illustration of Austria-Hungary to show the danger of a course which, the Government are now deliberately adopting. As the matter is so important, I may ask the permission of the Committee to read a rather lengthy extract from the Report of that Committee. In paragraph 28, page 12, they say:—In making arrangements for any new departure of a complicated kind, there was naturally a temptation to escape from the difficulty of solving embarrassing problems by postponing their solution for a future date.How clearly they foresaw the temptation to which the Government would be subjected and to which, unfortunately, they have yielded.Under certain circumstances there may be no other alternative, and always there is the hope that increase of knowledge, or even the mere lapse of time, may eventually aid in the solution.As I read this paragraph I seem to hear the speeches of the Postmaster-General in defence of the course of the Government.But in this particular case ii is certain that, however great may be the difficulties encountered in the original settlement, those that will surround revision will he incomparably greater. At the original settlement there can be no parity of status between the parties to the contract. In fact, one of the two Mill not he in corporate existence. It will be merely represented by the individuals of whom it will eventually be composed, and by those who sympathise with them. The other party will he in a position of such preponderating authority that it will practically he able to dictate the terms on which the settlement, must be accepted or the whole enterprise he foregone. At the time of the revision the position will he entirely changed. There will then be two parties each fully clothed with a definite authority constitutionally or legally conferred, and failure to reach agreement will not be susceptible of any such short method of solution as might be resorted to at the original settlement. It follows that it is extremely undesirable to leave open for future determination any questions of a kind that would demand settlement as a condition of the continued working on constitutional lines of the machinery set up in the first instance.After some further observations it goes on to illustrate, as I have said, the difficulties of leaving these matters open by the extraordinary position of affairs which continued in Austria-Hungary from 1897 untiltenyearslaterin1907,when 1942 the revenue had to be raised, as the Report says, by extra legislation, because no agreement could be come to. The only answer of the Postmaster-General is that he makes a distinction between our future and the past of Austria-Hungary, because it is not left to the two Parliaments to negotiate on equal terms. It is for this Parliament, with an additional contingent of Irishmen, to settle what shall be done whenever the event in question arises. How is that comparable with the right hon. Gentleman's own attitude towards the Bill. He treats this Bill as a treaty, as a bargain or an agreement. He says that there are powers in it reserved to this Parliament which it would be perfectly unjust for this Parliament to exercise. Again and again when we come up to one of these reserved powers that affect the Irish Parliament, Ministers say that they do not expect them to be used, that they ought not to be used, and that nothing but extreme necessity would justify them being used. How are you going, with an Irish Parliament in existence, having made a preliminary agreement with that Parliament, to force new taxation on Ireland? You had better, as the Primrose Committee says, face these difficulties while you have a position of unmistakable preponderance. Once you have set up the other Parliament in Dublin you cannot ignore it. You cannot legislate in this Parliament without regard to the feeling of the Dublin Parliament. You have to bargain, to contrive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is exactly what those hon. Members want. We all know what hon. Members below the Gangway want. That is their view of the Act. Once they have got this Parliament, once they have got this plant of revolution, you have put into their hands the weapons by which they can extort more. Then, in that case, there is an end of the pretence that this Parliament remains supreme, and you have admitted that the action of the Government destroys the finality of the settlement and the supremacy of this Parliament.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I hope that the Committee will excuse me for intervening, but the right hon. Gentleman made a reference to something which I said in an earlier Debate, and I trust that I may be allowed to deal with it. Before referring to it, I will deal shortly with the point which the right hon. Gentleman has last made. The matter is fresh in the recollection of all of us, and I do not think that I misrepresent 1943 the right lion. Gentleman when I say that he called attention to the Report of the Primrose Committee with the view of urging that it is wrong for us in this Bill to leave such a question as the future contribution of the Irish Parliament and the Irish people for Imperial purposes to be settled or discussed hereafter.
§ Sir J. SIMON
There follows from that the question whether or not the contribution should be of such and such a character. I quite recognise that we on this side of the House are open to the criticism that in some respects we have not precisely followed the recommendations of the Primrose Committee. If the Primrose Committee's Report is going to be used, and used on this topic, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that it is used as a whole. May I call attention to the exact facts here? The right hon. Gentleman quoted an extract—I do not complain, because it was elaborately quoted—from pages 12 and 13 of the Committee's Report. It occurs in the course of a review and criticism of the second scheme, or the Bill of 1893. I turn over to page 16, and I find a passage which certainly bears on this matter, and to which I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I find in the middle of page 16 this extract: they are now going to deal, not with the criticism of some past scheme, but with what they regard as a practical and definite thing to be done now: and in the paragraph, headed "Irish Contribution to Imperial Expenditure." I find:—The local expenditure of Ireland already exceeds her local revenue and it could not be contemplated that, in making arrangements for granting her political automony, she should be saddled with liabilities that would impose on the Irish Government the obligation to make an increase in taxation its first legislative measure. This being so, it seems to us that it would not be wise to endeavour at this stage to define the standard by which eventually the measure of Ireland contribution to the common expenditure of the revenue should be fixed.And they go on in the next sentence:—The data on which a scheme would have to be framed would almost certainly be largely obsolete by the lime when it could be brought into operation. For thin reason we do not propose to make any recommendation as to the character or the extent of future Irish contributions.And yet we are criticised on the basis of the Primrose Committee's Report because we do not adopt the course which they say is not wise. They continue:—At the same time we are of opinion that in the contemplated settlement there should be an emphatic 1944 assertion of the principle that when able Ireland should bear a properly proportioned share of the common expenses of the country as a whole.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see that we are all agreed about that. I turn to the Bill for a moment now to show what the Bill says about it. In order that we shall not be told that the passage which I have read is a mere incidental passage not essential to the Report, I may further call attention to the recommendations which appear on page 28. In the summary of conclusions and recommendations they deal with the very topic which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking about, the question whether or not in the circumstances it is desirable that we shall fix clearly now that there shall be a contribution and what it should be, and the second of the recommendations which they make in their summary of conclusions on page 28 is:—We recommend that the obligation of Ireland to contribute to the general expenditure of the realm be affirmed, but that a settlement of the amount of the contribution be allowed to remain in abeyance.What can any hon. Member who listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman gather, but that the Primrose Committee urged the Government here and now to fix the amount of the Imperial contribution, whereas what happened is, that they have gone into the matter and have pointed out the criticisms which may very fairly be made with respect to the second scheme of 1893, and they then say, "In spite of all that and in view of the fact that the Irish revenue to-day is not as large as the Irish local expenditure, we do not find ourselves able to recommend that there should be any fixed Irish Imperial contribution, but we think that that is a matter which might be, and ought to be, left to be dealt with in the future." That is what our Clause here provides. Now let us see whether the Clause does not do that very thing, substantially, which the Primrose Committee recommend. Clause 26 is certainly open to the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman has urged, that it is postponing to a future day a problem which probably at all times will involve a great deal of discussion between Ireland and England. He is entitled to make that point, and I think that he has made it perfectly fairly. But he seems to think that the Primrose Committee supports his view. Clause 26 proceeds upon this, that as things are to-day, the true revenue that comes from Ireland, though no doubt it is not known precisely, yet none the less it is less than the expenditure in Ireland. 1945 It then proceeds to say, that being so, there must be left for revision and re-setlement hereafter what may be the proper contribution of the Irish revenue towards the common expenditure in the United Kingdom. That is laid down in Sub-section (2) of Clause 26. It does not take a single year, because you might have abnormal circumstances in a single year which would not justify the revision of arrangements which we are now seeking to make, or the setting up of a new fiscal arrangement to come into operation. The Clause does not take the case of one year, it takes the case of three years, and if you allow for the change proposed in this Clause the formula comes to be this: On the one side you will have the total Imperial revenue in Ireland, the total sum of money which is properly to be regarded as paid by Ireland in respect of Imperial taxes. In the second place you will have the total of the Irish revenue. If you add together the total Imperial revenue from Ireland and the total Irish revenue, you have got the total which you are to put on the one side to compare with the total expenditure on the other.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that I do not mean to forget it, but I am simply stating the formula. Clause 26 provides that we shall ascertain in each year, as we go along, the total Imperial revenue from Ireland, and add it to the total Irish revenue, to see whether or not the two added together are indeed equal to the cost of the reserved services for which the Imperial Parliament assumes the responsibility, and the cost of the Irish services for which the Irish Parliament is responsible. And when you find that the true revenue of Ireland, which involves these different elements, is in excess of the true expenditure of Ireland for three years running, that, on being ascertained by the Joint Exchequer Board, is reported accordingly under Sub-section (2), which reads as follows:—
"The presentation of such a report shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act with a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom, and extending the powers of 1946 the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes."
On that two questions arise, both of which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the course of his speech, and one of which pointed particularly to myself. Let me deal with the first one. It cannot be too generally understood and too definitely stated that the view which we take of this Bill is not that it is going henceforward to disentitle the Imperial Parliament to tax Ireland, it by no means contemplates, because Home Rule is established under this Bill, that henceforward the proposals made from this box year by year by the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer will be proposals which will not affect the people that live in Ireland. They will be Irish taxpayers no doubt, but that is no reason why they should not come under the scheme of taxation settled by this House, to which they will continue to send, a substantial number of representatives. There may be cases where there may be reason for a different treatment. I am not laying down, and I think it would be very unwise to lay down—probably the right hon. Gentleman opposite would agree with me that it would be very imprudent and wrong to do so—what the cases are which will fall on one side or the other. But it is very important that there should be no misunderstanding, and certainly it is not within our contemplation that the circumstance of this Home Rule Bill coming into operation, should, in itself, disentitle the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, not as a matter of technicality, but as a matter of substance, from laying before the Imperial House of Commons proposals which involve taxing of the Irish people, supposing the general purposes of the country require additional revenue. The citizens of Ireland and the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole will send representatives here, and the Irish people certainly are not, in our view, entitled to come here and say, "We claim that while the Imperial Parliament have got technical authority over us, the circumstance that we have got self-government under the Home Rule Bill in itself disentitles the Chancellor of the Exchequer from modifying the general taxing arrangements so far as we are concerned."
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he also proposes that there may be a reduction of Imperial taxation?
§ Sir J. SIMON
I was going to show that while that is so, of course the Irish people are entitled to have the benefit as well as the disadvantages of their connection with the Imperial Parliament, and, unless there be some special reason to the contrary, I should have thought that it was in the highest degree unfair that, while on the one hand we are claiming to exercise a financial control over Ireland which might involve the raising of Imperial taxes in Ireland, it should be suggested that we are disentitled to give them the advantage of reducing taxation. No doubt every case will have to be dealt with on its merits. I lay down no absolute rule to govern every case at all, and my only concern is that I should put in the plainest language, or at all events in language as plain as I can make it, the fact that it is not contemplated by us, in promoting this measure, that it will be on a basis which would put the Irish people altogether out of the region of the operation of Imperial taxation. There is an obvious reason for that. Amongst other things there is this, that the Irish people are sending their representatives—a smaller number it is true—to this House, and the circumstance that those representatives are sent here—and we think must be sent here as long as this scheme continues—is in itself proof that of course they as well as we, who come from England, Scotland, or Wales, have got an interest in the taxation of the United Kingdom.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that it will be unjust if the Irish were not to benefit by the reduction in Imperial taxation while the deficit continues?
§ Sir J. SIMON
I carefully guarded myself from laying down any hard and fast rule, because I say that each case will have to be judged by its circumstances; but neither as regards the increase of Imperial taxation nor the reduction of Imperial taxation is it to be assumed as a matter of course that Ireland is outside the arrangement made by this House. That is the proposition I make.
§ Sir J. SIMON
The House and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Air. Austen Chamberlain) will judge and will agree that it certainly is not desirable that a junior Member of the Ministry should make any more definite declaration than that, and I am not going to do it. The 1948 right hon. Gentleman reminded me that one day last week I used a phrase as to the review of financial relations. He quoted my words:—The view which we have adopted and have endeavoured to apply in drafting the Financial Clauses of the Bill, is that we should give to this Irish subordinate Parliament as wide powers of finance as appear to be consistent, with Imperial convenience, the fair claims of Great Britain, and practical working."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1912, cols, 911 and 912.]The right hon. Gentleman reminded me that this is the basis on which Imperial financial arrangements are to come into-operation, and that it is already the high-water mark to which we can go. The right hon. Gentleman criticised Clause 26, and said, "If all these considerations are to be given full effect to in the financial arrangements proposed for immediate application, are you not going hereafter, under Clause 26, to commit yourselves to what is inconsistent with Imperial convenience, the fair claims of Great Britain, and practical working?" If the right hon. Gentleman can make that point good, it would indeed be very material, but I think he misconceives the situation, at any rate as we understand it The practical working and fair claims of Great Britain may involve a restriction of arrangements as long as we are dealing with a deficit, which certainly would no longer be required when we get revenue sufficient from Ireland to more than pay her own expenses. When Ireland makes a contribution in hard cash towards Imperial purposes it may very well be consistent with Imperial convenience and practical working to give her a larger measure of fiscal freedom than in existing circumstances.
One of the very things which is mentioned in Clause 26 as a topic for reconsideration is the collection of taxes. As long as Ireland is in the position in which she stands to-day we have insisted that it should be the Imperial authority that collects the taxes. No other arrangement could be possible in view of the fact that the Irish true revenue is not equivalent to the Irish expenditure: and if the Irish were going to collect their own revenue under a slack collection or a friendly collection, you might very easily aggravate the present-situation without justification. But when Ireland has reached a position of financial stability, in which she has for three years running shown a balance on the right side, when, after consideration in this Parliament, we find that it is possible to secure a proper contribution from Irish revenues to the 1949 common expenditure of the United Kingdom, the reason which now justifies us in saying that we will keep the collection of taxes in our own hands, may be largely diminished, if it does not utterly disappear. I do not discuss in any way how Clause 26, if brought into operation, would be used by the Imperial Parliament, when that time comes. I am not attempting to do that; I am offering no comment about it; I am giving no undertaking about it; but I would point out that it by no means follows that the restrictions which are to be put upon the fiscal independence of Ireland, under the existing circumstances, will remain the same when Ireland puts herself in the position where she is making till Imperial contribution and putting herself in a condition of things where we can no longer fairly insist on equally stringent conditions as in the past. These Financial Clauses were drawn with a view to giving Irishmen the fullest fiscal freedom consistent with Imperial interests and practical working, without qualification one way or the other, when Ireland has shown herself capable of paying her own way and capable of making a proper contribution. Therefore, while I trust and believe that Imperial considerations and considerations of fair play to Great Britain and considerations of practical working will always guide our deliberations in financial limitations, I do think it may very well be found that those same considerations will produce a different degree of fiscal independence and judgment when the occasion contemplated under Clause 26 arises as compared with the relations which now exist.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Will the Hon. Gentleman give a specific answer to the question which I put, namely, what would be the position if next year or the year after the passing of the Home Rule Bill the Government had to raise, let us say, half a million more from Ireland towards the Navy? How would that affect the coming of the day when under this Clause the revenue and expenditure in Ireland would balance?
§ Sir J. SIMON
I think I answered the question by implication, but it is better to answer it in plain terms. By Clause 26, as it is drawn, and as it is intended to apply, the proceeds of Imperial taxes in Ireland would certainly include the proceeds, it may be, of some future Imperial tax in Ireland, whatever be the purpose or the special occasion that calls for it. The comment which may very well be in the 1950 right hon. Gentleman's mind is that, after all, that sudden raising of an additional sun of money does not in itself justify the claim that we are approaching nearer to the happy future adumbrated in Clause 26. That is met in this way. It is only if this thing happens for the three years that the Joint Exchequer Board reports at all. If it does report, it will then be for this Imperial Parliament to determine what is right to be done under the circumstances. Certainly, we could not exclude from the calculation certain Imperial taxes, and therefore the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, whether it is satisfactory or not, certainly it is intended to include that in calculating the proceeds of Imperial taxes in Ireland. I am sorry I should have detained the Committee so long, but I think those are the answers to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman put. I do respectfully submit that we are abundantly justified in saying that this Clause is a Clause which we think necessary.
§ Mr. CASSEL
The Solicitor-General in his speech has not made his point quite as clear as he generally does. He complained that I addressed a question to him which he, as a junior Member of the Ministry, was not able to answer.
§ Mr. CASSEL
I asked whether there was any principle at all by which the Imperial Parliament should be guided in the future.
§ Sir J. SIMON
What I intended to say was that I do not think it is wise for us here, speaking from this box, whoever he may be, to lay down in advance precisely what, are the circumstances under which this House will and precisely what are the circumstances under which this House will not seek to include Ireland in changes of Imperial taxation.
§ Mr. CASSEL
I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to say that. Our complaint is that we do not get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us of the principle in this matter. He has not said a single word yet in this Debate, and I do not know whether he intends at a later stage to enlighten us upon the matter. I asked was there any principle in the future to guide the Imperial Parliament in its relation to taxes in Ireland. Supposing that expenditure on Imperial defence increases, is Ireland to bear its share of that future increase of taxation? We do not know. Assume that it is and that additional taxation is imposed on Ireland, and the result 1951 of that will be to wipe out this deficit and bring nearer the day when Parliament has to deal with revision. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Parliament, when that occurs, may do whatever it pleases in the matter. Ireland is to make a proper contribution to Imperial services, but the additional tax which is imposed upon Ireland by reason of the increase of expenditure, say, on the Navy, will not be a contribution to Imperial services, but will simply tend to wipe out the deficit, and therefore will only be a contribution towards its own contribution until the deficit is gone, so that the result of the additional increase of Imperial taxation imposed on Ireland will be to bring still further taxation on the country. I do not know whether that is intended or not, or whether that is the principle upon which the Government intend the future Chancellor of the Exchequer to be guided, but whether it is the intention or not it seems to me to be the result of the Bill. Assume, on the other hand, that the expenditure on the Navy diminishes, possibly by better relations with other Powers, or for other reasons, and that in consequence of that you are able to reduce taxation, is Ireland going to have the benefit of that reduction? Why should she when she contributes nothing at all to Imperial expenditure? I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer that question.
Supposing that as a result of the reduction of expenditure on the Navy we were able to take off the Sugar Duty, would it be taken off in Ireland as well? The result of doing so would be to increase the deficit and postpone the day when Ireland had to make an Imperial contribution. Surely such an arrangement is absurd on the face of it. Before this House can be asked even under the guillotine to give its assent to such a proposal we are entitled to have some explanation from the right "hon. Gentleman who is supposed to be the guardian of the finances of this country. Suppose that there is some reorganisation of the taxes of this country. I believe there are as many as 180 Gentlemen opposite who say that all our present taxes on food, those on tea and sugar, ought to be abolished, and that a tax on the capital value of land ought to be put in their place. I see that that has the assent of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. Supposing such a reorganisation as that were carried out, would that apply to Ireland 1952 as well or would it not? Can we have any sort of principle by which we are to form any idea as to whether that would be done? Suppose that did apply to Ireland the result might be enormously to diminish the deficit or to wipe it out, nobody can tell for certain. If you do not apply that to Ireland, and if you took off the duties on sugar and tea in England and Scotland alone, you will have that very result of a difference in the taxes in those duties between the two countries which seventy hon. Gentlemen were so strongly objecting to the other day when they induced the Government to alter the whole scheme of the Bill. Whether the Irish Government have an inducement to make the day come when the deficit is to be wiped out depends on what chance they have of getting increased powers.
On that question it is very important to look at the words of Sub-section (2), because it is the increase of power in respect of the imposition and collection of taxes. The precise words are important, for the reason that this will be no ordinary Act of Parliament. For the moment I must digress and refer to Sub-section (3), which bears on my argument as to Sub-section (2). This will be an Act of Parliament not passed by Members of Parliament, but by Members of Parliament and persons who are deemed to be Members of Parliament, but who are not Members of Parliament. Whenever such an Act of Parliament comes before the Courts, the Courts will have to look and see whether it is precisely within the terms of Sub-section (2). For that reason they would have to say that anything which authorised the reduction of Imperial taxes by the Irish Parliament would be ultra vires. When the hon. Gentleman was dealing with the powers which could be increased, the only specific suggestion he could make was that the Irish Parliament could be given the power of collecting their own taxes. He did not mention a single tax which they could either impose or reduce. I assume that the great desire to have the power of collection will be somewhat diminished by the fact that, with the actual power of collecting, will also go the privilege of paying the cost of that collection. I do think it is very important that we should have from the Government a clear understanding of what kind of taxes they think the Irish Parliament could be empowered to impose under this Clause, because I think the Solicitor-General was right when 1953 he said we have gone to the limit of what we can give consistently with the interests of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. CASSEL
And under altered conditions, and I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman why. So far as independent taxes are concerned we have given absolutely free power, there is no limit what ever. So far as Income Tax is concerned, there is a limit upon their power, because they cannot vary the rates. The hon. And learned Gentleman explained the reason, namely, because we collect the Income Tax at the source, that is how I understood him. I suppose even when Irish expenditure and revenue balance—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I did not object to what he said about Sub-section (3), but he cannot go back on the question of policy which we dealt with. That can only be brought in here as affecting the question of the retarding and accelerating of the time of revision.
§ Sir E. CARSON
Having regard to the speech of the Solicitor-General, in which he said that his previous observation would not apply to the altered circumstances, is not my hon. Friend entitled to follow that up and to show why it could not be affected by the altered circumstances?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Solicitor-General was replying to something said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. The hon. Member for St. Pancras was getting away from the purpose of our immediate discussion.
§ Mr. CASSEL
I was dealing with the Solicitor-General's statement that in the altered circumstances there might be taxes which the Irish Parliament could impose without interfering with the convenience or interest of the United Kingdom as a whole; and I was trying to point out that there were really no extended powers that could be given. If you tell me that I am not entitled to point that out, I must obey your ruling, but I submit that it places us in a position of great difficulty. I was going to take the main taxes seriatim. In the first place, with regard to independent taxes, the Irish Parliament 1954 already have full power. With regard to other taxes, the only restriction upon the Income Tax is the 10 per cent, limit and the restriction with regard to the rate. The restriction with regard to the rate is imposed, I understand, and I entirely agree, by reason of the fact that Income Tax is collected at the source; and it is absolutely inconsistent with the collection of Income Tax at the source that you should have different rates in different parts of the United Kingdom. Are we going to give up collecting Income Tax at the source when the happy day of revision arrives?
§ The CHAIRMAN
This is clearly going back to the argument on preceding Clauses. In so far as it is a question affecting the retarding or acceleration of the time of revision, it is permissible; but it is certainly not in order to have an argument on the merits of the future powers which may be given when the Clause comes into operation.
§ Mr. CASSEL
I was dealing with the question as it affects the retarding or the acceleration of the day of revision in this sense: Whether the Irish Parliament will have a stimulus to accelerate or to retard the day will depend on what they will get when the day arrives. I submit with some certainty that under this Clause there is really no additional power of any value which, consistent with the interests of the United Kingdom, could be given to the Irish Parliament, and because there is no such power there will be no stimulus or inducement to the Irish Parliament to endeavour to make that day arrive. Are you going to increase the powers of the Irish Parliament to deal with Customs and Excise! Hon. Members opposite have been saying that the powers already given in that respect go as far as the interests of the United Kingdom can possibly allow. We have even been told that the only reason why there is a variation in this Bill from the arrangement in every federation of not having Customs and Excise under the federal Parliament is the fact that there is a deficit. When the deficit is wiped out, are you going to leave Customs and Excise to the federal Parliament? Hon. Members for Ireland think that they are going to get greater powers of dealing with Customs and Excise. I think they will be very much mistaken. It is a misleading and unfair provision to put into an Act of Parliament, because it holds out 1955 hopes and suggestions which the Government know very well they cannot carry out. They know that they cannot give any increased powers of imposing taxes over and above those that they have already given in the Bill. That will be the case just as much when the deficit has been wiped out as it is to-day.
The Solicitor-General omitted to deal with one point with which I expected he would have dealt, and that was whether the word "revenue" included borrowed money. That appears to me to be a matter of legal interpretation. I was surprised to hear it even suggested that revenue included borrowed money. If I were describing my own revenue I certainly should not include anything that I had borrowed, nor do I think that any Government in the world has ever included it until to-day. It would have been interesting to have heard the views of the Solicitor-General upon that question of legal interpretation, and also whether capital expenditures were included in the cost of Irish services. It seems to me that the persons who will really have to determine whether or not revenue includes borrowed money will be the Joint Exchequer Board—the five accountants, as they were described by my right hon. Friend—who major may not as they please, refer the question to the Privy Council. That brings me to the whole position of the Exchequer Board in connection with the period when the deficit is wiped out.
§ Mr. CASSEL
We were specially allowed by the Chairman latitude to deal with the whole question. It seems as if my observations were getting home on the other side, as hon. Members are so anxious to prevent my making them. Let me remind them that under the guillotine procedure we shall probably not be able to reach any of the other Amendments. I am entitled to point out, therefore, that the period when this revision is to take place is left extremely vague and very much in the power of an arbitrary Board. This Board is not even bound year by year to make a Report on the position. As the Bill stands, there may one morning be found a registered letter in the letter-box of the Lord Lieutenant, and a Report may be presented to this House, saying that it appears to the Board that Irish revenue and expenditure have balanced for three 1956 years. That is all the Bill provides for. No reasons may be given. There is no opportunity of testing the facts or the figures upon which the decision of the Board may have been based. It is true that the Board itself has an opportunity of going to the Court.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member is really abusing the liberty that I have tried to grant. He is travelling, not only over this Clause, but over half a dozen other Clauses, some of which have already been passed, and others of which we have to pass on subsequent days. May I ask him to keep strictly to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield?
§ Mr. CASSEL
I am trying to deal with the power of the Board, under the Clause as it stands, of determining when the period of revision has arrived. If I am not entitled to deal with that, I can say nothing further upon it. My submission is that (he matter is left so indefinite, and so much in the power of the Exchequer Board, that there is really no opportunity for anyone who wishes to do so to challenge any of the facts on which the Exchequer Board bases its decision. If I am not in order in pursuing that argument, let me say that so far as the alternatives of the Bill and the Amendment of the Postmaster-General are concerned, I prefer the Amendment. I do not know whether I am entitled to speak on the Postmaster-General's Amendment.
§ Mr. CASSEL
As an alternative I prefer it to the Bill. So far as it goes it is an improvement, but how it will work out in practice I am at a loss to understand without further explanation. I do not know how the period is to be fixed or what opportunities there will be of checking it. Moreover, I do not know how you are going to work it out in the event of there being a surplus arising from the fact that the Irish Parliament have effected economies while the Imperial Exchequer still pays the whole Transferred Sum. Perhaps at some later period the Chancellor of the Exchequer or another Member of the Government will tell us what is going to happen with regard to that surplus. As to the Amendment, the Clause including the Amendment simply leaves the matter in a vague, nebulous, and hopeless state of chaos.
§ Sir HARRY SAMUEL
We have had an extraordinary Debate, and one which 1957 points out the extreme hardship under which we who are entrusted with the care of the interests of the British taxpayer are suffering under the present system of Guillotine Closure. I understand that under the latitude which you have allowed us we have three courses before us: the original course proposed in the Bill, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), now adopted by the Government, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. It seems to me that the whole result of the Debate has been to give us a definition of terms, or an expression of intentions, which the Government have not been able clearly to set forth in the language of their Bill. Under these circumstances, seeing that there is only one hour left before the guillotine falls, we are placed in a position of great difficulty and anxiety. I cannot help feeling that the thing the Government desire least is that exhausive Debate in this House should be able to inform clearly the British taxpayers of the difficulty under which they will be placed and the onus that will fall upon them if this Bill becomes law. The Clause under discussion is one of infinite importance to the British taxpayers, because it deals with the moment at which a revision of the financial arrangements established by this Bill between the United Kingdom and Ireland shall be undertaken. Until that time arrives, whenever it may be, the gravest problems are left over for consideration, and the taxpayers of Great Britain are placed, as far as the chances of a settlement being favourable to them are concerned, in a far worse position than if a final arrangement were, made now. We have had pointed out to us to-day two aspects for consideration from the Primrose Committee. When my right hon. Friend spoke on thy particular points made by the Primrose Committee, he was answered by the Solicitor-General. I do not think there is any doubt, if you read the whole report, that a desire was expressed that if an equitable arrangement were to be arrived at between this country and Ireland, it should be made as definite as possible. I do not for one moment believe that anything in the nature of a definite arrangement can possibly be arrived at under this Bill.
Let us consider for a moment what a revision involves. Ireland will have to make a substantial contribution to Imperial services, whenever a revision takes 1958 place. But whenever it does take place, she will have her own Parliament and her own Executive. Things then will be infinitely more equal so far as Ireland is concerned and between this country and Ireland. Therefore, she will be undoubtedly in a position of negotiating with considerable force and power to obtain a revision which will be favourable to her. I do not think there is much doubt that one of the terms she is likely to ask—and her power will largely consist of the power of the forty-two men who will represent her in this House—a very great power and one which we are denied in anything we may desire to do with regard to arrangements in Ireland—the terms she is likely to ask, I do not think there is much doubt, from what we know of the past, will be fiscal autonomy. Not only with regard to foreign nations, but against this country. Undoubtedly I think we shall have to give her far more under those circumstances than we really otherwise should do.
When can this revison come? There have been different estimates advanced as to when it can take place. I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Waterford, estimated it at something about ten years. The Postmaster-General's observations were couched in more general terms, and he put it from ten to twenty years. He does not give us the smallest idea of it coming in the near future. I do not think that if I were to say thirty years or thereabouts would be the likely period before we can arrive at any final determination that I should be guilty in any way or shape of exaggeration. One thing I would press home en this Committee is that during all this long period the, British taxpayer will have the Irish deficit and that Ireland will not be contributing one single penny to Imperial services. We should neglect our duty as English Members if we did not endeavour by all means in our power, not only to press home that injustice upon all shades and sections of opinion of this Committee, but also to endeavour to try and to get our people's voices heard outside this House in order that the British taxpayer may be warned—and I hope effectively warned—and may understand—and I hope completely understand—the lot that is destined for him if this Bill becomes law. The difficulties are largely increased by this adoption by the Government at this very late hour of an Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. I think the hon. Member himself has told us that the difficulty he 1959 experienced was that the more he endeavoured to explain the intricacies of these financial arrangements, the more difficulty he found the whole thing becoming to him. If that is so—and no doubt the hon. Member had the advantage of some help and assistance from His Majesty's Government in this matter—what must it be in the case of humble Members on these benches who endeavour to discover the period! If originally these huge intricacies troubled him, what must it be at this moment when he finds himself confronted with an absolute change?
Let us look at the Government's original scheme. It proposed that the revision should take place when in three successive years the proceeds of Imperial taxes and Irish taxes, together with Ireland's share of the micellaneous revenue of the United Kingdom, exceeded the Transferred Sum and the cost of the reserved services. We must recollect that the transferred services under Section 14 consist of three different things: Firstly, the cost of the transferred services; secondly, the Irish taxes; and thirdly, the subsidy. We can neglect altogether the question of Irish taxes in this matter. The proceeds of Irish taxation can have no effect in determining the period when revision can take place. The sums paid on the transferred services are a fixed amount. The cost on the reserved services and the Imperial taxes alone are variable. The rise or fall in the cost of the reserved services under the Government's original scheme would delay or expedite the time for the revision. A fall, I think, is most unlikely, and the deficit could only be extinguished when the Imperial taxes should have increased by this amount. What happens now that the Government have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton? Though there seems to be a considerable amount of doubt in the various remarks we have heard from both sides of the House, I think the Amendment would give far more power to the Irish Parliament than it would have under the original scheme. I believe myself that it gives the Irish Parliament power either to expedite the revision or to delay it. Economies in the transferred services, and the Irish share in miscellaneous revenue, will tend to shorten the time which will elapse before revision takes place. So, if economies are possible and desired by the Irish Parliament, the Amendment will enable them to 1960 hasten the period of revision. If revision is not desired—and recollect it carries Imperial contributions with it—the taking up of Imperial contributions once again, and one can imagine without any very great difficulty that the Irish Parliament might not feel particularly anxious on that account to obtain revision—then, in my opinion, if those economies cannot be effected, or if there is no desire to effect them, the date of revision undoubtedly can be retarded. It gives very large powers to the Irish Executive. It might well suit Ireland—and once again I do put forward this plea—but there is no certainty that that which suits the Irish Executive at the same time will suit the interests of the British taxpayer.
The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield does put something definitely forward. In the original scheme of the Government it was three years, and three years with equally good financial results. That seems to me to be a very high level. One knows how difficult it is in the matter of sport, say, to win a challenge cup for three consecutive years. Therefore in our small way we can realise the extreme difficulty for the Irish Financial Executive always to provide us with what I may call the high-water mark of successful revenue. I plead for simplicity. Simplicity is a thing we ought to desire very much in view of the difficulties of explanation we have heard this afternoon, and the difficulty of understanding what the different Members of the Government really mean by the expressions they have used; the difficulty of understanding precisely the terms in which these things are couched—that difficulty is so great that I venture to plead, at all events, for simplicity, and for the Amendment which it is my pleasure to support.
§ Mr. DAVID MASON
In answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down may I point out on behalf of the English Members that there is another side to the shield, and that it is not altogether a question of taxation. Just let me give the hon. Member one or two facts. Is he aware, for example, that something like £77,000,000 has been invested in land purchase by this country in Ireland. Surely, in the interests of the English Members, and in the interests of the English investors—as a large part of that capital comes through Great Britain advancing money for land purchase—this country should treat Ireland very generously. Even from 1961 the financial point of view it behoves us to be very careful as to the adjustment and allocation of the taxes, and to give Ireland every opportunity to prosper. In the interests of Ireland whose lenders are the people of Great Britain we should do so too. I would ask the hon. Member to put his thoughts round, and not to be consumed with the sole idea of doing all he can for the English taxpayer. If there is any default on the part of Ireland the British taxpayer would have to pay it. It is in the interests of the English Members and of great Britain generally to see to it that Ireland is generously treated, apart from the higher interests of doing what we think to be right.
The hon. Gentleman who last sat down repeated what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for St. Pancras, who repeatedly asked a question of the Government, and addressed it more particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is just possible that the Chancellor may reply to the hon. Member, but perhaps I may venture to give a reply. He asked us repeatedly what was the principle that would be applied in drawing up the taxes either on the part of the Imperial Treasury or on the part of the Irish Treasury. I think a very good answer to that is that the principles which surely will actuate the Government or any British Chancellor of the Exchequer would be those of common sense! The Chancellor in drawing up his Budget will, I think, have regard to the taxes already existing in Ireland, and if there should be a somewhat similar measure of self-government extended to Scotland or Wales the Chancellor would study the several parts and adjust his taxes accordingly, so that they will fall on those best suited to bear them. Ireland thus will be treated in accordance with the state of the existing Irish finances. To try to divide and lay down definite rides for the Irish or the British Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to defeat the object which the hon. Member has in view. We are not just now going to Budget for Ireland. We are trying to frame a Constitution for her. It is not a question as to whether this or that tax is a good tax The duty of hon. Members is to give powers, as the Solicitor-General so well said, in accordance with what is possible to Ireland and compatible with Imperial interests and practical working. I should like to add a few words to what fell from the Solicitor-General with regard to the point as to what con- 1962 stitutes practical working. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire referred to that very point, and I interrupted him. I am sorry for having interrupted him and stopped the flow of his eloquence, but my point was that until the revision should come about, and this deficit should be got rid of, that that in itself would be eloquent proof that it was necessary to again look into the powers given to Ireland. Naturally the hope is held out, as is stated very specifically in the Clause, of the possibility of the powers being extended when that time came. I assume the "practical working" will then come into our consideration as it does now.
If I understood the Solicitor-General when he made that statement the thought that he had in mind—very wisely as a statesman—was the state of feeling existing in this country to-day, and undoubtedly the fact that there are a number of Members on this side who are a little afraid of the possibility of Ireland being drawn away into Protectionist theories, and attempting to draw up a tariff against this country In the solution that is arrived at now let us take that into account in settling what are to be the powers that Ireland is to have. I for one believe, as I have said already, that we are not drawing up an Irish Budget. We are drawing up a Constitution. We must give a certain amount of chances. I for one have confidence in the Irish people, for I think they are not going to do anything foolish or excessive.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the hon. Member is falling into the same course which a while ago I had to deflect, and that is discussing what might happen if this Clause at some future date is put into operation. Let us now keep to the financial point of the Amendment.
§ Mr. DAVID MASON
I am sorry, Mr. Whitley, that I was drawn away somewhat widely from the Amendment, immediately before us; but, as I have said, my point is that the criticisms surely must have regard to the fact that unless you give wide powers, you cannot expect Ireland either to do very well or very badly. Ireland must have an opportunity of managing her finances either one way or the other. You cannot cripple her or confine her too minutely. There has been another point raised this afternoon of considerable importance, and laid stress upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). He 1963 made a great deal of capital with regard to the statement made by the Postmaster-General as to what constitutes true revenue, and said the right hon. Gentleman said that loans in any circumstances could not be regarded as revenue. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to misrepresent the Postmaster-General, because I do not for a moment believe that the Postmaster-General contended that loans, as such, should be regarded as revenue. As I understood him he meant surely that it was the effect upon the revenue produced by loan. We all know, for example, that should Ireland enter into considerable loan transactions, that unquestionably would affect the revenue of Ireland. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) knows well that if Ireland were to engage in considerable borrowing operations, that unquestionably would swell the revenue of Ireland for the time being.
§ Mr. D. MASON
I hope the hon. Baronet will agree as far as that is concerned. It is the annual expenditure we are dealing with and what would take place in the event of Ireland borrowing loans. Hon. Members know that if Ireland were to borrow from this country for the purpose of public works, that would entail large expenditure of money in Ireland. It would probably mean an increase of the imports of this country into Ireland, all going to swell the revenue, and therefore should Ireland engage in the wild game of borrowing, that unquestionably for the time being would swell the revenue of Ireland, and might indeed bring about a state of affairs enabling her to balance her accounts. Of course, it would increase her capital liabilities; but everyone knows that wild borrowing on the part of Ireland would unquestionably tend to swell the revenue of Ireland for the time being, and might temporarily bring about the state of affairs to which the Postmaster-General referred. But I do not think that the Postmaster-General intended to argue as the right hon. Gentleman opposite tried to make out, that loans were regarded as in any sense of the word revenue as such. I think the Clause as drawn is much better than the Amendment, because, as pointed out, the idea of giving three years is surely a much better 1964 system of arriving at what is the true condition and the financial conditions of the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Parliament. You may have in one year this deficit wiped out, but you will not have conditions which would justify you in bringing about this revision contemplated in the Clause, whereas if you get it in a succession of three years you are justified in dealing with these things, and adjusting the relations between the Irish and the Imperial Parliament; and it is because I believe that there is a fair way of dealing with the matter that I think it ought to commend itself to anyone taking a temperate view of the situation.
Although I have, listened with attention to most of the speeches made opposite I own there are points of really great importance which I am unable to understand, either in the old plan of the Government or in the new plan. The new plan in which the Government want to embody the alternative of the hon. Member for Northampton, I take it, is the one which we must suppose will be in operation when the Bill becomes law, if it ever does. The right hon. Gentleman who defended the proposals of the Government in that shape, made what I thought was at the moment a slip with regard to the use of the word "revenue," but which I gather was not a slip, but is a vital part of the case of the Government. The case of the Government is that the Irish Parliament cannot by any means in their power affect the happy day on which there is to be an equalisation between the two Exchequers. It is perfectly clear that they cannot affect that day if the money derived from loans is, as every human being, until the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, supposed it was not to be counted as revenue, but to be counted in the nature of capital expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman. I believe, quoted in support of his view the opinion of the draftsman, that money derived from loans was really revenue. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman had the smallest right to quote the draftsman. It is never done. The office of the draftsman is an office which every Government consults on some occasions, and we are not going on this side of the House to discuss the draftsman's competence to give a legal opinion. I have consulted my legal Friends on this side who are quite able to give an opinion, and they declare that this use of the word "revenue," which the Government has adopted, is not only absolutely contrary to ordinary 1965 practice, as every human being knows, but is not the meaning of the word any lawyer would recommend or any Court of Law would sustain. I am sorry that the learned Solicitor-General, who made an elaborate speech earlier in the afternoon, and who, as my lion, and learned Friend behind me said was as perfectly competent as any Member of the Front Bench opposite to answer this point, left it entirely upon one side. It is really not simply a question of the use or the misuse of the word "revenue," but it directly affects what is apparently a critical point in the Government policy as to whether this House should not have some power over the day, the happy day, which is to arrive, and that the Irish Parliament should not be entitled to delay, as they could, if loans are revenue. I should very much like to know whether the right lion. Gentleman opposite, after consulting his legal friends, still thinks that when a country borrows money, what it gets through these loans is to be counted as part of its true revenue.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The right lion. Gentleman asks me a question. Of course the word "revenue" by itself may bear the meaning the right lion. Gentleman says. But will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the context in which it is used in this case. The Clause will read:
"Aggregate of the total proceeds of Imperial taxes levied in Ireland … and the total proceeds of Irish taxes 'and any other revenue available for the payment of the cost of Irish services.'"
Therefore it is clearly receipts which are other than taxed receipts. That might conceivably mean only such receipts as from the Post Office, which are non-tax revenue; but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that taken in that context the word "revenue" might well include the kind of revenue the hon. Member has in mind, namely, when the Government finds itself with the deficit of a million to make good, it might borrow Exchequer Bills to make good the deficit towards the ordinary expenditure of the year. It is merely a verbal question, and in no degree vital; and I would gladly put in a drafting Amendment to make quite clear what is the intention.
I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that with sc many things to do, we need not waste time over a discussion on words. But is there not something besides words When the Gov- 1966 ernment put down a Clause or an Amendment, using language for revenue, it is on the interpretation of the word "revenue" there that the power of the Irish House of Commons to deal with the happy day really depends. The right hon. Gentleman says that by implication the meaning of the word "revenue" must include taxation. He knows perfectly well that not merely the Post Office, but many other sources of annual income may come into the Exchequer which are revenue, and not taxes, but are not the proceeds of loans, and when the right hon. Gentleman attempts to make this clear, in what sense is he ready to make it clear? Is it to define revenue as meaning the proceeds of loans or that it does not mean the proceeds of loans. Can he tell me that?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The sort of Amendment that I may move is something to this effect: Instead of using the word "revenue," I might use the words "money made available for Irish services" or "normal Irish expenditure of the year," or words to that effect. Supposing in one year the Irish Government raises a loan of £2,000,000 to be expended over a number of years, we must devise such words as would exclude a case of that sort.
The right hon. Gentleman now proposes at some stage so to settle the words of his Amendment that the proceeds of the loans shall not count as revenue—or that they shall.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
Bonâ fide loans!
I really only want to know what it does, and as to whether the proceeds of a loan count as revenue or not. What is the difference between bonâ fide and mala fide loans—I will take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's epithet. Do the proceeds of a bonâ fide loan count as revenue in the intentions of the Government?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I have endeavoured to make clear the intentions of the Government. You are dealing on one side with the annual expenditure for the year. On the other side of the account you have to deal with the money available for that annual expenditure. If the Joint Exchequer Board find that for the services of that-particular year the expenditure of that particular year is over the amount of expenditure raised from 1967 taxes they have to put on the debit side the sum of money as raised through taxes and the margin from loans, and they would include that. If the money is not intended to be expended on the normal annual expenditure of the year, it will not be included.
If I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it is the intention as to the use to be made of the money.
§ 7.0 P.M.
If the use made of the money is to meet the ordinary expenses of the year, then it is quite clear that by borrowing and spending money in that way the Irish Government can alter the period of revision. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I quite recognise that perhaps through my fault in cross-examining the Postmaster-General, the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to drive into my dull brain the reals views of the Government on this question. I must leave it to abler hands and to a clearer expounder to solve the problem, the bottom of which I have vainly attempted to reach. May I come to some other questions in which I hope I shall meet with more success? One of the objects everybody is apparently looking forward to when the happy day arrives is that Ireland should contribute towards the probable expenditure of the United Kingdom. It is upon that point that I want clearly and concisely from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is our position in regard to Ireland. I understand there are two possibilities, and, as far as I can see, only two. We may say that we regard Ireland, so long as there is a deficit, as having no further obligation towards Imperial defence than she now has, and therefore any taxation put on for Imperial purposes will have to be borne by England and Scotland. The other point is to say that Ireland is part of the United Kingdom under the supreme authority of this House, and, therefore, when we have got to put on additional taxation for Imperial purposes Ireland must be taxed and pay her share of that taxation. I understand from the nod of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is the second of those alternatives the Government are going to put forward. I do not see that Ireland is going to pay any additional contribution after the 1968 happy day than she does before, because I understand that she will have to pay her full quota of any new taxation for Imperial purposes. What are these proper contributions which she is going to begin to pay after the happy day? How do they differ from the improper contributions she is going to be asked for before the happy day? I think that is a very definite question to which a clear answer should be given. I have a sincere desire to find out what the policy of the Government is on this point, because, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, it seems to me that the contention put forward is wholly inconsistent with the general tenour of the Bill. I hope, before we divide at 7.30, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make this point perfectly clear. I want to know what the different condition of Ireland will be before and after the happy day respectively in proportion to any new taxation placed upon England and Scotland by this House, and raised by this House, for the purposes of general Imperial defence? That is a question to which I hope we shall get a definite and clear answer.
The whole purpose of the Amendment moved by the Postmaster-General was to give Ireland an opportunity of gaining certain privileges with regard to her own taxation at an earlier date than she otherwise might do. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) gave the first explanation on behalf of the Government Amendment, and he prefaced his, speech by saying it was impossible not to foresee that Ireland would require much greater autonomy in the matter of taxation than she now possesses, and it was in order to give Ireland that greater autonomy that he and the Government desired to have placed upon the Paper an Amendment to enable Ireland to achieve this object. What are those advantages which Ireland is going to have? What kind of additional freedom in dealing with Irish taxation does Ireland want? Is it greater freedom in dealing with Customs? Is Ireland to have a larger power of managing the Customs House barrier which this Bill sets up between England and Scotland on the one side and Ireland on the other? If it is not that, is it greater freedom for the Post Office or is it greater power over the Income Tax? Remember that on these points the Government have always taken up an attitude which absolutely precludes them from giving any explanation except that which they have had to admit under 1969 pressure from their own side—namely, that this question of managing the Customs is a difficult and a delicate one, and they have actually diminished the powers which the Bill originally gave to the Irish Parliament over the Customs and over the Post Office. Therefore in two particulars which have nothing whatever to do with the appointed day, the Government have said that the original liberties given by this Bill were too large. Are they going to be increased after the appointed day? A similar question may be asked with regard to the Income Tax. The arguments put forward by the Government show that the Income Tax cannot be entrusted to an Irish Parliament. This has nothing to do with the Irish deficit. Are you going to give greater liberties in regard to the Income Tax after the appointed day than are given now?
The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment talked about the great motives the Irish Government have to hasten the happy day, and the opportunities by which they can reach the happy day, and I want to know what great things are going to occur, what are these great liberties, and what are the things which the eighty Members who will come here are going to get out of us. I cannot imagine a picture of what the new state of things is going to be. I hope on that point also we shall have quite a definite answer from the Government. There remains one and only one point on which the powers may be extended, and that is the collection of taxes. Again, the taxes which the Trish Government will presumably collect, after the happy day are largely Imperial taxes. I think this afternoon somebody got up—I think it was the Postmaster-General—and told us that you could not trust the Irish Parliament to collect Imperial taxes, because if they were slack the Irish taxpayers would gain whereas the Scotch and the English taxpayers would lose. I do not see how you would be better off after the appointed day as regards the collection of taxes. Those are the three questions or groups of questions on which I desire to have an answer. I am not going to ask any more the question whether the proceeds of a loan are revenue or not, because I am quite, sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with the Postmaster-General on that point, and I should be sorry to put him in the embarrassing 1970 position of having to use his well-known powers of rhetoric denouncing one of his colleagues, but I will ask him to consent to answer the other two sets of questions I have put to him. The first is, what will be the difference in Ireland's position as regards Imperial expenditure for Imperial purposes, such as additions to the Fleet? What is the difference between Ireland's position before and after the happy day, seeing that she has in respect of the happy day to contribute her fair share, and before the happy day the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to see that she contributes her fair share. The second question is the one I have been dilating upon, namely, what is the sort of freedom which is supposed to be the sole desire of Ireland to have, which she so much wants to have, and which it is said it is so important she should have with regard to her powers over the collection and the raising of revenue? Those are two quite clear groups of questions, and I earnestly trust before we divide at 7.30 we shall listen to the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope he will tell us exactly what the Government plan is in framing this Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I know it is a very dangerous thing to take part in a debate which one has only heard part of. I am sorry to say that, owing to a deputation I have been receiving, I was not present to hear the whole of the Debate, although I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and a good part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has absolved me from any obligation to answer the first question upon the amiable suggestion that he would not like to see one colleague denouncing another. May I suggest another reason? The right hon. Gentleman argued the case, and on a point like this, as he generally does, he came to the conclusion that it was a thoroughly bad point. I know the right hon. Gentleman so well that I thought I could see the exact moment that he discovered it was a bad point. On such occasions it is customary for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I won't put the right hon. Gentleman to the trouble of answering that point," although I do not think he will admit it. Now I come to the other points, and I will endeavour to answer them. The right hon. Gentleman asked, what is the 1971 difference between the position of Ireland before the appointed day or the happy day and the position after the happy day? I do not see any distinction between the two because they are both happy days. From the first moment of the introduction of this Bill, or even before its introduction, I do not think that we have ever departed from the position that Ireland will be liable to a share of any burdens that are cast upon the United Kingdom, as a whole, for any Imperial purposes.
Let us take, first of all, an instance of a fresh burden to be imposed. I will take the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. Let us assume there is a naval crisis, and it is necessary to raise an additional sum by means of taxation. That burden will be borne by the United Kingdom. What will be the position of the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer then? The position would be this. He would levy a tax which would extend over the whole of the United Kingdom to meet an absolutely new emergency. Let us suppose he puts an additional twopence on the Income Tax to meet a great naval crisis; not only would he be in a position after the appointed day to make that charge over the whole of the United Kingdom, but I think it would be his obvious duty to do so. It would be a charge that ought to be borne by the whole of the United Kingdom. That is my view with regard to that question. I do not think there will be any difference so far as the general Imperial burden or obligation is concerned after the passing of the Home Rule Bill from the position which obtains at the present time. If it was a charge with respect to some burden for the benefit of Great Britain alone, some charge, for instance, for a social scheme which was purely for the benefit of England. Scotland, and Wales, then I should consider it a distinct breach of faith to put a charge on Ireland for something in the benefit of which she did not participate unless there was some Grant to Ireland equivalent to the benefit conferred upon Great Britain. That is my answer to the first question put by the right hon Gentleman.
What do these words mean, "With a view to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues"?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That I understood to be the second point; I was coming 1972 to that next. Then the right hon. Gentleman said: "What difference is there between the time before the happy day and the time after the happy day?" The difference is this. I am presupposing a contribution for a new Imperial burden; but let us assume there is no new Imperial burden at all after the happy day. If the prosperity of Ireland is such that she wipes off the deficit, then Ireland will be called upon to make her contribution, and can be made to contribute, towards Imperial expenditure, although there is no fresh burden for Imperial purposes. That is the difference. Take another alternative. The deficit now is £2,000,000. Supposing new taxation is imposed and Ireland's share of that new taxation is £500,000, It is true Great Britain gets £500,000 a year from Ireland she was not getting before, but, after all, it only reduces the deficit. You might, after the happy day, have Ireland so prosperous that she wiped off all the deficit. Ireland could then be called upon to contribute without any additional Imperial burden at all. That is the difference; that is a real difference. We have always presupposed Ireland would pay her share of the burden of the United Kingdom for Imperial purposes. The only reason she is not doing so is one which has absolutely nothing to do with Home Rule. She is not contributing now. The cost of Irish services themselves produces a deficit. That has nothing to do with Home Rule. As a matter of fact, if you have no Home Rule, that deficit in our judgment will increase. There is no contribution now from Ireland for Imperial purposes. What has been our position? We say that under Home Rule, and for other reasons into which I need rot enter now, Ireland will increase in prosperity; her revenue will become greater, and gradually she will work off this deficit without the imposition of fresh taxation. The moment that happens, we feel Ireland ought to contribute her share of the Imperial burden, and that is when this readjustment takes places. That is the difference between the two positions. I hope I have made it clear to the right lion. Gentleman, but, if not, I am perfectly prepared to answer any further questions.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the third point of my right hon. Friend about the object for which the Irish Parliament wants greater freedom, and for that reason I did not dream he was coming to the end of his speech. I would like to look at the speech 1973 to which we have just listened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by saying my right hon. Friend had discovered it was a bad point. He did not accept his explanation and I expected he would immediately set my right hon. Friend right, but evidently he had discovered that though the point was bad the answer was worse. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us the information on Saturday that occasionally he strolls into the House while we are engaged in the Home Rule Debate. That is very condescending of him. We are very grateful. I do not think he could have selected a worse day on which to honour us with his presence than the day on which we are discussing this Clause 26. In my opinion, it is a perfectly useless Clause, and it has absolutely no meaning in any shape or form. The right hon. Gentleman said he had met the point made by my right hon. Friend. That point was this: "What is the difference between the contribution Ireland will make to Imperial expenditure before this Clause comes into operation and after it comes into operation?" Consider what the position is before it comes into operation. Any tax imposed on Great Britain for the purpose of an Imperial service of any kind falls automatically on Ireland. She is going to be taxed if we have to spend more money on the Navy or for any other purpose just as if the Home Rule Bill had not passed. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "Yes, but when the time comes and the deficit is wiped out by the increased yield of taxation, then that moment she ought to make a contribution; she is contributing nothing now, because there is a deficit." The rate of taxation for these purposes is to be the same in Ireland as in England before as after the happy day. If they have got rid of their deficit, they have got rid of it by paying precisely the same taxes for Imperial purposes as are paid by England or Scotland. The moment the deficit is got rid of, they will give their contribution in the same way as England and Scotland gives it, by paying the same taxes, and the amount will go naturally into the Imperial Exchequer.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the other side of the arrangement which is to be made, namely, that the Irish people are in future to have control of a larger sphere of finance. They need not be paying the same taxes.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
The right hon. Gentleman is assuming some great change is to be made between the two countries. When that time conies it is to be made for the sake of getting Ireland's contribution for Imperial purposes, but it is quite obvious without any change you do get a contribution precisely in the same way from Ireland as from England. I do believe neither of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite has ever thought out what their Bill means. I am convinced everyone thought when this Bill was introduced—certainly the speeches of the Prime Minister and of everyone else on the Second Reading led us to suppose—that what the Government were doing was to stereotype the existing financial relations between Ireland and England. They saw Ireland was not paying her way, that we were giving her a contribution to enable her to pay her way, and that until she paid her way she was to have no additional burdens thrown upon her. That was how I understood the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "For Imperial purposes."] What is the object of it otherwise? If you are going to tax Ireland after Home Rule precisely as before for Imperial purposes, what is the use of saying she has a deficit? The deficit will be wiped away the moment you put on new taxes, and the whole thing is in your own hands. I am sure that is obvious to every Member in the House, or at any rate to everyone who has thought anything about it. Let me deal with Clause 26, or the first part of it, which we are at liberty to discuss under this Amendment. What is the meaning of it? It is to give a revision when the deficit is wiped out. Surely it is obvious, if you set up a Parliament in Ireland which is controlling the internal affairs of Ireland and you have a Parliament in this country, then, whatever the nominal powers of the Imperial Parliament may be, you cannot make financial arrangements without the consent of the Irish Parliament. Is not that obvious? Yon cannot have the Parliament there and all their representatives here saying, "We object to the arrangements you are making, and insist on some other arrangements." If that is the fact, what is the use of all this elaborate machinery? It has got to be done by agreement between the two Parliaments, and there is not the slightest use or object in having this Clause 28.
There is another point I should like to put. It is a matter of detail. The Postmaster-General says the Irish Parlia- 1975 ment would have no power to defer the day. I admit this is technical, but I think he is wrong. Under the Bill as it stands that is true, because the period will only arrive as the result of the growth of Imperial taxes, but, as I understand it, the difference the Amendment makes is that the whole of the Irish revenue and expenditure is to be taken into account, and not until the whle balances, or as soon as the whole balances, is this Clause 26 to come into operation. If that is so, is it not perfectly obvious the Irish Parliament can defer it for ever by increasing her expenditure on Irish services? If they find they are coming near the time when they would have the power to contribute to Imperial expenditure, they might say, "We can afford more on education," or "We can afford to give more bounties to establish industries in Ireland." They will never allow it to come so long as it is to
§ their interest the money should be spent in Ireland instead of coming to England. In the same way we can prevent it when we like. Both parties can prevent it. What is the object of the Clause? It only has one object. It is part of the make-belief which characterises the Bill from beginning to end. Its one object is to make people in England and Scotland believe the Government are going to insist on a contribution from Ireland, and, on the other hand, to enable hon. Members from Ireland to say, "We will never make a contribution until we choose, and we will never choose as long as we can spend the money in Ireland."
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'levied' ['Imperial taxes levied'] stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 182.1979
|Division No. 372.]||AYES.||[7.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Adamson, William||Cotton, William Francis||Hackett, John|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hall, Frederick (Normanton)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Crooks, William||Hardie, J. Keir|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Crumley, Patrick||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Armitage, Robert||Cullinan, John||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Dawes, J. A.||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple)||De Forest, Baron||Hayward, Evan|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Delany, William||Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)||Devlin, Joseph||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Barton, W.||Dillon, John||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Donelan, Captain A.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Doris, W.||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Duffy, William J.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Bentham, G. J.||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Hinds, John|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Hodge, John|
|Black, Arthur W.||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Boland, John Pius||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Essex, Richard Walter||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Falconer, J.||Hudson, Walter|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Farrell, James Patrick||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Brace, William||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Ffrench, Peter||John, Edward Thomas|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Field, William||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Fitzgibbon, John||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon, John||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Gill, A. H.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Ginnell, L.||Jowett, F. W.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Joyce, Michael|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Glanville, H. J.||Keating, Matthew|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Goldstone, Frank||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Kilbride, Denis|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||King, J.|
|Clough, William||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Griffith, Ellis Jones||Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)|
|Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Leach, Charles||Ogden, Fred||Short, Edward|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||O'Grady, James||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Lewis, Herbert||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||O'Malley, William||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lundon, T.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Snowden, Philip|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Lynch, A. A.||O'Shee, James John||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Outhwaite, R. L.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|McGhee, Richard||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Sutton, John E.|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Tennant, Harold John|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||Thomas, James Henry|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|M'Curdy, C. A.||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|M'Kean, John||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Pointer, Joseph||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Pollard, Sir George H.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wadsworth, J.|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Martin, Joseph||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Primrose, Hon, Neil James||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Meagher, Michael||Pringle, Wm. M. R.||Waring, Walter|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Radford, G. H.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Millar, James Duncan||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Molloy, M.||Reddy, Michael||Watt, Henry A.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Webb, H.|
|Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Redmond, William A. (Tyrone, E.)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Mooney, John J.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Morgan, George Hay||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Morrell, Philip||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.|
|Morison, Hector||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Whyte, A. F.|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Muldoon, John||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Munro, R.||Robinson, Sidney||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.)|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Roche, John (Galway, E.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Needham, Christopher T.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Winfrey, Richard|
|Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Rowlands, James||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Rowntree, Arnold||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Young, William (Perth, E.)|
|Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Sheehy, David|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Faber, George D. (Clapham)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Falle, Bertram Godfray|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Campion, W. R.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey|
|Ashley, W. W.||Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes|
|Baird, J. L.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Fleming, Valentine|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cassel, Felix||Fletcher, John Samuel|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Cator, John||Forster, Henry William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lon.)||Cave, George||Foster, Philip Staveley|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gardner, Ernest|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton|
|Barnston, Harry||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Goldman, C. S.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Goldsmith, Frank|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Chambers, James||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Grant, James Augustus|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Gretton, John|
|Bigland, Alfred||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)|
|Bird, A.||Courthope, George Loyd||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)|
|Blair, Reginald||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Craik, Sir Henry||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)|
|Boyton, J.||Croft, H. P.||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)|
|Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Denniss, E. R. B.||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Harris, Henry Percy|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)|
|Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Hill, Sir Clement||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Hills, John Waller||Moore, William||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Hill-Wood, Samuel||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Hoare, S. J. G.||Newman, John R. P.||Swift, Rigby|
|Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Nield, Herbert||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)||Norton-Griffiths, J.||Terrell, George (Wilts., N.W.)|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Hume-Williams, W. E.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Ingleby, Holcombe||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Parkes, Ebenezer||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Peel, Captain R. F.||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Kerry, Earl of||Perkins, Walter Frank||Touche, George Alexander|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Larmor, Sir J.||Randles, Sir John S.||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Rees, Sir J. D.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Lee, Arthur H.||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Lewisham, viscount||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Winterton, Earl|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Rolleston, Sir John||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Rothschild, Lionel de||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Royds, Edmund||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Rutherford. Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Mackinder, H. J.||Sanders, Robert A.||Younger, Sir George|
|Macmaster, Donald||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|M'Neill, Ronald (Kent. S. Augustine's)||Sassoon, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)||Fell and Mr. Hewins|
§ It being Half-past Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 14th October, successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Clause to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.1980
§ Government Amendment: In Subsection (1), after the word "taxes" ["the total proceeds of the Irish taxes"], insert the words "and any other revenue available for the payment of the cost of Irish services."—[Mr. Birrell.]
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 182.1983
|Division No. 373.]||AYES.||[7.40 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Bowerman, C. W.||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Davies, E. William (Eiflon)|
|Adamson, William||Brace, William||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Brady, Patrick Joseph||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Bryce, J. Annan||Dawes, J. A.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||De Forest, Baron|
|Armitage, Robert||Burke, E. Haviland-||Delany, William|
|Arnold, Sydney||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Devlin, Joseph|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Byles, Sir William Pollard||Dillon, John|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Doris, W.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Duffy, William J.|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Chancellor, Henry George||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Barnes, George N.||Clancy, J. Joseph||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)||Clough, William||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)|
|Barton, W.||Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Essex, Richard Walter|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Falconer, J.|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Cotton, William Francis||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Ffrench, Peter|
|Black, Arthur W.||Crooks, William||Field, William|
|Boland, John Pius||Crumley, Patrick||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Cullinan, John||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Gill, A. H.||Macpherson, James Ian||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Ginnell, L.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Glanville, H. J.||M'Curdy, C. A.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Kean, John||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Goldstone, Frank||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Greenwood, Granville (Peterborough)||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Robinson, Sidney|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Roch, Walter F.|
|Griffith, Ellis Jones||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Martin, Joseph||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Rowlands, James|
|Hackett, J.||Meagher, Michael||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Menzies, Sir Walter||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Hardie, J. Keir||Millar, James Duncan||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Molloy, M.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Sheehy, David|
|Harvey W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mooney, J. J.||Shortt, Edward|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morgan, George Hay||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Morrell, Philip||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morison, Hector||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Hayward, Evan||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Muldoon, John||Snowden, P.|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Munro, R.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Henderson, J. M, (Aberdeen, W.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Henry, Sir Charles||Needham, Christopher T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon, S.)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nolan, Joseph||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hinds, John||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Thomas, J. H.|
|Hodge, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Doherty, Philip||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Donnell, Thomas||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Hushes, S. L.||Ogden, Fred||Wadsworth, J.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Grady, James||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|John, Edward Thomas||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)||O'Malley, William||Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Waring, Walter|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Shee, James John||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Outhwaite, R. L.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Joyce, Michael||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Watt, Henry A.|
|Keating, M.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Webb, H.|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|King, J.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Whyte, A. F.|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Pointer, Joseph||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)||Pollard, Sir George H.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Leach, Charles||Power, Patrick Joseph||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Lundon, T.||Primrose, Hon. Nell James||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Pringle, William M. R.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Radford, G. H.||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|MacGhee, Richard||Reddy, Michael||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Bennett-Goldney, Francis|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Barnston, Harry||Beresford, Lord C.|
|Baird, J. L.||Barrie, H. T.||Bigland, Alfred|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Bird, A.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Blair, Reginald|
|Boscawen, sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Peel, Captain R. F.|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Boyton, James||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Quitter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Harris, Henry Percy||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Campbell, Fit. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Campion, W. R.||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hills, John Waller (Durham)||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Cassel, Felix||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Cator, John||Hoare, S. J. G.||Royds, Edmund|
|Cave, George||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Chaloner, Col. Ft. G. W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Chambers, James||Ingleby, Holcombe||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Joynson-Hicks, William||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Kerry, Earl of||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Kimber, Sir Henry||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Larmor, Sir J.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Swift, Rigby|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Lee, Arthur H.||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Croft, H. P.||Lewisham, Viscount||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Fell, Arthur||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mackinder, Halford J.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Macmaster, Donald||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Fleming, Valentine||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Magnus, Sir Philip||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Malcolm, Ian||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Foster, Philip Staveley||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Gastrell, Major W. H.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Winterton, Earl|
|Goldman, C. S.||Moore, William||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Newman, John R. P.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Grant, J. A.||Nield, Herbert||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Gretton, John||Norton-Griffiths, J.||Younger, Sir George|
|Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel|
|Gwynne, R. S. (Eastbourne, Sussex)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Hickman and Mr. Brassey.|
|Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
§ Further Government Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "amount of the Transferred Sum," and insert the words, "total cost of Irish services."—[Mr. Birrell]1984
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 182.1987
|Division No. 374]||AYES.||[7.55 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Beale, Sir William Phipson||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Actand, Francis Dyke||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)|
|Adamson, William||Beck, Arthur||Byles, Sir William Pollard|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Bentham, G. J.||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)|
|Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)||Bethell, Sir John Henry||Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Chancellor, Henry George|
|Armitage, Robert||Black, Arthur W.||Chapple, Dr. William Allen|
|Arnold, Sydney||Boland, John Pius||Clancy, John Joseph|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Booth, Frederick Handel||Clough, William|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Bowerman, C. W.||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Brace, William||Compton-Rickett, Hon. Sir J.|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Brady, Patrick Joseph||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Brocklehurst, William B.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Barnes, George N.||Bryce, J. Annan||Cotton, William Francis|
|Barran, sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Barton, W.||Burke, E. Haviland-||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot|
|Crooks, William||Joyce, Michael||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Keating, Matthew||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Cullinan, J.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sip J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Kilbride, Denis||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||King, Joseph||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Radford, George Heynes|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Delany, William||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)||Reddy, Michael|
|De Forest, Baron||Leach, Charles||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lewis, John Herbert||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Dillon, John||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Richardson, Albion Peckham|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Doris, William||Lundon, Thomas||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Duffy, William J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||McGhee, Richard||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Macpherson, James Ian||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Falconer, J.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Rowlands, James|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Curdy, Charles Albert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Kean, John||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Ffrench, Peter||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Field, William||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Sheehy, David|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Gill, A. H.||Martin, Joseph||Shortt, Edward|
|Ginnell, Laurence||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Glanville, H. J.||Meagher, Michael||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Menzies, Sir Walter||Snowden, Philip|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Molloy, Michael||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Griffith, Ellis James||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Sutton, John E.|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Mooney, John J.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Morgan, George Hay||Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Morrell, Philip||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hackett, J.||Morison, Hector||Thomas, James Henry|
|Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Muldoon, John||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Hardie, J. Keir||Munro, Robert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wadsworth, John|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Needham, Christopher T.||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nolan, Joseph||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Hayward, Evan||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Waring, Walter|
|Hazleton, Richard||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Doherty, Philip||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Watt, Henry A.|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Ogden, Fred||Webb, H.|
|Henry, Sir Charles||O'Grady, James||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Hinds, John||O'Malley, William||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.|
|Hodge, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Shee, James John||Wiles, Thomas|
|Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Outhwaite, R. L.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Hudson, Walter||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Winfrey, Richard|
|John, Edward Thomas||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Pollard, Sir George H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Jowett, Frederick William||Power, Patrick Joseph||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Forster, Henry William||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Foster, Philip Staveley||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Gardner, Ernest||Nield, Herbert|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Norton-Griffiths, J.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Goldman, C. S.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goldsmith, Frank||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Grant, J. A.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Barnston, H.||Gretton, John||Quitter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Barrie, H. T.||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Randies, Sir John S.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Royds, Edmund|
|Bird, Alfred||Harris, Henry Percy||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Blair, Reginald||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Boyton, James||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Hills, John Waller||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Stanley, Hon. A. (Lancs., Ormskirk)|
|Campion, W. R.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Home, E. Surrey (Guildford)||Swift, Rigby|
|Cassel, Felix||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Cator, John||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Cave, George||Ingleby, Holcombe||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Kerry, Earl of||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Chambers, James||Larmor, Sir J.||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Lewisham, Viscount||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Winterton, Earl|
|Croft, Henry Page||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Mackinder, Halford J.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Macmaster, Donald||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Malcolm, Ian||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Fell, Arthur||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Younger, Sir George|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Fleming, Valentine||Moore, William||Ronald M'Neill and Mr. Neville.|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Newman, John R. P.|
§ Mr. CAVE
I beg to move to omit Subsection (3).
The effect of the Sub-section is that for the purpose of revising the financial provisions of the Bill there shall be summoned to this House a certain number of Members of the Irish House of Commons. There are certain questions which at once arise on this Sub-section. I think no one will say that it is clearly expressed. The first point is: How are these Members to be chosen? There is no guidance in the 1988 Clause itself. Are they to be chosen entirely by the Irish House of Commons—that is, by the Irish Government of the day—and, if so, are they to be chosen on any principle at all? For instance, the position will be this: There will be in this House at that time probably some forty-two Irish Members. Under this Clause there must be summoned to this House sufficient additional Members to make the Irish representation proportionate to the population. Taking the fair Irish representation to be some sixty-six Members, 1989 this would mean that twenty-four additional Irish Members are to be sent here from the Irish House of Commons for this purpose. Are these to be entirely chosen by the majority in the Irish House? If so, it is very likely that they will all belong to one political party. Whereas, it may be, until that time the different parts of Ireland will be represented here in proportion to their Members, from that time there will be no such fair representation, and we should have a predominant number of Irish Members belonging to one party. There is no provision at all for the representation of minorities in Ireland among these additional Members. That is the first point I would like to make, and I should have thought the Bill might give us some guidance and lay down some principle in that respect. The Bill of 1886 expressly provided that additional Members might come to the House when it was proposed to alter the Act, and that they should be chosen one from each constituency, and in cases where the constituency had more than one Member, two from each constituency. There is no such provision in this Bill, but it is left purposely vague, and I do not see how the Privy Council will be bound, or indeed will have the power to make provision for the representation of minorities.
The second point that arises on this Sub-section is this. What will be the effect of this invasion of additional Irish Members upon the position of the Government of the day? Take this hypothesis, which might easily be true. Suppose the Government of the day has a small majority—something like twenty Members. On all home matters, and on all Imperial matters, it would have a sufficient majority to carry its proposals. Here you are going to get, for this one purpose, something between twenty or thirty additional Members from Ireland. It may well be that they would be enough to turn the scale, and while the Government of the day were strong enough to carry their proposals on home and Imperial matters, they would find themselves on this question of Irish finance to be in a minority. What is to happen to a Government which finds itself in a minority? Are they to give way or are they to resign, and in the latter case would not the result be that this invasion of extra Members for the one purpose must upset the whole tenour of the Government of this country and the proceedings of this House? It seems to me that if that kind 1990 of thing is possible, there would be a very serious temptation to the dominant party of the day to make terms with the Irish Members—indeed, to make any terms which they would accept, and to give them too good terms, and so bring about injury to the country as a whole. I do not think one need impute to the Government of that day any greater measure of political sin than that which Governments have been found to possess, and it is highly likely, if the Irishmen are here with a vote of between sixty and seventy in all, that the Government will feel disposed rather than imperil their own existence, to give to Ireland terms better than, according to fair and right principles, Ireland ought to have. That question of the effect of this addition of Irish Members upon the Government of the day, and the position of affairs in this House, ought to receive some consideration.
Another point on which we should like an explanation is this. When this proposed revision of the financial relations of the two countries has been made, apparently the extra Irishmen are to go back and to go back for good. Does that mean that when once finance has been revised it has been fixed for all time? Is it never to be revised again? If it is not to be revised again the House is placed in a rather serious position because circumstances may alter and the finances may require revision. On the other hand, if it is to be revised again why is no provision made in this Bill for bringing again the same deputation over here to perform the same process? It is pretty obvious that if they ought to be here the first time the matter is dealt with they ought to have a chance of coming here on every subsequent occasion when the finances of the two countries are under consideration. It seems to me that the very fact that this provision is made in the Bill throws a good deal of light upon the fairness of the Bill as a whole. This Clause provides that Ireland shall be represented, for one purpose only, in proportion to her population. If that is a fair mode of dealing with Ireland why does not the same principle obtain with regard to any alteration of this Bill or any matter which affects the position of Ireland? And yet during the next few years this House will be in the position of imposing taxa-on Ireland, Ireland only having a representation of forty-two. We shall be in a position if we think fit, as we are told, of revising this Bill and of passing measures 1991 overriding the decisions of the Irish Parliament, and during all that time the Irish representation will consist of the forty-two Members only. But the moment we come to touch what, after all, is a minor matter, the financial relations of the two countries, then for the first time Ireland is to have its fair representation according to numbers. One may add this. If that is a fair representation for Ireland—some sixty-six Members, or thereabouts—how is it that we are to-day dealing with a measure of this tremendous importance, the Home Rule Bill itself with 103 Irish Members here, far more according to the admission implied in this Clause than Ireland is really entitled to? The mere fact that the Government themselves, when they come to deal with the question in their own Bill, reduce the representation of Ireland as compared with that of to-day, shows that they are conscious that to-day Ireland is over represented and in this matter of Home Rule a measure of redistribution ought in ordinary fairness to have preceded the introduction of this Bill.
These considerations need to be answered, and we ought to have an explanation and a defence of the Clause. Indeed, this provision shows the confusion which underlies the whole Bill, and especially its provisions for representation. The simple fact is that the Government are endeavouring to ride two horses. What they ought to have done, and what is the proper and scientific thing to do, would be to form at once a federal Parliament in which, to begin with, Ireland and Great Britain should be separately represented in proportion to their population or in some other fair and proper proportion. If we had done that, and if we should afterwards have a measure of Home Rule for other parts of the Kingdom, it would have been quite a simple process to divide the British representation into members from each part of the Kingdom, whether they be three or four or a dozen, each part having its own proportional representation in a federal Parliament. If you had done that there would be no need whatever to make this extraordinary provision for the special purpose of the revision of finance. We should have had from the beginning a local Parliament for each country and a federal Parliament dealing without change with matters of this kind which affect the Kingdom as a whole. You would have no 1992 need to have this kind of in-and-out Clause if you had dealt with the matter on scientific principles from the beginning. But the Government, may be because they are hardly industrious enough to deal with the matter scientifically, or may be because they have some other inducement which prevents them from doing so, propose this confused arrangement which requires these extraordinary provisions. If it is not possible to deal with the matter in that, which I believe to be the scientific way, at least this particular question of financial representation might have been dealt with upon a better basis than that which you find in the Bill. Why is it not possible, when this question of financial revision arises, to form, at all events, some kind of federal committee to which might be sent proportionate numbers of experts from one country and from the other, who might, as a federal committee, representing the whole Kingdom in fair proportions, deal with this matter upon proper financial lines. That, at all events, would have been a possible way, and I think a more practicable way, of dealing with the matter than that which is proposed in the Bill I see so many objections to the proposal in the Bill that I can not think it has had fair and proper consideration. I think we in this House are entitled to an explanation of the points that arise, and in order to elicit that explanation I beg to move the omission of the Sub-section.
§ Mr. MALCOLM
I bog to second the Amendment. Whatever may be said as to proposals made in the past, I do not think this proposal, at any rate, was ever before the electors of the country either in this Bill or in any other Bill dealing with the Home Rule question. My hon. and learned Friend has reminded the Committee that in Mr. Gladstone's Bill certain provisions were made for the reinforcement of the Irish Members at any time when any great alteration in the Home Rule Act, as it would have been if passed, would have been proposed. This Sub-section is reminiscent of nothing except those in-and-out Clauses which were so disastrous in the Bill of 1893 to Mr. Gladstone's Government, and to the Home Rule Bill in particular. The Bill of 1886 proposed that the reinforcement should come over, at any rate, representing somebody. It was to represent the Irish constituencies, but for that proposal there is substituted now—I do not see the reason why, and we shall be very grateful if the Government would 1993 give us information on this point—this Order in Council by which twenty or thirty Irish Members, or whatever the number may be, are to come over to represent their position ad hoc as representatives for the time being in the British House of Commons. I associate myself with what has fallen from the Mover of the Amendment, that we should know who is to determine this representation that is to come over. I think it is important that the obscurity resting on this Sub-section should be cleared up, in order to enlighten two sets of people, namely, the English majority in the House of Commons and m the country, and also the Irish minority in Ireland. I think the British majority here in England may have reason to complain, when they know what the proposals of the Government are, that by some finesse in Budgetting, or by some variation in taxation, the Irish Parliament may postpone the evil day when they will come to the House of Commons and ask that the British subsidy shall cease.
During all that time they will be prolonging the period when the British taxpayers of our own country will be paying in full the subsidy which will fall very heavily on them. During that time, which is long enough now, and which may be prolonged by such arrangements as some Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland may make, we shall have no representatives over in the Irish Parliament to criticise the Budgetting of which we might complain, or the variations in taxation to which we might take exception. I think we have a right as the British majority, or the English majority who are against Home Rule, to get a definite statement as to the composition of this reinforcing Irish brigade which is coming across the Channel when the financial provisions are to come under consideration. I think, also, the Irish minority have a definite right to have from the Government here and now, not only the declaration of a passing opinion, but what would correspond to a statutory enactment that they shall be fully represented in the delegation which is to come over from the Irish Parliament. I think, considering the enormous proportion of taxation which that Irish minority pays, it is the least they could expect or ask for at the beginning. It seems to us quite intolerable that they whose voices after the passing of this Bill, if it ever should pass, will be in the proportion of eight to thirty-four, should stand the mere risk, owing to 1994 the idleness of the Government through not putting some provision in the Bill by which an addition of twenty or thirty Nationalist Members would come over to discuss this question of the revision of finance, which certainly will, until eight years have passed, fall more heavily upon the shoulders of our Irish Unionist friends in Ireland than on any others in that country. Why should this in-and-out Clause be confined to finance only? There may be some good reason, which we shall hear from the Treasury Bench, why it should be for finance only, and only for certain aspects of the financial position.
If, for instance, a great War Tax were to be put on the United Kingdom, it would fall equally heavily, I take it, upon Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. For that there is to be no change in the representation at all. If you take an extreme case, and it should be suggested that the Act should be repealed, supposing it were quite impossible to carry on the government of the United Kingdom with a Parliament here and a Parliament in Ireland, there is to be no reinforcement of Irish Members in this House to discuss the proposition. And yet it is only for the revision of the financial burden to be borne on the other side of St George's Channel that this extra number of Irish Members are to be asked to come here. But perhaps the guiding principle which led the Government to put that in the Bill will be explained to us by the Postmaster-General or the Chief Secretary I think it will be admitted in all parts of the House that, as things point now, in future there will be much smaller majorities in this House than has been the case from the beginning of this century. I think the majorities cither of Unionists or Liberals will be fifty or sixty, whichever party comes into power, and then they will be brought up against the difficulty indicated by my hon. and learned friend, namely, if the votes of these ad hoc British Parliamentarians be combined with the votes of the Opposition of the day and swamp the votes of the Government party, what attitude is the Government then going to take? Is the Government going to treat the matter, if beaten on some financial resolution proposed in the British House of Commons, as a snap Division and rescind the whole matter and begin again as if the defeat had never taken place? Or is it going to resign, as hitherto has generally been the case, and put the whole of Great Britain to the ferment and trouble of a General Election? What we want to 1995 know is not only what this Sub-section really means, but what is at the back of the heads of the Government. Suppose this should occur, which is very likely, that the Members who are brought over from Ireland to discuss financial relations should combine with the Opposition in overturning the proposals of the Government of the day. We must not forget that this Bill if it means anything is meant to be the model sealed pattern for more Parliaments, three or four Parliaments in the United Kingdom. Imagine the confusion there will be when Welsh ad hoc Members or Scotch ad hoc Members turn up to reinforce their colleagues on these benches. The result will be that the tenure of office of a Government at that time will be more insecure than at present, and the administration of the whole Empire, which is a far greater thing than the fate of any particular Government, will be at the mercy of a handful of politicians who come from one portion of the United Kingdom. This whole Sub-section seems to me to be wrapt in such obscure language in itself and also to contain within it so many possibilities which occur to all of us and demand explanation, that I hope before this Debate comes to an end we shall have a full explanation, not only of what the Sub-section is but of what it really means, and how the Government means to deal with those differences which we foresee and try to put before them in courteous and quite plain terms.
§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I think that we should have sonic explanation from the Postmaster-General on the basis on which the delegation of Members from the Irish Parliament is to be composed. If a body exists merely for general purposes or for general legislation and administration I can understand that those interests should be represented in proportion to the population of those who are affected, but here is a totally different case. It is one dealing with something very specific, the revision of financial arrangements. For this purpose you call into existence a body of men who come from Ireland to deal with financial revision. On what basis are you to introduce Members here? The basis of population is adopted, but it seems to me that it would be far better to adopt the basis of the tax revenue of the country. For instance, the tax revenue of the United Kingdom is £153,000,000, and that of Ireland is £9,350,000. Ireland's proportion is therefore one in sixteen and a half. 1996 The present representation of the different countries is: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; and Ireland, 103; and if Home Rule is passed it will be: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; and Ireland, 42. If Ireland has to be represented for any other purpose in proportion to its population the figures will be: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; and Ireland, 61, so that nineteen delegates would have to be provided from Ireland. But on the basis of tax revenue the representation would be: England and Wales, 495; Scotland, 72; Ireland, 57. In other words, it would mean a reduction on the basis of tax revenue of five Members. I cannot conceive why the Postmaster-General should select this method of dealing with the matter unless there is some ulterior motive. If it is merely a question of having a financial revision and fixing the amount to be contributed in respect of Imperial revenue, I could understand the proposal which I have now submitted. Of course, if it is intended to use this body for other purposes so as to introduce a new system of bargaining, Ireland contributing to Imperial revenue on condition that we give her fiscal autonomy, I can understand the proposals of the Postmaster-General; but if it is intended purely for the modification of the contribution for the Imperial Exchequer when the time shall have arrived, it seems to me that a more reasonable proposal is found in a basis of tax revenue than in a basis of population.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
We have now reached a stage in the Bill when we have to pass the proposals that there shall be a fundamental financial revision at such times as Irish accounts do not show a deficit, and the Committee has sanctioned the proposal this evening that when that time arrives the main financial proposals of this Bill shall be subject to review. The question then arises, What is to be the constitutional engine which shall effect this revision? There are three possible alternatives. One is that we should say that the two Parliaments should agree together as to the form revision shall take and as to the amount of contribution, and so forth. That is a plan which has a great deal to recommend it, but it offers the risk that the country might at times find itself in a deadlock, just as has been pointed out this afternoon the twin kingdoms of Austria and Hungary find themselves in a deadlock when the representatives at the joint delegation of the two are unable to 1997 agree on any scheme. Besides which, such a proposal is derogatory of the Imperial supremacy which is expressed in the Bill, and which it is its purpose to maintain. The second plan might be that the Imperial Parliament, constituted as it then would be, should meet and deal with this matter, as though it were a matter of ordinary legislation, with the forty-two Irish Members then sitting in the House. We think, on the whole, that that would be unfair in view of the fact that the Irish people, according to population, might at that time, if the proportion of population remained the same as now, be entitled to some sixty-five or sixty-six Members in this House, and they might legitimately complain that a matter of this fundamental importance, which would affect the finance, probably vitally, doubtless for a long period of years, should be settled by a Parliament in which there were, not merely a minority, but a minority artificially reduced, so to speak, out of the proportion to which they would naturally be entitled on the basis of population, and we think, on the whole, that that would not be a just proposal.
The scheme of the Bill which enables the Irish Membership to be reduced to forty-two is, of course, a proposal by itself not fully logical, but it effects rough justice in view of the fact that the Irish people will have a Parliament of their own dealing, in the first instance, with the greater part of their own local affairs. In those circumstances it is thought that, on the whole, they are not entitled to be represented in the Imperial Parliament in the affairs with which this House will deal in the full numbers to which they would be entitled if they had not got a Parliament of their own to manage the greater part of their own local affairs. Therefore we come to the third alternative, that for this purpose, and this purpose only, their representation shall be extended to what might be regarded as its natural level. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment and those who followed him raised a series of objections to this proposal.
They say, in the first place, if the number is to be increased in this way, we, at all events, are entitled to know quite definitely how they are to be chosen. There is to be an additional delegation consisting of members of the Irish House of Commons, and the reason for that is that we ought to have people in this House who represent constituencies. We cannot throw out the net broadcast and bring in 1998 people to this House who may be chosen by nomination or in some other way; they must be representatives of the people in some form, and therefore we choose them from members of the Irish House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member said the Irish House of Commons means, of course, the Irish Government. I do not see why it should necessarily do so. The Irish Government, in such a grave and fundamental matter as this, would naturally take the opinion of the Irish House of Commons upon it. The hon. and learned Member said what surprised me very much, that by the Order in Council, which is to determine the precise method by which to choose these members, the Government would not have the power to make provisions for the representation of minorities [An HON MEMBER: "It could not be done by Order in Council."] I fail to see any provision in the Bill which would preclude such an arrangement, or which indeed would interfere with financial arrangements. The Bill says with respect to the Order in Council:—
"His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provisions for so summoning the members of the Irish House of Commons as His Majesty may think necessary or proper, and any provisions contained in any such Order in Council shall have the same effect as if they had been enacted in this Act."
If it were thought by the Government of the day that members should be chosen by some system of proportional representation, there is absolutely nothing in this Clause to prevent that from being embodied in the Order in Council.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I am unable, I confess, to follow the lion, and learned Member. The words are very clear:—
"His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provision for so summoning the members of the Irish House of Commons as His Majesty may think necessary or proper."
They may determine what members shall be summoned. I see no reason whatever why the members of the Irish House of Commons should not be summoned in such a way as that which has been sug- 1999 gested, and, indeed, speaking for myself, I imagine that would be the mode in which the members would be summoned.
§ Mr. MALCOLM
Supposing, with regard to this House of Commons, the Privy Council could not suggest to us, in the case of Ireland, who were to be sent over, and they tried to dictate to the House of Commons, what would be the position?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
If we are working under a Constitution and an Order in Council might declare how the Members of Parliament should be summoned, then naturally, in such a case, the Order in Council would do so. Of course, the case the lion. Member put is so completely different from anything which now exists that the comparison made by him is not really a very relevant one.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
No, it is in the Privy Council here, as with all other Orders to be given under the Bill. In dealing with a matter which may naturally become operative only after some consider able number of years, I have no doubt whatever that when the time comes it will be a question of great interest both to England and to Ireland what will be the best means of selecting the additional twenty or twenty-five representatives, or whatever the number may be, according to the then population, to sit in this House; but I have no objection to making one suggestion to hon. Members, namely, to insert a provision that the Order in Council should lie on the Table of this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Under the guillotine."]— and, if this House passes an Address—as we have provided in regard to other Orders in Council—the Order in Council may be modified. I shall be very glad to do that. I do not think that the Order in Council ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, be cause it is a purely financial matter dealing only with the composition of this House of Commons; it deals with Members to be drawn from the Irish House of Commons, and, therefore, I do not think the Second Chamber should have a right to determine that matter. If it is desired that an Order in Council should come within the cognisance of the House—
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
If it is desired, I will put it down on the Report stage, and perhaps the hon. Member, who-may speak afterwards, will say where it is to be inserted. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment dealt with a similar matter in connection with the Bill of 1886, and he dealt with much more definite propositions as to what Members were to be chosen and from what constituencies. But then, of course, the case was very different, because in the Bill of 1886 there were no Irish Members here ac all, no forty-two Members, and when the Irish Members were to be brought lo this House for the purpose of altering the Constitution passed by this Parliament, you naturally had to make some very definite provisions, which was a much large matter than this proposal to take out a certain number from an already existing representation. We think that the matter can be easily dealt with by simply requiring the Irish House of Commons to select from its own Members the number required. The hon. Member who has just spoken said the population basis could not be a proper one, but that the basis of taxed revenue should be followed. Had we proposed that, I am sure that such an innovation would have met even more criticism than the proposal now laid before the Committee. Why should we take in regard to this one institution taxed revenue, and depart from the population basis, which is the basis of every Constitution throughout the Empire, and almost of every Constitution in the world?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The people are influenced by taxes. The poor people are influenced by taxes even more than the rich people, and even if Ireland is paying less per head of the population than the English are paying at that time, still individual Irishmen would be affected as much as individual Englishmen by any particular alteration that might be made. If it were the case that we had to deal with Ireland on the basis of revenue contributed, then the wealthy constituency in England ought to return two Members where the poor constituency returns one. The answer, the obvious answer, is that it is the poor man who is very much more closely, and sometimes vitally, affected by the financial and fiscal methods of Parliament than the rich man is. The hon. and learned Member made a second objection. 2001 He supposed that at that time the Government of the day had a small majority, and that the addition of these twenty Irish Members might make a difference to them. What would occur? Would they be led to frame the whole of their legislative measures on a temporary basis at the time the Irish Members were here? The answer is clearly no. While Irish Members are here they must frame their legislative proposals, on which those Irish Members can vote, in view of the then existing composition of the House. If the Irish Members here made such a difference in the composition of the House that the Government of the day could not carry proposals dealing with the Irish finances which it would wish to carry, the Government must either resign or make other proposals. Those Irish Members are here for that one purpose, and that one purpose only. They will vote on no other matters. When this question of the revision of the Irish financial arrangements is settled, the additional Irish Members will go home, and the composition of the House of Commons will remain precisely as it was before. [Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL made an observation which was inaudible.] If the Government has gone out then another Election has to be held, but I can see no possible reason why the Government of the day should not so frame its measures before the readjustment of the financial arrangements between Great Britain and Ireland as to be able to secure the assent of the He use of Commons of the day. Thirdly, the hon. and learned Member said if the finance has to be revised once, what is to happen suppose it was to be revised in the future. What would occur when the initial revision takes place under this Bill would be that legislation would have to be carried to effect the revision which was then contemplated.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
That is what they are here for. What else do they come for, and this Clause says so:
"For the purpose of revising the financial provisions of this Act in pursuance of this Section there shall be summoned to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom such number of Members of the Irish House of Commons as will make the representation of Ireland … equivalent to the representation of Great Britain on the basis of population, and the Members of 2002 the Irish House of Commons so summoned shall be deemed to be Members of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purpose of any such revision."
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
The right hon. Gentleman does not follow my point. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that once the revision was settled that then it might be that legislation would be necessary. Dealing with the point as to whether a second judicial revision might be necessary in the future, you are answering that by saying that when it was settled on the first occasion legislation would then be introduced to put this revision on a permanent basis. My question was, in carrying out that legislation, would you recall your extra Irish Members?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I am afraid I could not have made myself clear. When the day comes which the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) calls "the happy day," the Irish Members will come here for the purpose of passing a Bill. That Bill will be a Bill for the amending of the financial system laid down in the Bill we are discussing tonight. In that legislation which will then be passed provision must necessarily be made for the then future. We are providing to-day for the future between now and that date. When that date comes the Parliament of that time must provide for what will be to them the future. If they decide at that time once and for all on a permanent new financial system, which will last for all time, then they will no doubt think it unnecessary to make provision for additional Irish representation. If, on the other hand, they should think well to provide for the revision of financial arrangements at intervals, say, of ten years, if they should wish to do so, then naturally in that same Act of Parliament they could provide for the Irish Members to reappear on the occasion of those financial revisions.
§ Mr. CAVE
Surely the additional Irish Members will only be here for the purpose of the one revision of the financial provisions, and if there were inserted in a Bill to give effect to that revision any additional provision dealing with the future, the Irish Members voting on that would be going beyond their powers.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The provision must necessarily be for the future. You cannot do otherwise but deal with 2003 the future. Hon. and learned Gentlemen must remember that the Parliament of that day is entitled under this Clause to say, "This shall be the revision for the future." Of course, they will have power to provide for the future. I entirely fail to follow the reasoning of hon. Members opposite. The revision can either be a permanent revision or a revision which is subject to revision. Parliament may enact the latter as well as the former. In addition to which let me point out that the Parliament of that day can do as it chooses. If it thinks well to deal in a separate Bill with the reappearance of Irish Members it can do so. It is perfectly impossible to tie the hands of a future Parliament. All this does is to give occasion for Parliamentary action and to enact what the framers of this Bill in this year of grace 1912 intended Parliament should do when the time arrives when the deficiency is at an end.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
Is there anything to prevent a second revision being carried out under this Clause? Suppose a revision took place ten years hence, and that ten years later it appeared to the Joint Exchequer Board that there was a still larger balance, is there anything to prevent them proposing a revision for a second time?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
When the first revision takes place, it naturally will take such form as profoundly to affect all these Clauses. These Clauses will no longer remain standing, and very likely there may not be a Joint Exchequer Board. The Act which effects revision will not leave standing legislative provisions in this Bill which would then have had their effect and which would be proper for that reason for repeal. The hon. Member says, further, if they are to be here for these purposes, why not for any other? This, he said, is a minor matter, and I here may be even larger measures affecting Ireland and the Irish people even more gravely than this, and yet, he says, you do not propose to increase the Irish Members for them. The reason for that is that this financial revision will be a grave departure from the financial arrangements included in the Constitution of the Irish people. It is possible to conceive of even greater departures the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) said. Suppose this Parliament were to repeal this Bill itself and to abolish Home Rule, low could you do that without the presence 2004 of those additional Irish Members I Surely it cannot be contemplated that this Parliament would ever repeal a Constitution of this character, if there was only a majority of twenty-three votes in this House for so drastic a revolution as that. The case is really impossible to occur whereby an exceedingly small majority of the Imperial House of Commons would cut about or destroy the Constitution of the Irish people of its own making. It is so improbable that we need not take it into account. This particular proposal is a plan for the definite revision at a particular date of a very important part of the financial constitution of the Irish people. It is right and proper in such a case as that, for the reasons I have mentioned, that the Irish representation should be enlarged. Then says the hon. Member, taking the opposite view, "How is it that you go on discussing this Bill to-night with the presence in this House, or the precincts of the House, of 103 Members from Ireland if you admit they are over-represented according to population, and why do you not precede your Home Rule Bill by a Redistribution Bill and cut them down to sixty-five." That, of course, is a point which has often been answered. We are now legislating on the basis of the Act of Union, which is the Ark of the Covenant to hon. Members opposite. The Act of Union assures to the Irish people a representation in this House of 103 Members for ever.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
Yes. It was described as a Treaty of Union, and when you have a treaty between two parties that treaty can be modified with the consent of both parties, but cannot honourably be modified without the consent of both parties. In the ease of the Irish Church there was the consent of both parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Unquestionably. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that Irish churchmen consented to their Church being Disestablished?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
When I say both parties I mean the Irish people on the one hand and the British people on the other.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
The right hon. Gentleman does not think there was any 2005 necessity for the people chiefly concerned to be consulted.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
That is not what I said or suggested. What I say is that Ireland as an entity by an enormous majority, even larger than the majority in the case of this Bill, was in favour of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and there can be no suggestion of a breach of faith between Great Britain and Ireland, on the ground that the Irish Church was Disestablished, although the Act of Union said that it should be Established. If you wish to reduce Irish representation from 103 members to 65, you can only do it with the consent of the representatives and the public sentiment of Ireland.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
That is precisely why we do it—because they have agreed. If, as part of the readjustment of our relations, under which we are giving them a Parliament of their own, and to that extent repealing the Act of Union, the Irish people were not willing at the same time to consent to a reduction of their representation, I do not think it could honourably be done. I am perfectly certain that if Ireland were Constitutionally and in international law a foreign country, and this Parliament attempted to reduce the representation which Ireland was guaranteed by the Act of Union, and the representatives of Ireland appealed against that decision to The Hague Tribunal, The Hague Tribunal acting as a judge would say that under the Act of Union, as a treaty, you could not, without the consent of the Irish nation, reduce the number of Irish Members below the figure then guaranteed. That is my answer to the hon. and learned Member's point. He then made the most remarkable suggestion that a far better proposal than the one we put forward would be to appoint a federal committee of experts, who, I suppose, would sit in a room by themselves, and determine for the two countries what the future financial relations should be. That, he said, would be a far better and more practical way of dealing with the question. We have been criticised so much for making our proposal with regard to the Joint Exchequer Board, enabling that body to deal with little more than purely arithmetical matters, and seldom with matters of more than mere calculation, that I am astonished that the hon. and learned Member should suggest as a better plan a 2006 federal committee of experts to decide the matters which we propose should be left to the House of Commons, with the addition of a certain number of Irish Members.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I do not think so. Either the hon. and learned Gentleman did not sufficiently expound his remarks or I misunderstood him. If he says that the committee should merely report to this House, well and good. But that could be done at the time. If the House wished to have further information on any question affecting the fiscal relations between this country and Ireland, unquestionably a committee could be appointed at the time. The only point with which I have not yet dealt is that put by the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm), who said that we were to understand that this Bill was to be the model sealed pattern for all future extensions of local self-government in the United Kingdom. I do not know from whom he understood that. As far as the Government are concerned, we have always said precisely the opposite—that, so far as the details of this Bill are concerned, while necessarily they would be taken into consideration, we do not in any sense bind ourselves to follow them in future legislation. As regards the finance of the Bill, it has been said again and again that since Scotland has no deficit in the sense that there is a deficit between the United Kingdom and Ireland, there is no reason why it should, and there is no probability that the fiscal scheme of a Scotch Home Rule Bill would follow the same lines as that of the Irish Home Rule Bill. Therefore I trust the Committee will not discuss this Clause in particular on the basis that what is done by Parliament now must necessarily be done in future in different circumstances and under other conditions.
§ Mr. HUGH BARRIE
I wonder how the Postmaster-General would consider this Sub-section if he were an Irish Unionist. I think he would be inclined to ask the Government if this was another safeguard. What provision is made in the Bill for the representation of the minority in this 2007 matter? We know what the constitution of the Dublin Parliament will be; we know from bitter experience what chance the minority representation in that Parliament will have of even a very minor share in the delegation that will be sent to this House. A great deal has been said as to the method by which the Government have arrived at the Clause we are now discussing. The Postmaster-General told us that three plans were considered by the Government. The first was that the two Parliaments together, I suppose by two delegations, should adjust the revision. A part of the reason he gave for the abandonment of that plan was that it would have been derogatory to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Our view is that the whole enactment is derogatory to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. I submit that there could be no stronger proof of the permanent injury that is being done to the Imperial Parliament than the Sub-section with which we are now dealing. The next plan was that the matter should be dealt with by the forty-two Irish Members under the Bill. The Postmaster-General dismissed the second suggestion very summarily; but I submit that if there is any equity in the arrangement to reduce the Irish representation to forty-two Members, there are equally strong reasons why that number should have been left to make the best case they could for Ireland on the floor of the House when the time arrived. Consider the third plan which the Government have apparently finally settled upon, and which has been presented to the House. The Postmaster-General has told us, for instance, that members comprising the delegation must be elected by "the people," and be representative of the people. In all these considerations no part has been given to the position in Ulster, a part of the country which is the largest contributor to the revenue that will have to be considered in the collection.
The reasons adduced in favour of this Clause only make the absurdity of it even more transparent than it appeared to be when we read it in the Bill. I ask that the Postmaster-General should consider whether, if the Government are sincere in the reasons which they have given for producing this wonderful plan, the time is not due when we should ask them to put in the Bill, or promise on the Report stage, such a safeguard as would be useful to the 2008 minority, so that when the time comes, whenever it does come—and personally I do not think it ever will come—the Government will safeguard the minority and give them at least the safeguards to which they are entitled. To the subject of machinery which has been elaborated by the Postmaster-General, we attach not the slightest importance. We know enough of the probabilities of the Irish Parliament to know that the happy day, which the Member for the City has more than once referred to, will be indefinitely deferred by that Parliament. They have nothing to gain by that readjustment. A good deal was said to-day about the time when a prosperous Ireland will be ready to bear its quota of the cost of maintenance of the Army and the Navy. Irish Unionists who know the position and know the real feeling animating hon. Members below the Gangway have felt that that speech was made for English consumption only; that it would be unpalatable indeed to the Irish Nationalists at home, and would be assessed at its true value by Irish Unionists, who are at present not proportionately represented in this House.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I do not think any Government ever occupied such an unenviable position as this Government in debating any measure, because whenever they are unable to be rescued from their difficulties by either the gag or the guillotine they fall back to Clause 44 or to some miraculous Order in Council, which they invest with attributes no lawyer has ever attributed even to an Order in Council. We have had some very remarkable statements, some prophetic statements, as to what that Order in Council is to be. It has been pointed out by the Postmaster-General that one of the difficulties lies in the fact that nobody knows who is to summon these Irish Members of Parliament. I suppose that is all to be explained to some of us by the Order in Council? Is it to be an Order in Council framed after a vote in this House, or how is the Order to be given? Who is to be really the author of the Order, and is the Order itself to be debated? I am very glad to hear that the Postmaster-General is willing to meet the arguments which have been adduced from this side of the House, and that he has tabled some Amendment which will, at all events, secure that this House will be able to discuss this Order in Council. At all events, it will lie on the Table of the House and offer some chance of being discussed. 2009 We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that concession.
Speaking for myself—and perhaps for those who take part in these Debates—we are grateful to him for that concession, provided, of course, that we get some opportunity of discussing this matter on Report, so far as he is able to assure us that opportunity. Then comes a very much larger question as to not only who was to summon these Irish Members of Parliament, but who are the Irish Members of Parliament to be summoned. That question has been asked by my hon. and learned Friend who opened this Debate. It has been asked by other speakers in this Debate. I think the matter requires a little more elucidation. We are told the Order in Council will settle all this; that the Order in Council will tell the Irish Parliament, will tell the Prime Minister of the Irish Parliament who he has to send for. It will tell him, "You must send over so many Members from the counties and so many Members from the burghs, and you must take care that the minority are represented—at least that is what we gather from the Postmaster-General. We gather that the Order in Council will tell the Irish Parliament that they must elect these Members by proportional representation. Was there ever such an Order in Council? This Order in Council, in fact, is to be a kind of Redistribution Bill which is to entirely alter the general methods proposed on which Members of Parliament are elected.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
No, elected, as I understand it, by the Irish Government in the Irish House of Commons. I am the last person to put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman words or expressions he did not use, but I thought he used those words—that it would be quite possible for that Order in Council to order that these Members shall be elected by some system of proportional representation.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
Within the Irish House of Commons—yet we have never heard of any Member of Parliament being elected by proportional representation in the House of Commons. I am only saying that this is a very miraculous Order, something for which there is no precedent whatever.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
My hon. and learned Friend says it does not matter. I do not think it does much, because there is so much in this Bill that does not matter. The Postmaster-General, I think, must himself admit that this is the very largest Order in Council that any Minister over invented. I should like him to tell me of any Order in Council which does half as much as this Order in Council. This measure does practically tell the Irish Government, which may have a very great interest in sending over certain Members, whom they are to send over. There may be a minority, and a very big minority, in that House of Commons which takes the view that Ireland ought to contribute something towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. Obviously, if the Government in Ireland does not take that view, and the Government in Ireland thinks that the time has not come for contributing, the Prime Minister in Ireland will be governed by this Order in Council, or Order emanating from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who has an interest in Ireland contributing something: then as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—or the Commons House of Parliament, as it is called—will issue an edict to the Prime Minister of the Irish Parliament and say, "You are not to be the judge of whom you are to send over to the English Parliament: we are to be the judges as to the Members you are to send." It might make the whole difference to the fate of the Government.
This Clause, however, ought not to have been left in this cruel and inchoate condition. It needs clarifying, and it needs a great deal more clarifying than has been given to it to-night by the Postmaster-General. This is a matter, surely, which might be in the Schedule of the Bill. Why not? We have not to deal with the forty-two members to be elected in Ireland. That is all provided for in the Schedule of the Bill: how many Members are allotted to the urban districts, how many to the counties, and how are the minorities to be protected. Belfast gets its representatives, and the North-East corner of Ireland its representatives. Is there to be anything in this Bill to secure the proportion of these Members to come from Ireland; that any proportion of them are to represent the minority in Ireland. Yet, under this Bill as it is drawn, it is quite possible that the whole of these Irish members who are to be sent over here may be of one accord 2011 to come over here and resist any endeavour at all to obtain a contribution from Ireland for any purpose. Many other questions have been asked the Postmaster-General. To one and all of them he makes the same answer, "Oh, wait till you see the Order in Council." I would like to ask him one or two questions. First of all, I want to remind him of the answer he gave to me this afternoon in discussing Sections 1 and 2 of this Clause.
I suggest it is quite possible that the Irish House of Commons might take the view that there was no necessity whatever, and that the time had not arrived for any contribution to be given by the Irish Parliament towards the common expenditure, and although a summons might be issued by Order in Council to the Irish Parliament to send over Irish representatives here to discuss the matter with representatives of the Commons Parliament, yet that need not be obeyed by the Irish Parliament. Then the Postmaster-General went on to say—I took his words down—"If the Irish Parliament does not obey the summons, revision will go on without them." I am glad I have not misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. He tells this Committee that if a summons is sent out to the Irish Parliament to send representatives over here for the purpose of discussing the possibility of revising the financial terms and arrangements under this Bill, and if the Irish House of Commons say, "We do not intend to send anybody over because we do not think the time has arrived when we ought to contribute anyting under this Clause of the Bill," then says the Postmaster-General, "it is open to the Commons House of Parliament, without any of these extra Irish representatives, to proceed with the revision." Will the Irish Parliament be affected by the vote of this House without the attendance of those extra representatives to protect Irish interests, ordering them from that day and in future to contribute from the Irish Exchequer something additional to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. I am amazed that the Postmaster-General should take up an attitude of that kind. I can imagine the Commons House of Parliament possibly revising the financial arrangements under this Bill, and possibly saying that, in their view and in common justice, Ireland ought to contribute something towards, the common expenditure, but I cannot imagine if they choose to do that that they would dare 2012 follow it out by imposing new taxation upon Ireland and attempting to collect new taxes from Ireland in the shape of a contribution which the majority of Irishmen were not willing to pay. I do not envy the collectors of those taxes from Ireland if they went to Ireland after the Irish Parliament had said that the time had not come when Ireland should contribute towards the common expenditure. I do not envy those collectors of those taxes, if the Irish House of Commons, and possibly the forty-two Members over here voted against the collection of these new taxes, and stated that the time had not come for Ireland to pay a contribution towards Imperial purposes. I do not believe such a situation could possibly occur. I have put the case of the supposition that Irish Members did not come when summoned. Now I put the case if they do come. Let us look at the position then and the utter chaos the incursion of those Members will bring into our own Parliament. Is this magical Order in Council going to get us out of this difficulty too? Let us say that according to the present basis of population thirty Members would come in addition to the forty-two here already.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I think on the basis of population it would be twenty-three extra Members—sixty-five in all.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I am quite willing to take that correction, because in the earlier stages of these Debates I showed that there had been at least a dozen instances in modern times where Governments had been defeated by majorities of even ten or twelve, or even less. That has occurred, as we all know, over and over again. Governments have, indeed, resigned after being beaten by one only. I do not say a Radical Government would do it; it takes two more than twenty-one, we all know, to make them do that. At all events, it is quite likely to happen. There would be an incursion, let us say, of twenty-three additional Members from Ireland, and these twenty-three voting against the Government would be ample in many circumstances to upset the Government. But, said the Postmaster-General, "Supposing that the Government were beaten by twenty-three, they need not resign; they need not be so squeamish as we are; they could bring forward other financial proposals." But I think that by that time this question of contribution from an Irish Parliament to the United Kingdom 2013 would have been a burning question, and if one side of the House of Commons took an entirely opposite view from the Government of the country on a question of that finance, I do not believe any Government would remain in office after being-beaten upon a trial of that kind. And Why? Because undoubtedly if these proposals were carried or defeated they would alter the whole nature of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for that year, but for many years to come. I do not believe it would be possible for any Government to remain in office if beaten upon financial proposals by which they sought to exact from the Irish Exchequer contributions to the common expenses.
Therefore, I say this incursion must make a very big inroad into our Parliamentary customs and traditions. Does the Postmaster-General say they are to be only here for this purpose? One would think they were only to be here for the day, for a kind of week-end visit, and that after they had given one vote or so in reference to these financial arrangements they would go back again to Ireland and that we would see nothing more of them for many years to come. That will not be all that will happen. There will be many discussions upon this question of this revision. There must be in the nature of things. There will be Financial Resolutions to be moved. All this revison will take a long time. It will be the subject of a Budget and an Act of Parliament. It will go through all the stages of an Act of Parliament, and these stages cannot be taken in one day and they cannot be taken in one week or one month. They will be spread over periods from time to time, and the Government, depending upon the actual number of votes from Ireland, will not know whether its existence is worth one month's purchase. We shall have to make different rules for these in-and-out Members of Parliament. Is that to be done by Order in Council? Is the Order in Council to alter all our Standing Orders and to lay down whether these Gentlemen coming over for a week-end shall vote or not? Will they be allowed to move for Returns, which are very valuable, when we are going to make up our minds as to what contribution each party shall make to the common purse? All this will have to be regulated by Standing Orders and Orders in Council. I do not know an Order in Council that alters and regulates the Standing Orders under which we conduct 2014 our Debates. And yet we shall have to have a large alteration to meet this peculiar arrangement under which some Members are to be here one day and not here another day. This in-and-out system of Members of Parliament defied all the magnificent genius of Mr. Gladstone, and I am sure it is not going to be solved by the Postmaster-General.
After all, we have to look at this question as the basis of a future federal system, and if we do that we are only obeying the actual instructions laid down by the Prime Minister, who said all through, that the House of Commons must look at these proposals from the point of view that there will be Parliaments set up in Scotland and in Wales, and he further stated that he would not have brought these proposals forward if he had not had in mind the federal system. Therefore, you have to look at this question from that point of view, and whether it is the Customs or the Post Office or the Joint Exchequer Board we are always headed off by the Postmaster-General, who replies. "Oh, no, the Customs and Excise! That is, of course, a matter we should not think of giving to Scotland or Wales to control? Do not trouble about the Post Office, because we shall not follow the Irish precedent in the ease of England, Scotland, or Wales." In the case of the Joint Exchequer Board, we fell foul of that the other day and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "Please do not think we shall ever set up a Joint Exchequer Board for England, Scotland, or Wales." From what has been said, one would gather that there is not a single part of these proposals which would ever be extended to other Parliaments. We have been told by the Prime Minister that we must always-keep our eye on the fact that before many years are over the Government will propose Parliaments for England, Scotland, and Wales. All we have to do now is to recollect that there can always be an Order in Council, and that will explain everything. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put the whole of the Bill into an Order in Council, because that would save a very great deal of the energy we are now wasting discussing this Bill. I said earlier this afternoon that this. Clause is unworkable, and it can never be made operative, and, in fact, I doubt whether the Government ever meant it to be operative. I believe that these Clauses are merely colossal frauds on the British 2015 electorate, and are not worthy of discussion, because they would be inoperative and cannot be made operative even by an Order in Council.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I would like to deal with some of the points which have been raised by the Postmaster-General, who stated the case for the Government with clearness and with very great credit. As far as I can make out, the only merit this proposal has is that it is original. I did not hear from the Postmaster-General that there is any precedent for such a proposal as this, nor do I know of any. I do know where it was taken from, but certainly there is no analogy for it in any part of our Constitution or in any of our relations with any of our Dominions. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were only three possible ways of dealing with the necessity for a revision of our financial relations The first was to leave it to the two Parliaments, and he pointed out, I think fairly, what was to happen in the case of a disagreement. A deadlock would arise, and therefore they rejected that proposal, although it would have been open to them to fall back on the Joint Exchequer Board. The Postmaster-General said it would be derogatory in a case where this Parliament disagreed with the Irish Parliament that they should delegate their powers to any other Board where they had already set up a Joint Exchequer Board which interfered with many of the functions of this Hosue, and which would have to determine very grave and important questions affecting the relations between the two Houses in matters of finance. Therefore, in this particular case, they had thrown over their own analogy of a Joint Exchequer Board. I am not inclined to quarrel with the objection raised by the right hon. Genetleman to the first proposal, because I take the view that there would be a certain deadlock, and in a case of that kind it would be derogatory to the Imperial Parliament, just as it is derogatory to the Exchequer Board, to delegate their functions elsewhere.
I come to the second alternative, and in that I fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for the Government desiring a second alternative, and that was that the Imperial Parliament should deal with this matter, with the assistance of the forty-two Irish Members, who on the assumption that this Bill becomes law, are to deal with all other matters affecting the welfare of Ireland in 2016 any shape or form. If forty-two is a fair representation on the assumption of a Home Rule Bill passing for Ireland in the Imperial Parliament, I confess I do not know on what basis of fairness it is arrived at. I think it is grossly unfair, and you should either adhere to the Act of Union and leave the number at 103, or you should adopt the principle of redistribution and give in that case what Ireland would be entitled to in regard to population, and that is a representation of about sixty-one. But you have cut it down under this Bill without any logical reason, and without giving any explanation which I can follow. If forty-two, in the opinion of the Government, is a sufficient number to protect the interests of Ireland on every question, no matter how grave or vital it may be, why are they not enough to deal with this question, of the financial relations? The right hon. Gentleman said they arrived at forty-two in a rough sort of way, and the reason they reduced it from sixty-one to forty-two was that Ireland was to have a Parliament of its own, and therefore it would be quite sufficient to be represented here by only forty-two Members. If forty-two is sufficient, why should we go through the farce of admitting them on this one matter of revision, which raises some of the most important issues which this Imperial Parliament can deal with. Suppose this House thought it necessary to radically alter the Home Rule Bill after it had been in operation. We know that in this Bill whole Clauses will be passed without any discussion. In the Clauses we have been allowed to discuss we have pointed out blots, many of which the Government have agreed to remove later on, and of course there are blots in the Clauses which we have not been allowed to discuss.
Later on the Imperial Parliament may be called upon to amend this Bill, and are those Gentlemen not to be summoned for that purpose. No, they are not, for under this curious freak Clause which we are now discussing they are only to be called in on the one occasion when there is to be a revision of the financial relations between the two countries. Hon. Gentlemen say they will only be here for a short time, and will not interfere with our Imperial discussions in this House, but now the right hon. Gentleman has told us that that is an entire mistake, and that the financial revision will involve legislation which will have to provide also for future revision, or it may determine that that revision is to be final for all time. He said that 2017 would not be likely, because no Parliament could bind the hands of its successors—that is true—and therefore the legislation would be much more likely to take the shape of providing for periodical revision. If that is so, that legislation would take, not weeks, but months, to carry through this House. What is to be the position of those visitors during those months? Are they to walk out during that portion of the afternoon when we are discussing other matters, and are they to come back the moment we take up the Bill dealing with financial revision? Are they to be here during Question Time, and are they to get £400 a year, or at that rate while they are here? None of these things have been foreseen; there is no provision made for any one of them, and when we call attention to them they say, "Oh, that will be done by Order in Council." That is most ridiculous in a matter of this kind, because it is obvious such things cannot be provided for by an Order in Council. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to say an Order in Council can interfere with the Standing Orders of this House. Surely he does not mean to suggest that an Order in Council can give these gentlemen privileges on the floor of this House while they are here. That would be in violation of our Standing Orders? Of course, he cannot suggest that. No Order in Council could possibly do that.
We are left in this extraordinary position. We are bound whenever this period arises to have these vistiors. They will be here staying for months in this Assembly, taking part in our Debates in so far as they relate to this financial revision and this future legislation without, and we have knowledge and no information is contained in the Bill as to what is to be their status during all that time, or what are to be their rights in so far as they are Members of the House. Are they to have all the privileges of Members, or are they simply to be here for the sole purpose of taking part in this revision and voting upon it? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say they had fixed forty-two because the Irish people had consented to forty-two. I protest against that. The Irish people have never had an opportunity of expressing any opinion about these forty-two Members, and they are not going to be given an opportunity. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that any Unionist representative from Ireland was consulted about these forty-two Members? He knows they were not. They never heard of this until they saw it 2018 in this Bill, and in so far as he suggests it was done by consent he means, I assume, it was done by arrangement with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but they have no power or right to bind the Unionist minority in Ireland, who have never been consulted about this, and certainly, speaking for them, I protest as a grave act of injustice towards Ireland and the Irish people that under this Home Rule system, if it ever becomes law and if they are to have a representation at all in this House, that they are not to have it on any logical basis, either conforming to their population or contribution.
There is one other point. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was very satisfactory when he attempted to explain why these Gentlemen should not be here when this House was engaged in dealing with other grave and important matters that affected or might affect the future or the welfare of Ireland. I could not follow, nor do I think any Member of the Committee who heard the right hon. Gentleman could follow, the reasons he gave why this intervention should be confined to this one matter of financial revision. We do no deny its importance, but surely he cannot deny, nor will any Member of the Committee deny, that it is not only conceivable, but highly probable, this Imperial Parliament will be called upon to deal with matters of far greater importance and of a more permanent character as affecting Ireland than the mere question of a financial revision. Upon all such questions—and we can conceive many of them—Ireland is to have no representation in this House beyond the forty-two Members. If on such occasions forty-two is a fair representation, why does it become unfair for the purposes of this financial revision? It not only does not become unfair, but you are exposing this House and your Imperial Parliament and your Government of the day to unnecessary and gratuitous risk, because it is plain that the intervention of twenty-one Members coming over for a matter of this kind, which will surely be one of friction between the two countries, might on any day during all the time this legislation is going through, determine the fate of the Government and throw this entire Kingdom into the confusion and turmoil of a general election. Why all this risk has to be run and why all this trouble is to be taken for the mere single occasion of a revision of these financial arrangements is a thing that up to the present has not been satisfactorily explained, 2019 and I hope some hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they honestly believe, as I think they will on reflection, that this is a piece of humbug and an unreal and unworkable plan, for which no good or solid reason has been given, they will have the courage of their convictions and get up and say so, and, if they do say so, I hope they will back up their convictions in the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. MARTIN
Reading this Clause, I cannot make out how the Irish Members who are to come here for the purposes of the revision, are to be chosen, but the Postmaster-General has told us the manner in which they are to be chosen is to be provided for by Order in Council. It seems to me the word "summoning" has a definite meaning. It means to call people, to tell them to come. That is the only word that is used. If the Postmaster-General is right in his interpretation it means very much more than that, but it does seem to me, if it is the intention that the Irishmen who are to come are to be chosen by the Government by Order in Council, it would be very easy to make it perfectly clear by adding the words "selected and summoned." Why take any chance if that is the intention of the Government? Personally, while I am quite willing to accept what the Government may decide, I should have thought the Irish Parliament was the much better body to choose the additional Irish Members to be summoned here, but, if the Irish Members are satisfied, I certainly am, though I do submit it should not be left in a doubtful way at all, because it is a most important provision. I view with a great deal of alarm, from a Liberal standpoint, the idea of bringing over for a specific and particular occasion about twenty or thirty men of whom Ave know nothing at all. I can well understand the Government might be forced to take this step, in view of a Report of the Joint Exchequer Board, when they have a majority of less than twenty-five or twenty. I cannot agree at all to the suggestion that if a Government measure deliberately brought into this House was defeated by the House as constituted under this Act, it would not be a clear case where the Government would be obliged to resign. It would not be a snap Division. It would be a Division which would comply with all the laws laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London in his speech which has been so 2020 much quoted. The Government would be called upon to resign at once. Why? Not because this House was against it or because the constituencies were against it, but because twenty-three or twenty-five men brought in for a special purpose happened to be against the Government of the day. That would be placing a tremendous power in the hands of these additional twenty-three, or twenty-five men. If the Government happened to have a majority less than they represented, it would be forced thereby to bring in measures and to make revisions not, as they considered, in the interests of the Empire, but such as would be acceptable to the twenty-three or twenty-five men. It seems to me that the proper course is to accept the House as constituted under the Bill, with the constituencies of England, Wales and Scotland represented as they now are, and with forty-two Members from Ireland. What good will the additional representation from Ireland do? In the event of the Government having a majority they could only put the case of Ireland before this House, and, surely, among the many Members who will come from Ireland in the ordinary course, there will be twenty at least who will be entirely capable of putting that case in the very best possible way for that country. For this reason I suggest that this matter should be made perfectly plain by putting in the words that have been suggested, and that the Liberal party should take no chance in the future, when we are engaged on some social reforms; they should not run the risk of being knocked out of power by a contingency of this kind.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
Even with the forty-two Members it is proposed to have in this House it might be possible, with a Radical Government in power at the time this revision came up for discussion—it might be quite possible to conceive that while, the Nationalist Members might be supporters of the Government, should the Government be forced by the opinion of the country to suggest that the Nationalist party should be called upon to pay contributions to the Army, Navy, and other Imperial services, hon. Members below the Gangway might promptly turn against their former friends. So it is quite true they will be better off to the extent of the twenty-three Members whom it is proposed to send to the House of Commons under this proposal. It would not be safe if the Radical party had such a narrow majority, and by voting in the opposite Lobby they 2021 might turn the Government out. I do not think the Radical party would feel at all safe under such conditions. I desire to make one or two general remarks on this Amendment. First, it is a curious fact that, practically speaking, on the only point in which Members of the opposite party have taken any interest—I refer to the unofficial Members, of course—the only one who has taken any part in these Debates is the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith), one of the three hon. Gentlemen in whose name this Amendment stands. It is, I repeat, a curious fact that that hon. Member has not come forward to move his own Amendment. I am told, that he is away from the House, but I think we are entitled to draw the conclusion in his absence that he thinks there is something wrong with this Clause. In his absence we may assume that if he had been here he would have objected to this Sub-section, and I think we are also entitled to claim that his dislike for it is by no means confined to this side of the House—indeed, other speeches made on that side of the House have fortified us in that opinion. We have been told that there is no intention on the part of the Government to allow this particular Clause to form a pattern for any federal system that may be set up hereafter in the case of Wales and Scotland. I think that furbishes another very strong proof of the statement we have made all along, that it is an absolute fraud on the House of Commons, and a most indecent attempt to take advantage of the good nature and amiability of hon. Members when the Prime Minister and other Members of the Front Bench have informed us that this Bill is to be the beginning of a federal system. Nothing more ridiculous or absurd could be put forward than the suggestion, first, that this was to form the basis of a federal system; and, secondly, that we should have these disclaimers. These frequent disclaimers on the part of the Government are absolute proof of the fact that tinder no circumstances can this ever be the basis of a federal system. It was never intended that it should be. Still further, it was a fraud on the House of Commons to pretend that in bringing this Bill before the House they intended it to be the first serious step towards federalism. I confess it is difficult for me, as an Ulster Unionist, to accept these statements from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. A very considerable number of years must elapse before this so-called 2022 revision can come before this House, and before that can happen, before Ulster can be affected by this or any other Clause of the Home Rule, it must have been dragooned or forced into accepting the Home Rule Bill. What the feelings of Ulster would be if ever they were dragooned and forced into accepting Home Rule, I can leave hon. Members opposite to imagine.
If we have to be, as we certainly will have to be, dragooned into accepting this Bill by open force, by bayonets, bullets, cannons and guns, I do not think hon. Members opposite can look forward to our coming to this House—such of us as may be allowed to come under this Order of the Privy Council—with any great feelings of love towards this country, nor can they expect us, if we do come, to expedite the passage of this revision Bill, or to help this country in any way in this matter of finance, or, indeed, in regard to any matter connected with Ireland. The very reverse will be the case. If we are ever forced into accepting Home Rule by the only means by which it would be possible to compel us to do so—that is, a superior force to anything we could put forward—the position we should be in, if we came to this House, would be one of bitterest enmity towards this House. It is not likely we should do much to help on a revision which would be satisfactory to this House and to this country. I do not think it is very likely that many Unionists from Ulster, if ever we are Members of a Home Rule Parliament, would ever have a chance of coming over here, because this extraordinary Sub-section, and, in fact, the whole Clause, is so preposterous and absurd, that whatever else might happen, and whoever else might come here, it would be as difficult for a camel to get through the eye of a needle as for a Ulster Unionist Member to sit in this House for the purpose of revising the financial relations between the two countries. In the earlier Debate neither the Solicitor-General nor the Postmaster-General were able to show that there is any necessity on anybody to bring it about that the question of the revision of the financial relations shall take place immediately after the Exchequer Board has made its Report. Sub-section (2) says:—
"The presentation of such a Report shall be taken to be a ground for the revision by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the financial provisions of this Act."
2023 10.0 P.M.
It does not say the ground, or the only ground, but only a ground for the revision. There is nothing in the Clause which is mandatory or which would compel this Government to call upon the Irish Members to come over here, or which give power to the Irish Parliament to insist that its representatives shall be sent over here to settle the question forthwith. There is nothing which prevents the Government of the day, if it realised—as it would if it were a Radical Government in power at the time—that it was not to its interest to have the matter threshed out in the House of Commons, putting the matter off for a year or two. Therefore it is not, as the Committee has been led to understand, that immediately the deficit disappears the question shall automatically come up here for discussion, and the moment there is a surplus in Ireland, Ireland shall be called upon automatically to make some sort of contribution towards the Army, Navy and Imperial services. There is nothing of that kind in the Bill. Yet both in the country and elsewhere that has been the line taken by hon. Members opposite. They have said to their constituents that it is unfair, while Ireland has its deficit and cannot pay its own way, to ask it to make a contribution to the services of this country. That may be right or wrong, but I have seen reports of hon. Members' speeches in which they have said that as soon as the deficit disappeared provision was made in the Bill by which Ireland should be called upon to contribute to the upkeep of the various services in this country. I am sure that is the idea which the ordinary Liberal in the country thinks that this Bill is going to carry out. You find that in the Bill there is no such provision whatever, and that the Government may put off until the crack of doom the settlement of this question. Supposing that the happy day arrives, I want to know, if twenty-three Irish Members are to come over to this country, what the procedure is to be? Is the matter of revision to be carried out by an Act of Parliament or by Resolutions of this House? Who is to say what is included within the meaning of the word "revision"? A great many things might be included in that. Supposing the House comes to the conclusion that some contribution is to be made by the Irish Parliament, is the Irish Parliament to be entitled to say anything in the matter? 2024 I should like to remind the Committee that the Postmaster-General, much to my amazement, and, I think, to the amazement of most hon. Members, informed us that it was by no means likely that there would be only one visit of the Irish Members to this House. He led us to understand they were not to be here for a day or two, but that we might expect to see them for a very considerable time, and that the visit which we all looked upon as a single visit was more likely than not to be extended into a number of periodical visits. He said it was quite open to the House of Commons, consisting of the ordinary Members of the House and these extra Irish Members, to say that there should be a revision of the financial relations between the two countries for five years. There is not a solitary soul in the House who for one moment imagined that it was proposed in this Sub-section that we should have more than one visit at the outside from the extra Irish Members, or who supposed that the question of the financial relations between the two countries was not to be fixed once and for all at that particular time. The Postmaster-General went on to say that the House of Commons might at that time, not only arrange for periodical visits of these Members, but might amend this Bill practically in any way they like. It seems to me that if they have power to say that if there shall be annual revisions, or five yearly revisions, of the financial relations, it is equally competent for them to say that after Ireland comes to the position when she has to contribute a certain sum towards the upkeep of the Army and Navy and so forth, she is entitled to have her Members present here when the Budget for the year is being discussed. The Budget is going to affect Ireland just as much as it affects England, and she is going to have to pay her share of the money required under that Budget, and she can very properly claim, if she happens to be in the happy position of holding the Government of the day in the hollow of her hand, as she does now, and it is more than likely that she will be successful in claiming, that the extra twenty-three Irish Members shall be permitted to come into the House of Commons during the discussion of all financial questions. That is quite a new vista for Members to look forward to when the House of Commons will not only consist of the ordinary fixed number, but when anything in the shape of a financial Bill, and certainly 2025 of a Budget, comes up there shall be this influx from the other side of the water. Then the question arises who is to say what is in the nature of a financial question or a financial Bill, and, in fact, I see no end to the difficulties which this Parliament will let itself in for if it ever passes such a vague, ridiculous, and absurd Clause as that which we have had before us to-day.
Just one word with regard to this Order in Council, which apparently the Government rely on to get them out of all their difficulties. Let mo fly into the dim future when the deficit has interfered, and let us suppose, for the want of a better example, that someone, like the present Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, is Lord Lieutenant of that day. We have not been told how these Orders in Council are to be made. I was not clear from what the Postmaster-General said whether it was to be an Irish Order in Council or an English Order in Council.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
I am afraid I do not know very much about Orders in Council, but I am certain that the Government in power, especially if it was a Radical Government, would not allow any Order in Council to be promulgated which would even remotely affect their position in this House of Commons, and therefore I am quite certain they would see to it that that Order in Council was not promulgated at any time when it would be to their disadvantage to have this matter opened up. Furthermore, I am perfectly certain that if they saw any likelihood of an undue number of persons being sent over here from Ireland, whether Ulstermen or Nationalists, which ever happened to be mostly in opposition to the Government of the day, they would manage it some way or other that the method of selecting the Members who are to come in from Ireland would be such that the party which was inimical to them would not find a very large representation in this House. In any case, it is obviously unfair that a matter so important as the selection of the Members who come over from Ireland should be left in this vague way to a body about which I, and probably a great many other Members, know very little, and in which we have not very much confidence. Some method ought to be plainly included, either in this Sub-section or in the Bill, providing that a proper representa- 2026 tion should be given over here and that all the parties in the Irish House of Commons should be represented in precisely the same way as parties are represented in Select Committees-of this House. However we look at it, this Clause, and particularly this Sub-section of it, is full of absurdities and anomalies, and I am quite convinced that if the Bill ever passes and becomes operative with such a Sub-section as that in it, it will lead to the most endless confusion, and it would be, I am sure, an infinitely simpler matter for the Government to deal seriously with the question now instead of putting in a few general words which will stave off the evil hour until such times as the deficit has ceased to exist. It seems to me that the absurdity of the Clause is the best proof that the Government themselves do not expect that the deficit period will conclude for a very great number of years, and therefore they think it is so far in the future before the day will arrive when Ireland will be able to contribute anything to the Imperial service of this country that it is not worth while wasting very much time, very much paper, or very much ink in setting up a more elaborate but more sensible and consistent system of arranging the financial relations of the two countries.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSON
We have had to comment on very many fantastic provisions in this Home Rule Bill, and the Government have been relieved from commenting on many fantastic provisions of the Bill by means of the Closure and the guillotine; but when this Clause is looked at it is the most fantastic provision, not only that we have had to consider, but that has ever appeared, or which could ever have appeared, or been thought of, in relation to any Constitution which has ever been set up, not only in any part of the United Kingdom, but in any part of the world. Really, the only explanation of it is that the Government in framing their Bill not only had some prevision for what might happen in the future in their dealings with Ireland, but they were trying to make watertight not merely these provisions as regards the Government or as regards discussion in this House, but as regards their proceedings on the platforms in this country. This is a window-dressing Clause; a Clause to be able to go to the country and to say, "Look how anxious Ireland is to contribute to your Imperial necessities. They are burning to support your Navy." According to the new policy 2027 of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), they are now so proud of the Empire that they only want an opportunity of coming over here and framing provisions in this Bill which will give them what they are burning for, the power to contribute to your Imperial resources. That is the whole object of this Clause. There is nothing else in it.
When this Home Rule Bill has started, if ever it should, which God forbid, will Ireland be in a position, of its own volition, to offer, as other places have clone in the Empire, "Dreadnoughts" for the assistance of the Imperial Government? I see nothing in the Bill to prevent it. It can tax Ireland for a "Dreadnought," or a regiment, or anything else. If it has that power, what on earth is the use of spending time in discussing these Clauses in this Bill? You all tell us that the moment the Bill passes all these sores of the past will be healed. Ireland will then be at peace. It will be one with this country. We shall be all one great brotherhood and one great nation. Why on earth do you not leave it to their own generosity to offer you that assistance towards Imperial needs which you think you are setting up by this Clause of the Bill? If Ireland is not willing to do that—and some people anticipate from past history that that may be the case—I hope it will not be the case—do you think that having set up a separate Parliament in Ireland, whatever may be in your Bill, you will be able to tell these people, with their own claims, their own ideals, and their own want of development in Ireland, that by an Order in Council you are going to summon over some of them to this House of Commons, and that, whether they like it or not, you are going to compel them to make a contribution to your Imperial Exchequer. The thing is absurd. You could not do it, and you know you could not do it, and that is why I say that the whole of this Clause is a pretence at the present moment. But see how your scheme hangs together. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us to-night, not for the first time, "I mean whenever there is an increase in Imperial charges, to tax Ireland just as we have done before with reduced representation. If I want an increase in the Navy or in the Army in the next year after this Bill has become law, I will put as much taxation upon Ireland as I like with forty-two Members here, instead of 2028 103." He says he can do that. I do not think he will be able to do it in fact. Really, if he can do that, and if that is the meaning of this Home Rule Bill, I do not think that anybody has yet given any explanation of why you are to go through all this performance of supplementing the Irish Members in this House for something which may cost a great deal less than they are entitled to do under the representation as it will stand after this Home Rule Bill passes.
What an outlook for this country! Let me leave Ireland out of the question altogether for the moment. Next year you may want more "Dreadnoughts," or more money for the Army. You pass this Bill starting with a deficit of £2,000,000 a year, which I think will be a great deal more, because I think we have never had any real Debate yet as to the proper contribution to Ireland or the relation of the taxes between the two countries. Take it, however, at £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, with the declaration of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford—who is now imitating the Prime Minister in not being present—that they will hardly be able to make ends meet in Ireland with that contribution from this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that you are going to set up increased taxation in Ireland for Imperial purposes. What a prospect for peace! What a prospect for the millennium in which everybody is to get everything for nothing, or pay nothing for anything, which is putting the case in a different form! As everybody knows that has been the kind of exaggerated statement—I take this on the authority of the hon. Member for Cork—which has been made for many years throughout Ireland, and then on the top of that you are going to have for Imperial purposes increased taxation with reduced membership in this House of forty-two. I do not know how you are going to carry out that in your own finance. I do not know how you are going to segregate your own taxes, supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down next year and says, "I must have a loan of £100,000,000. I see other nations are building large fleets, and although we are the most anxious in the world to reduce our armaments, we must keep pace, and we must have a loan of £100,000,000." And thereupon at once he says, "And remember this: Ireland must pay her share towards the £100,000,000." What an extraordinary way of setting up the 2029 government in Ireland, with the reduced membership here, to think that you can set up these loans which, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, means increased taxation in Ireland, not for one year, but for many years, paying interest and sinking fund. Why on earth are you going to call together, under this Clause, Irish Members back to this House, when, because they have made ends meet for one or two years, you are going to ask them to agree to some indefinite scheme by which they are to pay, not merely the addition to the Navy or the Army, or other Imperial expenses, but what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls something existing at the present time, I suppose in the nature of the National Debt which has been contracted in the last several hundred years?
The whole of this Clause really has no meaning. I do suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at the realities of Ireland, and not to the kind of Ireland which the Solicitor-General is always imagining. The kind of Ireland he has in his mind—it is very kind of him—is something very perfect, but if you really believe that that is the Ireland you are legislating for, why do not you trust the Trish Parliament itself? Why do not you say as regards future contributions that the method in which Ireland is to contribute to Imperial expenses is that she should pass an Act and we should pass an Act to be called an Act of the two Houses? You do not do this because you do not believe that you would ever get the money, because you know that you would never get it. But then look how silly your position is. You are going to summon over Members to this House no matter what the state of parties is. You are going to bring them here when a bell rings, and turn them out when a bell rings, and you are going to upset the whole of your Session, no matter what the state of your legislation, and you are seriously pretending that if the twenty-two Members, or whatever you summon over, are against your proposals for increased contributions towards the Imperial Exchequer, you will disregard the Members you have summoned over from Ireland, in addition to the forty-two Members who are there already, and you will say, "We do not care one straw about the Irish Parliament which we ourselves created, and having summoned these Members and heard their views, we will pass this legislation whether you like it or not." 2030 Was there ever such a vista of friction in the setting up of constitutions as between two countries? I do not believe that once you have set up your Parliament, either in regard to this or any other matter, you can do anything except with the consent of the Irish Parliament, and I am not sure that you ought to be able to do anything, because you have done this act yourselves, and one of the greatest flaws in the whole of this Bill is that here at the heart of the Empire not only are you crippling Irish financial methods, but you are crippling your own financial methods, and in the times of your greatest difficulty you will have to consult not only the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer. One word more as regards this matter. I have never heard of such a suggestion as that the Order in Council was to regulate who were to be the Members to be summoned over from Ireland. My hon. Friend behind me who has just spoken said he did not know much about Orders in Council. I know a little about them. I had six years in the Law Office, therefore I know something about Orders in Council. An Order in Council means the Order of the Government, nothing more nor less. And, therefore, what does this last Sub-section in the Clause mean? It means this, that the Government of the day are themselves to select what Members they shall call from Ireland. It is not merely to be done on any principle of constituencies. There is to be no majority and no minority representation. They are simply to look out in Ireland who are the men to help them, and therefore to summon the Member over from Dublin, Cork, Skibbereen, or wherever else it may be, and order him to come over here to discuss these matters. Was there ever a Constitution set up like that? "We are the Government. Why should we consult as to whether Members from the north or south should be brought here? That is nothing to us. We, the Government of the day, say that So-and-so and So-and-so are to come over here, and we say that So-and-so and So-and-so are not to come over here, and, therefore, we frame our Parliament as we like." Really, to use the phrase of the Prime Minister, "we are getting on." This is the democratic principle. The Members of the House of Commons in future are not to be elected by the constituencies, but to be selected by the Government of the day. I should think if the House of Commons passes- 2031 that they will pass anything. I do not wonder that the hon. Member for Hackney said that he did not altogether like it. I think that was as far as he went on this provision.
§ Sir E. CARSON
The hon. Gentleman who comes from the Colonies is satisfied, after his experience, that the Dominion Government of Canada, in the Dominion Parliament ought to have the selection of Members from the Provinces to fill up that Parliament. I really do hope the Committee will pause before they create such a precedent as that the new electoral system we are to have is not to be by the constituencies, but by the Government of the day.
§ Sir J. SIMON
The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has asked us to observe the realities of Ireland. I reply to him by saying that in my judgment no fallacy could be so gross as to attribute to a community, when it feels that justice is being done to it, the sentiments that it might probably entertain if it felt that it laboured under an injustice. For my part, I am one of those who think that in Ireland, as in other parts of the Empire, when you produce the feeling that you have done justice to national aspirations you will produce very different consequences.
§ It being half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant, to the Order of the House of the 11th October, to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'summoned' ['there shall be summoned'], stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 177.2035
|Division No. 375.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Chancellor, H. G.||Field, William|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Adamson, William||Clancy, John Joseph||Flavin, Michael|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Clough, William||Gill, A. H.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Ginnell, L.|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Glanville, H. J.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Gladstone, W. G. C.|
|Armitage, R.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Arnold, Sydney||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Goldstone, Frank|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cotton, William Francis||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Griffith, Ellis Jones|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Crooks, William||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Barnes, George N.||Crumley, Patrick||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)||Cullinan, J.||Hackett, J.|
|Barton, W.||Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Hall, F. (Normanton)|
|Beale, Sir W. Phipson||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hardie, J. Keir|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Dawes, J. A.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)||De Forest, Baron||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Delany, William||Harvey, T. E. Leeds, W.)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Devlin, Joseph||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Boland, John Plus||Dillon, John||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Donelan, Captain A.||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Doris, W.||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Duffy, William J.||Hayward, Evan|
|Brace, William||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Brady, P. J.||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Essex, Richard Walter||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Falconer, J.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Farrell, James Patrick||Hinds, John|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Hodge, John|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Ffrench, Pater||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Holt, Richurd Durning||Morgan, George Hay||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Morrell, Philip||Rowlands, James|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Morison, Hector||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Hudson, Walter||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Muldoon, John||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Munro, R.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Nannetti, Joseph||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|John, Edward Thomas||Needham, Christopher T.||Sheehy, David|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nolan, Joseph||Shortt, Edward|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Smith, Albert (Lancs. Clitheroe)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Jowett, F. W.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Snowden, P.|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Doherty, Philip||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Keating, Matthew||O'Dennell, Thomas||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||Ogden, Fred||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Grady, James||Sutton, John E.|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|King, Joseph||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||O'Malley, William||Tennant, Harold John|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Thomas J. H.|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||O'Shaughnessy, P J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)||O'Shee, James John||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Leach, Charles||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Outhwaite, R. L.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Lundon, T.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Lynch, A. A.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Waring, Walter|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|McGhee, Richard||Pointer, Joseph||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Webb, H.|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|M'Kean, John||Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Radford, G. H.||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon||Reddy, Michael||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.)|
|Meagher, Michael||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Millar, James Duncan||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Young, W. (Perthshire, East)|
|Molloy, M.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Robinson, Sidney||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Roch, Walter F.||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Burgoyne, A. H.||Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Burn, Colonel C. R.||Falls, Bertram Godfrey|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Campbell, Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Fell, Arthur|
|Ashley, W. W.||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey|
|Baird, J. L.||Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Fleming, Valentine|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cassel, Felix||Fletcher, John Samuel|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Cator, John||Forster, Henry William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)||Cave, George||Foster, Philip Staveley|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gardner, Ernest|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Goldman, Charles Sydney|
|Barnston, Harry||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Goldsmith, Frank|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Chambers, J.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Grant, J. A.|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Courthope, G. Loyd||Gretton, John|
|Bigland, Alfred||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)|
|Blair, Reginald||Craik, Sir Henry||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds))|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Croft, H. P.||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Boyton, J.||Denniss, E. R. B.||Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)|
|Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Malcolm, Ian||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Martin, Joseph||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Harris, Henry Percy||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Middlemore, J. T.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Swift, Rigby|
|Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Moore, William||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Hill, Sir Clement L.||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Hill-Wood, Samuel||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Hoare, S. J. G.||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Hohler, G. Fitzroy||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Nield, Herbert||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Norton-Griffiths, J.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Hume-Williams, W. E.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Jackson, Sir John||Parkes (Ebenezer)||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Jessel, Captain H. M.||Peel, Captain R. F.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Perkins, Walter F.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Kerry, Earl of||Pretyman, Ernest George||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Pringle, William M. R.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Larmor, Sir J.||Randies, Sir John S.||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Rawlinson, J. F. P.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lawson, Hon. H. (T, H'mts, Mile End)||Rees, Sir J. D.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Lee, Arthur H.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Lewisham, Viscount||Rothschild, Lionel de||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Royds, Edmund||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Younger, Sir George|
|MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Mackinder, H. J.||Sanderson, Lancelot||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Macmaster, Donald||Sassoon, Sir Philip||Barrie and Mr. Bird.|
|M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock, at this day's sitting.2036
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 174.2039
|Division No. 376.]||AYES.||[10.40 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Byles, Sir William Pollard||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Essex, Richard Walter|
|Adamson, William||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Falconer, James|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Hey wood)||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Chancellor, H. G.||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Clancy, John Joseph||Ffrench, Peter|
|Armitage, R.||Clough, William||Field, William|
|Arnold, Sydney||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Gill, Alfred Henry|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Ginnell, Laurence|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Gladstone, W. G. C.|
|Barnes, George N.||Cotton, William Francis||Glanville, H. J.|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Barton, William||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Goldstone, Frank|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Crooks, William||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Crumley, Patrick||Griffith, Ellis, J.|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Cullinan, John||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hackett, J.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Dawes, James Arthur||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)|
|Black, Arthur w.||De Forest, Baron||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Boland, John Pius||Delany, William||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Devlin, Joseph||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Dillon, John||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)|
|Brace, William||Donelan, Captain A.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Brady, P. J.||Doris, William||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Duffy, William J.||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Buckmaster, Stanley Owen||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Hayward, Evan|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Molloy, M.||Roch, Walter F.|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Henry, Sir Charles||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Rowlands, James|
|Higham, John Sharp||Mooney, John J.||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Hinds, John||Morgan, George Hay||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Morrell, Philip||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Hodge, John||Morison, Hector||Scan Ian, Thomas|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Muldoon, John||Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.|
|Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Munro, R.||Sheehy, David|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R, C.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Hudson, Walter||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Shortt, Edward|
|Hughes, S. L.||Needham, Christopher T.||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheres)|
|Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)||Nolan, Joseph||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|John, Edward Thomas||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Snowden, Philip|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Doherty, Philip||Sutton, J. E.|
|Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Jowett, Frederick William||Ogden, Fred||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Grady, James||Tennant, Harold John|
|Keating, Matthew||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Thomas, J. H.|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Malley, William||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|King, J.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||O'Shee, James John||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Wadsworth, John|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Outhwaite, R. L.||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Leach, Charles||Parker, James (Halifax)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Waring, Walter|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Lundon, Thomas||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Pointer, Joseph||Webb, H.|
|Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Power, Patrick Joseph||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|McGhee, Richard||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Macpherson, James Ian||Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Pringle, William M. R.||Wiles, Thomas|
|M'Callum, Sir John M,||Radford, G. H.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|M'Kean, John||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Reddy, Michael||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.)|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Martin, Joseph||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Meagher, Michael||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Millar, James Duncan||Robinson, Sidney|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Cator, John|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Beresford, Lord Charles||Cave, George|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Bigland, Alfred||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Bird, A.||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Blair, Reginald||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.|
|Baird, J. L.||Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Chambers, James|
|Balcarres, Lord||Boyton, James||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Bull, Sir William James||Cooper, Richard Ashmole|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Courthope, George Loyd|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Burgoyne, A. H.||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Burn, Colonel C. R.||Craik, Sir Henry|
|Barnston, Harry||Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian|
|Barrie, H. T.||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Croft, H. P.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Denniss, E. R. B.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Cassel, Felix||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Fell, Arthur||Kerry, Earl of||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Kimber, Sir Henry||Royds, Edmund|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Fleming, Valentine||Larmor, Sir J.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Forster, Henry William||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Foster, Philip Staveley||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lewisham, Viscount||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Gastrell, Major W. H.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Goldman, C. S.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Gordon, John (Londonderry South)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Grant, J. A.||Mackinder, H. J.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Gretton, John||Macmaster, Donald||Swift, Rigby|
|Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Malcolm, Ian||Talbot, Lord E|
|Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)|
|Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Mills, Hon Charles Thomas||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Moore, William||Touche, George Alexander|
|Harris, Henry Percy||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Nield, Herbert||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Norton-Griffiths, J.||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Hill, Sir Clement L.||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Hills, John Waller||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Hill-Wood, Samuel||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Parkes, Ebenezer||Wolmer Viscount|
|Hohler, G. F.||Peel, Captain R. F.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Perkins, Walter Frank||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Quitter, Sir William Eley C.||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Randles, Sir John S.||Younger, Sir George|
|Jackson, Sir John||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Jessel, Captain H. M.||Rees, Sir J. D.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||J. Gordon (Brighton) and Mr. Tobin.|
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Tuesday).