Commons Sitting of 4 December 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into Law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Mr. Sanderson, (26 petitions) from the Appleby Division of Westmorland containing 3,540 signatures; and on behalf of the hon. Member for the Kendal Division, Colonel J. Bagot, (24 petitions) containing 2,170 signatures.
Mr. Duke, (11petitions) from Exeter containing 4,899 signatures.
Mr. Amery, (5 petitions) from South Birmingham containing 1,311 signatures.

RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
"To amend Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, with respect to increases of rates or charges made for the purpose of meeting a rise in the cost of working a railway due to improved labour conditions." Presented by Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Robertson; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 331.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    COLONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the £300,000 cash contributed by the Australian Commonwealth and the Dominion of New Zealand towards the expenses of the Vote for the pay of the Navy is treated practically in the same way as the £167,000 cash contributed by India towards the same pay?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): In both cases the amount received is treated as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the relative Navy Votes.
    Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the sum of £167,000 asked for from India represents any particular item?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the result of an Interdepartmental discussion which took place some years ago and in which the matter was arbitrated upon by a third party. I cannot say the actual basis on which the amount was arrived at, but that is the result of the arbitration after very considerable discussion.

    COLOUR TEST.
    Mr. PETOasked what regulations obtain in the Royal Navy as regards the tests imposed upon officers in respect to efficiency in colour and form vision; and whether, as regards the latter, the use of spectacles or other artificial aids to sight are permissible at sea?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the regulations as regards form vision for all officers, other than medical, accountant, and chaplains, are, that they must have full normal near and distant vision as determined by Snellen's test types, without the aid of glasses. Colour vision is tested by Edridge-Green lantern and assorted coloured wools, and all officers must be able to distinguish readily the primary colours. In the case of form vision, no artificial aids to sight are permissible at sea, excepting in the case of those officers already mentioned, and also the use of telescopes and field glasses as an intermittent aid to normal distant vision.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of abandoning the wool test, seeing that it has proved wholly unreliable?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All these subjects are considered from time to time, and I believe our test to be a good and safe one.

    MALAY STATES (OFFER OF BATTLESHIP).
    Mr. KINGasked whether the battle ship offered by the Federated Malay States will be maintained entirely from funds provided under the Estimates; and, if so, what is the estimated charge per annum for total maintenance, including pay of crew, coal, stores, and repairs?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The annual cost of the maintenance of one of the latest battleships—say, "King George V."—including liability for retired pay and pensions, is £127,000. It does not, however, follow that this charge would be additional to the British Naval Estimates; and it would always be possible to place an older battleship in the Material Reserve should circumstances permit.

    SEAMEN AND STOKERS.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the number of seamen and stoker classes, respectively, who have taken their discharge at the end of their first period of twelve years' service, showing each year consecutively, from the 1st April, 1903, to the 31st March, 1913, and from the 1st April, 1912, to the present date?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the information asked for is confidential.

    ARMOUR PLATES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any flaws have been discovered in the armour of any of His Majesty's ships, built or building?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Flaws are occasionally discovered in armour plates of His Majesty's ships, such flaws consisting in general of shellings-off of small portions of the outer face. Suitable action is taken in each particular case. If the defects are sufficiently important, the plate is replaced. If they are not considered to be of material importance, steps are taken to flush up the surface. The cases which have come to notice recently are the ordinary cases, none calling for special remark.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): Will the right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of the delay in building ships, take into consideration the subject of the Admiralty providing their own armour plates, under a question of royalty?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    COASTGUARD SERVICE (PAY).
    Mr. MILDMAYasked whether the prospective rise of pay in the Navy is to be extended to men employed in His Majesty's Coastguard service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The proposed increase does not extend to the Coastguard, who are saved many expenses—such as house rent—and discomforts which fall on the active service.
    Mr. MILDMAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideraion that the Coastguard men on active service rating at present receive the same rate of pay as the corresponding ranks in the naval service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; I have taken it very fully into consideration.

    H.M.S. "VALIANT" AND "BARHAM."
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked when it is hoped the "Valiant" and "Barham" will be laid down; what is their anticipated date of launch; what is their contract date of delivery and completion; how much money it is hoped will now be spent on them before the end of the present financial year; and what guarantees have been offered or given by the contractors against delays in completion?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is expected that the "Valiant" and "Barham" will be laid down in January and February next, respectively; their probable dates of launching are December, 1913, and February, 1914, respectively. The contracts are not yet drawn, but the date to be inserted for completion will probably be January, 1915, for each ship. The estimated sum to be spent before the end of the present financial year is: "Valiant, "£57,100; and "Barham," £56,500. The contractors tendered on the basis of liquidated damages being recoverable in the event of any delay occurring beyond the contract date, and this condition will be included in the contracts.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the enforcing of these penalties?

    LIGHT ARMOURED CRUISERS.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked how many of the light armoured cruisers have been actually laid down and on what dates: and whether names have yet been allotted to them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Two of the light armoured cruisers have been laid down on the 24th and 28th October respectively. No names have yet been assigned.

    WAR STAFF OFFICERS (PAY).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether officers of the rank of commander Royal Navy and Royal Marine officers serving at the Admiralty on the War Staff are in receipt of consolidated rates of pay of from £100 to £150 per annum less than officers

    2267
    of corresponding rank serving on the General Staff at the War Office; and, if so, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty will take steps to raise the pay of the War Staff serving in London to bring it to an equality with that of the General Staff?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The pay of officers serving on the War Staff at the Admiralty in fixed with relation to the pay of Naval and Marine officers serving in other appointments, and not necessarily to that of Army officers.

    ANNUAL BEFIT.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the period allowed for the annual refit of armoured ships has been reduced to one month; whether this has been found to involve the working of day and night shifts, as well as overtime, in the dockyards; and whether the Admiralty have found that this conduces to good workmanship and economical administration?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir; the importance of reducing the length of time for which vessels were absent from the fleet and the consequent weakening of the squadrons led me earlier in the year to appoint a Committee to make proposals for remedying this serious evil. The new system which has been thoroughly worked out is now in full and satisfactory operation. The programme of refits has been arranged on a four weeks' basis. In certain circumstances night shifts and overtime may have to be resorted to in order to secure the punctual return to the fleet of every vessel according to its date. The quality of the workmanship is not expected to suffer, and it is anticipated that the general effect of the new arrangement will result in an increase in the average strength of the fighting squadrons at a comparatively small additional cost.

    CLAIM TO A SEAT.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness to take his seat.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN (seated on the arm of the Front Bench below the Ministerial Gangway): I have just been out, and on my return I found that my hon. Friend had taken my seat.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: May I say that I was here an hour ago?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the name of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness was on the seat he is entitled to it, but if his card was not there he is not entitled to it.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: My name is not there, but I was here.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES(who occupied the seat): May I say that my card was here on the seat an hour ago, and I was at the door at the time for prayers. When I came in the card had been removed. It has happened many times, a great many times, and there is a very considerable struggle, though nothing unfriendly, for this seat.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that during the last few years those special seats have been, I will not say allotted to, but have been used by the Labour party. The hon. Member for Sal-ford does not, of course, belong to that party, and it is rather unusual that he should use that seat.
    Sir W. BYLES: Surely I may be allowed to say that there are several Radical Members who had possession of these seats long before the Labour party came, and they have retained them regularly. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO no."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not so; those seats were on the other side of the House, and, since the Labour party came over in 1910, they have sat there.

    ANNUAL REFIT—(continued.)
    Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this new system has proved an actual success in practice, and whether, in point of fact, the refits of any ship has been completed within four weeks?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has only very recently been brought into operation. It is too soon to say whether in all respects it can be fully maintained, but the advantages are very great indeed in preventing ships dawdling about in the dockyards when really they ought to be ships on which the admirals of the fighting squadron can count.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked a question, which was inaudible.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A Committee was appointed under Sir John Jellicoe—a very strong Committee—which sat for a very long time, and went into the full details. I am quite satisfied we are justified in making the experiment.

    ARMOURED SHIPS.
    Mr. MIDDLE MOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total tonnage of the armoured ships completed for the British and German Navies, respectively, from 1901 to 1906, inclusive, and from 1907 to the present time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The British figures are:—

    From 1901 to 1906

    From 720,985 tons

    From 1907 to present time

    559,450 tons

    The German figures are:—

    From 1901 to 1906.

    203,865 tons

    From 1907 to present time

    367,710 tons.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what were the sums voted for new construction, but not spent, in each of the financial years from 1906–7 to 1911–12, inclusive?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper No. 300 of this year. The figures showing the amounts annually expended in 1911–1912 are not yet available.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: May I ask if the enormous total that I find in his answer is counted twice over in the Estimates?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should wait and see the figures.

    INDIA (REPORTED OFITER).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any offer from persons in India to furnish a fleet of battleships and other war vessels for the defence of British Imperial possessions: and, if so, what answer has been given?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No such offer has been received by the Admiralty.
    Mr. KING: Have any negotiations preparatory to an offer been made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Not that I know of.

    AVIATION.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the trials of the experimental airship
    2270
    "Willows" have proved satisfactory; and, if so, whether the Admiralty intend to proceed with the building of airships of practical value?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The trials of the small Willows airship have proved quite satisfactory for the limited purposes for which it is intended.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I said that I did not desire to make any statement on the air programme at the present time, as I stated last week in reply to a question.
    Mr. JOYNSON HICKS: May I ask why we cannot have the naval air programme when we have the Army air programme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The future Army programme for the next year will, I presume, be announced when the future Army Estimates are put forward; and so will our future programme, so far as it can, be properly discussed.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Is there any present naval air programme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very remarkable the amount of progress that has been made in naval aeroplanes during the present year.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated in this House that he had been in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War and had settled the programme with him?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It was stated.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are now coming on to the programme of another year. Very considerable developments in naval aviation have taken place during the course of the present year.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKErose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put down any further questions.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked whether the Committee on Aircraft have come to any conclusion in respect of the relative merits of rigid and non-rigid airships; and how many rigid airships are built, building, or projected for Great. Britain?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The deliberations of the Air Committee and their recommendations are confidential. The question of rigid airships is receiving attention.
    Mr. FELLasked if the Admiralty have decided to erect a garage for dirigible airships and aeroplanes on the East Coast, or somewhere in East Anglia where it will be available for aircraft accompanying ships in the North Sea?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All these matters are being studied, and I am not in a position to make any statement upon them at present.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Navy only possesses one air ship; and whether this machine will only lift two persons, and cannot exceed thirty miles per hour in a calm?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The speed of the small naval airship, which is used for instructional purposes and is the only one we have at present, is just over thirty mile3 per hour.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are any others building for the Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not desire to make a statement on the subject at the present time. I will make a statement on the subject when the Estimates are presented.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether any of our naval aviators have ever flown a machine which is capable of a speed of seventy miles per hour with a helping wind?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the public interest will permit him to state the fact that we have no naval aeroplane capable of exceeding the speed of the newest Zeppelin by twenty miles an hour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have in the naval wing several machines that can exceed the speed of the latest Zeppelin.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, be sides one new naval Zeppelin, one new military Zeppelin, two passenger Zeppelins, and the SchÜtte-Lanz experimental dirigible, Germany has several other effective, if slightly slower, Zeppelin air ships belonging to the Army within 300 to 400 miles of the British coast?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am now informed that there are two other Zeppelins belonging to the Army, in addition to those mentioned in the question. Of these Z.I. was completed in 1905 and reconstructed in 1911, but I am informed that, so far as is known at the Admiralty, she has not been flying recently. The other, Z.III, according to the German Press, was taken over by the military authorities at the end of July last.

    SMOKE MAGAZINES.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked what steps, if any, have been taken to safe guard shore magazines, containing ammunition for the fleet, from attack by air ships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Steps are being taken to safeguard our shore magazines from aerial attack.

    INCREASE OF PAY.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the increase of pay to officers and men in the Royal Navy?
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSalso asked a question in similar terms.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The scheme will be laid on the Table of the House to-night. It is based generally on an increase of 3d. a day to A.B.'s, and stokers, first-class, after six years man's service, and 4d. to petty officers of these classes. The increase to the A.B. amounts to 15 per cent, of his substantive pay. Royal Marines after six years man's service receive an afloat allowance when embarked of 3d. a day for privates, gunners, and bombardiers, and 4d. for the upper ranks. The increase given to other ratings is adapted to the special requirements of their class. The pay of the carpenters, shipwrights, and armourers, and of the signal class, has for some time past been under the consideration of the Admiralty, experience having shown that these ratings are relatively at a disadvantage having regard to their special duties. The increase given to them is therefore proportionately greater. The scheme includes payment for good conduct badges (1d. a day for each badge) to those classes, which at present are eligible only for honorary badges, i.e., engine-room artificers, electricians, writers, and ships' stewards. Paid badges are also given to officers' stewards who at present are not eligible for badges

    2273
    at all. As regards kit, all ratings who now only receive part of the cost of their kit on first entry into the Service will in future receive a free kit on first entry. The scheme contains an improved incremental scale of full pay for lieutenants, whose pay will in future rise by successive shillings a day after 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 years. An improved scale of half-pay is given to captains, the first eighty receiving £1 a day, the second eighty 18s., and the remainder 16s. The command money for commanders in sea-going commands will be 5s. a day. The total cost of these proposals is £380,473, of which £351,273 is for men and £35,200 for officers. The new rates will take effect from 1st December, 1912.

    H.M.S. "TORCH."
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will be in a position to make a statement with reference to the condition of His Majesty's ship "Torch"?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Report was only received on Monday. It will be considered at once. I hope to be able to make a statement before Christmas.

    INDIA'S CONTRIBUTION.
    Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary for India if the question of the cash contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy by India has been considered with the question of the contribution now made by the Australian Commonwealth, and the Dominion of New Zealand and other Colonies, both in cash and ships; and if the question of the contribution of one or more battleships by India has been discussed, and the effect that it would produce as evidence of the solidarity of the Empire in its defence?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The question of the cash contributions of India towards the maintenance of the Navy is considered from time to time in the light of existing circumstances. My Noble Friend has no further statement to make upon it at the present time.
    Mr. FELL: Is the very large increased cost of the British Navy taken into account in assessing the amount?
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: I have no doubt that that is considered by the Secretary of State.

    INDIAN AND COLONIAL GIFTS.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked whether, before gifts of war vessels are accepted from Protectorates, Crown Colonies, and Dependencies, an opportunity will be afforded to the House of Commons of considering the obligations imposed upon the people of the United Kingdom by their acceptance?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether the Government have any information as to an offer by the ruling princes of India of the gift of a fleet of warships to the Imperial Government?
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister, with regard to the alleged offer of a large fleet of battleships for the assistance of Imperial defence by Indian chiefs, whether the Government or the Indian Administration have had any previous knowledge of the proposal or have given it any encouragement; and whether, having regard to the cost of subsequent maintenance, the effect on international relations, and the possibility of such schemes being organised by large financial interests which are engaged in the supply of ships or armaments, he can see his way to intimate on behalf of the Government that no future offers of this kind will be entertained from private individuals or from Colonial Administrations not founded on a representative basis?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no information as to any such offer as that referred to in Question 57. It follows that Question 58 is hypothetical, but I cannot give any such undertaking as is there suggested. The House will have the regular opportunities of discussing and deciding upon the whole of the Naval Estimates when they are presented in the usual way, and no charge or increase in the total charge to the taxpayer is possible without Parliamentary sanction.
    Colonel YATE: With reference to Question 58, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will intimate to the Government of India the Government's permission to arm vessels of the Royal Indian Marine, and so afford the people of India an opportunity of strengthening the Imperial Forces in the Indian seas in the way they may desire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me I notice of that question; I cannot answer it without.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information concerning a gift from certain ruling princes in India to the British Navy of one battleship and nine cruisers of an estimated value of £20,000,000 sterling; and if not, what action he proposes taking to prevent the circulation to the Press of false statements calculated to give annoyance to ruling chiefs in India?
    Mr. BAKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second, the Secretary of State does not consider that any action is required.

  Ceylon (Toddy Licences).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that, before the adoption of the new Excise scheme in Ceylon, the price of toddy varied from 10 to 25 cents per bottle, whilst under the new scheme the minimum price is fixed at 7 cents per bottle; and, in view of the alleged fact that the new regulations are already resulting in an increase of the consumption of toddy, whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the raising of the minimum price to check this increasing consumption?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The minimum price now fixed by regulations is as stated, but the Secretary of Stale has no reason to think that it is the usual selling price at present. He has no figures as to the cost of toddy before the introduction of the new system, but he would point out that any comparison between the present price and the past price of toddy sold in taverns is of little value. The sales at the new licensed taverns will take the place of former illicit sales as to which it is of course impossible to obtain any figures. As regards the second part of the question, the Secretary of State would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which he gave on the 16th of October to the hon. Member for East Hull.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at a meeting on the 26th October, 1912, of the (European) Passara Planters' Association, Ceylon, the planters stated that the new toddy taverns were already injuriously affecting the
  2276
  Tamil coolies at work on the plantations, and that in consequence the output of some estates was falling; whether he is aware that in one instance, at Passara, a tavern was placed on the muster ground of the coolie lines, and that the planters stated that whilst the Government agent had promised to consult them before establishing new toddy taverns he had entirely failed to do so; whether he is aware that the Passara planters, by resolution, asked the Ceylon Government that, before a tavern was placed within two miles of the boundaries of any estate, the estate managers should be consulted; and whether, pending the establishment of the proposed advisory committees, steps will be taken to meet the desire of the planters' to protect their coolies from drunkenness, and to ensure that toddy licences shall only be issued where the circumstances are such as to warrant their issue?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has no information with regard to the first three parts of the question. As regards the fourth part, he can only say that the Government of Ceylon assures him that it has taken every precaution to ensure that licences will only be issued when they are required by circumstances. It is, of course, almost inevitable that some mistakes should be made on the introduction of a new system, but if any have been made the Colonial Government may be trusted to remedy them at the earliest opportunity.

  Bauchi Light Railway.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Bauchi Light Railway has been constructed with earthworks, bridges, etc., suitable for the present 2 feet 6 inch gauge, or for the larger normal gauge; how far it is at present open for traffic from Zaria; and whether any estimate can be given of what it has up to now cost per mile, including rolling stock, and excluding the same?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State understands that the permanent way of this light railway has been constructed so as to allow of the adoption of a broader gauge if such a step is required in the future. Ninety miles of the line for which sanction was obtained have been open for traffic since the middle of March last, and the expenditure has been at the rate of £2,000 a mile, inclusive of rolling stock. Exclusive of rolling stock the cost would be approximately £1,750 a mile.

  Compulsory Military Service (New Zealand).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House as to the working of the Act for compulsory military service in New Zealand; whether he can furnish the Library with a copy of the Official Report of the Debates on the Defence Estimates; and whether, under the Act referred to, trivial offences, even in times of peace, are sent for trial, not to civil, but to military Courts?
  Colonel SEELY: The latest Report on the Defence Forces in New Zealand and the Report of the recent Debates on the Defence Estimates will be placed in the Library. My hon. Friend will find the text of the Defence Acts in (Cd. 5135) and (Cd.5582).

  Human Leopard Ordinance (Nigeria).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Human Leopard and Alligator Ordinance of the Colony of Southern Nigeria has recently been amended; whether it now contains a retrospective Clause which may be enforced without limit in point of time; and whether, if this is so, he will consider advising the Governor of Sierra Leone to secure some modification in this respect?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir, the Sierra Leone Ordinance, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, following the precedent of the Ordinance of 1909, does contain retrospective provisions, and in view of the gravity and the number of the crimes with which the Ordinance deals the Secretary of Slate considers this somewhat exceptional procedure necessary and right.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Will the right lion. Gentleman represent to his colleague the possibility of very grave injustice in the case of natives who committed these offences many years ago, but who, through the influence of missionaries and others, have led entirely different lives since?
  Colonel SEELY: I will certainly convey that representation to my right hon. Friend. One cannot exaggerate the gravity of the crimes referred to.

  Public Appointments (Coloured Medical Men).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked what public appointments in the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, and Lagos are open to coloured medical men of African descent?
  Colonel SEELY: Three native medical officers are employed by the Government of Sierra Leone, and four by the Government of Southern Nigeria. None are employed in the Gold Coast.

  Military Stations (Garden Plots).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War at how many military stations in the United Kingdom are allotments or garden plots provided by the War Office for cultivation by unmarried non-commissioned officers and privates in the Regular Army; in how many cases is instruction in gardening or expert advice given to soldiers so occupied; and whether, in view of the value of such knowledge and experience to soldiers on leaving the service in securing for them fresh occupation or employment, and in enabling them to keep their families from a state of penury, he will take steps to further promote such allotments instruction and advice?
  Colonel SEELY: Alloments of garden grounds are granted free to the troops at all stations where suitable War Department land is available, but the detailed information required can only be obtained by calling for returns from the stations. In the last five years 1,015 men were instructed in gardening. Local instruction in gardening is encouraged in the various commands where opportunities present themselves.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to start such gardens in the neighbourhood of Bulford and Tidworth camps?
  Colonel SEELY: I will certainly consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

  Army Monoplanes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked why the Army thinks it necessary to appoint a Committee to consider the question of flying monoplanes when the Navy does not; and whether the difference of opinion between the military and naval wing of the Royal Flying Corps is due to the advice of civilian experts being taken by the Army?
  Colonel SEELY: The Committee mentioned was assembled in order to investigate the two accidents to monoplanes which occurred during the manœuvre period, and to make recommendations with the view of minimising the risk of accident in future.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Navy is still flying monoplanes? Why cannot the Army be allowed to do so?
  Colonel SEELY: In view of these two very distressing accidents which happened within a few days, it was very possible there might be structural defects in the monoplanes in the possession of the Army. I therefore took the responsibility of ordering an inquiry, and of stopping the supply until we had found out the facts.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If all orders for monoplanes and flying machines have been stopped since the manœuvres, is this according to the desire of the military experts of the Flying Corps?
  Colonel SEELY: I took the fullest expert advice before. I took the action I did.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman expedite the findings of the Committee, seeing how seriously we are behind other countries?
  Colonel SEELY: It is always dangerous to try to hurry a Committee which is dealing with matters of life and death. But I believe the Committee are on the point of reporting.

  Currency Reserve (India).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked what difference in the present market value and amount of annual interest there would have been if, when power was taken last year to double the amount of the paper currency reserve placed in British Government securities, the additional sum then invested in Consols, which shows a loss from depreciation of £108,219, had been invested in Indian Government rupee 3½, per cent, paper in India?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: If an investment in rupee paper had been made at the price current at the time, the market value on 25th November, 1912, would have been higher by about £98,700, and the annual interest by £7,680. But the Government of India desired to make the investment in a sterling security rather than in rupee paper on account of the advantage of
  2280
  having a substantial part of the reserve in a form of security not necessarily influenced by the causes which might shake confidence in currency notes.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Indian Government acted on their own suggestion and initiative in proposing legislation authorising the amount of the paper currency reserve which might be invested in British Government securities to be doubled, or did they propose the necessary legislation in consequence of any suggestion or recommendation made to them; if so, with whom did the proposal originate; and by whom, and when, was the recommendation or suggestion to the Indian Government made?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The Government of India acted on their own suggestion and initiation in proposing the legislation in question.

  Purchase of Silver (India).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he wall issue a White Paper containing a full and complete copy of the whole of the correspondence, including the letters already given, as well as those omitted, with Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company from January, 1912, up to the present time relative to the purchases of silver?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The Secretary of State will issue the White Paper asked for.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what amounts the India Office had standing to its credit at the beginning of each month, respectively, this year, ready to meet the payments for purchases of silver?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: Full information is given in the statement that is being circulated to-day in reply to an unstarred question by the hon. Member.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked in what manner payments were made by the Indian Office to Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company for purchases of silver from time to time; if, by cheque or order, on what bank were the cheques or orders drawn; and by whom were they signed?
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: Payments were made by means of "Writes off "from" The account of the Secretary of State in Council of India" at the Bank of England to the account of the Union of London and

  2281
  Smiths Bank at the same bank. The Union of London and Smiths Bank were instructed to transfer the amount to the credit of their client, Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company. "Writes off" were signed, as provided by 22 and 23 Viet., c. 41, s. 3, by the Accountant-General at the India Office or one of the two senior clerks in his Department, and countersigned by clerks empowered by the Secretary of State in Council to do so.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Are we to understand that the money was handed over from the Bank of England to the Union of London and Smiths Bank?
  Mr. BAKER: The money was transferred from one account to another account.
  Rupert GWYNNEasked what would be the cost in Bombay per coined rupee of the £500,000 of silver purchased in China on behalf of the Government of India on 11th September at 29⅛ and paid for partly on arrival in Bombay and partly some days after?
  Mr. BAKER: The cost is calculated at 11.0582d. per coined rupee.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that is more or less than the cost of rupees coined from silver bought in London at the same time?
  Mr. BAKER: I should like notice of that.

  Indian Balance Loans.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will grant the Return (Indian Balance Loans) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Mr. R. Gwynne)?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State is not prepared to give the Return in the exact form asked for. But if the hon. Member will be so good as to speak to me on the subject, I shall be glad to see how far his wishes can be met.

  Wart Disease in Potatoes.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has now been able to arrange for the continuation of the experiments and investigations on wart disease in potatoes, as previously carried on for the Board by the Harper Adams Agricultural College; and, if so, what will be the amount given for this research work?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): It is not proposed to make any special Grant to the college for the specific purpose to which the hon. Member refers, but the Grant made to the college for general purposes should enable work in connection with wart disease to be continued if the college so desire.

  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the announcement that no effective progress can be made this Session with the Mental Deficiency Bill, the Government will grant facilities for the Feeble-minded Persons Control Bill as an instalment of legislation on this subject, seeing that this Bill only applies to England, is backed by Members of the Liberal, Labour, and Conservative parties, was read a second time, after full debate, without a Division, on 17th May, and was subsequently passed through Grand Committee, and reported with Amendments on 17th July?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I fear it is not possible for the Government to give facilities for the Bill referred to. As I stated on Monday last, the Government hope to reintroduce the Mental Deficiency Bill early next Session.
  Mr. STEWART: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a very general agreement between all Members of all parties interested in this Bill, and that a very few hours would be necessary to pass it into law?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman takes a rather sanguine view of the amount of agreement. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and he tells me it will take a considerable time to work this Bill into proper shape.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision if it is shown that there is a general desire on the part of the House that this Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "We want no Tory Bill!"]—should be passed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: From the information which has reached me, I am afraid that is a proposition that cannot be established.

  Industrial Unrest.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if the official announcement of 8th May last, that the result of the Cabinet Inquiry into general industrial unrest might shortly be expected, is likely to be fulfilled at an early date; how many witnesses have been summoned; and if any Report on the subject can be made public?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As was foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend on 8th May, the Government, as a result of the deliberations of the Cabinet Committee, invited the Industrial Council to conduct an inquiry on their behalf into certain matters relating to labour questions. This inquiry is now in progress, and the terms of reference and the names of the Members of the Council have been published. The proceedings of the Cabinet Committee were of course confidential, and I cannot make any statement with regard to them.
  Mr. COOPER: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up a misunderstanding by saying whether the Cabinet Inquiry is being conducted into the general question of unrest as foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or only into certain matters relating to industrial agreements referred to in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman on 12th November?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Cabinet Committee were instructed to inquire into the general question of industrial unrest. They readied a stage in their proceedings when they thought that a special inquiry would be useful.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the Cabinet Committee, in arriving at a conclusion upon the question which they originally had under consideration, have considered the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission as to the applicability of co-partnership?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; that is rather held over.

  Government of Ireland Bill.
  Mr. GRETTONasked if there is any Clause in the Government of Ireland Bill which would prevent the Irish Parliament repealing or altering in any way the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69); and, if so, which?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no Clause in the Government of Ireland Bill
  2284
  which would prevent the Irish Parliament repealing or altering the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, as regards matters within their legislative powers.
  Mr. MOOREasked if it will be in the power of the Irish Parliament, proposed to be established, to pass legislation for the nationalisation of the Irish railways on such terms as they may deem expedient, and to alter or repeal any existing provision of the Railways Acts?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated on 7th May last, it would be competent for the Irish Parliament to nationalise the Irish railways on proper terms, but not to alter any existing law as to the use of railway lines for naval and military purposes, or to make any new law on that subject.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that under the Act of 1845 the State could buy up the British railways at twenty-five years' purchase?
  The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to reply in the affirmative, adding, with 10 per cent, in addition.
  Mr. MOOREasked the Prime Minister (1) if he is cognisant of any understanding or agreement with the Nationalist leaders whereby the proposals contained in the Government of Ireland Bill, if passed into law, will be accepted in full satisfaction of the Nationalist demand for self-government as a final settlement; and (2) if he is cognisant, of any understanding or agreement with the Nationalist leaders by which further agitation to extend the powers and concessions granted by the Government of Ireland Bill would be prevented?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to this and the following question, I am not cognisant of any agreement or understanding in regard to these matters beyond what has been publicly said on the floor of the House.

  Land Inquiry.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Camberwell, Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister if the Land Inquiry Committee are proceeding on lines embodied in a memorial with regard to land taxation presented to him by the land values group of the House of Commons, consisting of a number of supporters of the Government; whether such memorial has been submitted to him on three separate occasions, and, if so the

  2285
  dates when it was so submitted; and if he will lay a copy of the memorial upon the Table?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, the unofficial Committee decide their own procedure according to their own discretion. The memorial to which I presume the hon. Member refers, was submitted to me on two occasions, 3rd August, 1910, and 18th May, 1911. The whole text of the memorial has been repeatedly published in the Press.
  Mr. F. HALL: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman completely dissociates himself from the Committee and the proceedings of the Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I thought I had made the position perfectly clear in the previous answer; I have nothing to add to it.

  Trade Disputes Law (Amendment) Bill.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the Trade Disputes Law (Amendment) Bill, presented by the Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division of Hertfordshire and other Members of the Opposition, which proposes under certain conditions to restore the civil liability of trade unions in respect of tortious Acts, and further proposes that all pickets must wear a badge showing conspicuously the word "picket"; and whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of themselves proposing legislation of such a character?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): His Majesty's Government have no intention of proposing legislation of such a character.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so much of the Bill referred to as deals with the civil liability of trade unions is identical with the Bill introduced by the present Government in 1906—a Bill which was described by the Prime Minister as the simplest and most practicable way of dealing with the difficulty?
  Sir RUFUS ISSACS: The policy was settled by Parliament when the Trade Disputes Bill was passed.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any means of judging how far these proposals represent the general policy of' the Opposition?

  Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill.
  Mr. LEACHasked if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is able to give any information regarding the remedies for foot-and-mouth disease which he has been inquiring into?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Inquiries have been made, but, so far as the Board have been able to ascertain, no specific remedy for foot-and-mouth disease has yet been discovered.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked how many cattle are affected by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Kent; if any cattle have recently been brought on to the affected farm; can he ascertain the probable cause of infection; and has any foreign cake, hay, or straw been recently brought on to the farm?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Four cows and two calves at Wilmington Farm, Kennington, Ashford, Kent, were found to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. Three cows and three sows were brought on to the farm for service during November. Inquiries are being made respecting them. No clue as to the origin of the disease has yet been found. So far as can be ascertained, no foreign fodder, cake, hay or straw has recently been brought on to the premises.
  Mr. WILLIAM FIELD: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can give the House any information as to the reported further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, and what action he proposes to take as regards the trade between Ireland and Great Britain?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret to say that foot-and-mouth disease was discovered by the Board's inspectors this morning amongst cattle shipped from Newry and landed at Birkenhead. This fact, taken in conjunction with the two suspected cases in Dublin to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member yesterday, both of which were in the opinion of my

  2287
  veterinary officers, after examining the lesions, undoubtedly cases of foot-and-mouth disease, clearly suggests that the disease exists at some centre in Ireland as yet unknown, in connection with which the Irish Department have in consequence not yet been able to impose the necessary restrictions on the movement of animals. In these circumstances I feel that I have no alternative but to prohibit the landing of animals in this country for the present, until full investigation has been made and the disease located. In the meantime, of course, all necessary steps have been taken for the prevention of the spread of infection from the landing places. If a question is put to me on Monday I hope then to be able to make some further statement as to our future action.

  Sheep Scab.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many cases of sheep scab have been found up to date in the sheep imported from Ireland, and if the Irish Department have made any Report to him on the subject; and, if so, will he inform the House why they were allowed to be exported from Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: One hundred and thirty-five sheep have been found to be affected with sheep scab since the present arrangements for the inspection of Irish animals at authorised landing places were made. I am in communication with the Irish Department on the subject. Perhaps the hon. Member will address his concluding inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President.

  Horses (Export to Foreign Countries).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state what proportion of the 65,700 horses valued at £1,580,000, now annually exported to foreign countries, are sent out of this country for purposes of slaughter, and what proportion for domestic and military purposes, respectively; and whether he has any means of ascertaining to what extent those exported avowedly for slaughter are in fact slaughtered on their arrival in foreign countries?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No precise information is available as to the purposes for which horses are exported from this country, but the hon. Member will find in
  2288
  Table 149, of Part IV. of the Agricultural Returns for 1911 (Cd. 6385), classified information as to the value of the horses and the countries to which they are consigned, which throws considerable light upon the question. The Board have no information as to the extent to which horses are in fact slaughtered on their arrival abroad.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a large number of the horses apparently exported for the purpose of slaughter are actually used in the country in which they arrive, because they are in bad condition when they arrive and are unfit to be killed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This is the first time I have heard that statement.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain the fact?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman has information he can send it to me.
  Mr. KING: Are not these horses used for food in countries suffering from Tariff Reform?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what was the number of worn-out, decrepit, and otherwise unfit horses whose exportation from British ports to Holland, Belgium, and other Continental countries was prevented on the ground of cruelty by local authorities or the Board during the twelve months prior to the commencement of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, on the 1st October, 1910, and during each of the two completed years since that date; and how many prosecutions in connection with such traffic have taken place during each of the said three periods?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: One thousand and sixteen horses intended for shipment to the Continent were rejected by the Board's inspectors at the ports during the year ended on 30th September, 1911, and 1,096 during the year ended on 30th September last. The Board have no information as to the extent to which action was taken by the local authorities or by the police before the arrival of the horses at the wharves from which they were intended to be shipped, either before the commencement of the Act of 1910 or subsequently. The Board have no record of the number of prosecutions which have taken place in connection with this traffic.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that the number of decrepit horses exported has increased since the Diseases of Animals Act came into force?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. I do not think that that would be a fair inference to draw.

  Heysham Harbour.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has now received a Report in reference to the suitability of Heysham Harbour for the reception of Irish cattle under quarantine regulations; and whether he has decided to permit shipments being made to it?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. One of the superintending inspectors of the Board visited Heysham on Monday last, and conferred with representatives of the Midland Railway on this subject. I gather from his report that suitable accommodation for the reception and detention of Irish cattle there could be provided without any serious difficulty. The company will submit detailed proposals for the purpose for the Board's examination, and I hope that it may be possible for the necessary work to be put in hand and completed at an early date.

  Royal Parks.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any decision has been come to by the Treasury upon the scheme submitted by the First Commissioner to improve the conditions of service of the employés in the Royal Parks; and, if so, if he will state the decision arrived at?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): No decision has been arrived at, but the matter is being kept constantly in mind.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Private Secretaries.)
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked now many persons who have acted as private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer since January, 1906, have been promoted to other positions; the particulars of such promotions; whether the head of the Department concerned was consulted in every instance as to the suitability of the appointment; and what steps are taken to ensure that there
  2290
  is no officer of senior standing in the service possessing equal or superior qualifications for these positions?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Six of the gentlemen who have acted as private secretary to my right hon. Friend at the Board of Trade and the Treasury, five having already been members of the permanent Civil Service, have been promoted to other positions. One was appointed a member of the Viceroy of India's Council; one became an Insurance Commissioner; one became a chief inspector under the National Insurance Act, and three received Departmental promotions for which they were the next in order of seniority. In each case where a Department already existed the heads of the Department in question were consulted and the promotions or appointments were made by them or on their recommendation. In each case the qualifications of other officers were fully considered.
  Mr. F. HALL: Ts the House to understand that the best means of promotion is to become private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is not the Departmental promotion of private secretaries the usual practice?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that the hon. Member for Dulwich is unfamiliar with the methods of Civil Service promotion. The persons chosen for such offices as this are, of course, chosen for their special ability, owing to the particular difficulties of their task, and in the Civil Service there is a very great demand for men of such character.

  Road Board Grants.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Road Board is making Grants to local authorities for improvement of roads, and that many roads are being improved by treating the surface with tar, thus producing a dustless but dangerous surface, on which horses, cattle, pigs, and other animals frequently fall, whereby there arises serious damage to man and beast; and whether he will represent to the Road Board that in making Grants they should stipulate for tar-treated roads being constructed so as to be as far as possible free from this defect?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Road Board are satisfied that local highway authorities are making every endeavour to construct roads with dustless surfaces suitable for animal as well as mechanical traffic.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INSURANCE CARDS (NUMBERS).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received any information from approved societies in connection with the putting of insured persons' numbers on their next quarter's card before issue; and whether he is prepared to authorise the numbers being placed upon the cards in future quarters?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As a result of inquiries I mid that this will be for the general convenience of the approved societies, and the Commissioners propose to sanction this arrangement for the next quarter's cards.

    SANATORIUM BENEIT.
    Lord BALCARRESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. William Watkinson, of Applely Bridge, Wigan, who was medically recommended for sanatorium benefit in July last, was only able to obtain a vacancy in the Liverpool Sanatorium, Kingswood, on 28th September, and only then without the assistance of the county authority; and that Mr. Watkinson has applied to the county medical officer of health for compensation from that date, but that compensation has been refused him prior to 12th October; whether he can say under what authority this has been done; and if there is any redress for persons unable to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners are in communication with the insurance committee with reference to this case, which, I am informed, will be further considered by the committee next week.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what source the cost of treatment in the county of Derbyshire of an estimated number of 266 fresh cases of consumptives a year, who will be insured persons, or their dependants, amounting to £26,600 in the first year and £53,200 in subsequent years, will be derived; if, under the National Insurance
    2292
    Act, a consumptive will be kept for two years under the best conditions that the latest scientific inventions can discover at a cost of £200; and, under that Act, the amount available for sanatorium treatment in that county is, in the event of the doctors accepting his recent offer, only £6,570, and in the event of their refusal, £10,950?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know upon what grounds the hon. Member bases his estimate of the number of fresh eases of consumptives a year in the administrative county of Derbyshire. The estimated number of insured persons in the county is 167,400. According to the Report of the Departmental Committee on I Tuberculosis (Cd. 6164), the number of sanatorium beds required for this number of persons taking into account the average length of stay in the institution would be between thirty-three and thirty-four. The number of hospital beds required would probably be the same. Taking the average cost of a bed at as much as 35s. a week the amount required for the treatment of insured persons would be about £6,100 per annum, leaving an ample margin for emergencies. If sanatorium treatment is extended to the dependants of the insured and other non-insured persons additional sums may be made available for the purpose.
    EARL of KERRY: Ts the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure given in the question of £200 is taken direct from a speech delivered the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also that the other figures are those of the Derbyshire Insurance Committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; I do not think my right hon. Friend ever said that every sanatorium patient would require £200 spent upon him. He gave an example in which the medical treatment required would cost that sum, and he said the sum would be forthcoming. It is not estimated by the Astor Committee, which was a committee of experts, that £200 will be required to cure every sanatorium patient.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Are we then to understand that the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave is not an average case, but an exaggerated one?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It was a case that came before an insurance committee and was recommended for treatment.

  Omnibus Licences.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment if it is proposed to limit the number of licences issued for the running of motor omnibuses in London; if so, whether this action is the result of an agreement with exising companies or is taken in pursuance of the statutory powers of the police; what percentage of the licences issued at the present time are in respect of the vehicles controlled by the London General Omnibus Company; and what steps the Government proposes to take, if such a limitation be decided upon, effectively to secure the interests of the travelling public, both as regards the fares charged and the provision of adequate means of communication in districts where the traffic is not of a dividend-paying character?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am advised that I have no power to limit the number of licences issued for motor omnibuses in London. So much of the question as is consequent upon the suggestion of limitation of numbers, therefore, does not arise. The total number of motor omnibus licences issued during the twelve months ended 29th November was 2,797, and of this number 2,327 were issued to the London General Omnibus Company.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that two farms in the parish of Llanbister, Radnorshire, named Holly-bush and Nantagelly, are assessed to tithe rent-charge, though these farms are composed of land formerly common until enclosed from the Melenydd Mountain about 1762; and whether tithe levied in this and similar cases will be treated as an ancient endowment under the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no information on this matter other than that given in the question, but assuming the facts to be as stated, the tithe would be treated under the Bill as an ancient endowment, i.e., as other than a private benefaction.
    Mr. KINGasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state how much land in Wales enclosed under Enclosure Acts dur-
    2294
    ing the last 150 years is assessed to tithe rent-charge; and whether all tithe in Wales is assumed to be for the purposes of the Established Church (Wales) Bill an ancient endowment dating from previous to 1662?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to state the amount of land in Wales enclosed under Enclosure Acts during the last 150 years assessed to tithe rent-charge, but I am in communication with the Board of Agriculture, who are making inquiries into the matter. Tithe rent-charge which is the proceeds of private benefactions since 1662, or is the proceeds of English moneys, is not assumed to be an ancient endowment for the purposes of the Established Church (Wales) Bill. The amount of tithe rent-charge of ancient character is given in the Return presented to the House of Commons on the 21st of November this year.
    Colonel YATE: Are lay rectors who happen to hold these tithes to be deprived of them as well as ministers of religion?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. Lay tithes are not touched.
    Viscount WOLMER: Are not lay tithes taxes and national property?

    QUALIFICATIONS FOR COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what are the qualifications of the Commissioners under the Established Church (Wales) Bill; whether they will be reserved for Churchmen or Nonconformists, ecclesiastics or laymen; and whether anyone has yet been approached in reference to such appointment?
    Mr. McKENNA: The qualifications of the Commissioners will be determined by the duties to be imposed on them by the Bill with which the hon. Member is familiar. The answer to the second and third questions is in the negative.

    OLD ENDOWMENTS (INCOME).
    Mr. KINGasked what are the amounts of income arising annually out of old endowments, previous to 1662, of the Established Church in Wales for clergy in the boroughs of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport (Mon.); and what amount per annum such sum represents in each case per head of population?
    Mr. McKENNA: The gross income from ancient endowments prior to 1703 in Newport amounts to £336 per annum. The

    2295
    population of the parishes comprised amounted in 1901 to 67,198. The amount per annum represents a little over one penny per head of the population. The gross income from ancient endowments in Cardiff (with a population in 1901 of 164,300) amounts to £572, representing considerably less than one penny per head. I am unable to give the gross amount of endowments for the borough of Swansea, but for nine parishes, with a population of 72,725, it amounted to £142—that is, less than one. Half penny per head of the population.
    Mr. KING: Is that sum per head of the population all that the clergy receive in those parishes at the present time?
    Mr. McKENNA: Nearly all the clergy in the principal towns in Wales are almost entirely supported by voluntary contributions.
    Mr. KING: Then they will not be utterly ruined by the Welsh Disestablishment Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait until the proper time.

  First Offenders.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a promise was given to the House in 1910 by his predecessor in office that offenders who upon conviction were given the option of a fine in lieu of imprisonment should be allowed extended time for the payment of that fine; and whether the Home Office is taking any steps, and, if so, what steps, to fulfil that promise?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 5th August. Since then magistrates have again been urged in a circular issued from the Home Office to allow time for the payment of fines whenever possible, and as I have said before, I hope next Session to introduce a Bill to make the practice obligatory in all cases where it is proper to do so.

  Boy Prisoners.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that during the last four years a total of 5,819 boy prisoners were received at Pentonville,
  2296
  and during the years 1909 and 1910 as many as 1,791 were sent to Wandsworth Prison; whether their imprisonments were nearly all for trivial offences or the non-payment of fines; and whether, seeing that the Probation of Offenders Act was intended to check the imprisonment of juvenile offenders, he will say how far that Act is being operated in the Metropolitan Police Courts?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of boys under sixteen who were committed to Pentonville in the years 1909 and 1910 was thirteen; to Wandsworth, twelve. The figures given by my hon. Friend are nearly accurate if he means them to relate to youths and men up to the age of twenty one. Though the numbers appear large, they form a very small proportion of the total number of offenders with whom the Metropolitan Courts have to deal. I cannot give the offences, or say how many were committed in default of payment of fine. There are, unfortunately, a large number of cases of dishonesty, violence and disorderly conduct in which the fact that the offender is under the age of twenty-one is no sufficient reason for allowing him to escape punishment, and in many cases imprisonment is the only punishment that can be enforced; but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Probation of Offenders Act is extensively used by the Metropolitan magistrates. During the years 1909 and 1910 the number of persons in the Metropolian Police district proved guilty of offences who were dealt with under that Act by dismissal, recognisances, or probation order, was more than 34,000.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman circularise magistrates advising them to give time for the payment of fines?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I have done so frequently.

  Taxi-Cab Case (Norman Cross).
  Mr. PENRY WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will say what answer he has received to his recent letter to the Norman Cross bench of magistrates, with reference to the case of Fred. E. Rist, taxi-cab proprietor, of Middlesbrough, who was convicted at Norman Cross on the 22nd October last of an offence under the Motor Car Act, and fined; whether he intends to remit at least part of the fine imposed or take any further action in the matter; whether his letter of the 28th November

  2297
  to the clerk to the bench was published with his authority; whether he is aware that Rist was in prison five days; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to permit bail being accepted in such cases?
  Mr. McKENNA: Mr. Rist was convicted of dangerous driving under Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, and the seriousness of the offence was aggravated by his nonappearance at Court. The justices appear to me to have acted properly in refusing to deal with the case ex parte, and as Mr. Rist did not appear, the issue of a warrant was in their discretion. The fine imposed seems lenient for such an offence, and I have no doubt the justices took into consideration the fact of Mr. Rist's detention. I do not propose to take further action with regard to the case. I was not aware that the letter sent to the clerk to the justices with regard to it was published, but the justices were of course at liberty to publish it. Mr. Rist was in custody five days. The police executing the warrant for his arrest had no power to release him on bail. I think it is desirable that the police should have power in proper cases to release on bail a prisoner arrested on a warrant; and although the subject is not free from difficulty, I will endeavour to include a provision on this subject in the Bill with regard to the administration of justice which I hope to introduce early next Session.

  "Kenilworth Castle" Accident.
  Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the lifeboats of the "Kenilworth Castle" were last examined by the Board's surveyor previous to the accident to one of the boats on 25th July; whether the last report of the Board's surveyor previous to the accident, showed that the hooks to which the boat-falls were secured were examined and found in order; and can he state the reason for the hook-connection of the after-fall of boat No. 6 giving way with only five men in the boat?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): A Board of Trade surveyor examined the boats of the "Kenilworth Castle "on 22nd June last; the boat in question was lowered into the water with thirteen men in her, and everything then appeared to be in all respects satisfactory. On 25th July the boat was being lowered at sea for boat drill with five men in her, when the after-rod con-
  2298
  necting the hook with the keel of the boat fractured, with the result that the third mate lost his life. An examination of the fractured rod showed that the accident was due to a latent defect in the metal. Since the accident all the boats on this ship have been carefully tested, and have all been raised with a weight of iron in them corresponding to their full complement.

  Steamship "Tasso"
  Mr. PETOasked whether, in the case of the steamship "Tasso," which is trading abroad and wholly manned by aliens, the owners of this vessel, who are seated to be Messrs. W. Morphy and Sons, are natural-born or naturalised British subjects or whether they are persons made denizens by letters of denization; whether the "Tasso" is owned by a body corporate, whose principal offices are at Patras, Greece; and, if so, whether the British registration of this vessel is in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am informed that according to official records the sole registered owner of the steamer to which the hon. Member refers is a natural-born British subject.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to put a stop to this national scandal of ships being allowed to fly the British flag officered and manned entirely by aliens?
  Mr. BUXTON: This raises a very large "legal question. I am somewhat in sympathy with the hon. Member's view, but I do not think it can be raised alone in reference to ibis question.

  Steamship "Indra"
  Mr. PETOasked why any differentiation has been made in the cases of the ss "Indra," belonging to British merchants and shippers, which has been refused the registration and protection of the British flag, and the ss. "Tasso," which is a duly registered British ship, trading abroad, wholly manned by aliens, with the principal offices of her owners at Patras, Greece?
  Mr. BUXTON: The qualification for owning British ships is laid down in Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and the reason for the difference between the two cases mentioned by the hon. Member is that in the case of the "Tasso" evi-

  2299
  dence of qualification was given, and in the ease of the "Indra" it could not be given.
  Mr. PETO: Was the transference of the steamer "Tasso" to the British flag a ease of intelligent anticipation of coming events, namely, the war between Greece and Turkey?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

  Swansea (Lock-out of Spelter Workers).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether his attention has been drawn to the lock-out of 400 spelter workers at Swansea: whether he is aware that these men work ninety-four hours, sixty-eight hours, and forty-eight hours per week in successive weeks at a dangerous and poisonous form of employment; whether he is aware that, since 1st July, 1907, no less than seventy-seven cases of lead poisoning have occurred, four of which proved fatal; whether he is aware that the long hours of labour spent in poisonous fumes is ruinous and fatal to the lives of these men; and whether, in view of these facts, he will have inquiry made with a view to using the good offices of the Board of Trade in effecting a settlement of the dispute and amelioration of the conditions of these workmen?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am aware of the dispute affecting 400 spelter workers referred to in the first part of the question, and also of the answer given in the House on 2nd December by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, respecting the cases of lead poisoning in spelter works in South Wales; with regard to the latter part of the question, I am informed by the chief industrial commissioner that he is making inquiries into the present position of the dispute.

  Imported Wheat.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what was the average price of imported wheat during the year 1908, and what was the average price of the same commodity in Germany for the same year; and whether he can also state what was the duty per quarter of imported wheat enforced in Germany during that year?
  Mr. BUXTON: The average value of all wheat imported into the United Kingdom was 36s. per quarter, and the average value exclusive of Import Duty, of all
  2300
  wheat imported into Germany in the same year was 35s. 9d. per quarter. The values in both cases are "c.i.f." values. In the case of Germany the Import Duty is equivalent to about 11s. 9d. per quarter.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who paid the difference between the duty and the small increase of price on the English price?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member, I suppose, is referring to—
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: If the right hon. Gentleman will say who paid the additional 11s. 9d. perhaps I shall be able to answer that question.

  Telephones (Charge for Telegrams).
  Mr. GRANTasked the Postmaster-General, if he will arrange that in future subscribers shall not be charged for the use of their telephones when using them for the dispatch of telegrams from their nearest post office?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The question will be considered in connection with the general revision of telephone charges which I have promised to make when the purchase price of the National Telephone Company's system has been settled. I may say, however, that the subscriber is saved the trouble of taking or sending his telegram to the post office, and that it does not seem unreasonable that he should pay the ordinary charge for the additional service rendered to him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he has observed that if the Welsh Church Bill is taken on Friday the Clause to be discussed under the Allocation of Time Motion will be Clause 3, which is a highly technical Clause dealing with the Ecclesiastical Courts and other legal questions, and, having regard to the great difficulty of Members of the House who are lawyers being down here in the morning, would he be willing to postpone the discussion?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion which he was good enough to communicate to me last night in a sympathetic spirit, because I know the difficulties which beset

2301
my own profession. I regret, however, that I do not see my way to alter the arrangements for Friday's business, but I am still ready to consider any practical proposal which the hon. Member may submit.

ARMISTICE (TURKEY AND BALKAN STATES).
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement in regard to the rumour circulated to-day that an armistice has been concluded, and that a Peace Conference is shortly to be held in London?
The PRIME MINISTER: The information which has reached us is to the effect that an armistice has been signed by the belligerent Powers, with the exception of Greece. As regards the proposal for the meeting of Ambassadors, I should prefer at this moment not to make any definite statement.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    TWENTY-THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 3rd December.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    TWENTY-THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, 3rd December.]

      CLAUSE 29.—(Special Provision for Decision of Constitutional Questions.)
      (1) If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether any Irish Act or any provision thereof, or any Irish Bill or any provision thereof, is beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament, he may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, constituted as if hearing an appeal from a Court in Ireland.
      (2) Upon the hearing of the question such persons as seem to the Judicial Committee to be interested may be allowed to appear and be heard as parties to the case, and the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be given in like manner as if it were the decision of an appeal, the nature of the report or recommendation to His Majesty being stated in open Court.
      (3) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any other power of His Majesty in Council to refer any question to the Judicial Committee or the right of any person to petition His Majesty for such reference.
      The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I proposed to call, as I stated yesterday, stands in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh), but just at this moment a manuscript Amendment in a slightly different form has been handed to me. It contains two words which I think will place it outside the scope of the Clause. If it is moved without those words I can take it. The manuscript Amendment handed to me is to insert in Sub-section (1), after the word "Parliament" ["Beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament"], the words "or whether any Executive power in Ireland has been unlawfully or oppressively exercised or withheld." I think the words "or oppressively" would be outside the scope of this Clause, which is to deal with Acts or Bills
      2312
      ultra vires. Of course, it can be proposed to extend it from legislative to Executive matters, but I think we should not go beyond that. Perhaps the hon. Member will move it in that form.
      Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Parliament," to insert the words "or whether any Executive power in Ireland has been unlawfully exercised or withheld."
      As the result of your ruling, Sir, I move the Amendment in the modified form which you have just suggested, and leave out the two words "or oppressively." I think it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment. The Clause extends to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State the power of obtaining from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a reasoned judgment not only on Acts of Parliament which may have been carried by the House of Commons in Dublin, but also upon Bills and individual propositions and provisions contained in any Bill. If that power is to be extended to the Lord Lieutenant and a Secretary of State, how much more necessary is it that a similar power should be given those functionaries on the Executive side. If it is important that Bills in the process of passing through the House should be at once considered, at the request of the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State, surely, when those Bills have become Acts and are put into operation and handed over to the Executive authority, and they come far closer down to the daily life of the people, there ought to be an opportunity of submitting any question of excess of power exercised outside the Statute in the way proposed in the Clause. It becomes very necessary that some such provision should be inserted in the Bill on three grounds: First of all, there is the hasty way in which Bills have to be drafted in these days. It may be said that is not likely to obtain in Ireland, but I have not much confidence in that. I think what happens so frequently here in the Imperial Parliament is extremely likely to happen in connection with this subordinate Parliament. This hasty drafting arises not because of any inefficiency on the part of our permanent staff, far from it, but from the fact that the present Administration keeps us all the year round in the House of Commons turning out a huge quantity of legislation so that the permanent staff have no real leisure or time to properly and suitably draft the Bills submitted for our consideration. Side by side with that there

      2313
      is the fact that legislative proposals are constantly submitted under the Closure, gag, and kangaroo. Under these circumstances, it is most important some such provision as this should be inserted in the Bill. There is another ground, and it is the wide powers given in modern legislation to the Administration. I might refer by way of illustration to the National Insurance Act. The widest possible powers were given to the Insurance Commissioners in order to get over any sort of difficulty. The third consideration is the most important of all. The Administration always seems to have a tendency to exceed the provisions of the Statute.
      Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
      4.0 P.M.
      Sir H. CARLILE: I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Pontefract approves of that statement. I think it is amply borne out by the experience we have had in recent times. There is always a tendency to travel outside the scope of the Statute. That, of course, is of the very greatest importance. It may be said, although that obtains not infrequently in Great Britain, it is not likely to arise in Ireland, but there again I should be very sceptical indeed. We have to remember this legislative power in Ireland is going to be placed in the hands of the Nationalist party as the majority, and, when we are asked by the Government and by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), not in so many words, but, in fact, to forget the record of the Nationalist party and their words, then I say they are asking more of us than can be really expected of human nature. We cannot forget the record of the Nationalist party. We cannot forget their words or their attitude towards law and order; we cannot forget their words on various occasions at home here or in Ireland, or in America or Australia, where they have gone from time to time to obtain those funds which the people of Ireland so entirely decline to provide. We cannot forget their words, and, in the hands of such people, we feel that the power contained in the Executive authority will be in great danger of being exceeded. On more than one occasion the Chief Secretary for Ireland has told us that minorities must suffer. All that we entirely realise.
      Mr. LOUGH: On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether the line of argument which the hon. Member is adopting is in order. Is not the Clause confined to
      2314
      the validity of any law? Can merely Executive Acts be discussed in this way?
      The CHAIRMAN: The object of the Amendment which the hon. Member is about to move is to extend the appeal to the Executive Acts.
      Mr. MOORE: This is simply intended as a safeguard. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to our having any safeguard at all?
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to raise that now.
      Sir H. CARLILE: We realise on this side the position of the minority under the Bill, and we feel that, unless some such protection as is provided in this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, then what the Chief Secretary for Ireland suggested will naturally follow, and minorities will suffer. It is our business, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is also our duty, to see that if minorities must suffer, at least they shall not suffer unnecessarily; therefore we propose this Amendment. Under the Clause as it stands the Lord Lieutenant has no appeal in connection with Executive abuses. That power of appeal we think he ought to have. The power is given to the Joint Exchequer Board, and if, in connection with finance, it is desirable that an appeal should lie, surely it is much more desirable, when it may be a question of civil or religious liberty. On such a question there ought to be power of obtaining such advice, and it is more necessary surely in the case of a Lord Lieutenant and a Secretary of State than in connection with a merely money matter dealt with by the Joint Exchequer Board. The Lord Lieutenant can submit propositions on any proposed legislation, but we also want him to have the power to ask for advice, not only in connection with that legislation, but also in connection with Executive action, or, what is not less important, Executive inaction. The amended form of the Amendment includes Executive powers being, on occasion, withheld. Surely the Lord Lieutenant should have the power of obtaining legal advice of the highest character outside his own Executive. He must act on the advice of his Executive, but if he thinks the Executive in Ireland in connection with a Dublin Parliament is proposing something ultra vires, he ought to have the right to get reliable advice on that point. From time to time no doubt the Lord Lieutenant will

      2315
      wish to resign, or may think it his duty to resign, and if he contemplates doing so, in consequence of what may be submitted by the Executive, he certainly ought to have an opportunity of obtaining conclusive legal advice on any point about which he may be in doubt—any point as to whether he ought to retain the position to which he has been appointed.
      In connection with the abuse of the Executive authority, even in this country there are cases which I need not elaborate, but which must be within the memory of the House. I need only draw attention to the experience of the Board of Education recently in connection with the Swansea school. That was a case in which the Executive travelled outside the scope of the Statute. We all know what the result was. The case was carried to the House of Lords. The Board of Education were unsuccessful, and it was shown that in that instance they had travelled outside the law, as indeed other Departments have done. The same applies to the experience of Form IV. in connection with the Finance Bill of 1910. That, too, was declared to be illegal, and, as I have been reminded by an hon. and learned Friend, Form V. also was declared to be illegal yesterday in the Courts. Again, there is the case which Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles recently successfully carried through against the Treasury in connection with the premature collection of Income Tax upon the strength of a Resolution without waiting for the passing of the Finance Bill. These are sufficient cases in connection with the United Kingdom to illustrate the fact that there is a constant tendency for administrative power to be exceeded and for the administrative authority to travel outside the Statute. Then, in connection with Ireland itself, there is no difficulty in seeing that even at the present moment there is also a disposition to exceed statutory powers. I need only refer to the so-called Belfast riots, dealt with in the Courts the other day. Perhaps the most grave and serious question in connection with that case was the right claimed and exercised by the Crown Solicitor to order the police to deal with the prisoners as he thought fit, and to select his own particular magistrate to adjudicate upon the case.
      The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that if these illustrations are to go on—
      Sir H. CARLILE: They will not go on long.
      The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that the hon. Member could cite a hundred and one cases. I do not object to his giving one or two illustrations, but he ought not to say anything about the merits of the cases. It would be obviously unfair to allow one speaker to put forward these cases without allowing speakers on the other side to deal with them.
      Sir H. CARLILE: I realise that entirely, and without meaning to argue with the Chair in any sense, I would suggest it is almost impossible to place these illustrations before the Committee in a way that will make the point clear unless one mentions how they bear on the subject under discussion. That was the only reason why I referred to them. I wished to show that at the present time in Ireland an individual official—the Crown-Solicitor—is exceeding his powers—
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again prejudging the question. That point is not open to debate on either side of the case. If the hon. Member chooses simply to say that so-and-so is the case; that there is some doubt, and that the principle is undetermined, that, I should think, would be sufficient for his purpose.
      Sir H. CARLILE: I will leave it at that. I think I might also in passing refer to the fact that in connection with cattle-driving in Ireland I have a good illustration on the other side of the question—an illustration, not of the excess of authority or administration, but of where the Administration withholds the exercise of the powers deputed to it. I hope that, that will be the only illustration I shall need to mention in connection with this side of the Amendment. We are all familiar with the fact that there were some 12,800 cattle-drivers supposed to be operating in the South and West of Ireland, and, in consequence of the withholding, not of the exceeding of the powers, only some seventeen persons were convicted by juries, and bail was demanded in the case of some 1,528, so that over 10,000, through the withholding of the powers which devolve upon the Chief Secretary, went entirely scot-free. I think that is a strong illustration of the result of withholding these powers. Of course, we could hardly expect anything else, because the present Chief Secretary, speaking in the House of Commons on 13th March, 1907, said that the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, would be, to all intents and purposes, dead and

      2317
      buried as long as the present Administration remained in power. That in itself showed that the present Administration intended to withhold the operation of the Statute, even although it was essential it should be put in force. We know quite well that, as a result, old Statutes were dug up dating back almost to the time of the Flood, and at last the Chief Secretary was supplied with the Statute 34 Edward III—a Statute 550 years old—which enabled him to bind over, without other penalty or imprisonment, those persons who had, in many cases, been proved to be guilty of cruelty in cattle-driving, boycotting, intimidation and other matters.
      It was necessary at that time, and here again is an illustration pointing in the same direction, that the number of police should be increased. It could have been done, of course, under the Crimes Act, but some Statute had to be found to provide for the increase of police, and again an old Statute was raked up and put into force, a Statute of 1836, nearly eighty years old, so that the pledge was saved while law and order went to the dogs. That is an illustration of the evasion of the exercise of administrative authority, and I do not think I need refer to the calamity that would fall upon the country were that kind of thing to obtain under a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin. In conclusion, I submit that there is a very strong case indeed for inserting this Amendment in the Clause, in order that the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State may have ready access to the settled opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that the safeguard which would result to minorities should be available to protect their interests. If the Nationalists and the Government really intend that minorities in Ireland shall be protected and that every opportunity shall be given, or, at any rate, that some opportunity shall be given to protect their interests in all their bearings, both the Government and the Nationalists, both the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) will here together toe the line and accept this Amendment, so that their bona fides may be clear to all men and they may show that they have no intention under this Parliament they propose to set tip in Dublin to trample upon the feelings, liberties, and interests of the minority, whom they desire to bring within the scope of this measure.
      Sir J. D. REES: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley, I understand that the discussion which is to follow is to be confined to the question whether Executive acts as well as constitutional questions are to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Would it be possible in this discussion to consider the policy of referring constitutional and political questions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and, if not, when will the Committee be able to consider that point?
      The CHAIRMAN: We discussed that for a long time yesterday.
      Sir J. D. REES: Upon this Clause?
      The CHAIRMAN: Yes, upon this Clause. We began this Clause yesterday.
      Sir J. D. REES: Will it be ruled out to-day?
      The CHAIRMAN: That question was disposed of yesterday.
      Mr. HEWINS: I hope very much that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I think, in the first place, that they owe it as a duty to do so, because they have left parts of this Rill, which bear upon the Executive power of the new Irish Government, so extremely vague. I would first of all like to put it on much broader grounds. Both here and in nearly all countries at the present time representative institutions are rather declining. The Government will appreciate how much they have done to promote the decay of those institutions, and I cannot imagine that the new Irish Parliament will set a finer example than they have done. We may presume, when we have an Irish Government set up, that they will put into force every known function of the Executive to carry out the Nationalist aspirations of that country. If you consider the case of other parts of the British Empire—I am arguing for the moment not in any party sense—every Member of the Committee will agree that the most striking developments of Nationalism within the British Empire have taken place not so much in the use of legislative functions, operating within the terms of the instrument which confers upon them self-governing powers, but rather by the use of the powers of the Executive. I may take as an example—it is relevant to the Irish Bill—the growth of the treaty-making powers of the self-governing Dominions. As everyone is aware, treaty-making powers

      2319
      is a reserved service under this Bill, but notwithstanding the fact that it is a reserved service—I am not for the moment arguing whether the development is beneficent or the reverse—we are all aware of the great developments which have taken place in many of the Dominions in that regard by the sole use of the Executive power. When we consider this particular Bill, and that under the powers, which are not explicitly mentioned but which appear to be implied in the Bill, the new Irish Government may maintain its own agents in a foreign country, it is perfectly clear that unless the Executive power is closely safeguarded the Irish Parliament might easily act apart from this country.
      It is exceedingly desirable, if you are going to have a separate Parliament in Ireland, that the functions of the Lord Lieutenant over everything in Ireland should be kept as far as possible on the same lines and within the same circuit as those of Great Britain and the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot help feeling that under the powers conferred by this Bill it will be a very easy thing, unless there is some control over the Irish Government, for the whole system of Irish economic life to get far outside that of Great Britain. I may take another case from a different region. One of the greatest sources of the control and limitation of the power of the Executive in the United Kingdom for many generations past has unquestionably been the Parliamentary control of finance. Under this Bill you are destroying Parliamentary control of finance, not only in regard to Ireland, but in regard to Great Britain. You are setting up an unknown, unusual and abnormal authority, which is going to take away from you that power which has always been the great constitutional safeguard in regard to the Executive.
      The CHAIRMAN: There again the hon. Gentleman is raising matters which are in other parts of this Bill. I am not sure whether they are not altogether outside the Bill. It is quite enough to keep to the Amendment by itself.
      Mr. HEWINS: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I should like to respectfully submit to you that it is impossible to argue whether the Executive should be subject to this limitation unless one is allowed to give illustrations as to how the Executive operates. One cannot readily discuss the powers of the Executive in the abstract.
      The CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member to take his illustration from the Exchequer Board, which we have dealt with under a previous Clause. If I am mistaken I apologise.
      Mr. HEWINS: It was not the only case in my mind. The Exchequer Board, along with other parts of the Bill, combine to reduce the power of Parliamentary control over finance. However, I bow to your ruling entirely, and will not pursue the subject. I should like to say that the Executive power is unquestionably exercisable in regard to Irish services which are defined in Clause 4, Sub-section (6), and to get a more definite and accurate definition we have to go to Clause 2 and to the Sub-sections of that Clause. Without arguing the merits of any one of those particulars, I would simply observe that these reserved services and Irish services are so vaguely and unsatisfactorily defined that it would be quite impossible, apart from a judicial decision, to say whether or not they are a reserved service or an Irish service. Perhaps I may quote a case which is not in the Bill at all, but which may be inferentially included in the powers of the Irish Government. That is the question of Irish fisheries. Whether an Executive act in regard to Irish fisheries was rightly exercised or not depends upon the construction of this Bill. Irish fisheries are not specifically mentioned in the Bill, but I understand from an answer given to me by the Chief Secretary himself that Irish fisheries are a reserved service, because they come under Regulations drawn up in conformity with an Act passed to carry out an international understanding arrived at with France many years ago. Therefore you do not know for certain what is the ambit of the Executive powers of the new Irish Government.
      Again, you do not know what powers are to come under the Sub-sections relating to trade with external countries, because you have given an exemption in regard to the powers of internal taxation. You say in one part of the Bill that the question of trade with external countries is to be excluded, and in another part you give an exemption with regard to internal taxation. Unless you have an appeal, such as is proposed by my hon. Friend, I do not see how in this or in any other case it is possible to say whether the Executive is exercising right functions or not. I should have thought that upon general grounds

      2321
      it was more important to have this careful safeguard with regard to the Executive and administrative powers of the Irish Government than it was to have it in regard to Bills. Bills and Acts of Parliament are public property. Everybody knows what they are, and there is a great mass of public criticism upon them. But with regard to Executive acts you do not know. It is the experience of every country that acts of fundamental importance to the future of the State may be taken by the Executive in regard to which we know nothing whatever. There are many instances which have occurred in the lifetime of the present Government, as they are well aware, where there has been great public criticism of the action they have taken, and where it is commonly said that, although they have not been able to carry certain Bills through Parliament in order to carry out their policy, they are carrying it out through acts of administration. That being so, in view of the known desire of the Irish party to take every opportunity of waving the national flag, we are bound, if we desire under this monstrous Bill to preserve as much as we can the integrity of the United Kingdom, to insert this Amendment
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The speeches which have been made by both hon. Gentlemen in support of this Amendment in fact prove, as I think I shall demonstrate, that there is ample power already to deal with any act which is in excess of jurisdiction and which is unlawful.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: Do you mean legislative Acts?
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, of course there is power to deal with any legislative Act; that is already in the Clause. It was discussed yesterday. The Amendment now proposed is of a different character. It is not confined to legislative Acts; it is, as its terms import, intended to extend to the unlawful exercise of the Executive power in Ireland. The instances given, particularly by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, made it perfectly plain that what he referred to was administrative action.
      Sir H. CARLILE: Or inaction.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, or inaction. The quesion is whether there should be an appeal given to the Privy Council in respect to such Acts as is given in regard
      2322
      to legislation. That is the point which he takes. It is a very important point, but I would point out to the Committee that if this Amendment were adopted it would be a far greater innovation than anything yet suggested in reference to this Bill. We have already been criticised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), in his most humorous vein last night, with reference to the powers we give to refer a Bill or any provision of a Bill to the Privy Council. I should very much like to hear him, when he is in the mood and if he chose, upon the policy of referring acts of administration to the Privy Council in order to determine whether they were lawfully exercised or not. No Government could possibly carry on; there must always be, as we have always recognised, an active Opposition to any Government that may be in power. The active Opposition can, if it likes, challenge any action of the Government. There is already ample opportunity given to do that. What the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Carlile) is asking is that we should give an additional power by allowing an appeal to go at once through the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State to the Privy Council. Let us see whether there is any necessity for it. Take the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Carlile). First of all he said it was necessary that this should be done because Bills were drafted hastily, and he went on to explain that he thought the interpretation of Acts of Parliament was very often very difficult. No doubt that is true, but that, is a question of law which has to be determined and which there is ample opportunity of determining in the ordinary course. It is a matter of everyday practice to have questions of that kind determined. It certainly is unnecessary for that. Then he said there were wide powers of administration. Again the same point applies. If there are wide powers it is intended no doubt by Parliament that there should be a full exercise of the powers which are conferred by the Statute.
      Sir H. CARLILE: One of the illustrations I mentioned was the National Insurance Act, which gives power to Commissioners which lie outside the Statute altogether.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: But if the powers are granted by the Statute they are rightfully applied. We are only dealing here with powers which are unlawfully

      2323
      exercised. The whole point of the Amendment is as to the unlawful exercise of powers. We are not here discussing any question other than that. We are not discussing the question whether the administration is good or bad. What we are discussing, and only discussing, is whether or not there is an unlawful exercise of power. Then the hon. Gentleman went further and said, no doubt quite correctly, that administration at times exceeds the powers of the Statute. No doubt Governments have had a tendency in the past, and I am afraid probably always will in the future, some slight tendency perhaps to strain their powers, it may be from wrong advice given, or from the wrong interpretation of a Statute. But, whenever that has happened, at once the Courts intervene and can pronounce their view, and no better argument could be adduced and no better instances need be given than those which were cited by the hon. Gentleman himself. I doubt very much whether he was quite aware of how he was answering his own argument, and what a complete defence he was making to the Amendment which he was proposing when he cited against the present Government the three instances. Let me state what they were to show how in each case there was administrative action which was alleged to have been wrongfully or unlawfully exercised. He cited the well-known Swansea case—the action of the Board of Education. There, as he quite correctly says, the Court came to the conclusion that the administration was unlawful, because it thought that the Board of Education had wrongly construed a particular provision in the Statute. That was the House of Lords' decision, and consequently, they said, that is an unlawful exercise, because yon have not the power which you profess to have by reason of the interpretation which you yourselves have placed upon it. The Court interfered and restrained the act. It is an instance of that class of proceeding to which we have adverted several limes in these Debates, by way of mandamus and certiorari, to prevent the unlawful exercise of power.
      Then he referred to Form IV. The Courts have of recent years extended the power of the subject to prevent an unlawful exercise of the powers of the Executive. I am not complaining of it at all. Whatever has happened, whatever innovation has has taken place, has been rather in the
      2324
      nature of an expansion than of a curtailment of privileges. In the Form IV, actions it was stated and laid down that a declaration can be made by the Court as to whether an exercise of powers is lawful or not. That is a most complete means of testing whether the action is a lawful action or is not. Then the third instance which he gave—a very good instance—was to Mr. Gibson Bowles' action, which called into question a practice which was not a practice of this particular Government only, but which was the practice admittedly for something like sixty years, and on which Governments of both parties had acted without demur. Then Mr. Gibson Bowles challenged the action and took it into Court—he had no difficulty in getting into Court—and there the matter was disposed of. The last part of the hon. Gentleman's argument, when he comes to these instances, supplied the most complete answer to the first part and to the Amendment which he was proposing. My answer is that, in fact, there is already such power as the Amendment asks. If there were not such power, I should understand the argument and follow the Amendment, and there would be good grounds for asking that there should be provision made. But when we know that there is already the provision, then, I ask, what is the need for giving an appeal in this case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where, mark you, you would have a very great danger again of overlapping the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts in Ireland, because in every Court-in Ireland the unlawful exercise of powers could be raised in the ordinary way by any subject. It is part of the answer that I gave yesterday to an argument addressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) with reference to this question that there is already such power in the Courts in Ireland.
      I really fail to understand why it is suggested that if there is already ample provision, we should go further and give this power, which is quite outside what is intended by the particular provision in the Statute. What we have to remember is that this Clause 29 is giving a power which, so far as I know, is quite unprecedented. At least we are giving a power of appeal, either by means of the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State on these constitutional questions with reference to legislation which is either proposed or has been passed. But that is the first time that any such power has been given, and what we

      2325
      are asked to do now is to go very much further. After we have been very much criticised already for having given this power, which is said to be so dangerous an innovation, now we are asked to give it with regard to Executive power. At any rate, I should claim the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) as a supporter of the Government on this Amendment. He has not expressed an opinion on this particular provision, but he has told us that he is very much against Clause 29, and he told us yesterday that there ought not to be an appeal to the Privy Council, but that matters ought to be left in the ordinary way to the Courts as they exist in Ireland, and he strongly objects, and made a forcible protest in the limited time which was at his disposal, against Clause 29 and against the whole scheme. Therefore I am entitled to say on this Amendment, which goes very much beyond what we proposed, I should claim, and I think rightly, the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In short, the whole answer that the Government make with reference to this proposal is that it is quite unnecessary, that there is already the amplest power, and that to go further would be an innovation of a kind which it is really somewhat difficult: to contemplate, and the results of which I do not think any human bring can foresee.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this as if it was an impossible, a very ridiculous, and an unnecessary Amendment. I look upon the discussion of this Amendment as a matter of very great importance. I have said over and over again in this House that I was far more afraid of Executive action in Ill-land under the new Government than I am of legislative action, and my point in saying that has been misrepresented in the country as saying that I had no fear of the new Irish Government at all. I have had to write many letters contradicting the false conclusions drawn from what I said in this House. The reason why this is more important is that, of course, an Act of Parliament is a very public matter. It goes through its various stages, and, I suppose, will go through various stages unless they have one day a guillotine in the House of Commons in Ireland, and discussion can be brought up by Irish Members in some way, at all events, in this House, and can have public opinion focussed upon it, and it will go through, at all events, a perfunctory form of having the sanction or the Veto, as the case may
      2326
      be, of the Lord Lieutenant, who is set up in Ireland to carry on the Government there. But anyone who knows Ireland or who knows the history of Ireland for the last twenty years, the methods of intimidation, the methods of persecution, the methods of the leagues, which, unfortunately, permeate the whole of the South and West of Ireland, knows the oppression and the cruelty which are the ordinary weapons of the Nationalists in Ireland, and knows perfectly well that the only protection against these methods is the proper exercise of the Executive power; and everyone knows that to-morrow if the Executive protection which is given, more or less, by the present Chief Secretary, was withdrawn, there are many men now living in Ireland who could not continue to live there for another day. What the right hon. Gentleman does not see is that our apprehension is that the moment you hand over the Government to Gentlemen who have attained their ends by these methods, and they have got complete Executive control they will be faced by their own teachings and doctrines, which have become the everyday life of the vast body of people in Ireland, and that there may not be given to those people who live there, and who differ from them, by Executive power, that protection which it is unlawful to withhold, which they have a right to as citizens of a civilised country and which certainly ought, under the setting up of a new Parliament of this kind, to be guaranteed to them in some way or other.
      I am not going over the old question of safeguards, but this is another instance that when we ask something in the nature of a real safeguard, we are told it is not necessary. The right hon. Gentleman twits me by saying that I could turn the whole of this into ridicule, because I turned into ridicule the safeguard as to the sending over of a Bill, or a provision of a Bill, which did not happen to be even discussed in the Irish House of Commons to the Privy Council for adjudication. That was no safeguard at all, and therefore it was granted. That is a sham safeguard. Now we are at reality as to what might be some measure of safeguard, and the right hon. Gentleman says, "You are perfectly well safeguarded already." He says, "All you have to do is to go to the Irish Courts, and then, whatever the Courts say, the Executive will carry out whatever is necessary for the protection of the public." May I say that there are many Acts which do not, and could not, go to the Irish Courts at all? But assuming

      2327
      and taking the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Courts are the proper place to enforce your right to proper Executive action, our case is that instead of going to the Courts in Dublin or in Ireland, we ought to be allowed to go straight to the Privy Council, as the Court of Appeal from the Executive. When he gives me the answer about the Courts, I say that the Courts will be no protection, or, at least, may be no protection. At all events there is an apprehension that they may be no protection.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The only question here is whether there shall be a reference by the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State straight to the Privy Council, or whether people should have recourse, in the first place, to the ordinary, Courts, and then appeal from the ordinary Courts to the Privy Council. That is the whole question.
      Sir E. CARSON: That is the very point I am making. We ought to be allowed to go straight to the Privy Council on these matters. It is all very well to say to the Irish peasant, "You have not got your rights under this decree, or you have not proper protection, or you have put upon you certain forms which are outside of the power of the Executive," and you tell this peasant to go first with his case to a Court over there, then to take it to the Divisional Court, then to the Court of Appeal, and, lastly, with what he has left out of his money, to come over to the Privy Council. That man, or body of men, who have to complain of Executive action, ought to be able to go to the Lord Lieutenant and say: "Here is the way I have been treated by the Irish Executive. Refer that to the Privy Council, and let them secure for me my rights." That is the only way. What is the argument of the Attorney-General? He says this Clause is merely to refer constitutional questions arising upon whether the subordinate Parliament in Dublin exceeds its legislative functions or not, and that these are questions which can be properly submitted to the Privy Council. May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman: Is not every word of his argument applicable to the Executive action of the subordinate Parliament? He said, "You can raise these questions in the Courts." So you could raise in the Courts every question as to whether the subordinate Parliament had exceeded its powers in relation to the
      2328
      Acts they were passing, or whether they had done something in contravention of this Act. If, for instance, they had passed a tax not allowed by this Act, people could go to the Courts. There you have the same remedy as to legislative action which the Attorney-General is recommending to us in relation to the Executive, and surely it is far more important in relation to the individual liberty or property of the subject that his remedy against the Executive should be to go to the Privy Council, than it is that the question whether an Act of Parliament exceeds jurisdiction or not should be referred to the Privy Council?
      It is far more important that the subject should have the right to say, "Let us have the view of the Privy Council on this through the Lord Lieutenant," than that the provision of an Act of Parliament should go to the Privy Council. The whole protection and existence of a man's living in Ireland, after this Bill passes, will depend far more upon the Executive protection of the rights of these men than upon any Act of Parliament which they will be able to pass in Ireland. At least, that is my opinion, and you refuse him that protection. You say in one case, it is quite true, that the Lord Lieutenant can refer the question to the Privy Council, but in the other, where it would be a real protection, you say the Lord Lieutenant should not be allowed to refer the question to the Privy Council. For my own part, I find it very difficult to follow the reasoning of the Attorney-General, and really I think the importance of this matter is that people should now be told, and that it should be perfectly understood by those who are going to spend their lives in Ireland, and also by the English and Scotch who care about the people of Ireland, that there is no protection, so far as this country is concerned, which is going to be given against the Executive action of the new Government you are setting up in Dublin. Let me take the instances which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He referred to Form IV. and Form V., which were held yesterday by the Courts, like most of the Forms issued by this Government, to be illegal. He mentioned also the case of Mr. Gibson Bowles. All these are cases challenging the action of the Executive, saying that the Executive are overriding an Act of Parliament, and they are a law unto themselves, which is the common practice, Very well. Why on earth should not these cases, which

      2329
      really are constitutional cases, be referred to the Privy Council as well as the constitutional cases you are going to refer under this Bill? I fail to see any answer to that in the argument of the Attorney-General. The cases which would arise in Ireland would be all cases naturally of infringement of liberty or infringement of the right of the subject, and to tell mo that is not more important to the individuals who are affected by it than the mere question whether an Act of Parliament is outside the powers of the Irish Parliament seems to me to be absolutely absurd.
      There is another question to which I should like to call attention. I do not know whether the House remembers how curiously the Executive in Ireland is being constituted under this Bill. After the decision of yesterday the judges are entirely free of this House. The judges are appointed by the Irish Executive. They make their decrees, or, indeed, the Executive determines upon doing something, and they cannot do it without police, but they have not got the control of the police. This country has at once to give police to carry out the Executive acts, however unjust, of the Irish Government. Well, that is a very strange position. So far as I can see, there will be no way of inquiring whether what the police are wanted for is a proper or an unlawful act of the Executive in Ireland, for the police are for six years to be kept under the control of the Imperial Government. Surely under these circumstances, where you have the enforcement of an Executive act by a force supplied by the British Government, as it will then be, it is not an unreasonable thing to say, where so much depends upon the enforcement of the Executive act, and the enforcement is in the hands, not of the Irish Government but of the Imperial Government, that you should go to the Imperial Court to test any act said to be illegal when a question is raised as to the propriety of the Executive action. I cannot see under these circumstances why there should be such an objection to have these questions decided rather in the Privy Council than in the Courts in Ireland. I admit that the Attorney-General and I differ on-the main point. He thinks it is impossible that an Irish Government could do anything unlawful. He thinks that Irishmen living in Ireland, after this Bill passes, will all be changed by the passing of the Bill, and that there will be he such thing as the lessons learned day after day by the people of that country
      2330
      from the time they were children of the tyranny, oppression, persecution, and boycotting of the people who happen to differ from them in their various views. He thinks this state of things will vanish. It has become inherent; it is looked upon as the ordinary morality of the country. Surely under these circumstances it is not unreasonable—because you can in the future extend your Bill at any time if it becomes necessary—for us to ask that some small protection in regard to the Executive under which these people are to live should be inserted on the face of your proposals.
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. JOHN GORDON (Londonderry): One of the reasons why I am opposed to this Bill is that I fear the consequences of it. My fears are being increased day by day as I sit in this House and hear what goes on, and hear the speeches made from the Government Benches. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us, and they have repeated the statement to the people of Ireland, that they are perfectly prepared to give any safeguards we ask for, or anything that might be within the limits of reasonableness to satisfy their fears, and to get rid of their objection, if possible, to the Bill. I do not believe their safeguards would act as a real protection, but whether there is any reality in the professions they have been making in the country or not, I do say that I have not heard since the Committee stage began a single safeguard suggested from this side of the House which has been accepted by the Government. Yesterday we had the proposal that the judges should be continued to be appointed as they are by the Imperial Parliament, and should be under the control of the Imperial Parliament. The Irish minority, whether rightly or wrongly, considered that that might be some safeguard if ever the calamity of this Bill was forced upon the country, but that was refused by the Government. Today it is suggested as a safeguard that if the Executive in Ireland unlawfully refused or withheld the protection of the Executive forces, there should be power, not by the individual, but through the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State, who would be able to form an opinion whether there is any substance in the complaint or not, to go direct to the Privy Council in order to have the grievance remedied. That again is opposed, and why? Because the Attorney-General, from the safety of his position on the

      2331
      Government Bench opposite or in the City of London, where he knows he will not suffer in his person or property by any wrongful act of the Executive, tells us it is unnecessary, and tells us that if we are oppressed we can go to the ordinary Courts, and by that means get to the Privy Council. That is a nice solution for the people who are asked to suffer through the Acts of the Executive. The Government say to the minority in Ireland, "We are willing to consider your reasonable fears, although we do not agree that there is any cause for their existence, still we will be careful to do everything to got rid of your fears and to carry out our professions of regard to safeguarding the minority in Ireland."
      But why is this Amendment not accepted? I agree with my right hon. Friend, and every Unionist in Ireland will agree, that the greatest danger—I do not mean to say we would not run great dangers in legislation—but that the greatest danger to' the people in Ireland would be from the misuse of the Executive power conferred upon the Irish Nationalist party. Why? The Irish Nationalist party tell you, and you accept it, that they are the people who represent the wishes of the Irish nation. Any time since I have come into this House, and for a considerable time before it, these Gentlemen were in a position in which they could have exercised great restraining influence over the people who are their supporters in the South and West of Ireland. Have they ever done it? Have they ever denounced outrage, moonlighting, boycotting, cattle driving, or anything of that kind? At the present moment the country is suffering from it, and these Gentlemen do not take any means to put an end to it, and you are going to hand over to them the control of the Irish Executive. You are handing over that power to men who oppose the introduction of the police to protect boycotted farmers, and for the protection of men whose lives were in danger; and the men who will return those Gentlemen to power are themselves the instruments of outrage and crime in' the West and South of Ireland. I think it is no-wonder that the ordinary loyal and peaceable people of Ireland look forward with dread to the control of the Irish Executive being placed in the hands of such men. Why should not this Amendment be accepted? If it was accepted and no case arose for its being enforced what harm
      2332
      would arise? If cases do arise, where it is necessary to have such power, do you not think it is necessary to have such power to right matters that may be going wrong under the Executive? You have removed from the control of this House all opportunity of dealing with crime and injustice in Ireland which is now in the hands of this Executive For instance, there are at the present moment between 300 and 400 people boycotted who require-constant protection. Supposing the Irish Executive came in to-morrow and said, "We will withdraw that police protection." In your six years of office you might by a roundabout method have extended that police protection, but you are not legislating for six years.
      You are legislating for a period long after you have ceased to have any control, and suppose the police were withdrawn, will the Attorney-General tell me how the Executive can be brought before the Privy Council or even before any Court? It is easy for him to talk to his majority in order to enable them to salve their consciences, but will he explain to me how, if police protection is taken from a man who has it at the present moment, that man will be able to bring the matter before the Courts of Law. Are we to be told that the Irish Nationalist party whose great organisation, the United Irish League is the author of all this crime and outrage and boycotting that they when they have the control of the police they will protect the lives and property entrusted to them, if you do not give people the right to test the matter in the Courts or before the Privy Council. One of the things that the people in Ireland would like most—that is the people who understand what is going on, not gentlemen who live in London and who probably never were in Ireland in their lives, and whose property is situated not in Ireland—one of the things those people in Ireland would most like to have would be the opportunity at all events of bringing forward in a prominent way the misconduct of the people to whom you are entrusting the control of the Executive. The right to go before the Privy Council would carry with it the power of allowing the English people to see what is going on. What do the people in England know at the present moment about many of the things going on in the South and West of Ireland? They do not know, as we do, how those matters bear so hardly upon the lives of individuals in Ireland;

      2333
      but they never will hear about it, if you hand over the control of the country to the Irish Nationalist party and leave them to manage it as they please.
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman is traversing the whole of the grounds open on Second and Third Reading. The discussion must be confined strictly to the refusing or withholding unlawfully the powers of protection by the Irish Executive.
      Mr. J. GORDON: I have no desire whatsoever to travel outside the limits of the Amendment, and I bow to your ruling at once, but I wanted to point to the necessity for having this power, and the only way I could point out that necessity is to show that there are circumstances which are likely to arise in the country exactly the same as have arisen in the past that would make it necessary that there should be this power of appeal. If this power of appeal is not given these things can go on, and I can see no means by which they could be limited, even giving the Courts of Justice and the judges the fullest desire to do everything right and proper. That was one of the points I put to the Attorney-General, and I hope he will tell us at the same time how any remedy can be provided for the subject in the Courts of Law if this Amendment is not accepted. I should like to know where it is in the Bill that they have a right of appeal to the Privy Council, and I should be thankful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he will point out to me where there is any right of appeal for any unlawful exercise or any unlawful withholding of the exercise of the Executive power in Ireland. I know, of course, that once a cause of action has arisen, then you can go to the Courts and right on to the Privy Council, but the Attorney-General knows as well as I do there are many cases where the subject would suffer grievously, and as against the Executive Government he would have no redress. I would like the Attorney-General to tell us what harm it would do, supposing everything is to go on right, under the new Constitution, to give this right of appeal to the Privy Council, and if it does no injury, then if it was only a matter of opinion amongst a certain section of the Irish people that it might be an advantage to have this power, why should that not be conceded to them? I think there is another way in which this appeal to the Privy Council would be of
      2334
      considerable advantage and would have a very steadying effect upon the administration of the Executive forces in Ireland, and that is, if the parties having that control knew that their conduct and the method in which they gave protection or exercised the powers of Executive control were to be the subject of appeal and could be brought over here to the Privy Council in England and could be made the subject of discussion throughout the length and breadth of England; that would have some effect, at all events, in making those people more-careful. I say, therefore, to the Government that if there is any substance behind their protestation they should accede to this Amendment or give some better answer than they have done up to the present.
      Sir GILBERT PARKER: I desire to bring another aspect of this question to the notice of the Committee which has not been dealt with by either of my hon. Friends. They have very largely directed their remarks to the difficulties which may arise to private individuals from the unlawful exercise of the Judicial or Executive power. This Government, I am certain, is most anxious, for their own credit, that there Bill should work well, if for nothing else. I ask the Attorney-General if he has considered this point. You may have this definite and peculiar circumstance in which the Irish Executive acting themselves, whether through Executive authority or action, may cross the lines of the Executive authority and action of this Government and the lines laid down by the Bill. They may think they are within their rights and prerogatives, but whatever party is in power in this country may believe that they are acting illegally and unlawfully in the exercise of their Executive power. In that case does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it would be most wise to have this appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in such cases? Let me give one or two reasons for it. There is in the first place a very great danger of a conflict of opinion as to whether the Irish Executive were acting within their powers or not. That would be very great danger of friction; between the Imperial Executive power and the Provincial Executive power infinitely worse than any private individual or set of private individuals objecting to an act of the Irish Executive. It would be a danger and difficulty which this Government or any Government at the centre of Imperial power would like to avoid.

      2335
      The reply of the Attorney-General may be, "Yes, but there are the Courts which can decide this question." I believe that the view taken by the Opposition on this question is so sound and so reasonable that, in resisting, the Government are laying themselves open to the task of being again influenced by their hon. Friends below the Gangway on my left. I cannot conceive, I honestly cannot conceive, how the Government can object. Since they permit legislative Acts to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I cannot understand why there should not also be referred an act of administration in Ireland, which, if this Government challenges it—and they will challenge it, because circumstances may arise where their administration may cross the views and opinions of the Imperial Executive as to their authority and power—may well cause difficulty and provoke a very serious agitation between the two Governments, dangerous to the proper relations which ought to exist between the Irish Executive and the central superior Executive.
      The Imperial Government, if such a difficulty were to occur, would first naturally make a protest to the Irish Executive, one, two, or three years after the Irish Executive had began its existence, and the Irish Executive would naturally resent what they would call interference. They would say to the Imperial Government, "You hold your view as to our act, but it is an unusual thing for the superior Government of a federal system to challenge the act of the provincial Government." My reply is that it is not. I would like to point out to the Attorney-General that there have been a great many cases in our Colonial experience, in the working of the Colonial Constitution, where just that kind of difficulty has occurred, and the matters have gone to the Supreme Court of the Federation, and afterwards, it may be, to the Privy Council. But in the publicity of the Courts the friction is always heightened. I am speaking of what I have seen. The friction is meanwhile heightened, and the matter is kept alive by the very fact of the extreme publicity attached to an appeal to the Courts. But it is a remarkable thing that when such cases come before the Privy Council of this Empire there is not the same agitation. There is a confidence, I do believe, in the minds of the community at large regarding our Privy
      2336
      Council, and regarding the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is far greater than that attached to the Courts themselves, because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is composed of the highest legal minds of our country.
      Those difficulties have arisen in the past; they have been the cause of very serious friction between the provincial Government and the central Government; but here the whole thing is heightened, because in the provincial Governments their powers are clearly defined, and those powers never cross, as they are bound to cross here, with the reserved services. With the power to revise our financial system, with a separate Post Office, and so on, difficulties are likely to arise infinitely greater than have ever arisen in any one of our Commonwealth or federal Governments within the Empire. It is because of that, because not only of the private wrong, of the believed private wrong, or the suspected private wrong, through the unlawful exercise of power by the Irish Executive power, to the individual, but because the situation is of so delicate a kind under this Bill, if it works at all, that the Government ought, I think, in the interests of peace and amity, to which they have attached themselves, to which they have sworn their faith, to provide in this Bill for appeal, not only for legislative acts, but also for administrative acts, through which I believe will come greater danger of friction, of agitation, and of anxiety on the part of individuals and on the part of the Administration here at Westminster than has ever been experienced in the past. Therefore I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford so strongly and so clearly put, that in view of the complicated conditions laid down for the exercise of the authority of the provincial Legislature in Ireland and the exercise of the Imperial authority, the Government ought not to turn a deaf ear, not to our appeal—it is not an appeal—but to our arguments, which we believe are well founded, and ought to be accepted as a reason for adopting the Amendment.
      Mr. SCANLAN: It is difficult to credit either the Proposer of this Amendment or the hon. and learned Member who supported it with even sincerity in making a proposal of this kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down referred to constitutional practice. If there is anything damnatory of the proposal made by the hon. Member for

      2337
      Hereford, it is constitutional practice. Has anyone ever heard, or has any constitutional lawyer ever laid down the doctrine that there should be a wider appeal to the Privy Council than is laid down in Clause 29 of this Bill? It is admitted by the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) that in providing machinery for appeal to the Privy Council the Government in this measure have made such appeal much more easy of access than previous Governments have made them in connection with the Constitution afforded to the different self-governing Colonies of the Empire. In fact, immediately any hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway refer in broad terms to the Constitution, they give the strongest condemnation that can possibly be made of the proposal contained in this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College says it is all very well to say to a peasant of the West of Ireland that he can go to the Courts of the country, and that he can afterwards proceed to the Privy Council, and if he did not get a remedy in the Courts of his own country, certainly he would be afforded a remedy when he went to the Privy Council. Has anything more ridiculous ever been put forward than that suggestion or argument of the right hon. Gentleman for Trinity College? Does he mean to say that there shall be established in regard to the Privy Council a direct appeal by every single peasant in Ireland? If we adopted a system of that kind it would reduce the Privy Council, which is the most august tribunal in the world, from the status it has at the present time into the position of a Petty Sessions, and nothing more.
      If a peasant in Ireland has a grievance he has an appeal under the different forms of the law to the various Courts in Ireland, and there is that same measure of reliance on the justice dispensed in the Courts of Law in Ireland as obtains in England, Scotland, and Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—in regard to the administration of justice in those countries. The position of affairs at Belfast was referred to by the Mover of the Amendment, but let me remind him that what he and his Friends above the Gangway complain of is the misuse of power of the Executive in Ireland, and they have power to go to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, which consists of several judges who formerly sat on those benches above the Gangway. When the Opposition were in power they always had recourse to exceptional powers to
      2338
      secure a tribunal, and it was they who founded the Courts of removable magistrates and took cases out of the ordinary course of the law. It has been admitted that the proposal contained in the Amendment is unusual and has not been heard of before. What is the reason adduced in support of this unreasonable procedure in regard to Ireland, undreamt of by legislators above the Gangway in regard to any of our Colonies? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College made a most important admission in this House a short time ago, that neither he nor any of his Friends believe that in any Parliament which is going to be set up in Ireland under the provisions of this Bill will there be any injustice attempted to be perpetrated on any person in Ireland through legislation—in point of fact, that the Irish Parliament will act fairly and justly and evenly as between different sections of the country, that neither they nor their friends in Ireland will be unjustly treated, and that there will be no discrimination.
      Mr. MOORE: That is false.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. and learned Member has used an expression which is unparliamentary.
      Mr. MOORE: I say it is an absolutely false description of the quotation. I ask that the quotation be read.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It might be described as "incorrect."
      Mr. MOORE: I adopt the word "incorrect," and I repeat that it is grossly incorrect. May I ask now that the matter shall be cleared up or that the incorrect statement should be withdrawn? It is not fair that the hon. Member should wait until the right hon. Member for Trinity College has left the House and then make this charge about his speech behind his back.
      Captain CRAIG: May I say that that is the practice of the Nationalist party all through?
      Mr. SCANLAN: I do not wish to misquote the hon. Gentleman, but I think I am within the recollection of the Committee that what I said, so far from being a misrepresentation, is a very correct summary of what was said by the right hon. and learned Member.
      Mr. C. CRAIG: Does that mean a withdrawal?
      Mr. SCANLAN: I do not withdraw anything; I have nothing to withdraw. Let me put it a little more plainly, and I challenge any hon. and learned Member above the Gangway to contradict me. I do not wish to exaggerate in any sense, but what the right hon. Gentleman said was that so far as the Protestants of the North of Ireland or any part of Ireland were concerned, he had no fear that an Irish Parliament would legislate in any manner detrimental to their interests. If that is, and I submit it is, an admission from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that they have no fear of an Irish Parliament so far as legislation is concerned—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has dealt sufficiently by way of general reference as to the point raised about legislation, and that he should now direct his attention to the point of administration with which this Amendment deals.
      Mr. SCANLAN: I am obliged for the suggestion from you. The point referred to is exactly the point I was coming to. The point I want to make is this: If we have an admission that there is no fear that an Irish Parliament will legislate detrimentally to the interests of Protestants, how can hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway expect the Committee or expect the country to believe that if the hands of the Irish Parliament are clean in regard to legislation that an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive will soil those hands when it comes to the administration of the laws which the Parliament of Ireland passes? The suggestion made is, I submit, monstrous. I do not know what kind of Irishmen the Members of the Committee who do not belong to Ireland will think hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are who have nothing to say of their own fellow-countrymen but to impute to them the worst character that could be ascribed to the people of any community in Ireland or in any country in the world. Can anyone point to an instance or conceive an instance of where you find a people enjoying a Parliament passing legislation against which there is no exception, and then, in order to wreak vengeance upon a section of the people in that country, stooping to such a disgraceful thing as to twist and turn the legislation in order to act oppressively towards a minority or any section of the people of the country? They ask for safeguards in administration. When they get a safeguard in ad-
      2340
      ministration they are very sick of themselves for having asked for it. We have here the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Trinity College (Mr. J. H. Campbell). If there is going to be oppression you may have it in education, and in such an instance as in Trinity College, Dublin. He sought to leave Trinity College, Dublin, outside the administration of the Irish Parliament. That point was conceded to them, and immediately there is an agitation got up in Ireland against the exemption of Trinity College, and in Trinity College itself.
      Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: Is this in order? Because if it is, it will involve a reply from me.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is using it by way of illustration. I think there are limits as to what an illustration should be, and that he is elaborating it now.
      Captain CRAIG: I presume, after the rambling statements made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that we will have the opportunity of covering the same ground in order to protect ourselves?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already dealt with the hon. Member's remarks, and I will endeavour to pursue the same course with hon. Members subsequently.
      Mr. SCANLAN: I readily pass on from Trinity College. I quite understand the tenderness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his conduct in reference to Trinity College. Therefore, I do not think it would be right for me to embarrass him in any way. We are told, as a further reason why this is necessary, that there are outrages perpetrated on a wholesale scale in the West and South of Ireland, and that the people of England know nothing of those outrages, and that if the executive power of the Irish Parliament is not under the control of the Privy Council that such conduct may continue. I deny absolutely the accuracy of every statement made by Gentlemen from Ireland or any of their Friends above the Gangway in reference to outrages. There are no outrages in Ireland at the present time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is Birrell?"]—and there never has been any outrage in Ireland in which any man in the South or West was persecuted on account of his religion. Those hon.

      2341
      Gentlemen above the Gangway say that the English people know nothing about those outrages. The fact is that every hon. Gentleman above the Gangway from Ireland occupies his time, when he is not sitting here, in going about to the constituencies in England and Scotland trying to convince the people in England and Scotland that such outrages are taking place in Ireland, and the people in England and Scotland do not believe them. I venture to make the assertion that once we have had the admission from the leaders of the Unionist party in the North of Ireland that they are not afraid of legislation, that neither the Committee nor the country will accept their claim that there should be any exceptional control over the action of the Executive in Ireland. It is necessary surely for every Parliament that the Executive shall be untrammelled. The proposal of this Amendment is to weaken the Executive of the Irish Parliament. It would oppressively burden the Privy Council, and, as I have said, reduce the status of the Privy Council to the status of an ordinary Petty Sessions Court, and therefore I oppose the Amendment.
      Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down tried to pick a quarrel with a great many Gentlemen on both sides of the House, most of them absent. The last person he attacked was the Chief Secretary, because he stated that he, the Member for Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), had gone about the country saying there were no outrages in Ireland, a statement which is entirely inconsistent—
      Mr. DEVLIN: Only in Belfast.
      Mr. BALFOUR: That he went about England and Scotland saying that there are no outrages in Ireland except at Belfast, and he infers that the whole of the English and Scottish people believe him, but there is one person who does not believe him, and that is the Chief Secretary.
      Mr. KEATING: He said on account of their religion.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I thought the hon. Gentleman said there were no outrages in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then I fail to understand what that observation has to do with this Amendment at all. It was only one of two or three very singular observations which the hon. Member for Sligo made, and the worst of which was the observation with which he began. He
      2342
      quoted, or professed to quote, a statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) in his speech made earlier this afternoon. What my right hon. and learned Friend said was this: that of the two modes of oppression which the minority in Ireland had to fear if Home Rule was passed, he was much more afraid of Executive than of legislative oppression. The version of that which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo gives us, is that my right hon. and learned Friend has committed himself to the proposition that under no circumstances has any Irishman in any part of Ireland got anything to fear from the legislative action of the Irish Home Rule Parliament. I heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and there was nothing in the speech to suggest such an interpretation of it. The hon. Member was not content to begin his speech with that, but he maintained the proposition in spite of contradictions from friends of mine behind me, and he ended his speech with the same statement. A more extraordinary perversion of a statement which was fresh in the recollection of everybody in the Committee I do not think I ever heard.
      I do not rise to defend the right hon. and learned Gentleman who does not require any defence from me or even to deal with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I did not quite catch the general purport of his argument, but, so far as I understood it, and he will correct me if I am wrong, it was that it was a monstrous and incredible supposition that any Irishman should wish to misuse the law, to oppress any other Irishman. I entirely agree with Mr. Gladstone in saying that Irishmen have no extra dose of original sin, but I do not think they have any extra dose of original virtue. I do not for a moment think that they are worse than the rest of mankind, but are they necessarily better than the rest of mankind. Are they so much better than Englishmen and Scotchmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, and yet in the very same speech in which the hon. Member said Irishmen were incapable of misusing the law against any other Irishman, he accused my right hon. and learned Friend, he accused me, and he accused the British Government of having misused the Irish law against Irishmen. If we are so wicked, I do not know why he should necessarily be so virtuous. At all events I think it is perfectly grotesque to say that the innate love of fair play is

      2343
      so deeply rooted and stands on such a solid and unassailable basis amongst Irishmen that it provides against the misuse of the law by the Executive when you come to deal with the semi-angelic community which the present Administration, most naturally under those circumstances, desire to relieve from any interference by the inferior persons of inferior moral standing who live on the other side of St. George's Channel.
      May I turn from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo to what seems to me to be the kernel of the question we are discussing. The Government allow that there ought to be a direct and immediate appeal to the Privy Council upon the question as to whether an Act is or is not outside the powers given to the Irish Parliament. They think such a direct appeal is wise and desirable, and, indeed, I think they are quite right. By so doing they practically establish the Privy Council as corresponding to what in America would be called for certain purposes the Supreme Federal Court, and the Privy Council must occupy some analogous position of that kind. Let me turn from the cases in which the Government allow there ought to be an appeal to this Federal Court, to the cases in which they think there ought not to be appeal to the Federal Court. They think there ought not to be an appeal when an individual is aggrieved by some action extra vires of the Executive acting under an Act which they interpret in one way, and which may, or may not, be capable of that interpretation. What we ask the Government to do in such a case is to give an appeal to the Federal Court, as they do in the larger cases where the Lord Lieutenant is concerned. I think that is eminently reasonable. What the Government say in reply to the Amendment is that the proper remedy of anybody aggrieved in this particular way is to go to the Irish Court and work up through the Irish Courts ultimately, if he likes, to the Privy Council. That is a tremendous burden to throw upon a particular individual. I speak with modesty on the subject, but I believe that in the United States of America, when an individual is aggrieved by any action which he thinks is ultra vires, though he cannot appeal directly to the Supreme Federal Court, he can appeal immediately to a Federal Court. But there is no opportunity for appealing to a Federal Court under your Bill. There are no Federal
      2344
      Courts except the Supreme Federal Court, the Privy Council. You have handed over the whole appointment of the judges to the Irish Government. You have disinterested yourself in the administration of justice altogether in Ireland, except in so far as an appeal lies to the Privy Council. If you carry out the true analogy of your federal system you ought to have subordinate Federal Courts to deal with such questions, if you will not allow an immediate appeal to the Federal Court in existence under your Bill.
      I think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in his speech earlier in the evening when he pointed out that there would be a remedy in the sense that an action might lie whenever the powers of the Executive were exceeded. But let me point out that that appeal in all the earlier stages lies only to Irish Courts appointed by the Irish Administration. As the question to be decided is whether a particular action of the Executive is outside the powers given by this Act, the appeal should not be to an Irish Court, but to a Federal Court, and the only way of getting it to a Federal Court under the system established by this Bill is to give an immediate appeal to the Privy Council. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) told us that the result of that would be that the Privy Council would be overwhelmed with small, petty appeals on small, petty cases. I do not think that that would happen at all. The danger my hon. Friends wish to avoid is that an Act might be passed per incuriam which was outside the scope of this Act, or containing a Clause so wide that when the Act came to be applied it was seen to be outside the powers given to the Irish Parliament. I do not think that an Irish Court appointed by the Irish Government is the proper tribunal to decide a question of that kind. That is a danger which should be guarded against, and as far as I understand the framework of the Bill, the only possible way of guarding against it is to give an immediate and direct appeal to the only tribunal which you have left for Irishmen to appeal to—the only federal tribunal, to repeat the metaphor that I used earlier in my speech, the Privy Council, which not merely has jurisdiction over Great Britain and Ireland, but also is the final Court of Appeal for the Colonies. I suggest that the Government might consider whether they could not grant this appeal. I do not see that it can hurt the Privy Council or

      2345
      embarrass the course of justice. What you want is to give confidence to every Irishman that, however much the powers you give to the Irish Executive and the Irish Legislature may be abused, at all events they shall be abused within and not without the law. That is not very much, but it is something, and it is something which the Government would do well to concede.
      Mr. MOORE: I think that in this Debate we only wanted an Irishman to get up and put a veto on any safeguard for his fellow countrymen, and this notwithstanding that the hon. Member for Waterford again and again has said that anything the Irish minority asked in the way of safeguards he, for his part, would be only too delighted to give them. But that is outside the House. If he nods his head now in acquiescence, the Government will at once grant it. But the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin)—I hope I do them no injustice—go about the country protesting against the idea of the minority getting any safeguards. That is their point of view, and the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) is evidently an adherent of that school of thought, though not a very enlightened one.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say when I stated that I objected to safeguards being given?
      Mr. MOORE: I am not going into argument. If the hon. Member did not do so, I withdraw the statement. I have much more important matters to deal with. The Attorney-General is always very sanguine and optimistic. He speaks absolutely light-heartedly about the methods under this Bill. Of course he does, as he is not affected to the extent of a single shilling or in life or limb or in any other way. He is just vacuus coram latrone viator; it is nothing to him. But we who have to bear the burden might be forgiven if we feel a little sore from time to time that the Government's professions of willingness to grant safeguards are not carried out. This is really a very important point. The Government have two methods of procedure: either they get up and protest and then do nothing, or else they say, as the Attorney-General said last night, "If we do this for you, will you give up your opposition to the rest of the Bill?" That is a very unfair way of bargaining. Our opposition is based on principle, and we are asked to consent to something which
      2346
      we loathe and detest on terms that the Government give us a meticulous Amendment now. I want to deal first of all with a misrepresentation of our position, made no doubt accidentally, but repeated again and again by the hon. Member for North Sligo. He took the opportunity of doing it, although his attention was called to the fact, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) was absent from the House. What did my right hon. Friend say? It was not the travesty represented for party purposes by the hon. Member for North Sligo. Speaking in this House on October 29th, my right hon. Friend said:—
      "The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), in his impassioned way, appeals to us and says, 'Do you think we are going to pass legislation as against Protestants? Do you think we are going to pass legislation that will be persecuting the Protestants?' Has anybody ever said that? I certainly have never said that."
      The Committee will judge whether the speech has been fairly represented. You have to take it as a whole, not sentence by sentence.
      "I certainly have never said that. I give my Irish fellow countrymen credit who would be inclined in any wise, or from any motives, to interfere with their fellow countrymen on account of religion, that it would not be by legislation. Nobody supposes that any Government would pass an Act of Parliament to permit of the cruelties of boycotting, but the party can carry on the most dangerous system of tyranny and interference, and are still carrying it on, as the Chief Secretary knows. That is not done by law. People do not do these things by law. It is not done by law except so far as it is done by the law of the League. But still it goes on, and there is no use in talking to us as the lion, and learned Member for Waterford does, saying, 'Do you think that any such law as that would he passed?' I answer, 'Very well, I do not think it would be passed; I think it would be too absurd, and I know perfectly well that when a tyranny of that kind is attempted to be carried out, it is not carried out in that way at all; it is carried out either by conniving at it or by not enforcing the law against it.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1912, col. 298, Vol. XLIII.]
      That is paraphrased and repeated ad nauseam as an admission that Irish Unionists have no fear of what a Parliament may do in Dublin by legislative action. The words cannot bear that meaning in their fair sense. If they mean that they have no fear as to legislative action, they convey the keenest apprehension as to administrative action, and it is that with which this Amendment deals. I do not blame the hon. Member for North Sligo; he was simply following his Leader; he did not hear my right hon. Friend's explanation.
      Mr. SCANLAN: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent, but his statement is quite incorrect. I

      2347
      have been present here during the whole of the proceedings to-day since Question Time.
      Mr. MOORE: Then I withdraw the statement that the hon. Member was not present and simply say that he did not understand. But he is simply following the example of his Leader the hon. Member for Waterford, who went to Sheffield and made use of exactly the same distorted paraphrase for the purpose of influencing English constituencies. In this month's "Review of Reviews," under the hand of the hon. Member for Waterford, you have a considered statement in black and white, which I ask the Committee to read in connection with the actual words of my right hon. Friend's speech. The statement is as follows:—
      "Since this article was written the extraordinary admission has been made by the Irish Unionist leader that he has no fear of the Irish Parliament passing any law oppressive to Protestants as such. See the Debate in the House of Commons on October 29th. This admission really destroys the whole 'Ulster' case."
      6.0 P.M.
      That is a very good opinion, but does anyone think that it is a fair account or summary of the speech? I do not think that any reasonable man on reading the report would say so. I do not think that anyone who did not want to serve the lowest form of party purposes could possibly put into my right hon. Friend's mouth the statement that we were free from all apprehension as to the action of the Irish Parliament. I pass from the statement of the hon. Member for North Sligo, simply saying that it is a very incorrect misrepresentation, and one that I trust will not be repeated by anyone who has heard the actual words used by my right hon. Friend. Let us come to the Amendment, because extraneous matters have been introduced. I want the Committee to remember the position we are now in when we come to consider the question of giving an individual an appeal. In the first place you will have a Government in office which it is admitted will have power to repeal the Habeas Corpus Act. There is no difficulty about repealing the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. By the Government's own admission they have given the Irish Parliament power to do it. The Habeas Corpus Act is one of the greatest checks on the abuse of power by the Executive. You are putting this power into the hands of a party who would repeal that Act to-morrow so far as it affects Ulster. Surely if that part of our Charter of Liberty is to
      2348
      be taken away, as is not only possible but probable, we have to look at what restraints there may be upon the action of the Executive. The Attorney-General said that at present under the Bill we have all the safeguards that are necessary against abuse of Executive action. He said that we could go to the Privy Council now. I speak of the Privy Council as different from the House of Lords. The Attorney-General referred to Mr. Bowles' action, to the Swansea school case, and to various other cases with which we are familiar, in which the Courts have restrained abuse of power on the part of the Executive, and he said that we had these powers as the Bill stands at present. We have not, because if the Attorney-General's findings are right there is no power of appeal. This Bill, in so far as the Law Courts go; gives no power of appeal that we do not possess at present. It is not suggested that any new and additional legal power of appeal has taken the place of the House of Lords. What is our remedy? Our remedy is to go to the Courts for a writ of prohibition, it may be to suit one case, for a writ of certiorari in another, and for a mandamus in another. I do not think the Attorney-General would suggest that we have any other remedy than that—I mean in regard to the general mandatory jurisdiction of the Court.
      The Attorney-General has said that we have a power of appeal at present, and that the Bill merely substitutes the Privy Council for the House of Lords. I want to convince the Attorney-General that that is not so. In the first place, what is the position? You have suspended the Habeas Corpus Act. I am assuming that; that is my argument; for you have given power to do it; you would not reserve it. We asked you to do so, and you would not. Why did you decline to reserve it if you did not intend to allow it to be exercised? You gave us yesterday Nationalist judges. Our Supreme Court of Judicature is to be adorned by the class of gentlemen who spoke yesterday. I do not want to say anything against them; but what is the outstanding fact? That we in the North of Ireland have no confidence in them whatever. [Laughter.] I really do not know why hon. Members can laugh at that. They perhaps do not intend to live in Ireland, and think it is a joke. It is not a joke to us. Here is our case—and I ask the Attorney-General to follow it, because I will say he is reasonable, and I will say, too,

      2349
      that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reasonable. Suppose there is an abuse of the Executive authority, the only remedy we have on the Attorney-General's own showing—if we do not pass this Amendment—is that we have to go to the judges of the Nationalist Courts in Dublin for a writ of prohibition, or a mandamus, or a writ of certiorari. If this Court does what we anticipate they will do, they will refuse our application, and we have no further remedy. It has been decided on two or three different occasions that where a Court of Appeal has refused an application, no appeal lies with the House of Lords. Therefore the only Court we can go to, if there is an abuse of power, is a Court which will be packed with Nationalist judges in Dublin; that is on the legal side. I agree an appeal will lie with the House of Lords—I think the Attorney-General will probably agree with me—if the right were granted. But we should not want to appeal if the right were granted.
      If an injury takes place, and we are refused redress by a partisan bench, we have no remedy whatever before the Privy Council in any form. We ought to have an appeal from the Government of Ireland on the law side—I am putting it roughly—or in a case where it is mixed law and fact—in whatever way you distinguish it, from an abuse of the Executive power. You leave us absolutely hand and foot bound at the mercy of the decision of the Nationalist Court in Dublin. I am entitled to assume that it would be a Nationalist Court; we would have no power whatsoever to go beyond their refusal. That was not present, I am sure, in the Attorney-General's mind when he made use of the arguments he did. I cordially agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that our greatest danger from this Parliament is not legislation but administration, and not only administration in the sense of exercising powers—and what a free hand they have to exercise their powers, for they can suspend the Habeas Corpus Act! Not only, I say, in an abuse of their powers, but in the withholding of power!
      Take a case going on at present. I am not going to discuss the merits of it. At present the Government in Ireland for some reason or other have taken an extraordinary alarm about the state of affairs in Belfast. Without notice to the representatives of the people—that is, the corporation—without even the courtesy of a
      2350
      letter, they have drafted into the city 200 extra police during the last couple of months. The question arises: who is going to pay for these police? The people of Belfast consider this is not a local matter—I am not discussing anything sub judice—but let me say that on the ordinary rules of population the people of Belfast say that they are entitled to a free quota of 950 police. In Belfast they get thirteen police free for every 10,000 of the population. In Roscommon and Clare they get thirty-one free police, and twenty-five extra police in Cork. This matter can be threshed out at present, since the Crown—that is, the Irish Government—send in their demand for pay for these extra police which the corporation claim should not be charged for. If Belfast refuses to pay the Crown can get an order on the Crown side to strike a rate of pay for the police, or they can sue the corporation in a civil action. That is the way the matter lies at present. The people are quite content. They are not going to be content in a matter of this sort if you start a bench of judges such as I have stated, and if you put the administration of the law in a position that the people have no confidence in it. You need not pretend they will have any confidence in it when you are dealing in the way you are with Ulster and the people who wish to remain in the present connections. Under this Bill they have no remedy whatever.
      Why should not these people be allowed to have an independent tribunal, which they would value, because it may be independent? There is another case. The Chief Secretary admitted it not so very long ago, and this illustrates the way the Executive power is wrongly withheld. A Local Government Board auditor went down to Sligo. Sligo has a Nationalist corporation. Last July one of the members thanked God in a public speech that they were Nationalists and Roman Catholics. The way they carry on their public business is this: The Local Government Board Auditor went down and found there was £550 in rates due from members of the Sligo Corporation themselves—that is, those members owed the community £550. Of course, if these Nationalist corporators did not pay the rates, the community they represent lose, and it is for the Unionist minority in Sligo, who do pay their rates, and are made pay their rates—
      Mr. SCANLAN: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman in order under this Amendment in referring to the position of matters in

      2351
      Sligo? Can he discuss the position of the corporation or the ratepayers, and, if he can, is it in order to absolutely misrepresent them?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I understand, the hon. and learned Gentleman was using the case as an illustration. The hon. and learned Member himself used another case. But perhaps the hon. and learned Member who is speaking need not elaborate his illustration.
      Mr. MOORE: I do not wish to say anything controversial, but the matter has appeared in the Irish Press, and was embodied in a question to the Irish Secretary on 9th May. He never suggested that it was not absolutely true. We threshed it out in a Debate in this House, and it is only a convenient contradiction by way of an interlocutory observation that comes out now for the first time by way of denial. Supposing the facts are true—I believe they are—what happens? At present the Local Government Board—if the Chief Secretary does not prevent them from doing their duty—will surcharge the guardians for not collecting the rates due by these gentlemen. In that way the Unionist ratepayers who do pay their rates will get justice. But if the new state of affairs comes about the gentlemen who are ruling Sligo Corporation, and who will rule in the new Parliament in Dublin will not trouble about the enforcement of the payment of rates or taxes, or any debts owing by their own members. There is no doubt of it. That will be withholding power. In a case like that the Unionists in Sligo who go on paying their rates will have no remedy whatsoever, for the Irish Local Government Board, manned by Gentlemen below the Gangway, will not lift a finger to help them and the Irish Courts will refuse to give them redress, and he will have no power to come to the Privy Council here. Scandals of this sort come under our own observation day by day. Everybody in Ireland knows about them. They are now connected by the central authority. If you are going to take away that central authority there will be absolutely no way of preventing these things going on day by day, for there will be no control over the gentlemen who sympathise with those who do them. It is not an unreasonable thing when we ask for the protection of an independent British tribunal for the individual who is wronged either by an abuse
      2352
      of power or an abuse in withholding power. On the Attorney-General's own admission, we have no appeal from a mandamus or any motion on the Crown side.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I did not admit it.
      Mr. MOORE: Perhaps the Attorney-General will look at the authorities. What I have stated was my view, and I consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University, and he concurs. That being the position, it is not unreasonable that we should ask for an appeal to the Privy Council, especially as the Attorney-General, in the course of our discussions on this Bill, began to say to every criticism, "You have an appeal to the Privy Council." There is a phrase or a motto which I think the Attorney-General has reversed and made it read Ruat Justicia fiat cælum. I shall certainly support this Amendment, and I trust the Government will see their way to accept it.
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The hon. and learned Member has raised one fresh point in the course of this Debate, and I should like him to listen to my statement in order to see whether I appreciate his point. The Amendment proposes that there should be an appeal to the Privy Council—that at any rate the Lord Lieutenant should have the right to refer to the Privy Council an act of administration by the Irish Executive. Our answer to that is that the subject in Ireland can resort to the Privy Council, but that he must in the first instance go to the Courts in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman says he cannot get beyond the Courts in Ireland if the Courts in Ireland refuse that right. I agree that is a very serious point. He says there is no appeal from the Courts in Ireland if a writ certiorari or a mandamus is refused by them. That is not the information we have got at the present moment, but I agree it is a very serious matter, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement of the law—and I am challenging it—is correct, then I agree he has pointed out a serious flaw which would have to be put right.
      Mr. MOORE: I think he will find that it is so, if he reads the case of the Gosford Estate and the Boroughs Estate, on certiorari.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is certiorari, not mandamus. I think there is

      2353
      an appeal from mandamus, not from certiorari. I think that it is important that the Irish subjects should have the power in the last resort to get to the Privy Council, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman is accurate in his statement of the law then I think the hon. and learned Gentleman may take it that we will look into it, and if it is the case, then it will be put right upon Report. I come now to the general position, which I shall argue on the assumption that there is a right of appeal to the Privy Council, and that if there is not a right at the present moment there will be a right eventually in this Bill. I now come to the position as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Mr. Balfour). His contention is that the Lord Lieutenant ought to have the same right to go to the Privy Council, practically to override the acts of the Executive as conferred by the Bill in the case of an Act of Parliament or of a Bill. I think that is a very serious proposition. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I am assuming that Irishmen are not worse than other people. I do not say they are any better; they are just like the rest of human nature." But the right hon. Gentleman is really assuming that they must be very much worse because he asks for a power which is not conferred by any Constitution in the British Empire. There is no Constitution in the British Empire where a power of this kind is conferred upon a Lord Lieutenant or a Governor-General to go to the Privy Council to interfere with the act of the Executive direct. In every case the subject of course can go eventually to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the purpose of setting aside the action of the Executive if it is ultra vires; but in the first instance they have to resort to the Courts of their country and that is really the only point here. They go to the Courts in Ireland in the first instance and if the Courts in Ireland support the action of the Executive, there will be an appeal to the Privy Council subject to the point the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Moore) has made.
      If you give a direct right of appeal to the Privy Council, you practically supersede not merely the Executive, but you supersede the Courts and you brush them on one side. It is giving a right to go direct to the Privy Council before going to the Courts in Ireland themselves. That is a proposition never embodied in any Constitution ever sanctioned by this House.
      2354
      The right hon. Gentleman says, "You have conferred powers of that kind upon the Lord Lieutenant in the case of a Bill." That is a very different matter. "When you propose it should be done in the ease of a Bill there you have got a document; it only occurs once in a way and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will decide upon a document in front of them, bur when you come to an act of the Executive it bears upon evidence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can hear evidence—it may be an act of everyday occurrence—and it would be a very serious matter for the Privy Council to deal with and it would be a still more serious matter for the Executive which might be constantly interfered with by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. You might have the Privy Council practically governing Ireland instead of the Executive. That I think would be a very serious matter and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not argue in favour of a proposition of that kind. There has been a good deal of discussion in the course of this afternoon with regard to the difference between legislation and the action of the Executive. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) I think quite correctly summarised, what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) who is here at the present moment.
      Sir E. CARSON: I generally am here.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I know. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sligo said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated in the course of the discussions in this House that he did not fear that any act of the Irish Legislature would be oppressive to Irish Protestants. Then, if that is true, my hon. and learned Friend went on to argue, there ought to be no distinction between legislation and administration. That is purely a matter of inference and argument, but the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend was challenged, and challenged rather truculently, by two or three hon. Members opposite. The hon. Members who interrupted would have completely refuted their own interruption by quoting the actual words used by the right hon. learned Gentleman on that occasion. I am going to quote a few more words because they bear directly on this controversy. These were the words used

      2355
      by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College:—
      "The hon. and learned Member for Waterford in his impassioned way appeals to us and says, 'Do you think that we are going to pass legislation as against Protestants? Do you think we are going to pass legislation that will be persecuting the Protestants?'"
      And the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked:—
      "Has anybody ever said such a thing? I certainly have never said that I give my Irish fellow countrymen credit who would be inclined in any wise, or from any motives, to interfere with their fellow countrymen on account of religion, that it would not be by legislation."
      That is the whole of the statement made by the hon. Member for Sligo. It was the only statement of fact he made, namely, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made that statement in reference to legislation.
      Sir E. CARSON: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, does he think that is a fair summary of my statement, when after that I say there would not be oppression by legislation, but there would be my administration? Is it fair merely to quote that I said there would not be oppressive legislation against Protestants?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been here when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sligo made a statement, he would have known I am perfectly right in the statement I make. The hon. and learned Member for Sligo made that statement of fact, and the hon. Gentleman who interrupted him did not say it was an incomplete statement, but they said it was grossly inaccurate. Later on, in the course of that Debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said this—
      Sir E. CARSON: Are you going to refer to no more of what I said?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes. But it was read before—
      "Nobody supposes that any Government would pass an Act of Parliament to permit of the cruelties of boycotting, but the party can carry on a most dangerous system of tyranny and interference, and are still carrying it on."
      I am going to read another passage. My hon. Friend the Attorney-General later on, in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, said: "Both these right hon. Gentlemen"—that is, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, and the right hon.
      2356
      Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long)—
      "Both these right hon. Gentlemen, who speak no doubt with great authority on Irish affairs, have demonstrated absolutely clearly that there is really no anxiety in their minds that those who profess the Protestant religion will be oppressed by anything done by means of legislation."
      And then the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ronald M'Neill) asked—
      "Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to specify any person who expressed the contrary opinion?
      "Sir Rufus Isaacs: Then I am all the more delighted, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh is not present. I take it he has not said it, and does not think it.
      "An Hon. Member: Nobody has said it.
      "Sir E. Carson: You ought to quote when you make a charge."
      And my right hon. Friend goes on further, and says this—
      "Then we come to the next step, What is it we are discussing? When I hear these disclaimers, which, I may be permitted to say, without offence, do credit to hon. Gentlemen opposite—
      "Sir E. Carson: I disclaim nothing. I cannot disclaim what I never said."
      Sir E. CARSON: Have you anything to quote different from that?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the contrary, I do not want to quote anything different. What I quoted is exactly what I wanted to quote, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sligo drew the inference from it, but he never imputed the inference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On the contrary, he first summarised the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and he then said why should he draw a distinction between legislation and administration. That may be a good or a bad argument, but it did not misrepresent the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I still think the argument is a good one. If the Irish Parliament is so constituted that acts of legislation passed by them will not cause any anxiety even now in the moment of heated controversy to any Protestant or raise the fear that there will be any persecution or oppression, why should Acts of administration be of a totally different character? After all, if they want to persecute the Protestants, they could do it much more effectively, or at any rate just as effectively, by legislation.
      Sir E. CARSON: You do not know Ireland; that is why you say that.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do know something about Ireland, but I do not pretend to know so much about it as the right hon. I and learned Gentleman.
      Sir E. CARSON: If you did, you would be upon our side.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That would depend upon what part of Ireland I was living in. It is very much a matter of residence or domicile, I think. After all, the position is a perfectly clear one. If the Executive power is unlawfully exercised or withheld by any act of Irish administration, there is resort to a tribunal which everyone will admit is an independent one—that is the Privy Council. The only difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) and ourselves is this: He says, "Brush aside the Irish Courts, ignore them, and get to the Privy Council through the Lord Lieutenant." But he may be a partisan. The right hon. Gentleman assumes all the partisanship is in Ireland, but you may have a partisan Lord Lieutenant.
      Captain CRAIG: You have one now.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, but not for the first time. After all, they are party men; they are appointed by the party that happens to be in power. I do not say they are partisan in any offensive sense of the term.
      Captain CRAIG: Very offensive.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not going to follow that, but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) does not assume that an Irish Lord Lieutenant is capable of partisanship. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London argued was that he should be allowed to brush aside the Irish Courts and come straight to the Privy Council. Our proposal is that you should, in the first instance, do as we do in every other Constitution in the Empire—
      Sir GILBERT PARKER: In our Colonies the Court they have recourse to is not a provincial Court like that which will be established in Ireland, but a Supreme or Federal Court, and therefore the cases are not on all fours.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But, after all, it is a Colonial Court. You have to go in the first instance to the Colonial Court before you go to the Privy Council, and that is all we propose here. We propose that you should go to the Irish Court first and afterwards to the Privy Council. You do not want the Privy Council to be constantly at the elbow of the Executive, in-
      2358
      terfering with their action and saying this or that is illegal. That would be a very dangerous interference with the action of the Executive, and we cannot possibly assent to it. The point which has been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman shall be taken into account, and if it turns out to be correct we shall certainly put down an Amendment on Report to meet it.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: One of the curious results of the conditions under which we are discussing this Bill—even with all your desire, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so with respect, to give us some opportunity of discussion—is that all the Rules of Order are disappearing. The whole object of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was to deal with the previous speech made by my right hon. Friend which dealt with legislation, whereas this Amendment deals with the powers of the Executive. I do not complain, for it is a good thing to have a discussion of some kind under the arrangements the Government have laid down. I am bound to say that I was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it worth his while to make such use of the quotation from my right hon. Friend's speech. In the first place, there is nothing in the least new in what my right hon. Friend said. So far as I am concerned, I remember perfectly well that either on the First or Second Reading I pointed out that obviously the danger which the minority in Ireland feared is Executive action, and that unless there is some means of securing that the Executive will act fairly, then it is no good talking about safeguards, because there is no possibility of having them, and you should at once admit that the only safeguard is complete trust in the sense of fair play of the Irish people. Now let me deal with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers a fair use of the quotation from my right hon. Friend's speech. He says that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has made no unfair use of that quotation. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was the hon. Member for Sligo."]
      Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I did not speak at all.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am going to ask all fair-minded men, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, if they think that the use made of that quotation was fair? First of all, this is the use made of it. In an

      2359
      article on this question he used these words—
      "The extraordinary admission has been made by the Irish Unionist Leader that he has no fear of the Irish Parliament passing any law offensive to Protestants as such (see debate in the House of Commons, 29th October)."
      This is what follows:
      "This really destroys the whole Ulster case."
      I was surprised to find the Attorney-General cheer that quotation.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said that the statement as to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a perfectly accurate statement of the facts, and that the argument drawn from it was a totally different thing.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: What I gathered was that the right hon. Gentleman approved of the use which was made of that quotation. This is what it amounts to. I am not going, unless I am asked to do so, to read the quotation, but this may be taken as a fair summary of it:—"I do not believe there is any danger of Protestants being persecuted by legislation." That is the first point, and he went on to say, "But I do believe they will be persecuted by administration." Now, is it a fair use of that quotation to say that we admit they would be persecuted by legislation and that that destroys the whole Ulster case, without for a moment saying it was followed immediately by the admission that there would be persecution by administration. In other words, all that it amounts to is this: My right hon. Friend practically said there is no danger of murder being committed by bow and arrow because they have a revolver, which will make it more effective. As regards this Amendment, I am free to say at once that I do not think it is of much value, and I think it would be very difficult to bring it into effective operation. I do not understand why the Government should pretend that it is useful in regard to this question which we discussed yesterday, and that they should say it is not of use in regard to a matter which may affect the personal liberties and rights of individuals in Ireland. It is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now, if you do this you are setting the Privy Council not only over the Executive, but over the judiciary. You did that yesterday, and, if it is right in the one case, it is right in the other.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I should have said, "Legislature as well as Executive." That is what I meant. You did that yesterday, and I want to point out what the value of it is. Like my right hon. Friend, I have always said, both on the platform and in this House, that it is absurd to suggest that the Irish Parliament will put into an Act of Parliament a proviso that Protestants are not to be allowed this position or that. Nobody but a lunatic would suggest that. I never have thought that there was any great danger, and I do not think so now, of any oppression of Protestants by the Roman Catholic Church as such. I do believe, however, that in Ireland they have faith in their religion which has the strongest influence on the great mass of people in the South and West of Ireland, and so long as religious feelings exist, any unscrupulous politician can use religion to get complete control of the Government of Ireland, and, by means of the political influence he has so created, he can and will discriminate against Protestants as such. That is being done now, and this is where protection would come in. I know this Amendment would not enable you to deal with a matter in which the Executive were oppressive, but it does enable you to deal with an Act of the Executive which is illegal. I know that under the Bill you are not allowed to discriminate on account of religion. If in regard to appointments it was found that they were invariably given to the men of one religion and belonging to one particular party, it is at least an open question whether you could not appeal on the ground that that is illegal and get some protection under this Amendment. In the case mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend behind me, there is no doubt whatever as to what happened in Sligo. This Amendment would be put into operation by the Lord Lieutenant, and he would say that such a case was a public scandal, and he would at once put machinery into operation to bring it before the Privy Council, and it would be put an end to. That is not anything vexatious. But it would not be done according to the Bill unless the Lord Lieutenant thought it was in the public interest. Now I put it to the Attorney-General and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Is that not a case, more than anything we discussed yesterday, where people in Ireland ought to have recourse to some body which is Imperial and which is not completely under the influence of the Irish Government? The whole point about this in

      2361
      regard to this Amendment is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is not done in any other country or Colony. That may be perfectly true, but there is no country or Colony in the world with such a Constitution as this. You profess that Ireland will still be a part of the United Kingdom. One moment you are using the analogy of one of the Dominion States as against the whole Dominion of Canada, and the next moment you are using the whole Dominion of Canada as an analogy against some other State. If you take any of our Dominion Powers, like Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, they have an appeal to the Canadian judges. In the case of the United States the individual States have a right of appeal to a federal judge. In this case we are giving no right of appeal to the central authority. What does it all amount to? You tell us that it is the same thing because you cannot appeal to the Irish judges. The assumption is that the Irish Executive is acting unfairly, and that the Irish Executive is supported by a majority of the Irish Parliament. What is the position of the judges? They can be removed by an Address of the very body which is doing the injustice. I put it to any fair-minded man that if you make a pretence of any kind of giving safeguards, surely here is a case where the appeal ought to be an appeal to some Court over which we have some control and not a Court which is controlled by Ireland.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: If this is a genuine point, there is a way of meeting it. I protest against listening here day after day to charges against our country and against our people. We have sat for three centuries under the most terrible form of oppression ever invented by man. Our race has not been merely decimated, but almost destroyed. We have lived under a system of landlordism which has made your name abhorrent, and which had to be abolished, on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), as the most impossible system of administration in the world. Now, when largely by your own good sense and your own administration you have abolished the unclean thing and done away with all the causes of mischief and horror and hatred in the country, you come here, and, forgetting your own past, forgetting the iron that has entered into our soul, pose as people who have never oppressed any man, and turn round and imagine in us all these horrible forms of iniquity, which, if we cared to turn up the
      2362
      pages of history, we could prove were your own crime. I confess I find it rather hard to listen to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), for whom I have a deep respect and a great liking, talking about oppression when I remember his course under the "twenty years of resolute government," and how he would bring forward a charge of conspiracy against a man on Monday and prove it by something the man did one week afterwards. These cases are in the Books. There is the Kelly case, there is John Sullivan's case, and there is a number of them. You talk about the right of appeal, and there being no appeal in criminal causes. Who deprived us of the right of appeal? We were deprived of that appeal on 17th May, 1887, after a pledge of the most solemn kind. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) came down and at that box solemnly promised us an appeal in every case of removable magistrate, and because two of his own friends, one called Bruen, wrote letters in the "Times" he withdrew from his promise. Now you say you are afraid of us. Perhaps your own conscience ought to make you afraid.
      "Forgiveness to the injured doth belong;
      They ne'er forgive who do the wrong.
      If you believe in these protestations, and if you are sincere, go back to the proposals of Mr. Gladstone in 1893. Certainly, as far as we are concerned, we do not shrink from such a proposition. I cannot speak from more than recollection, because I have not read the Bill for fifteen years, but my recollection is that Mr. Gladstone came forward and met in advance arguments of that kind, and set up what he called, I think, the "two Exchequer Judges," who were to be Imperial judges. Very well, in the name of God, take your Exchequer judges.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Hear, hear.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The protection proposed in the Amendment goes such a short way that I cannot conceive why it is not accepted by the Government. We are told it raises an abnormal and unusual condition of things. Yes, but the whole circumstances are abnormal. The appeal to the Court of the Privy Council has been set up by the Government. After all, it is their creation. I do think, as far as the validity of laws passed by the Irish Parliament go, the Government have made an honest attempt to provide that laws shall be made only within the powers of

      2363
      the Irish Parliament, and that an independent tribunal shall decide whether they are so or not. It is to be found in several Clauses of the Bill. In Clause 29, which we are now considering, the Government provide the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State may go even before an Act is passed, and obtain the opinion of the Privy Council as to whether or not a Bill is within the power of the Irish Parliament. In Clause 30 there is a provision to the same effect. In Clause 21 there is a proviso inserted that if an Irish Act of Parliament contravenes an English Act, then in so far as it contravenes the English Act, it shall be void. I think it is clear an earnest attempt has been made on behalf of the Government to provide an independent tribunal to see the laws of that Irish Parliament do not go beyond their powers. It is not the laws, however, we fear; it is the Executive power that will result from the laws. Nobody who knows the condition of Ireland at the present time can doubt that the real danger you ought to provide against in future is not the making of improper laws but the misuse or misreading of those laws by the Executive which has to carry them into effect, and the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, which have been quoted and re-quoted and commented upon, all point out that it is the administration and the Executive the minority in Ireland have really to fear, and not the improper passing of laws. You have amply guarded against the one, and you have left the other untouched. You provide against that which is not the danger, and you do not take the modest step suggested to provide against the other. If you are going to offer the Privy Council as a sort of expensive guardian angel, it should at any rate be open to all.
      The Attorney-General says you can apply to the ordinary judges of the land, but, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, you have entirely altered and affected the position of independence of Irish judges for all future time. See what the position and power of these distinguished gentlemen are to be in the future. You have provided they can be removed by a purely political majority. You have provided they can be removed by a joint Address of the two Irish Houses presented, not to the King, but to the Lord Lieutenant, who, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ingenuously admits, may well be a partisan. It may be desired to move some judge who in the opinion of that majority
      2364
      has shown himself not willing to do that which the then ruling majority thinks he ought to do. The Address is passed by the majority of the day in the House of Commons. You then approach the other House. A question was asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Mr. Moore), as to whether or not, if the Senate did not agree to the House of Commons, there would be a Joint Sitting. The question remains without, an answer, but to my mind it is immaterial, because, if, as I suppose you would, have this Joint Sitting, it is obvious the unfortunate minority, or the majority if there were one, in the Senate against the presentation of such an Address would be flooded by the majority which came up from the other House. You, therefore, pass the Address at the bidding of the Government of the day, and, having done that, you present it, not to the King, but to the Lord Lieutenant of the day, who, the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite rightly admits, may be a partisan, and who will certainly act under the order of his Executive from the first stage of this procedure to the last.
      What is to be the position of the judge? In the past he has, at any rate, known he could only be removed from his office by an Address of this House and the other House, and that his duty in Ireland was unaffected by any opinions that might be formed on his behaviour in Ireland. He always had the consolation of knowing he could not be removed except for misconduct, determined by the English House of Commons. You are going to leave the Sword of Damocles always hanging over his head if he does not give judgments and decisions which are in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Irish Parliament, by whom he may be removed by what is a political process. You have taken a fatal step to sap the independence of the judiciary in Ireland. It has taken us centuries in this country to build up the independence of the bench. The very greatest advantage that civilisation can achieve is an independent and fearless judical system. The judge, to whom you say all these questions have to go in the future, will have lost the protection he has enjoyed up to the present day, because he can be removed by a political vote in the Irish House of Commons presented to a political partisan instead of coming to this House.
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is the same with the English judges here.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: That is an entirely different question. Can anybody

      2365
      deny that in Ireland questions which the judges, and more particularly the criminal judges, have to deal are mostly questions of politics. Politics is at the bottom of half the crime with which the judges have to deal in Ireland. You have only to look at the Returns presented to this House and you will see that where the Crown is prosecuting in Ireland they are unable to get convictions in case after case, because they come before juries who allow their political sympathies to warp their sense of justice. You cannot shut your eyes to that condition of things in Ireland. If you are providing that there are circumstances under which the subject may go straight to the Privy Council, surely this of all others is the one case in which he ought to be given such a right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says if he desires to raise the question whether or not, for instance, the Executive is rightly or wrongly interpreting an Irish Act of Parliament or an English Act of Parliament applicable to Ireland he may appeal, at his own expense, to the Irish Courts, without any hope of being ultimately recouped his expenses by the Crown, and he may wend his weary and expensive way through the Irish Courts right up to the Privy Council. I think the Attorney-General must have felt the force of that argument when dealing with the question arising under another Section giving power of appeal by the State to the Privy Council as to whether or not any new tax imposed is an Imperial tax and can be discontinued. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it right to give a direct appeal in that case. Why should it not be right to do it also in this case? Why is the subject desirous of raising a question of great importance, whether or not the Executive is acting within or without its powers, why is that subject to be obliged to do that at his own expense, while if he raises the question whether a tax is within the power of the Irish Parliament he can do it by going direct to the ultimate tribunal instead of wending his way through all the Law Courts. I regret that this Amendment does not go further. It only gives the power to the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary of State to take such questions to the Privy Council. It is modest in the extreme, but it is only a just corollary of the promises already made, and I venture to think that if this Government are honest in their desire to give us safe-
      2366
      guards, seeing that they have done so much to destroy the independence of the judiciary, the least they can now do is to leave this question open to those who desire to go direct instead of making them appeal through the expensive and circuitous course already suggested.
      Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The Attorney-General, in the speech he made earlier in the day, based his remarks on a huge fallacy; because he said he anticipated that the Irish Parliament which this Bill will set up will contain an active Opposition. That is a very great fallacy, and this Amendment, and indeed all the Amendments that have been put forward by hon. Friends of mine on this side, have been advanced on behalf of the minority, not only in the North of Ireland, but also on behalf of the Protestants and Unionists who are spread over the rest of Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine for one moment that, in the Home Rule Parliament proposed to be set up, there will be anything in the shape of an active Opposition such as we have, for instance, in this House of Commons? I agree with him. If he thinks for one moment that as soon as the Irish Parliament is set up there are going to be two parties, as in this country, a Conservative party and a Liberal party, that would be all right. But we know whatever parties there may be in an Irish Parliament, as set up under Home Rule, the Unionist and Protestant minority will, whenever any question affecting their interests is at stake, be faced by a united body of Nationalists and Roman Catholics, who will combine together against them, therefore it is a fallacy to suggest that there is going to be anything in the nature of a considerable Opposition which will ever have any effect on the action of the Government of the day in Ireland.
      The right hon. Gentleman said also that this was a great innovation—the greatest innovation he had ever heard of. He said also that this did not exist in any of our Colonial Legislatures. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the case we are discussing now is totally and altogether different from the case of any Bill which heretofore has been discussed for the purpose of giving self-government to any of our Colonies. It has been pointed out over and over again in this House, when it has been proposed to give self-government to any of our Colonies, or any groups of Colonies—when it has been proposed to set up a federal system—

      2367
      negotiations have gone on for years, and in every case when these negotiations came to be embodied in an Act of Parliament, there was entire and absolute agreement amongst all the political parties in the various Colonies. But that is conspicuously absent in this case. There are two parties in Ireland more strongly and bitterly opposed to one another than any two parties in this country, or any two parties in any Colony throughout the world. The hon. and learned Member for North Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) worked himself up into gnashing of teeth on the subject of what he considers to be the wrongs that Roman Catholics and Nationalists have suffered in the past. Supposing these allegations were true—[An HON. MEMBER: "Thanks for the supposition."] I admit that in the past in Ireland things have been done on both sides which everyone regrets. But I will never admit the hon. and learned Member and his Friends have a monopoly of grievances by any manner of means. I am, however, not going into that. It would be a very difficult matter for the hon. Member to prove that he and his party were less blameworthy than any other party has been in the past. I am quite willing to admit that great wrongs have been suffered and done by both political parties in the past. But that goes back 200 years, and it is unbusinesslike and ridiculous in the extreme to constantly hark back on what happened 200 years ago.
      Everybody admits that Great Britain during the past sixty years has been successfully doing all in her power to make up for the deficiencies of administration in Ireland two centuries ago. But we believe, and in this I am sorry to have to disagree with some of my hon. Friends near me, that as a minority we would be persecuted and dealt with unfairly by hon. Members below the Gangway. We believe that whether that persecution or bad treatment takes the form of legislation or administrative action it will be there. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that nothing like this had ever been proposed before, or was contained in any other Constitution within the Empire. I say there never has been an occasion when circumstances were even remotely like those which obtain on the present occasion. We are bound to be a permanent minority in Ireland, having our hereditary enemies—for that is what they are in fact—put into a position in which
      2368
      they can, if Home Rule ever becomes an accomplished fact, grind us down under their heels. That is the firm conviction of every man whom we represent in the North of Ireland, and is it too much to ask from the Government that they should give us-this one small safeguard that is here asked for? During the discussion it has been assumed by various speakers that the concession we are asking for is one to be used by any individual. That is not the case. What is asked for is not that any individual who feels himself aggrieved by reason of the Executive power in Ireland having been unlawfully exercised should have a right of appeal—in view of the fact that an Amendment to that effect was beaten last night, we could not ask that—but we simply ask that a Lord Lieutenant, or the Secretary of State, who believe that any Executive power in Ireland has been unlawfully exercised or withheld, should have the power to go direct to the Privy Council. That, I think, would be for the public interest. Is it too much to ask that these two officers of State should have that right? Is it likely that those two officials, who must be responsible men, are going to use this power, if it is granted, in any vexatious or frivolous way?
      Many of my hon. Friends have endeavoured to show, and indeed have clearly shown, how grievous injustice can be done to the minority in Ireland by administrative action, either by withholding the law or by not allowing it to run its proper course, and they cited a long catalogue of instances. The best example I could give is the action which has been pursued by the present Government in Ireland during the last four or five years. We know, unfortunately, that in spite of the denial of the hon. Member who spoke below the Gangway, outrages, such as cattle driving and crimes of that kind, have been very rife in certain parts of Ireland during the last five years. We claim that the Government, personified by the Chief Secretary, whose absence to-day, although it is his Bill we are discussing, has not yet been explained, has been grossly negligent in the exercise of his duties with reference to the suppression of outrages and cattle drives. We have no doubt in our mind that if he desired he could suppress all forms of outrage. It has been done in the past, and, as everybody knows, when the present Government came into power, Ireland was in a very much more peaceful condition than it has been during the greater part of the time hon. Gentlemen have been in power. Here we have,

      2369
      even under a Union Government, a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the person who is principally responsible for law and good government in Ireland. If that can be done under a Union Government of the United Kingdom and Ireland, is it not certain that it will be done if the Nationalist party form the Government in Ireland? All that they will have to do is to hold their hands. If certain supporters and friends of their own consider that a section of the community has too much land, or farms which are too large, and proceed to drive the cattle or boycott those persons, or get rid of them in some way they think best, the Government, being either afraid of losing the support of their friends, or, perhaps, agreeing with the object of their campaign, do nothing with the power which they hold in their hands for preventing this state of things. I do not desire to deal with the interlude furnished by the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), when he, very unfortunately for himself, I think, produced a portion of the quotation from the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend below me. I can only say, in spite of what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I do not think I ever heard during the course of my Parliamentary career—which is now unfortunately nearly ten years in extent—a more mean use of a quotation, nor have I ever heard a more one-sided or unfair quotation read in this House.
      Sir J. D. REES: It is quite easy for the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) to go back to past history and accuse the British Government of crimes in governing Ireland, which, by the admission of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), has become prosperous. The question now is, What are the safeguards under the Constitution which is to be given that are required for those who are dissatisfied with the prospects before them, and why should not the right of representation and appeal be extended to Executive Acts? I should like to say a word or two from the point of view of an ex-official, which has, so far, not been put to the House. Before doing so, I should like to say how grateful the Committee must be to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having emphasised so clearly what was the real significance of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman below me, of which so improper and base a use has been made, because it was entirely perverted and turned from the meaning which it was intended by my right
      2370
      hon. Friend to convey. I would ask the Government why they should stint the right of appeal, reference and representation under this Clause? If a new Constitution is to be imposed upon a country sharply divided into two parties, it will be desirable that every right of appeal and reference should be extended rather than restricted. The hon. and learned Member for North-east Cork, in his speech last night, said that the judges who were appointed from England were as foreign in Ireland as if they came from Persia or Morocco. I believe that Persia was rather famous for good judges, but that is by the way.
      Under the existing circumstances in Ireland it is a positive advantage that the judges should come from the outside. It makes for impartiality in judgment, and the fact that that will now be taken away, and that the judges will no longer have that characteristic of high impartiality which proceeds from having no connection with either side, makes it all the more necessary that there should be this protection it is proposed to extend by the Amendment in respect to Executive or administrative Acts. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, whoever heard of any oppression in Ireland or of differences between the Protestants and Catholics. I should be as accurate in asking whoever heard of any differences between Hindus and Mahomedans in India, or that they were other than the best of friends. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was entirely erroneous. From what little knowledge I have of Ireland I should say that the absolute division, both political and religious, in Ireland, makes it absolutely necessary that this right of representation should be extended in the manner proposed by the Amendment. What makes that the more clear is that what the Committee has to consider now is the present position; not what happened when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) was Chief Secretary for Ireland, but what is now being said by those who will be in power under the new Government. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in a recent speech, said:—
      "When we come out of the struggle we will remember who were the people's friends and who were the people's enemies, and we will deal our reward to the one and our punishment to the other."
      He being the people's friend, and the people being those who agree with him. The hon. Member for East Mayo apparently has the people of Ireland in his pocket, in the same way that the Chancel-

      2371
      lor of the Exchequer is the people's friend in this country, and has the people of the United Kingdom in his pocket.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think that I have heard the hon. Member make this speech on several preceding evenings. I do not quite see its relevance to this particular Amendment so far.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is it or is it not relevant to this Amendment to point out what is going to be the position of the minority in Ireland, which makes it the more necessary that this right of representation should apply to administrative Acts? If that is so, I submit I am in order in referring to two speeches I intended to quote from—the other one was by the hon. Member for West Belfast—showing that it is the intention of the Executive in Ireland, as soon as the Bill becomes law, to oppress the minority.
      The CHAIRMAN: That may be a point for Second or Third Reading. The hon. Member's point evidently is that Ireland Ought not to be trusted with Executive power. This Amendment only deals with the illegal exercise of Executive power if it is granted.
      Sir J. D. REES: My submission was that these two recent speeches, showing the manner in which that power was going to be exercised, emphasised the need for extending the power of reference under this Clause to administrative Acts. However, I will not pursue it further. Either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General has said that there is no precedent for this proposal of a reference in respect of administrative Acts to the Privy Council. I believe I shall be in order in pointing out this case. I do not say it is an exactly parallel case. It is suggested that Ireland will have, under this Bill, the position of a provincial Legislature. Provincial Legislatures in India are under the supreme Government there, and completely under the control of the central Legislature. There was a case which attracted considerable attention in this House when the Government of India, by an administrative Act, deported certain Bengali gentlemen. Immediately, those
      who objected to that Act—which, I think, was a just and necessary one—were able to move the Secretary of State and Parliament by going to the India Office, and I think it was owing to that that they were able to get that Act cancelled, so that these gentlemen were set at large again. In the case suggested, namely, that the minority in Ireland will be oppressed under this Bill, some power analogous to that possessed by those who objected to the act of the Government of India should be possessed by those who are subject to what has actually been described from the Government Benches as a provincial Government in Ireland. They will stand in need of every such safeguard that can possibly be conceded to them, and the safeguard suggested by this Amendment is one of the most necessary that could possibly be devised. It was suggested that this would not be necessary because there are the Courts in Ireland, which will be sufficiently capable and impartial to deal with the case, but those who want to exercise this right will first have run the gamut of all the Courts in Ireland. If I may return to my analogy for one moment, there are High Courts and Supreme Courts in India, and there is also an appeal to the Privy Council here in England. The Privy Council here frequently reverses, and has reversed many times lately—contemptuously reversed—the action of the Courts in India, and has given justice to the subject. Why does the subject require less protection in Ireland?
      Mr. CROOKS: Hear, hear!
      Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member does not want anybody to have protection. He wants to grind everybody down to powder with his trade unions. I suggest that all the protection which has been needed in the circumstances in India, which I have endeavoured to sketch, will be required under the new Constitution in Ireland, and for that reason I urge the Government to accept the Amendment.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 318.

      Division No. 383.]

      AYES.

      [7.28 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

      Barnston, Harry

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Barrie, H. T.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Bird, Alfred

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Blair, Reginald

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Boyton, James

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Burdett-Coutts, William

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Royds, Edmund

      Butcher, John George

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Cassel, Felix

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Cator, John

      Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Hills, J. W.

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Cave, George

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Stanier, Beville

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Chambers, James

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Hunt, Rowland

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kerry, Earl of

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Klmber, Sir Henry

      Stewart, Gershom

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Dixon, Charles Harvey

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Faber, George D. (Claphom)

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants)

      Lyttelton, Rt Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Touche, George Alexander

      Fell, Arthur

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Macmaster, Donald

      Valentia, Viscount

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Malcolm, Ian

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Fleming, Valentine

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Gardner, Ernest

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Moore, William

      Winterton, Earl

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Mount, William Arthur

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Nicholson, William G (Petersfield)

      Younger, Sir George

      Grant, J. A.

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Gretton, John

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      H. Carlile and Mr. Hume-Williams.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      NOES

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Bentham, G. J.

      Clough, William

      Adamson, William

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Clynes, John R.

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Boland, John Pius

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Arnold, Sydney

      Brace, William

      Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Crean, Eugene

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Crooks, William

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Crumley, Patrick

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Cullinan, John

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Barton, William

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      De Forest, Baron

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Delany, William

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      2374

      2375

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Dillon, John

      Kilbride, Denis

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      King, Joseph

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Doris, William

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Duffy, William J.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Radford, George Heynes

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Rea, Rt Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Edward, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Leach, Charles

      Reddy, Michael

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Redmond, John E (Waterford)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lough, Rt. Hon, Thomas

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Rendall, Athcistan

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Richards, Thomas

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lyell, C. H.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Falconer, James

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      McGhee, Richard

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Ffrench, Peter

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Field, William

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Fitzgibbon, John

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Rowlands, James

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      M'Kean, John

      Rowntree, Arnold

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      M'Laran, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Gilhooly, James

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Gill, A. H.

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Manfield, Harry

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Gias., Bridgeton)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Glanville, Harold James

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Sheehy, David

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Goldstone, Frank

      Martin, J.

      Shortt, Edward

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Meagher, Michael

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Guest, Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Snowden, Philip

      Guiney, Patrick

      Millar, James Duncan

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Molloy, Michael

      Sutherland, John E.

      Hackett, John

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Sutton, John E.

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Money, John J.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Hancock, John George

      Worrell, Philip

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morison, Hector

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Hardie, J. Kerr

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Tennant, Harold John

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Muldoon, John

      Thomas, James Henry

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Munro, R.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Needham, Christopher

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Neilson, Francis

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nolan, Joseph

      Wadsworth, J.

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Hayward, Evan

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Wardle, George J.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Waring, Waiter

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Ogden, Fred

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Hinds, John

      O'Grady, James

      Watt, Henry A.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Webb, H.

      Hodge, John

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Malley, William

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Shee, James John

      Wiles, Thomas

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Hudson, Walter

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

      Jones, Leif Straiten (Rushcliffe)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Joyce, Michael

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Keating, Matthew

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      And, it being after 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 Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting:—
      Government Amendment: Leave out the word "he" ["he may represent the same"], and insert instead thereof the words "or whether any service is an Irish service within the meaning of this Act or not, or if the Joint Exchequer Board, in the exe-
      cution of their duties under this Act, are desirous of obtaining the decision of any question of the interpretation of this Act, or other question of law, which arises in connection with those duties, the Lord Lieutenant, Secretary of State, or Board, as the case may be."—[The Attorney-General.]
      Government Amendment proposed: After the word "thereupon" ["and thereupon the said question"], insert the words "if His Majesty so directs."—[The Attorney-General.]
      Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 320; Noes, 189.

      Division No. 384.]

      AYES.

      [7.40 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Adamson, William

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Dawes, J. A.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

      De Forest, Baron

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

      Delany, William

      Hayward, Evan

      Arnold, Sydney

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Devlin, Joseph

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Dillon, John

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Doris, William

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Duffy, William J.

      Henry, Sir Charles S.

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Barnes, George N.

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Hinds, John

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

      Edwards, A. Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Barton, W.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Hodge, John

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Hogge, James Myles

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Bentham, G. J.

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Black, Arthur W.

      Falconer, J.

      Hudson, Walter

      Boland, John Plus

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Hughes, S. L.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      John, Edward Thomas

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Brace, William

      Field, William

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Brady, P. J.

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Bryce, John Annan

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      France, G. A.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Gilhooly, James

      Joyce, Michael

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

      Gill, A. H.

      Keating, Matthew

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Glanville, R. J.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      King, J.

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Goldstone, Frank

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crlckiade)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Clough, William

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Clynes, John R.

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Leach, Charles

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Guest, Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Guiney Patrick

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hackett, J.

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hall, F. (Vorks, Normanton)

      Lundon, T.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Hancock, John George

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Crean, Eugene

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Lynch, A.

      Crooks, William

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      McGhee, Richard

      Cullinan, John

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      O'Shee, James John

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Snowden, Philip

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      M'Kean, John

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Sutherland, John E.

      Mc. Kenna Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Sutton, John E.

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Manfield, Harry

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Pointer, Joseph

      Thomas, James Henry

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Martin, Joseph

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Meagher, Michael

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Wadsworth, John

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Radford, George Heynes

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Molloy, Michael

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Mooney, J. J.

      Reddy, Michael

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Morrell, Philip

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Wardle, George J.

      Morison, Hector

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Waring, Walter

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Muldoon, John

      Rendall, Atheistan

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Munro, R.

      Richards, Thomas

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Nannetti, Joseph

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Webb, H.

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Neilson, Francis

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Robinson, Sidney

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Rowlands, James

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Winfrey, Richard

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Ogden, Fred

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      O'Grady, James

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Sheeby, David

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      O'Malley, William

      Shortt, Edward

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Cassel, Felix

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Cator, John

      Fleming, Valentine

      Anstruther Gray, Major William

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Ashley, W. W.

      Cave, George

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Baird, J. L.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Goldman, Charles Sidney

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Chambers, James

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Barnston, Harry

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Grant, J. A.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Gretton, John

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Bigland, Alfred

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Hall, D. B. (isle of Wight)

      Bird, A.

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Blair, Reginald

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Dixon, Charles Harvey

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Doughty, Sir George

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Boyton, J.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Bull, Sir William James

      Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Burdett-Coutts, William

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Fell, Arthur

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Butcher, J. G.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      2380

      2381

      Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Moore, William

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Hills, J. W.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

      Hohler, G. 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)

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Thynne, Lord A.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Pole-Carew, Sir R,

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Touche, George Alexander

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Pretyman, E. G.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Royds, Edmund

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Winterton, Earl

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Macmaster, Donald

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Younger, Sir George

      Malcolm, Ian

      Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Stanier and Sir J. Lonsdale.

      Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 186.

      Division No. 385.]

      AYES.

      [7.50 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Field, William

      Adamson, William

      Clough, William

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Clynes, John R.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      France, G. A.

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Gilhooly, James

      Arnold, Sydney

      Cotton, William Francis

      Gill, A. H.

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Ginned, L.

      Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

      Crean, Eugene

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Crooks, William

      Glanville, H. J.

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Cullinan, J.

      Goldstone, Frank

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Barnes, George N.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Barton, W.

      Davies, M, Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E (Dorset, E.)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Dawes, J. A.

      Guiney, P.

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      De Forest, Baron

      Gulland, John W.

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Delany, William

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Bentham, G. J.

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Hackett, John

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hancock, J. G.

      Boland, John Pius

      Dillon, John

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Donelan, Captain A

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Doris, W.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Boyle, D. (Mayo N.)

      Duffy, William J.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Brace, William

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Brady, P. J.

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Hayward, Evan

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Hazleton, Richard

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Falconer, J.

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Mooney, J. J.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Morrell, Philip

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Hinds, John

      Morison, Hector

      Rowlands, James

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Hodge, John

      Muldoon, John

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Hogge, James Myles

      Monro, R.

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Needham, Christopher

      Sheehy, David

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Neilson, Francis

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Shortt, Edward

      Hudson, Walter

      Nolan, Joseph

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Nugent, Sir Walter R.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Nuttall, Harry

      Snowden, P.

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Sutton, John E.

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Jowett, F. W.

      Ogden, Fred

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Grady, James

      Tennant, Harold John

      Keating, M.

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Thomas, James Henry

      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)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      King, J.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Lambert, Rt. Hon, G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      O'Shee, James John

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Wadsworth, John

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Leach, Charles

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Laugh, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Wardle, G. J.

      Lundon, T.

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Waring, Waiter

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Lynch, A. A.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      McGhee, Richard

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Webb, H.

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Price, Sir Robert J. E. (Norfolk, E.)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      M'Calium, Sir John M.

      Primrose, Hon. Neill James

      Whyte, A. F.

      M'Kean, John

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Wiles, Thomas

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Radford, G. H.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Manfield, Harry

      Reddy, M.

      Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Martin, J.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Mason, David (Coventry)

      Richards, Thomas

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Meagher, Michael

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      William Jones and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

      Molloy, M.

      Robinson, Sidney

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Cave, George

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Bigland, Alfred

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Bird, A.

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Blair, Reginald

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Baird, J. L.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

      Boyton, J.

      Chambers, J.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Bull, Sir William James

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Butcher, J. G.

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Barnston, Harry

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Barrie, H. T.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Cassel, Felix

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Cator, John

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Cautley, H. S.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      2384

      2385

      Dixon, C. H.

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Doughty, Sir George

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Royds, Edmund

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Hunt, Rowland

      Rutherford Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Falle, B. G.

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Fell, Arthur

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Knight, Capt. E. A.

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Stanier, Beville

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Fleming, Valentine

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T H'mts, Mile End)

      Starkey, John R.

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Gardner, Ernest

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Stewart, Gershom

      Goldman, C. S.

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)-

      Lyttciton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mackinder, H. J.

      Terrell, George (Wilts., N. W.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Macmaster, Donald

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Gretton, John

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Touche, George Alexander

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Moore, William

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Mount, William Arthur

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Hamersley, A. St. George

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Winterton, Earl of

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Hickman, Col. T. E.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Hills, J. W.

      Protyman, E. G.

      Younger, Sir George

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Hohler, G. Fitzroy

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      J. F. Flannery and Mr. Haddock.

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      CLAUSE 30.—(Appeal in Cases where the Validity of an Irish Law is Questioned.)
      (1) Where any decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland involves the decision of any question as to the validity of any law made by the Irish Parliament, and the decision is not otherwise subject to an appeal to His Majesty the King in Council, an appeal shall lie to His Majesty the King in Council by virtue of this Section, but only by leave of the Court of Appeal or His Majesty.
      (2) Where any decision of a Court in Ireland involves the decision of any question as to the validity of any law made by the Irish Parliament, and the decision is not subject to any appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal in Ireland by virtue of this Section.
      Question put, "That this Clause be added to the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 181.

      Division No. 386.]

      AYES.

      [8.0 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Barton, William

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Adamson, William

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Boland, John Pius

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Bowerman, Charles W.

      Clough, William

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Clynes, J. R.

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Brace, William

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Barnes, George N.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Shee, James John

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Crean, Eugene

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Crooks, William

      Hudson, Walter

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hughes, S. L.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Cullinan, John

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Pointer, Joseph

      De Forest, Baron

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Delany, William

      Jowett, F. W.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Joyce, Michael

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Devlin, Joseph

      Keating, Matthew

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Dillon, John

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Doris, William

      Kilbride, Denis

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Duffy, William J.

      King, Joseph

      Pringle, M. R.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      Radford, George Heynes

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

      Reddy, Michael

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Leach, Charles

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Rendall, Atheistan

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Richards, Thomas

      Falconer, James

      Lundon, Thomas

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Ffrench, Peter

      McGhee, Richard

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Field, William

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Robinson, Sidney

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Rowlands, James

      France, G. A.

      M'Curdy, C. A.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      M'Kean, John

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Gilhooly, James

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Gill, A. H.

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Ginnell, Laurence

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Manfield, Harry

      Sheehy, David

      Glanville, H. J.

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Shortt, Edward

      Goldstone, Frank

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Martin, Joseph

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Grey, Rt. Hon. sir Edward

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Meagher, Michael

      Snowden, Philip

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Guiney, P.

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Gulland, John William

      Millar, James Duncan

      Sutton, John E.

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Molloy, Michael

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Hackett, John

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Mooney, John J.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Morrell, Philip

      Tennant, Harold John

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morison, Hector

      Thomas, James Henry

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Muldoon, John

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Munro, Robert

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Needham, Christopher T

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Neilson, Francis

      Wadsworth, J.

      Haslam, Lewis (Mon.)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nolan, Joseph

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Hayward, Evan

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Wardle, George J.

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Waring, Walter

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Watt, Henry A.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Ogden, Fred

      Webb, H.

      Hinds, John

      O'Grady, James

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

      Hodge, John

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Malley, William

      Whyte, Alexander F.

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Wilkle, Alexander

      2388

      2389

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Ashley, W. W.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gretton, John

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Barnston, Harry

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Royds, Edmund

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W Derby)

      Bird, Alfred

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Blair, Reginald

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Boyton, James

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Bull, Sir William James

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Stanler, Beville

      Burdett-Coutts, William

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Burn, Col. C. R.

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Butcher, J. G.

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

      Starkey, John R.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Hills, John Walter

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Cassel, Felix

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cator, John

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cave, George

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Chambers, J.

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Dixon, C. H.

      Lyttelton, J. C. (Droitwich)

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

      Doughty, Sir George

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Winterton, Earl

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Mackinder, H. J.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Fell, Arthur

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Younger, Sir George

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Moore, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Mount, William Arthur

      of Kerry and Captain O'Neill.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      CLAUSE 31.—(Office of Lord Lieutenant.)
      (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, every subject of His Majesty shall be qualified to hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, without reference to his religious belief.
      (2) The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without pre-
      2390
      judice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment.
      (3) The salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but there shall be deducted from the Transferred Sum in each year, towards the payment of the Lord Lieutenant's salary, a sum of five thousand pounds.
      Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I beg to propose in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "every," and to insert instead thereof the word "no."
      I hardly imagine that the Government will refuse to accept this Amendment when they understand what it purports to do. The Clause as it stands appears to me to be far too wide in its terms, and to do a great deal more than the Government intended to do. As the Committee know—
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): We will accept the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made:
      To leave out the word "qualified," and insert instead thereof the word "disqualified."
      To leave out the words "without reference to," and insert instead thereof the words "on account of."
      Mr. SANDERSON: I beg to propose to insert the following new Sub-section:
      "The Lord Lieutenant shall in relation to public or private matters of political controversy conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's overseas possessions."
      This Amendment is intended to take the place of an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst). The first Sub-section of the Clause reads in this way:—
      "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, every subject of His Majesty shall be qualified to hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland without reference to his religious belief."
      The object of this Amendment is to specify exactly, if possible, the status and position which the Lord Lieutenant is to hold under this Bill. I take it that Members of the Committee will agree that it raises a very important question, and there seem to be two alternatives: Is the Lord Lieutenant to hold the position which he occupies at the present moment—of course, I do not wish to make any observation upon the present occupant of the office in any shape or form; when I mention the Lord Lieutenant I mean simply his office—or is he in future to hold a position analogous to that of a Governor of one of our Colonies or Dominions? At the present moment, as
      2392
      everybody knows, he is chosen to occupy the position because of services he has rendered to the political party which may happen to be in power at the moment, and he is without doubt a party man. This question seems to me to be all the more important by reason of one or two observations which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech he delivered this afternoon, when he said, "It is quite possible we may have a Lord Lieutenant who may be a partisan." I hope that the Committee will take the view that the Lord Lieutenant under this Bill ought not to be a partisan but should occupy a position analogous to that of the Governor of one of our Colonies or Oversea Dominions.
      To make clear the object of this Amendment, I would like to define what is the position of a Governor of one of our Colonies or Oversea Dominions. The position of a constitutional Governor towards those over whom he is set as a representative of the Sovereign, and especially in relation to his Ministers, is one of strict neutrality. He must manifest no bias towards any political party, but, on the contrary, be ready to make himself a mediator and a moderator between the influential of all parties. He must be uniformly actuated solely by a desire to promote the general welfare of the province or dependency of the Empire committed to his charge. I beg to submit that that is a correct definition of the position a Governor ought to occupy. I might remind the Committee of the well-known letter written by Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton as Secretary of State to the Colonies in the year 1859, when he had to consider the appointment of the first Governor of the Colony of Queensland. The very first injunction in that well-known letter was one dealing with this matter, and the words used were these:—
      "Remember that the first care of a Governor is to shun the reproach of being a party man. Give all parties and all the Ministries formed the fairest play."
      When you examine the provisions of this Bill, it is obvious that this is the position which the Lord Lieutenant under this Bill ought to occupy. If you will look at the Bill you will find what his powers, duties, and position are. First of all, look at Clause 2 of the Bill. You will find that he is independent of the Irish Parliament; you will find that the Irish Parliament cannot legislate with respect to the Lord Lieutenant except as regards the exercise of his Executive power in relation to Irish services. That is the position. I will not

      2393
      go through the powers of the Lord Lieutenant in detail, but I will choose several by way of illustration. If you look at Clause 4 of the Bill you will find that the Executive power is vested in His Majesty the King, but by Sub-section (2), as respects Irish services, the Lord Lieutenant, on behalf of His Majesty shall exercise any prerogative or other Executive power, the exercise of which may be delegated to him by the King. I suppose in practice the prerogative and Executive power, or part of it, would in fact be delegated to him by His Majesty the King, and therefore he would have very large powers indeed. If you look at Sub-section (3) you find that the powers so delegated shall be exercised through Irish Departments, and then I think the Lord Lieutenant has to appoint officers to administer those Departments, and those officers hold office during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant; that means to say, that the Lord Lieutenant—I think I am right in my construction—is not in any sense of the word to be a Minister, but he is to make the appointments of Ministers.
      Look at Clause 6, and you will find there that the lord Lieutenant has power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the Irish Parliament. Again, Clause 7 provides that the Lord Lieutenant is to give or withheld his assent to Bills, subject to certain limitations which are there set out. The most important and far-reaching power which we find in the whole of this Bill is under Clause 8. You have, first of all, the Senate, and then the Irish House of Commons, and the Lord Lieutenant actitally nominates the Senate. Then, in Clause 11, you find that wherever there is disagreement between the Irish House of Commons and the Senate, and the Senate refuses to pass the Bills which are sent up to it by the Irish House of Commons, the Lord Lieutenant has power to call them together, and to convene a joint meeting of both Houses on occasions when he thinks it right to do so. By Clause 21 the Lord Lieutenant has to appoint the Irish Comptroller and the Auditor-General, who is to audit the accounts of the Exchequer and also to keep an eye upon the Irish Consolidated Fund—a very important position, of course, to which the Lord Lieutenant has to appoint. Then, again, under Clause 27 the Lord Lieutenant appoints all the judges, not only of the County Court, but also the judges of the Supreme Court, or any other superior Court which may be set up.
      2394
      Hon. Members will remember that yesterday we discussed a most important Clause, namely, Clause 29. The Lord Lieutenant under that Clause is one of two individuals, the Lord Lieutenant being one and a Secretary of State being the other, who have power—on occasion when an Act may be passed which is beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament, or may be supposed to be beyond the powers of the Irish Parliament—if they think it right, to refer the matter to the Privy Council—a very important and far-reaching power. I do not wish to go through any more of these provisions. The point I wish to make is that all these matters are obviously matters which require the administration of a person who is of the most strict impartiality and neutrality—"neutrality," I think, is the proper word to use in such a matter as this. I think I have said enough to justify this proposition that the duties, powers, and position of the Lord Lieutenant as set out in this Bill are such as to be entirely incompatible with his being directly or indirectly connected with the Government of the day. At the present moment he is directly connected with the Government, and I submit it is eminently desirable with these additional far-reaching and important powers which are to be given to him that he should not occupy that position. And I think further, I have said enough to justify the second proposition in that his position under this Bill is really one which is analogous to that of Governor in our Oversea Dominions. I do not know that it has ever been stated during the discussion of this Bill by the Prime Minister or anybody that that is to be the position in the future, and one of the objects of this Amendment is to obtain from the Government a clear declaration of what the position of the Lord Lieutenant is to be in the future.
      It may be said, and I quite anticipate that the Prime Minister, if he thinks right to intervene, may say, that there is no necessity to put this in black and white. With the greatest possible respect I do not agree with that, and I will give the reason why. It may be said there is no precedent for it, and that when you set up a Constitution for a Colony or dependency you arrange that there shall be a Governor, and you do not put in any such limitation as is now proposed in this Subsection. It seems to me that the two cases are not at all identical. When you set up a Constitution in a new Colony you, so to speak, start with a clean slate. You have

      2395
      no traditions attaching to the office of Governor, and you have no complications whatsoever. Here, in this case, you have all the traditions attaching to this office which has been in existence for so many years, and one of the most important traditions is that the holder has always been a party man. He has always been appointed from those who owe allegiance to the party which happens to be in power for the moment. In Ireland, it is quite true, you are going to change the form of Government, and you are going to set up a new Constitution, but you are going to retain the office of Lord Lieutenant. If that is so, and if you are going to retain the office of Lord Lieutenant, then I submit it is most desirable to say in black and white what the position is to be in regard to the future. There cannot surely be any objection to that. Therefore I cannot see why this should not be accepted. Though I hope we shall get at least such a statement as will be satisfactory as to the future. I would much prefer that the Amendment should be accepted, so that there should not be any doubt, and that it should be made perfectly plain that, although the name of the office is to be retained the holder is no longer to be the attribute of any party, but to be an absolutely impartial and neutral person appointed to administer this high and honourable office.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that I differ from anything the hon. Gentleman has said in the way of argument in his most interesting speech. He has, I think, exactly described in correct language what is the position, and what is intended to be the position, of the Lord Lieutenant under the new system. He is, to all intents and purposes, to occupy the same position, and holds his office on the same tenure, and to perform practically the same functions as the Governor of one of our Oversea Dominions. Indeed, you could hardly have a more analogous case to the position of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland than that of the Governor of the latest of our Federated Dominions—I mean the Union of South Africa—for there the Governor has a ministry of his own in regard to all matters of domestic concerns which are within the legislative competence of the South African Parliament. On the other hand, he has duties analogous to the reserve services here, duties which are
      2396
      temporarily or permanently reserved with regard to the Protectorates and other parts of South Africa, which are outside the Executive Legislative authority for the time being, at any rate, of the Union Parliament. In regard to those he acts, of course, not on the advice of the South African Ministry, but on the instructions which he receives from time to time from the Imperial Government; and, lastly, in regard to giving or withholding assent to Acts of the Union Parliament, he is always subject to be instructed by the Colonial Secretary. Therefore, in all respects, the position of the Lord Lieutenant as contemplated by this Bill is analogous, if not in substance identical, with that of one of our Colonial Governors. That, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, means a great transformation in the character of the office.
      The position of Lord Lieutenant, I think, almost from time immemorial, and certainly since the Act of Union, has always been held by a partisan of the Government of the day. Sometimes, and it has happened in the memory of many who sit here, the Lord Lieutenant has even been a Member of the Imperial Cabinet. Lord Spencer was, I think, and so was Lord Cadogan. It has been so certainly upon more than one occasion, and to all intents and purposes he has been a Member of the Ministry. He has taken office when the Ministry took office. He has been subject to any eclipses, political eclipses of the party fortune which the Ministry undergo. I quite agree we are now altering his position. We are divesting it of that character. We are giving him a fixed term of years. His tenure of office will no longer be coincident, or necessarily coincident, with the office of any particular Government. He will not go out of office when the Government goes out of office, and whatever may be the political complexion of the Imperial Ministry, he will be expected, of course, to conform with his instructions within the Constitutional limits which the Act prescribes. Therefore, I really, as the Committee will see, have nothing to say in the way of argument against the hon. and learned Gentleman's description. I accept it to the full, and I think it is a very true description. There are two questions, the first is, Is it necessary to make any provision, any express provision, in the Bill at all, because, if it is desirable, the form of words which he has suggested are not the most appropriate for the purpose?
      Mr. SANDERSON: With regard to the form of words, those had to be drafted somewhat hastily by reason of the fact that the Amendment on the Paper was in the negative and did not meet with the approval of the Chairman, but I do not bind myself to these words.
      The PRIME MINISTER: That I quite understand, if the hon. Gentleman would bear that in mind with reference to the suggestion I am going to make. I confess at first sight my inclination and judgment was to insert nothing at all, because I think it is quite clear, by implication at any rate, from the language of the Section, there is defined that transformation which I have endeavoured to describe in the character and functions of the office of Lord Lieutenant, and therefore that it is not necessary to expressly define them. I am bound to say I was much impressed with the argument made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech. It is quite true there is no provision at all analogous to what he suggests in any of the Acts by which we created our Dominion Parliaments. Put it is true to say that the analogy there is not complete, because there we were not transforming the character of a pre-existent office, but were creating an office which had not been in existence before. Therefore I quite admit that that constitutes a distinction between the two cases. Although, as I say, I do not myself think that it is altogether necessary, yet, if there is really a strong wish on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite that some declaration of the kind should be made, I have no objection to putting one in the Bill. I do not, however, much like the form of words which the hon. Gentleman has adopted, and which he has told us was hastily drafted. I would rather leave the exact form of words to be put in at a later stage; but what I have written down, and will read out for consideration, is something like this, "The Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office, conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions"
      That would make it perfectly clear that that is the kind of position he is to occupy in future. I do not like the words "public or private matters of political controversy," which, I think, are not very happily chosen, nor am I wedded to my own form of words. I merely throw it out for the consideration of the Committee, so that at a later stage we may be able to devise
      2398
      some form meeting with general assent. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General reminds me that we must be very careful about the form of words. There is considerable danger lurking in the words "Governors of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions," because they might be construed to mean that we were setting up in Ireland a system of self-government similar in all respects, or in all substantial respects, to that which prevails in the Oversea Dominions. Therefore I do not want to be wedded to this form of words; but I undertake—and I hope this will meet the general view of hon. Gentlemen opposite—to endeavour to find and to insert at a later stage a form of words which will carry out the hon. and learned Gentleman's object, and make it perfectly clear that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is not to be as it has been in the past, that of a partisan of the Government of the day, but that of an impartial person discharging his duties in accordance with those traditions which are now well established in self-governing portions of the Empire.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We are indebted to the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend for the first clear declaration of His Majesty's Government of what in their minds is to be the position which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will occupy under this Bill. As the Prime Minister has explained, he accepts the view laid down by my hon. and learned Friend, and leaves it only as a matter for further consideration to settle the form of words best suited to carry out the intention common to the Mover of the Amendment and to the Prime Minister. Before we part with the subject, I hope the Government will give us a little more information on the matter. The Prime Minister, in the concluding passages of his speech, recognised that, whatever analogy there might be between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Governor of one of the Oversea Possessions of His Majesty, there were yet considerable differences under this Bill.
      The PRIME MINISTER: In the Constitutions.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What exactly would be the position of Ireland or of the Lord Lieutenant if this Bill became law is a matter about which we have argued a great deal without being able entirely to clear up the subject. I think

      2399
      it will not be disputed in any quarter of the House that the position of Ireland will be neither that of one of the provinces of Canada towards the central Government, nor exactly that of the Dominion of Canada towards the Imperial Government. Therefore the position is a peculiar one. It is not merely that the relationship of Ireland to this country is different from any relationship now existing in the Empire; but it necessarily follows from that that the duties and functions of the Lord Lieutenant are different from those of any officer now existing in the Empire. But owing to the proximity of Ireland to this country, owing to the fact that we cannot dissociate ourselves from the future of Ireland to the same extent that we separate ourselves from the future of widely distant Oversea Dominions, we retain or propose to retain over Ireland a practical control which we do not profess to exercise over any of the great Dominions. That practical control is largely to be exercised through the Lord Lieutenant, and though in theory it is possible 'to say that the Home Government may give instructions to the Governor-General of Canada or the Governor-General of Australia just as they may give instructions to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in practice the position is not the same. The occasions on which instructions will be called for are or may be much more frequent. It is not the plan of the Government as explained by themselves to give to the Irish Parliament and the Irish Executive or to the Lord Lieutenant as the mouthpiece of the Irish Executive the same liberty as is now given to the Governor-General of Canada or of any other great Dominion. Under these circumstances the Lord Lieutenant will be not merely, so to speak, the Constitutional Sovereign of Ireland or the representative of the King in Ireland, but he will be an Executive officer of the Imperial Government. He is to be removed from party, he is not to be as he has hitherto been, a Member of the Government and in some cases a Member of the Cabinet of the day; but he is to be in some respects the constitutional head of the Executive acting on Irish advice, and in some respects an official of the Imperial Government acting on Imperial orders. Could the Government make it a little clearer at this stage how the British House of Commons is to exercise its control? I do not know whether other Members have the
      2400
      same experience as myself, but I seldom pass any long period in the House without finding that, in spite of the fact that I have been here now for more than twenty years, I am terribly ignorant of our rules of order. I was surprised the other day by the announcement of the Chairman of what is apparently a well established rule, that we must not criticise the Lord Lieutenant except on a substantive Motion. But that appears to be perfectly clear.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I did not know it.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to hear that the Prime Minister was in the same state of ignorance as myself, and he has been here even longer than I have. It is laid down in Erskine May that unless the discussion is based on a substantive Motion drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be passed in Debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the Throne, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either House of Parliament, or judges. I need not read in detail the description of the judges. It applies not only to judges of the Superior Court, but any who holds the position of judge; judges of the Court of Bankruptcy or of the County Court. There are, it will appear, surprises in Erskine May for even old Parliamentary hands. The right hon. Gentleman will see that there is there accorded to the Viceroy of Ireland an exemption from criticism in Debate which is not accorded to any Colonial Governor. I imagine that has worked, and can only have worked up to the present time, because just as we do not attack the Crown but the Ministers who advise the Crown, we have had a Chief Secretary who has been the scapegoat for anything the Lord Lieutenant may have done. We shall not have a Chief Secretary if the Bill goes through. I rather gather that, though I do not think the Prime Minister has ever been very definite upon the point. Perhaps I should not say I gather it from the Prime Minister's words; but I gather from reading the Bill that the Chief Secretary disappears, if not immediately after a transitional period—for it is scarcely consistent with the scheme of the Bill that the Chief Secretary should be continued in office. Under these circumstances, I want to know whether the Amendment which the Prime Minister foreshadows in lieu of that moved

      2401
      by my hon. Friend will alter the position of the Lord Lieutenant in such a way that we will be able to criticise him in this House, at least when he is acting, or failing to act, as the Executive officer of this House—that is to say, of the Government for the time being? Are we to make him the subject of criticism? If the Prime Minister or some Member of the Government would give us a little more information on that subject I should be obliged.
      There is another matter which I wish to raise. I am not quite certain that the words of my right hon. Friend cover this point, and I do not think that the words foreshadowed by the Prime Minister will cover it. It would be a scandal if any departure took place from the rule that any representative of His Majesty in the Overseas Dominions should take no party share, not merely in politics in the Dominions where lie represents the Crown, but in party politics at home during the period he holds his office. It is almost impossible for our present Colonial Governors to take a part in home politics, seeing they are so far from the Motherland at the time they represent the Crown. But it will be within the recollection of the Committee that complaint has been made that the Viceroy, who we may not criticise in the House, may yet intervene in our party struggles in England, may write letters, for instance, at the time of an election expressing an opinion one way or the other. Quite clearly, he should not be allowed to do that, when once his attention, or our attention, is called to the rule which prevents us from criticising him like an ordinary Member of the Government. Still more strongly will everyone feel that if he is to occupy the new position foreshadowed by the Prime Minister he must not during the time he is holding that take any part in the politics of Great Britain as distinguished from the politics of Ireland. He must hold himself wholly aloof from our party struggles. I invite the Prime Minister—I do not think there will be any difference between us, as to our position in this matter—to suggest a form of words that will make it clear that the officer shall not take part in the political life of the country, except that of his own official life, either as chief executive official in Ireland or as the mouthpiece of the Executive in England. If the Prime Minister gives me the information I have asked, and can, in connection with the Viceroy, follow up the suggestion he has made and the views he has expressed, it
      2402
      may meet the case which has been raised by my hon. Friend.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Constitution which is being set up for Ireland is not on all fours in all respects—and in some very important respects—with any of the Constitutions which we have set up in our self-governing Dominions. I have repeatedly admitted that. I will not go into the matter at present as to whether that is right or wrong, but there is the fact. We have local and special circumstances justifying a partial departure from precedent. So far as this particular matter is concerned, namely, the position of the Lord Lieutenant, it does not appear to me that his duties and responsibilities ought to differ from those of a Governor in one of our Dominions. He is an officer of the Crown, appointed for the fixed term, just like the Governor-General of Canada, or of Australia. He is there to act in Irish matters on the advice of the Irish Executive—to whatever party it may belong—and in matters which are not Irish, or which are reserved, upon instructions of the Imperial Government, to whatever party it belongs. I am perfectly clear that a person in that position ought not to interfere in the political affairs either of Ireland or of the United Kingdom itself. I think we shall all agree on that. So far, the right hon. Gentleman and we, I think, are entirely at one. How far it is necessary by specific language in an Act of Parliament to say so is a totally different matter, and I should like to reserve that question for further consideration.
      On the point really raised by the hon., and learned Gentleman's Amendment, and developed by the right hon. Gentleman, there is no difference of opinion between us. The right hon. Gentleman raised another point which is as novel a discovery to him as it is to me, that we are not entitled in this House to reflect at all on the Lord Lieutenant in Debate, and it also appears from the same authority that we are not entitled to reflect upon one another. I do not think there is anyone, even the youngest Parliamentary hand here, but must be aware that that rule is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. But there is the authority, the venerable-authority, to which we all appeal. Whatever reasons may have existed for framing this rule, whoever it was framed by, and by whatever authority it was sanctioned,

      2403
      in regard to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland must, I think, come to an end on the passing of this Act. The rule, in the extensive term quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, does not apparently apply to any of the Governors of any of our self-governing Dominions.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Except India!
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see why the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should have greater immunity from Parliamentary Debate than has the Governor-General of Canada or the Governor-General of South Africa. In regard to representation here of the Lord Lieutenant, I think I have more than once dealt with that point. The Chief Secretary quoted an answer of mine on the 4th November. I was asked by an hon. Member opposite whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, it was intended to retain the office of Chief Secretary? I replied that though it would be essential to have a Minister in this House who would answer for the Crown, the probability was that he would be known by some other name. I think I may say perfectly clearly we shall have a Minister here to answer in this House for a good many things, and to answer for the acts of a Lord Lieutenant determined upon the advice and responsibility of the Government here. Clearly we must have a Minister for that purpose, whether he is called Chief Secretary or some other name—I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite suggested that the functions might be transferred to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—but by whatever name he is called there must be a Minister of the Imperial Government capable of being answerable for what the Lord Lieutenant does in Ireland. Therefore I think the temptation, if I may use the expression to the Lord Lieutenant in these altered circumstances, to interfere as a partisan either in Irish or British politics is a temptation which ought not to exist, and which certainly, we are all agreed, he ought not to yield to, and I think that sufficient, having regard to the dignity of the office. We will insert words in this Clause to make it clear that in this respect he has to conform to what is now the well established practice, never violated in many years past, by those entrusted by the Crown with the performance of analogous duties in other portions of the British Empire.
      9.0 P.M.
      Sir GILBERT PARKER: The Prime Minister has very lucidly, if he will allow me to say so, put the case, as the Government understands it, of the position of the Governor of Ireland. I think the Prime Minister, in his last words, would justify anything that I am going to say, because he acknowledged the very great difficulties that must exist in the Governorship of Ireland, where the Governor has not only the same functions as the Governor of a province has, but also as the Governor of a federation has, because he is both. He must carry out, what is carried out nowhere else, in spite of the Prime Minister's illustration of South Africa, certain administrative functions in regard to the reserve services. That is to say, there is still reserved certain services, and it might be that in case of difficulty in Ireland the Governor-General would have to do what practically no Governor-General does or can do in any other Constitution in any of our Oversea Dominions. When the Prime Minister used the illustration of South Africa and spoke of the position of the Governor-General of South Africa in regard to the protectorates, he will agree with me that Governor-Generals in these cases are Governors with separate, distinct functions from that of the Governor-Generals of these provinces, and that is because the Protectorates themselves are separate and the responsibility is not the same. Here the responsibility of the Governor, as representing the Crown and His Majesty's Government, runs contemporaneously and in the same category as responsibility to the Irish Executive Government's administration runs. And it follows, to my mind, that great difficulties will present themselves to the Governor, whoever he may be, and it is absolutely necessary, as I think, and as I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, that the functions and the duties of the Governor-General of Ireland ought to be defined explicitly in the Bill, because it is not only the Governor whose interest will be affected, but there surely may be a great misconception on the part of the general public both in Ireland and in England because of the dual functions he will perform. And I am bound to say that in my mind and in the minds of a great many who read this Bill there was a fear that that definition would not be clearly made and that there would be criticism. The Prime Minister says it is permitted to criticise Governor-Generals in the Oversea Dominions. I am sure the

      2405
      Prime Minister will agree that I have given some little attention to that particular portion of the history of our Oversea Dominions, and I say that criticism of the Governor or of the Governor-Generals is greatly deprecated in every portion of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions, because the Governor represents the person of His Majesty and not the Government. Let me give an illustration which is very striking. The Lieutenants-Governor of the Dominion of Canada are appointed by the Dominion Government, and every single one of them has at one time or other been a partisan or a politician, but the instant hi becomes a Lieutenant-Governor of one of those provinces his partisanship ceases and he becomes an impartial moderator, and even in the case of a subordinate Governor, who has been appointed from among his own people, as it were, there is the same consideration for his high position. Now I think that the temptation in the United Kingdom, in the curious and complex Constitution that is being given to Ireland, will be to keep in mind the position of the Lord Lieutenant as it is, and it will be very difficult for the public generally to detach themselves from that view of a partisan representative of the Government, and it will be all the more difficult because the Governor of Ireland, unlike all other Governors, will have to represent the Government of the day here in the reserve services such as exist nowhere else, in spite of the parallel of South Africa.
      And it will be very difficult for him to detach himself from political responsibility. I am sure every person in the United Kingdom wants the Governor in Ireland not to assume his position as a partisan, and to avoid making any criticism or making his part more difficult, unless he shows a tendency to be a partisan. That is why I sincerely hope the Prime Minister will be extremely careful in defining it, and that he will not be too brief. I do not want him to be too verbose, but I think the words "conform to the usual practice" are not the best; and I think there should also be, in addition to "conform to the usual practice," the words "and interpret his functions." I do not say these are good words, but it shows what I mean, "according to the traditions of the office of Governor or Governor-General," because this representative of His Majesty is going to be like a Governor-General in a federation which is not a federation, and he is going to be a provincial Governor in a province which is not a province.
      2406
      He is a provincial Governor—in fact, a Governor-General—and he is also a super-Governor performing new offices which no other Governor-General has ever performed. In regard to this point, upon which there can be no partisan spirit, I wish to urge the Prime Minister not to be too concise, but as far as possible to represent not only the practice but the interpretation of functions and the preservation of all the traditions of the office of Governor when he comes to make his Amendment on Report.
      Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: It appears that we have now for the first time had a very clear statement from the Government of what the position of the Lord Lieutenant is intended to be. It is only in answer to the Amendment of my hon. Friend that we have had the definite statement that the Lord Lieutenant is to be a non-party officer.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): That is not so, because I made that statement more than a week ago.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I rather think I also stated it when introducing the Bill.
      Mr. R. M'NEILL: At any rate, I think something in the contrary direction was said this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we now have it definitely stated that it is the intention of the Government that the Lord Lieutenant should be a non-party officer, and that his tenure of office should not depend upon any particular Ministry. I am not so certain that this Bill will give effect to that intention as it stands. We are governed very much more in this country by precedent than by anything else, and it requires a strong specific statement in the Statute to overcome the habit to which we have been accustomed for a long time. Sub-section (2) of this Clause says:—
      "The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment."
      If that is all that we are to depend upon for completely transforming the existing system into a new one, is it not more than possible that from time to time a Government finding the Lord Lieutenant of a different political complexion to their own would take advantage of this power given to His Majesty to revoke the appointment at any time, and upon a change of Government we shall have a change in the

      2407
      Viceroyalty of Ireland, and we should very rapidly slip back into the old practice. After the passage of this Bill that is more likely to happen, because Irish affairs will be much more bitterly controverted than in the past, both in Ireland and in this House. That is bound to happen under the powers which the Lord Lieutenant will have to exercise. You have only got to look at the functions he has to perform to make it quite clear that there will be endless possibilities, if not of friction, of difficulty and of misunderstanding between the Government of the day in this country and the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland, and we shall have a repetition of a much worse form of misunderstanding such as those which occurred during the unhappy Viceroyalty of Lord FitzWilliam. We should have the same under the new Irish Constitution, and in the case of a Lord Lieutenant whom they wish to get rid of and with whom they were out of sympathy because he declined to give effect to their policy, there would be an inevitable tendency to exercise this power. If it is the intention of the Government to create practically a new sort of office, and a real Viceroy, who shall be independent of the Government of the day, I think the Government ought to put into their Bill some very much stronger provisions in that direction than the mere statement that the Lord Lieutenant is to have office for six years without prejudice to the power of His Majesty to revoke the appointment at any time. I do not think in that sense that this Bill will give effect to the Prime Minister's intention.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Committee will have heard with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the duties of the Lord Lieutenant, but I am bound to point out that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is in complete contradiction to what was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Debate, because he stated most explicity that as the Lord Lieutenant had been a partisan in the past it could only be expected that he would be a partisan in the future. The point I wish to urge quite briefly on the Prime Minister is, that you do need to define more closely than he has indicated what is to be the position of the Lord Lieutenant, because there is no analogy to be drawn from the Colonies whatever. No Colony sends a
      2408
      delegation to this House to represent the country, but in this Bill you have forty-two Members from Ireland who will carry on Irish controversies across the floor of this House, and many of them will probably be members of the Irish House itself, and therefore the controversies which excite that body will be carried on both by the majority and the minority representatives from Ireland in this House. Who has to answer for them? The Prime Minister says someone would have to answer, and that is obvious. I want to know who will answer, and what will his status be? We know that various bodies are represented by subordinate Ministers, and sometimes not by Ministers at all. I think the status of the officer who will have to answer for the Lord Lieutenant ought to be more clearly defined. It is contemplated that there should be interference by this Government with the Lord Lieutenant, but is that to be done primarily by one Minister efinitely responsible? Clause 7 says:—
      "The Lord Lieutenant shall give or withhold the Assent of His Majesty to Bills passed by the two Houses of the Irish Parliament, subject to the following limitations; namely—

      (1) He shall comply with any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of any such Bill; and

      (2) He shall, if so directed by His Majesty, postpone giving the Assent of His Majesty to any such Bill presented to him for Assent for such period as His Majesty may direct."

      Those are very large powers and there ought to be one Minister of first-class rank to answer for them in this House. Who is it going to be? Is he to be a Secretary of State with a salary? Clause 29 says:—
      "(1) If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State."
      That appears as though there is something in the mind of the Government indicating that there should be a Secretary of State—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now going beyond the limits of this Amendment.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think it is now acknowledged that the Lord Lieutenant has ceased to be a party officer, and, if so, I wish to know what is his status and his relations to this Parliament. In asking for this information I do not

      2409
      think I have gone further than my right hon. Friend or the Prime Minister. I wish to ask some questions in reference to the position of the Lord Lieutenant, and I want to know what wide powers are expected to be exercised by him, and in what fashion they are to be exercised. Is the Lord Lieutenant to comply with any instructions which the Minister may give him? Is he to have the same responsibility for the Lord Lieutenant as the Secretary of State for India has for the Indian Government. If we are to contemplate the Lord Lieutenant's action being brought up in this House, probably by hon. Members from Ireland, and some Minister answering for him, that Minister ought to have the fullest powers and responsibilities, and I do ask the Prime Minister to say what should be his status, what should be his powers, and what should be his salary.
      Captain O'NEILL: I was very interested to hear the views the Prime Minister holds on this subject. It so happens, when I last rose to speak during the Committee stage of this Bill, I myself made some of these suggestions, hoping the Lord Lieutenant, if the Bill was to be forced upon his, and we must have a Lord Lieutenant, would be a man of strength of character and of tried ability, and above all a man who was not closely associated with either political party. Two points occur to me which I think have not yet been raised in this short discussion. The Government will probably agree it is quite likely, as has been the invariable case hitherto, the gentleman who will be appointed Lord Lieutenant under the Bill may at any rate be a Peer of the Reahm, and under our present Constitution, or what we have left of it, Peers can sit and vote in the House of Lords. I should like to know what view the Government hold on this point. I should be strongly inclined to suggest it should not be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant in future to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I maybe quite inaccurate in suggesting such a thing is possible, but is it possible the Lord Lieutenant appointed under this Bill might be a Member of this House? If such a thing is possible, I feel sure the Government will agree with me such a state of things would be most undesirable, and, indeed, create an impossible situation. Nobody thinks such a thing is likely for one moment, but at the same time curious situations do some times arise, and I would suggest to the Government it might
      2410
      now be made clear in these words they are willing to add that the future Lord Lieutenant should not be able to sit in either Houses of Parliament here at Westminster. I also hope the Prime Minister will be able to insert words implying he should not be a man who had ever associated himself in bitter party politics.
      Sir J. D. REES: The Prime Minister said the position of the Lord Lieutenant would be analogous to that of Governors of Overseas Possessions. I wonder whether the Prime Minister had in his mind the position of the Governors of India?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I said "the Dominions Overseas."
      Sir J. D. REES: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said our Overseas Possessions.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I rather quarrelled with those words of the right hon. Gentleman.
      Sir J. D. REES: There is the well-known case of Sir Charles Trevelyan who expressed an opinion contrary to the Government of India with regard to the imposition of a tax, and who was promptly recalled for his pains. The word "Viceroy" is nowhere used in the Bill, and of course it would not be. The Viceroy of India is never described as "the Viceroy"; he is always described as "the Governor-General." I presume that does not indicate any difference between the position of the present Lord Lieutenant and the position of the future Lord Lieutenant, but nothing has been said upon the point, and it is a point of some importance. For instance, when the King was in India the other day, it had to be officially intimated the Governor-General actually ceased to be Viceroy. I do not know whether the Prime Minister could say anything upon that point, but I am in some doubt about it myself. There is another point. Would it be competent under this Bill to appoint any person other than a European as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? It would, as I read it, There would, as I read it, be nothing to prevent a Parsee member or an eminent Hindu, like Mr. Ghokale, being appointed. I do not suppose it is likely to happen, but as I read the Bill through there is nothing to prevent such an appointment. Perhaps it would not be altogether unreasonable to ask for some explanation.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will not give us rather some more explanation than he has done in answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. I think it is most important. This is really the first time, as far as I am aware, we have even had so definite a pronouncement as this from the Prime Minister as to the position of this Minister.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered questions at Question Time.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not think the Prime Minister was ever very definite, and I only say he has been more definite to-night than he ever was before. I ask him to push that definiteness a little bit further and to tell us the Minister who is to answer for the Lord Lieutenant in this House. It is a matter of importance, and I think the House ought to know before the Bill leaves this House. Is it going to be a Secretary of State who is going to answer for the Lord Lieutenant? Is he going to be a Minister for that purpose only, or is he going to combine that function with other functions in connection with administration in this country? It is a matter of great importance. This is the whole machinery by which this House is going to exercise such remnants of sovereignty in Ireland as are left to it in this Bill. It is therefore important to know what sort of Minister it is going to be. If it is going to be merely some Minister of minor importance and not a Cabinet Minister I do not think it will be at all satisfactory. We want to know for certain whether it is going to be a Cabinet Minister and a Secretary of State. It is obvious, unless a hostile vote on that Minister means a hostile vote on the Cabinet as a whole, the position cannot be held to be by any means satisfactory to this House, and that would not be the case unless the Minister responsible were a Cabinet Minister, and I think it would not be fully so unless he were a Secretary of State. As surely, the Government have made up their mind on this point—they cannot leave it to chance—I do press that we should be told what kind of Minister he is to be.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot see how this is relevant to the Amendment before the Committee, but still I have no objection to answer the question. It is impossible to designate by name of office what particular Minister will be entrusted
      2412
      with this duty. It may be a Secretary of State, or it may be a Minister with a special title appropriate to the particular office; but he certainly must be a Minister of great importance, and I think it is perfectly clear, from the nature of the responsibility placed upon him, that the Government, as a whole, will share that responsibility.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Do we understand that this Minister is to be of Cabinet rank?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I said so.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: And occupying an office identical with that of a Secretary of State?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot undertake to answer for my successors. I daresay I shall never have anything to do with it, but, so far as I can speak, I certainly think he ought to be of Cabinet rank.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to unduly limit the Debate, but my recollection is that this point was debated on a previous Clause; and I must, therefore, ask succeeding speakers to confine themselves to the Amendment.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThere is a point I wish to put forward arising out of what the Prime Minister has just said. If this officer is to be a Secretary of State it is quite impossible, as things now stand, for him to sit in this House at all, because there is a limit at the present moment to the number of Principal Secretaries of State who may sit here, and that limit is fully occupied. Under an Act of 1850, or thereabout, only four Secretaries of State may sit in this House. There are already four now sitting here, and clearly, if the new Minister is to sit here, he will have to be supernumerary, or a special Act of Parliament would have to be passed. I am interested in this question not only from the Irish, but also from the Scottish point of view. As we understand it, this Bill is the first step in a federal system which the Government propose to set up, and it will be interesting to hear from the Prime Minister whether it is suggested that the status in relation to matters of political controversy which the Lord Lieutenant is going to occupy will be the same in relation to the head officials of these different parts of the federal community which may hereafter be set up.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: already ruled this out of order.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am only pointing out that this is part of a concrete whole, and I think we are entitled to endeavour to get some information as to what is intended. It is, however, eminently satisfactory to know that in future, if this Bill ever passes, and I agree with the Prime Minister that it is very doubtful if he will have the appointment of this officer—if, indeed, this Bill does pass, it is gratifying to know that the Government do intend that the Lord Lieutenant shall refrain from meddling unnecessarily with matters of ordinary political controversy.
      Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask the Attorney-General whether, in framing the actual words for the Report stage, he will take good care that some restriction is put on the Lord Lieutenant, so that if he happens to hold another high office in England or in Scotland, he shall not be placed in an invidious position. Hon. Members may not be aware, but it is quite possible, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington, who is Lord Lieutenant of county Cavan, and as such has certain duties to perform, duties to which there are certain penalties attached, might be appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I am, of course, only taking the case of the right hon. Gentleman for the purposes of illustration; but picture a case of that sort, which is sure to arise. A person who is chosen to act as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will probably be found to be someone who has risen to the position of Lord Lieutenant of his own county, or some similar position in Great Britain. There are attached to that office certain penalties. We have fresh in our minds the case of the present Lord Lieutenant—
      Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought it had been ruled several times during the course of this Debate that no reflections were to be made on the Lord Lieutenant except by special procedure.
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: The case my hon. and gallant Friend is dealing with is not the case of the Lord Lieutenant as Lord Lieutenant.
      Captain CRAIG: I certainly had no intention of reflecting on the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was rather too quick. All I ask is that in framing the words the learned Attorney-General should take steps to secure that scandals such as have occurred
      2414
      in the past shall not be possible in the future, and that a person of high position representing His Majesty should not, while holding such office, hold other offices in the United Kingdom to which penalties are attached, and should not therefore be in the peculiar position which had been suggested. Surely there is nothing out of the way in making a suggestion of that sort. What are the Government's own words? They run, "That the Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office, conform to the customs and practices of Governors of His Majesty's overseas possessions." Now, Ireland is very much closer to Great Britain than those overseas possessions. If a man goes to Canada, Australia, or South Africa he is naturally cut off from any minor office which he may hold. But if he goes from England or Scotland to Ireland he will be so near to the shores of Great Britain that it is desirable to provide that he should dissociate himself from any of the positions which he may hold in this country. Picture the case of a man who was, let us say, chairman of a panel of a county for the choice of magistrates. The question of magistrates has aroused a considerable amount of excitement in this House, as well as in the country. You might possibly have a man who was chairman of one of these important boards, first of all, made the subject of very heated recrimination in this House and then going over to Ireland to accept the high position of representative of His Majesty. Picture another case, that of a gentleman who was particularly associated with the Territorial Force. He might possibly, at a particularly grave moment in the history of this country, be taking sides on what we might almost call the Lord Roberts' controversy. You might have him, as chairman of the county association, taking sides at a particular moment when it did not suit the party in this House to which he happened to belong. In that case you will have a man holding dual positions, one of which would be entirely and absolutely antagonistic to the other, so far as dissociating himself from matters of controversy in this country was concerned. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to hint that he is to act in the same way as a Governor of one of our Overseas Possessions, but we here and in Ireland are so closely associated in all the burning topics of the day that it will be almost impossible for him to do that, unless some provision is made on the Report stage that

      2415
      it will be obligatory on the holder of the office not to exercise in any way the functions of any other office.
      Mr. SANDERSON: In view of the undertaking which has been given by the Prime Minister to bring up words which will meet the object of which apparently everybody approves, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I entirely agree that the words require to be carefully chosen, for if they are not, the Government may incidentally be conferring powers on the Lord Lieutenant which they never intended him to have.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "salary" ["The salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant"], to leave out the words "and expenses."
      I move the Amendment in order to ask the Government what these words mean. It appears to me that the Sub-section is too widely drawn, and that to say that the salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament—I leave out of consideration for the moment by which Parliament they are to be paid—is rather too wide a statement. It leaves very doubtful what it is intended should be covered by the expenses. Are we to infer that it is proposed in future that the new Lord Lieutenant should be given a large sum of money to maintain a considerable amount of State, and that the payments for the maintenance of that State will form part of the expenses which are to provided out of moneys to be found by Parliament? I do not know what is contemplated by the Government. It would be far more satisfactory to give the Lord Lieutenant an inclusive salary, which would be based upon the position he is required to maintain, rather than to give him a certain salary and then to allow him further sums for expenses. The term "expenses" is a very wide one. Anybody looking at the Sub-section would imagine that it would be open to the Lord Lieutenant to incur such expenses as he chose in the way of State officials, household and entertaining, all of which are to be defrayed out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. I do not believe that is satisfactory, or what the Government actually intend, yet it is in the Bill. Perhaps they will be good enough to furnish
      2416
      us with some explanation. It will be obvious to anyone who has studied the Bill that the sum of £5,000 is not the total amount of the salary and expenses, although it is the amount mentioned in the Bill. A casual observer will imagine that is going to be the amount of the salary and expenses. Of course that is not so. Presumably the salary of the Lord Lieutenant will be very much larger. I do not believe it will be different from what it is now, namely, £20,000 a year, which comes out of the Consolidated Fund. That, however, does not concern the Amendment, which deals with the words "and expenses." If the Government have a satisfactory explanation of these words, we shall be glad to hear it. The words are too wide, and lay themselves open to considerable abuse and to the growth of a system which I do not think anybody will consider satisfactory.
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): In this matter we are proceeding upon the basis of the present-situation, which is that the Lord Lieutenant gets a certain salary under the Act 2 and 3 William IV., Chapter 116. In addition, he is voted by this House expenses for certain purposes, which appear year by year in the Votes. The Noble Lord has asked what these expenses are, and what their amount is. If he would refer to the Civil Service Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1913, page 223, he will see the list of the expenses which were voted by Parliament for the Lord Lieutenant, amounting to a total of £4,552. They consist partly of salaries of officers of the Lord Lieutenant, private secretaries, financial secretary, and accountant, vice-chamberlain, and so forth; and partly of travelling and incidental expenses for the household, amounting to only £100, the salary of a chaplain, and the cost of the Lord Lieutenant's chapel.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: I am quite aware of that, but will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the note at the bottom of the page, which says that provision is made under other Estimates for expenses in connection with these services, which amounts to a very large sum. Will he say what expenses are meant in the Sub-section?
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: In the other expenses in connection with these services the main item is the £20,000 for the Lord Lieutenant's salary. The remainder is for buildings, rates, stationery, printing, and so forth, the expenditure on which would

      2417
      naturally be included in this head and charged on the Consolidated Fund, and this sum it was proper to put upon the Irish Government because it would refer to Irish services. The total amount, in addition to the £20,000, is £9,000 under that, head and about £4,552 under other heads. We are proceeding in this matter precisely on the basis of the present situation. The only difference which will be made is that £5,000 towards the Lord Lieutenant's salary will be deducted from the Transferred Sum, and, therefore, be made directly a charge upon Irish revenue. A similar provision appeared in the Bill of 1893.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not denned what expenses are referred to, and, moreover, if he will look at the subsequent words of the Subsection as regards the reduction of the Transferred Sum, that refers, by the Bill, only to the salary, and the expenses are not mentioned as deducted from the Transferred Sum. Therefore, why are the words "and expenses" mentioned?
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: It is necessary to provide that they should be paid by someone.
      Mr. BUTCHER: It seems to me that the Government, as usual, is entirely neglecting the interests of Great Britain in this Bill. Ireland is to be allowed to manage her own affairs and we are to pay the cost of everything, and in this and in all other cases Great Britain has to pay the bill. If it is necessary that Great Britain should pay the expenses of the Lord Lieutenant in addition to the £20,000 salary, surely there ought to be some limitation of the expenses which Great Britain is called upon to pay?
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: It is entirely within the control of this House.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Yes, but we shall be asked, when we are called upon at some future date to pay some extravagant expenses for this Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the Home Rule Bill, "Why did you not limit his expenses? You have put no limit whatsoever into the Bill," and if we, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, hereafter object to unlimited expenses incurred by the Lord Lieutenant and his household in connection with their upkeep, we shall be told, "How very improper and mean of you to try and limit now expenses which you did not attempt to limit when the Bill was going through the House."
      2418
      I should like very much to know whether there is to be any limit or not. Supposing the Lord Lieutenant, instead of sending in a Bill for £4,500, which is the present amount of the expenses of the household of the Lord Lieutenant, sent in a bill for £20,000, what are you to say?
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: You cannot incur expenditure which is not voted.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Yes, but you put no limit on these expenses. Why do you not define the expenses "as now incurred," or something to that effect, limiting it in some way? We have a list of the expenses here which are now incurred. I do not, know whether they will be necessary to be incurred under the Home Rule system—the expenses of the State Steward, the Vice-Chamberlain, Comptroller, Master of the Horse, and Ulster King-at-Arms. I suppose that you defend to your constituents the payment by Great Britain of the expenses of the Ulster King-at-Arms and the Athlone Pursuivant-at-Arms under a Home Rule Government. If the Home Rule Government wants an Athlone Pursuivant-at-Arms let them pay for it. But the truth of the matter is that this is only one other illustration of the illogical and absurd way in which this Bill is drawn. In the case of every Colonial Government under our system they pay the expenses of their Colonial Governor. The Dominion pays the expenses of the Governor of Canada, and the Commonwealth of Australia pays the expenses of the Governor of Australia. But you by this extraordinary system give Ireland under this Bill power analogous to these Dominions and then you turn round and say, "Oh, yes, but the taxpayers of Great Britain must pay for it." I ask the Government, if they have any regard at all, which perhaps is doubtful, and if their supporters have any regard to the taxpayers of Great Britain, to put some limitation on the generality of the words "the expenses which by this Bill are proposed to be thrown on the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
      Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The Postmaster-General has told us that the salary of the Lord Lieutenant is fixed by a Statute of William IV. It seems to me that, seeing that by this Bill we are abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as we now understand it, ipso facto the salary which was given to him by the Statute which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is also void. I think

      2419
      it is quite arguable, and probably would be argued, that when a new Lord Lieutenant is set up there is in reality no provision whatever for his salary, and therefore it seems to me that all the more it requires explanation from the Government as to what exactly this £5,000 which is mentioned in this Sub-section is to be applied to. I would also submit that whereas the right hon. Gentleman said that the Lord Lieutenant could not claim in the way of expenses more than is actually voted, that estimate which has been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) is made up on a sort of average of the expenses which have been incurred during past years, and there is no reason in the world why that sum of £4,000 odd might not in future years be double that amount, and if Ireland is to pay £5,000 and the rest of the expenses, amounting perhaps to another £5,000, as well as the salary, whatever it may be, that he is going to receive, are to be paid to him, it is obvious that the taxpayers, not only of this country but of Ulster, will have to be taxed to that amount. Therefore this is a question in which not only hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, but hon. Members coming from Ulster, have a very serious interest. I understand an Amendment is going to be moved shortly which will limit the amount of the salary of the Lord Lieutenant, and I shall heartily support that. I think the position in which we are is an extremely ridiculous one, and one which is entirely in keeping with the attitude of the Government on many of these questions. They practically leave this matter altogether open. There is no definite announcement from the Government, and there is no definite statement in the Bill to show us what the expenses of this office are going to be. That ought not to be. We have had another example to-day. We do
      not know to this moment, when the Home Rule Bill comes into operation, who is going to answer for the reserved services and for other services in Ireland in this House. That is a thing which obviously ought to be provided for in the Bill, and I equally claim that, where a large sum amounting to over £20,000 a year is involved, it is the least that we can ask the Government to do to state specifically, and certainly in the Bill, what exactly the ratepayers of this country will have to pay upon that account. Therefore I very cordially support the Amendment.
      Sir J. D. REES: In an analogous case these very expenses are met out of the Indian Exchequer in the case of the two Governors out of a contract allowance which is fixed, and it is quite impossible there to exceed the fixed amount. An estimate is made of what the cost is under each of the heads—they are almost identical with this estimate—the total is made from that; and, though the officers serving the Governors concerned may vary the heads in spending the money allotted, the fixed estimate may not be exceeded, and that is the proper way to deal with the taxpayers' money, and that rule should apply in this case. It seems to me adding insult to injury to maintain out of this money the Ulster-King-at-Arms. Surely of all the officials that should not be paid for by money supplied by the taxpayers of Home Rule Ireland it is the Ulster-King-at-Arms. I submit that the title of this high heraldic officer will have to be changed if this is carried, and the Viceroy will have to get on without the red hand of Ulster.
      Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes. 266; Noes, 101.

      Division No. 387.]

      AYES

      [9.57 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Clough, William

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Black, Arthur W.

      Clynes, John R.

      Adamson, William

      Boland, John Plus

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Brace, William

      Cotton, William Francis

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Brady, P. J.

      Crean, Eugene

      Arnold, Sydney

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Crooks, William

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Crumley, Patrick

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Burke, E. Haviland

      Cullinan, John

      Barnes, George N.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Barton, William

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Dawes, J. A.

      Benn, W. W. (Tower Mamlets, S. Geo.)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      De Forest, Baron

      Delany, William

      Keating, Matthew

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      Dillon, John

      Kilbride, Denis

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      King, J.

      Radford, G. H.

      Doris, William

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Duffy, William J.

      Lardffer, James Carrige Rushe

      Reddy, M.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Leach, Charles

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Richards, Thomas

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lundon, T.

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Lyeil, Charles Henry

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Lynch, A. A.

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      McGhee, Richard

      Robinson, Sidney

      Ffrench, Peter

      Hacnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Field, William

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Rowe, Sir Thomas

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Rowlands, James

      Fitzgibbon John

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      M'Kean, John

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

      Manfield, Harry

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Gilhooly, James

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Gill, A. H.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Sheehy, David

      Ginnell, L.

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Martin, J.

      Shortt, Edward

      Glanville, H. J.

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Meagher, Michael

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Smyth, Thomas G. (Leitrim)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Snowden, Philip

      Guest, Hon. Major C. H. c. (Pembroke)

      Molloy, Michael

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Money, L. G. Chlozza

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Guiney, Patrick

      Mooney, John J.

      Sutton, John E.

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Morison, Hector

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Hackett, J.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Muldcon, John

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Hancock, John George

      Munro, R.

      Thomas, James Henry

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Munre-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Neilson, Francis

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Wadsworth, J.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nuttall, Harry

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Brien, P. (Kilkenny)

      Wardle, George J.

      Hayward, Evan

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Waring, Walter

      Hazleton, Richard

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Healy, Maurice (Cork City)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Webb, H.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Ogden, Fred

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Malley, William

      Wiles, Thomas

      Hinds, John

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      William, John (Glamorgan)

      Hodge, John

      O'Shee, James John

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Words., N.)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Hudson, Walter

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Pointer, Joseph

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Joyce, Michael

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      NOES

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Barrie, H. T.

      Boyton, James

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Ashley, W. W.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Baird, J. L.

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendlsh

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Bigland, Alfred

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick

      Bird, A.

      Cave, George

      Sarnston, Harry

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Words.)

      2422

      2423

      Chambers, James

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Hills, John Waller

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Spear, Sir John Ward)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stanier, Beville

      Denniss, E. R. B,

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Dixon, C. H.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Doughty, Sir George

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Stewart, Gershom

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshlord

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Falle, B. G.

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

      Fell, Arthur

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Macmaster, Donald

      Touche, George Alexander

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Gardner, Ernest

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Moore, William

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mount, William Arthur

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Gretton, John

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Winterton, Earl

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Helmsley and Mr. Butcher.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3) to leave out the word "from" and to insert instead thereof the word "for.;"
      To make the Amendment clear this will be a substantive Amendment so that the Sub-section will read:—
      (3) The salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but there shall be deducted from the Transferred Sum in each year, for the payment of the Lord Lieutenant's salary, a sum equal to the amount of money to be provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
      Under the Government plan Ireland is to contribute a sum of only £5,000 towards the expenses and salary of the Lord Lieutenant. We have heard from the Postmaster-General that the expenses alone come to a sum of £4,500. That was last year. Therefore, if the salary is continued as at present, under the Government plan, Great Britain will have to pay all those expenses and £15,000 a year in addition. Is it reasonable, if Ireland wants this change for Ireland's good, that she should not pay for it? While we are under one united Parliament we are willing to go on contributing to Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. We do not consider whether she is poor or rich, and we are willing to go on paying the salary of the Lord Lieutenant. But if Ireland wants to separate herself from us, then she should contribute this amount. In saying this, I am speaking according to precedent. In the case of our self-govern-
      2424
      ing Colonies, Canada and Australia, the salary of the Governor-General is so paid. In Canada it is paid by the Dominion, and in Australia the Governor-General's salary and expenses are paid by the Colony. In the case of Lieutenants-Governor of Canada the salaries are paid by the Dominion Parliament also, and the appointements are made by the Governor-General of Canada. Of course, it is different in the case of the Lord Lieutenant, because he will be appointed by the Crown, and his salary under the Government scheme will continue to be paid by us. We do not think it fair that these expenses and salary should be continued as a charge upon the taxpayers of Great Britain. I do not know if it is said by our Nationalist Friends that the salary of £20,000 of a Lord Lieutenant is extravagant. I have made some inquiries from Gentlemen in this House who are well acquainted with the facts, and I am told that not only has the whole of the salary generally been taken up in expenses by the Lord Lieutenant, but that he has been out of pocket himself in addition. Therefore I should not think that the Irish Parliament will consider, after they have got the new Parliament, that they will want to be in a worse position in reference to the Lord Lieutenant than they are at present. The Lord Lieutenant has always been expected to keep up a sort of semi-State. He represents the Crown in Ireland, and he is expected, out of his salary, to pay money as the representative of the Crown. I do not know whether people in Ireland will wish the position to be worsened. In any event, if the new

      2425
      Parliament is set up, which I very much doubt, my Amendment makes the reasonable provision that if Ireland wants separation she ought to pay for the luxury the expenses of the Lord Lieutenant.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The present situation in regard to the salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant has been described on a previous Amendment. His Excellency receives a salary of £20,000 a year, secured to him by an Act of eighty years ago. He also receives certain expenditures which are voted annually by this Parliament, and I have not observed in anything that any hon. Member has said to-night that he thinks that on this occasion, by an Act of this Parliament, that sum ought to be reduced. There is no suggestion that it is necessarily excessive in itself or that anyone would like to see the Viceregal state now maintained in Ireland altered. So far as the representative of the Sovereign in Dublin is concerned, the hon. Member will probably urge that the position should be maintained with proper dignity. But the question arises, Who should bear the cost of these charges? It must be remembered, in the first place, that the Irish Parliament will not, under this Bill, control the whole of the Irish revenue. The whole of the Irish revenue will flow into the Imperial Exchequer. The greater part will certainly be retransferred to Ireland, but there will remain several millions in the Imperial Exchequer. I, for one, see no reason why that portion of the revenue which is transferred to Ireland should bear the whole cost of the Lord Lieutenant's salary and expenses, and that that which remains in the Imperial Exchequer should bear none. I may point out further that so far as the Imperial Exchequer is concerned, the proposals in this Bill make no difference. We are not now proposing to charge upon the British taxpayer any sum which he is not now spending, nor are we taking from him any control which he now exercises. If the expenses of the Lord Lieutenant in future are increased they can only be increased by the Act of this House, and the Irish Parliament will have no power under our proposals to throw any additional burden upon our finance under this head. The Committee then should consider what in these circumstances is the fair thing to do, and what is the just and reasonable course to take. If Ireland were left to herself to decide this matter entirely according to her own means, if we were to say to the Irish people, "Here is
      2426
      the Lord Lieutenant, you must pay in future as his salary and expenses such sum as you consider proper," there can be very little doubt but that the Irish Parliament would find it necessary to reduce this expenditure, while in our view, so far as we can judge at present, the sum allotted is not excessive when you consider the duties the representative of the Crown has to perform in Ireland.
      On the other hand, if you take into account the resources of Ireland, and the circumstances that Ireland is a poor country, to make it a charge on her taxes, probably when in Ireland they thought this sum was too large, would have the result that His Majesty's representative would not be able to maintain the position which he now maintains. We should, of course, require the Irish Parliament to pay a fixed sum as is done in the Colonial Constitutions—that a certain sum per annum should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund and charged to Irish revenues; and we might fix it at £10,000, or whatever might be thought a proper sum. But that, again, would involve an immediate curtailment of the expenditure to which Ireland has long been accustomed under British Rule, and which the people of Ireland are accustomed to regard as proper. Another course that might be pursued is to say that we shall pay, as we now do, the whole of the salary and expenses without making any charge upon the sum transferred to the Irish Government. That, on the other hand, we think, as was thought in 1893, would not really meet the equity of the case, and, therefore, we charge to the Transferred Sum the amount of £5,000 which we think not unreasonable in view of the resources of the Irish people and the revenues that will be in the hands of the Irish Government.
      Quite the worse scheme of all I venture to suggest is the one proposed in the hon. Member's Amendment. He proposes that we should decide absolutely in our own discretion from year to year what the salary and expenses of the Irish Lord Lieutenant ought to be, and whatever this House fixes, it may increase the expenses from £4,000 to £20,000, or it may reduce them from £4,000 to nothing; but whatever this House, in its own discretion, of its own action, chooses to decide shall be the salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant, that shall be paid, not by us, but by the Irish Government, and the Transferred Sum shall be reduced each year by whatever sum is fixed, not by the Irish

      2427
      Parliament, but by this Parliament. That obviously is a gross injustice, is a very wrong thing. I think hon. Members, when they consider the proposition on its merits, must realise it would be a very unjust thing to Ireland to say that whatever this Parliament decides year by year should be the Lord Lieutenant's expenses, that sum should come, not from our revenue, but from revenues in the hands of the Irish Government for their own purposes. Let the Committee remember, finally, that if at any future time, after some experience of the new system, it is found that the salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant are excessive, and should properly be reduced, the matter rests entirely in the hands of this Parliament. The Bill makes no difference of any kind or description; all that the Bill does is to say that we now have an existing arrangement with regard to the Lord Lieutenant, and that in future that arrangement shall continue, except that £5,000 of the Lord Lieutenant's salary shall be charged to the Transferred Sum. The rest remains as now, entirely in the hands of this Parliament.
      Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the sum provided by the British Parliament to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, as it is at present?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We make no alteration at all.
      Mr. POLLOCK: In the curious financial arrangements of this Bill we are not startled by anything in relation to them in the Home Rule Bill. But I have listened with great care to hear whether the Postmaster-General was going to give us any sort of justification for this particular proposal. He has told us that some proposals would be bad, and he suggested other proposals which he also thought were bad, but all he said about this particular proposal is that he thinks that the special sum of £5,000 out of the Transferred Sum is not unreasonable. That is the only apology for the proposal in the Bill which the Postmaster-General makes. Is that a sufficient apology. In this quaint arrangement how has he arrived at £5,000 as reasonable or unreasonable? We know that in the self-governing Colonies in Canada and Australia and in South Africa the expenses of the Viceroy or the Governor-General are paid by those self-governing Dominions.
      2428
      We set up under this Bill a self-government which is really not distinguishable at all from the Government which has been given to South Africa, to Australia, and to Canada. Why should a charge be left on this country? Is it that we are asked to provide a certain sum because we are the richer partner, or is there any reason why the Irish people, who are to be proud of their Parliament and of their Government, should not provide a sufficient sum to enable the Viceroy to keep up that state and dignity which no doubt is required of him in Dublin? I take a very different view of the Amendment from that of the Postmaster-General. He suggests that the meaning of it is that the sum would be arranged by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and would be paid either out of the Transferred Sum or by moneys provided by the Parliament of Ireland. If I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment aright, it is that he sets up a standard which will be the standard of the amount to be paid and not as each year passes, but equal to the amount which is at present paid by moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore that sum at least would have to be paid, but it does not take away the responsibility and powers of the Irish Parliament over this particular provision. Nobody, as the Bill stands, can say exactly what powers of the Irish-Parliament in respect of this matter, even if this Amendment were passed, would be. Inasmuch as no justification at all has been given for stopping the sum of £5,000 rather than £10,000 from the Transferred Sum, I hope my hon Friend will press this to a Division, and if he does I shall certainly support him.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I now explain? The Lord Lieutenant's salary will in future go upon the Annual Votes, so that the matter will be even more completely under the control of this House-than it is at the present time.
      Mr. BUTCHER: I hope the Committee understand what the real proposal of the Government is. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I cannot gather from those cheers whether they do or not. Let me say what I understand it is. It is that the salary of the Lord Lieutenant under the Home Rule Bill should continue to be as it is now, £20,000 per year, and that under the totally altered conditions which will arise under this Bill that that £20,000 should be paid to the Lord Lieutenant in future, but

      2429
      that out of that £20,000 per year £5,000 are to be provided by Ireland by deduction from the Transferred Sum. I do ask Members sitting for English constituencies to think for a moment whether that is really fair to the British taxpayer. You are setting up this Parliament and continuing the office of Lord Lieutenant, which, in my judgment at any rate, is a complete anachronism which ought to be abolished, simply and solely for the purpose of giving colour to this Home Rule Government. If they want a Lord Lieutenant, in Heaven's name, let them pay for him. Instead of that, you are asking the taxpayers of Great Britain to contribute £15,000 for this Lord Lieutenant for the benefit of Irish Members and their Home Rule Parliament. The Postmaster-General, in his judiciously short speech, gave away his whole case when he said that if the Irish Parliament had to pay the Lord Lieutenant themselves they would not dream of paying £20,000 a year. I think they would be quite right. I suggest that they should be allowed, not merely to fix the salary of the Lord Lieutenant according to the value they put
      upon him, but to pay it themselves. The proposed salary, whatever it may be for present purposes, and I think it is grossly excessive, is certainly ludicrously excessive for the purposes for which a Lord Lieutenant will be required under a Home Rule Parliament. Therefore I trust that this Amendment, which would limit the salary to £5,000, will be accepted. But what is the vise of discussing the Clause or offering any criticism? The guillotine is about to fall; obedient supporters of the Government are creeping in from other places, and, not having heard one word of the Debate, they will ask the Whips at the door into which Lobby they are to go. Without caring one iota whether or not the proposal is deeply injurious to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, whom they are supposed to represent, they will obey the dictates of the Government and do anything they are told, I suppose for the purpose of retaining their seats in this House.
      Question put, "That the word 'towards' stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 175.

      Division No. 388.]

      AYES.

      [10.28 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Clough, William

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Clynes, John R.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Adamson, William

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Gilhooly, James

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Gill, A. H.

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Ginnell, L.

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Crean, Eugene

      Glanville, H. J.

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Crooks, William

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Goldstone, Frank

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Cullinan, John

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

      Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Barnes, George N.

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Guiney, Patrick

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Guiland, John William

      Barton, William

      De Forest, Baron

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Delany, William

      Hackett, J.

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hall, Frededick (Normanton)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hancock, John George

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Dillon, John

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Boland, John Pius

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Doris, William

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Duffy, William J.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Brace, William

      Duncan, J. Hostings (Yorks, Otley)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Brady, P. J.

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Havelock-Allan Sir Henry

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Burns, Rt. Hon, John

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Hayward, Evan

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Hazleton, Richard

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Field, William

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Fiennes, Hon, Eustace Edward

      Higham, John Sharp

      Hinds, John

      Morison, Hector

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Rowlands, James

      Hodge, John

      Muldoon, John

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Hogge, James Myles

      Munro, R.

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Neilson, Francis

      Sheehy, David

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Hudson, Walter

      Nolan, Joseph

      Shortt, Edward

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Simon, Sir John Alsebrook

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Nuttall, Harry

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      John, Edward Thomas

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Snowden, Philip

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Ogden, Fred

      Sutton, John E.

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Grady, James

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Keating, Matthew

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      O'Malley, William

      Tennant, Harold John

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Thomas, James Henry

      King J.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      O'Shee, James John

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Leach, Charles

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Lundon, T.

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Wardle, George J.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Waring, Walter

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      McGhee, Richard

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Webb, H.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      M'Kean, John

      Pringle, William M. R.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Radford, G. H.

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Wiles, Thomas

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Manfield, Harry

      Reddy, M.

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Martin, J.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Richards, Thomas

      Winfrey, Richard

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Meagher, Michael

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Millar, James Duncan

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Molloy, Michael

      Robinson, Sidney

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Mooney, John J.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Boyton, James

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Ashley, W. W.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Baird, J. L.

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Butcher, John George

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Barnston, Harry

      Cassel, Felix

      Dixon, C. H.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Cator, John

      Doughty, Sir George

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Cave, George

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Falle, B. G.

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Chalcner, Col. R. G. W.

      Fell, Arthur

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Bird, A.

      Chambers, James

      Fleming, Valentine

      Bigland, Alfred

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Blair, Reginald

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      2432

      2433

      Gardner, Ernest

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Goldman, C. S.

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Grant, J. A.

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Stanier, Beville

      Gretton, John

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Stewart, Gershom

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutstord)

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Moore, William

      Thynne, Lord A.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Mount, William Arthur

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Hills, John Waller

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Hohler, G. F.

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Winterton, Earl

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Yate, Colonel, C. E.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Younger, Sir George

      Kerry, Earl of

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Royds, Edmund

      S. Roberts and Mr. Pollock.

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)

      It being after half-past Ten 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, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the
      business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock, at this day's sitting.
      Question put, "That the Clause as Amended, stand part- of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 178.

      Division No. 389.]

      AYES.

      [10.39 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Delany, William

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Adamson, William

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Devlin, Joseph

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Dillon, John

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Doris, William

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Duffy, William J.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Chappie, Dr. William Allen

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Clough, William

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Clynes, John R.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Barnes, George N.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Barton, William

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Cotton, William Francis

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Crean, Eugene

      Ffrench, Peter

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Crooks, William

      Field, William

      Black, Arthur W.

      Crumley, Patrick

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Boland, John Pius

      Cullinan, John

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Brace, William

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Gilhooly, James

      Brady, P. J.

      Dawes, J. A.

      Gill, A. H.

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      De Forest, Baron

      Ginnell, L.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      McGhee, Richard

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Glanville, H. J.

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Rendall, Atbelstan

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Richards, Thomas

      Goidstone, Frank

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      M'Kean, John

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      M'Laren, Hon, H. D. (Leics.)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Guiney, Patrick

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Gulland, John William

      Manfield, Harry

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Hackett, J.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Rowlands, James

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Hancock, John George

      Martin, J.

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Meagher, Michael

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Sheehy, David

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Molloy, Michael

      Shorn, Edward

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Mooney, John J.

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Morison, Hector

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Muldoon, John

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Munro, R.

      Snowden, Philip

      Hayward, Evan

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nannetti Joseph P.

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      Neilson, Francis

      Sutton, John E.

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdcen, W.)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Nuqent, Sir Walter Richard

      Tennant, Harold John

      Hinds, John

      Nuttall, Harry

      Thomas, James Henry

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Hodge, John

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Ogden, Fred

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Grady, James

      Wadsworth, J.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      O'Malley, William

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Illingwerth, Percy H.

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Wardle, George J.

      John, Edward Thomas

      O'Shee, James John

      Waring, Walter

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Webb, H.

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Joyce, Michael

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Keating, Matthew

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Kilbride, Denis

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      King, J.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Leach, Charles

      Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Radford, G. H.

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Lundon, T.

      Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Reddy, M.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Barnston, Harry

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Barrie, H. T.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Boyton, James

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Ashley, W. W.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Baird, J. L.

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Butcher, John George

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Bigland, Alfred A.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Blair, Reginald

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      2436

      2437

      Cassel, Felix

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Cator, John

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Cautley, H. S.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Cave, George

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Cecil, Evelyn [Aston Major)

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Qullter, Sir William Eley C.

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hills, John Waller

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Chambers, James

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

      Hohler, G. F.

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Royds, Edmund

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Stanier, Beville

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Dixon, C. H.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Doughty, Sir George

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutstord)

      Falle, B. G.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Fell, Arthur

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Fleming, Valentine

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Thynne, Lord A.

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Gardner, Ernest

      Macmaster, Donald

      Touche, George Alexander

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Goldman, C. S.

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Moore, William

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Gretton, John

      Mount, William Arthur

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Winterton, Earl

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Yate, Colonel, C. E.

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Younger, Sir George

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Bird and Mr. Hewins.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    PROVISIONS AS TO EXISTING JUDGES AND IRISH OFFICERS.

      CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to Existing Judges and other Persons having Salaries Charged on the Consolidated Fund.)
      (1) All existing judges of the Supreme Court, and County Court judges, and all existing Irish officers serving in an established capacity in the Civil Service of the Crown and receiving salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, shall, if at the date of the passing of this Act they are removable only on Address from both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, continue to be removable only upon such an Address, and if removable in any other manner shall continue to be removable only in the same manner as before that date; and shall continue to receive the same salaries, gratuities, and pensions, and to be liable to perform the same duties as before that date or such duties as His Majesty may
      2438
      declare to be analogous, and their salaries and pensions shall be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and all sums so paid shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act in accordance with Regulations made by the Treasury.
      (2) If any of the said judges or officers retires from office with His Majesty's approbation before completion of the period of service entitling him to a pension, His Majesty may, if he thinks fit, after considering any representation that may be made by the Irish Government, grant to him such pension, not exceeding the pension to which he would on that completion have been entitled, as His Majesty thinks proper.
      (3) Sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply to existing Irish officers serving in an established capacity in the Civil Service of the Crown, who, although receiving salaries (payable out of money provided

      2439
      by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and) not charged on the Consolidated Fund, are removable only for misconduct or incapacity.
      Government Amendments:—
      In Sub-section (1), after the word "pensions" ["salaries, gratuities, and pensions"], insert the words "and to I enjoy the same rights and privileges."
      Leave out the words "paid out of the I Exchequer of the United Kingdom," and I insert instead thereof, the words "charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof."
      In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "serving in an established capacity."
      Leave out the words "payable out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and."
      At the end of the Clause, add the following words:—
      "including officers removable under
      Section seventy-three of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877. Provided that, in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable otherwise than out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the provisions of that Sub-section with respect to the payment of salaries and pensions out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall not have effect, and in the case of any such officer whose salary is payable out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom those provisions shall have effect with the substitution of payment out of money so provided for charges on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Birrell.]
      Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 178.

      Division No. 390.]

      AYES.

      [10.50 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Goldstone, Frank

      Adamson, William

      Cotton, William Francis

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Crean, Eugene

      Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C.-(Pembroke)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Crooks, William

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Guiney, Patrick

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Cullinan, John

      Gulland, John William

      Arnold, Sydney

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Hackett, J.

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Daves, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Hancock, John George

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      De Forest, Baron

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Delany, William

      Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

      Barnes, George N.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Barton, William

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Dillon, John

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Doris, William

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Duffy, William J.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Black, Arthur W.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Boland, John Pius

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Hayward, Evan

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Hazleton, Richard

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

      Brace, William

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

      Brady, P. J.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Brocklehurst, William B

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Higham, John Sharp

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Hinds, John

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Ffrench, Peter

      Hodge, John

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Field, William

      Hogge, James Myles

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Gilhooly, James

      Hudson, Waiter

      Clough, William

      Gill, A. H.

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Clynes, John R.

      Ginnell, L.

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Glanville, H. J.

      John, Edward Thomas

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Sheehy, David

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      O'Brien, Fatrick (Kilkenny)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Jowett, Frederick William

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Shortt, Edward

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Keating, Matthew

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Ogden, Fred

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Grady, James

      Snowden, Philip

      King, J.

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      O'Malley, William

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Sutton, John E.

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Leach, Charles

      O'Shee, James John

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Thomas, James Henry

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Lundon, T.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Lynch, A. A.

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      McGhee, Richard

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Pirie, Duncan v.

      Wadsworth, J.

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      M'Kean, John

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Wardle, George J.

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Waring, Walter

      Manfield, Harry

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Radford, G. H.

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Webb, H.

      Martin, J.

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Reddy, M.

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Meagher, Michael

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Millar, James Duncan

      Richards, Thomas

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Molloy, Michael

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Mooney, John J.

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Morison, Hector

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Muldoon, John

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Munro, R.

      Robinson, Sidney

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Rowlands, James

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Neilson, Francis

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N, (Doncaster)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Burn, Colonel, C. R.

      Dixon, C. H.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Butcher, John George

      Doughty, Sir George

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Ashley, W. W.

      Cassel, Felix

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Baird, J. L.

      Cator, John

      Falle, B. G.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cautley, H, S.

      Fell, Arthur

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Cave, George

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Fleming, Valentine

      Barnston, Harry

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Chambers, James

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Goldman, C. S.

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Bigland, Alfred A.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Bird, A.

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Blair, Reginald

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Gretton, John

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

      Boyton, James

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      2442

      2443

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Stanier, Beville

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Stewart, Gershom

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Moore, William

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Hills, John Waller

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Hohler, G. F.

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Thynne, Lord A.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Touche, George Alexander

      Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Valentia, Viscount

      Hunt, Rowland

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Winterton, Earl

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Yate, Colonel, C. E.

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Royds, Edmund

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)

      Younger, Sir George

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Barlow and Mr. H. Barrie.

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Committee report Progress; to sit again on 9th December (Monday).
      The Orders for remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  Mr. HUNT: I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Territorial Force is quite incapable of performing the duty for which the Government created it. It was created to defend us against the admitted possibility of a raid of 70,000 Continental troops, and allow our Expeditionary Force to go abroad and our Navy to attack the enemy wherever that enemy was, and also to protect our food supplies in time of war. Surely the Balkan war has shown us the fate of those who have fought unprepared. In March, 1908, Lord Haldane stated that if we relied on the Territorial Force against a surprise attack that he agreed that we should rely on very little, and again in the same year, in June at Ashford, he said:—
  "It is with great truth said that we are able to give so comparatively little training to our citizen soldiers
  2444
  in time of peace, that they would not be ready to help should invasion take place."
  I conclude that Lord Haldane was speaking of the Territorials as he expected them to be, up to the strength as laid down by the Government as necessary for defence—that is to say, 313,000 men trained for a fortnight in camp every year and tested as qualified in musketry. What do we find now? Is it not a very different state of affairs? The Force is now, after four years, short of 51,000 officers and men, and if this number is considered sufficient the Government asked the country to bear the burden of the expense of an extra 50,000 men who were not wanted. In 1911, the latest musketry returns, there were only 143,408 out of the necessary 313,000 men who were tested as capable in musketry. Everyone knows a man is no use if he cannot shoot. Part of this Force were not known by any test to be able to hit the enemy, except by accident. The majority of the Force might, for all that is known, be mere targets for the enemy, and, moreover, extremely dangerous to their own side. I think it is pretty well known that field firing is very necessary if men are to go into real war. There were only thirty-four battalions out of 241 which were practised in their work. Over 34,000 Territorials did not even attend camp at all. This year more than 40,000 of them were boys of nineteen years

  2445
  of age. Many of them were seventeen years of age, and quite incapable of marching with a full soldier's kit, and many of them of marching even with rifle and ammunition. They were too young, and not strong enough. This year there are probably hardly more than 100,000 men in the Territorial Force out of 313,000 who are over twenty years of age and who have attended camp for fifteen days and passed in musketry.
  Another thing I should like to call attention to is that the Territorials are armed with a rifle inferior to the rifle of any of the great nations, and that the bullet they have to use makes a far less serious wound than the pointed bullet of foreign nations. I do not think that anybody can deny that the Artillery are armed with an out-of-date gun and are very short of horses. We should require about 200,000 men to garrison the arsenals in the necessary places in Great Britain and Ireland, and surely these would absorb a good many of the 400,000 men who, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, would be wanted to defend the country. I am told it would take about 200,000 for that purpose, and really it would be little less than murder to put untrained Territorials, many of them untrained to shoot, to face anything like 70,000 Continental troops who have been drilled and trained for two years. The Territorial Force costs over £3,000,000 a year, and it cannot under the voluntary system provides a Home army which can be depended upon to defend the country. Therefore, I am justified in saying that the £3,000,000 is wasted because what it produces is of no use for what the Government intend. I daresay the House will remember that Lord Haldane told the country in September, 1906, at Newcastle, that a nation armed was the only safeguard for the public interest should war break out. As he said that, surely we are bound to conclude that his scheme and strategy have broken down altogether, in spite of the enormous amount of young and untrained service that might have been given, and given cheaply, by his political opponents. The Territorials are really only Volunteers under the new scheme, and under the present altered conditions of the world the voluntary system can no longer, provide for the safety of our country. The present Secretary of State for War told us ten years ago that the danger was imminent, and that he was
  2446
  strongly in favour of compulsory service being put before the public quite frankly. I hope when he replies he will tell us the same thing. I also ask him to explain the difference between what is called conscription and universal compulsory military training for home defence, as all we want is that universal compulsory military training for rich and poor alike for home defence should be allowed by both sides in Parliament to be made a non-party question, and that our people shall have a fair chance of deciding for themselves a question on which our existence as a free nation depends. I venture to say, if the Prime Minister is willing to make this a non-party question, my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition will be willing to do the same. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?" and "Where is the Prime Minister?"] This can therefore be done unless the Prime Minister is afraid to trust the people to decide this great question for themselves, unhampered by party considerations. Do you think we are asking a great deal if we ask that the party responsible for the safety of the country, many of whose political adherents, at all events outside the House of Commons, are distinctly very strongly in favour of compulsory military training, should insist that it is the duty of every man to learn enough to be able to do his share in defending his country at any time should it be necessary? We are only asking you to make that a non-party question, to allow people to vote as they like, so that the party opposite will not on account of vote-catching ideas prevent the people on this great question from settling the matter for themselves.
  Sir T. COURTENAY WARNER: I should not have risen but that the hon. Member has seen fit on an important question like this, to make an attack such as has been made on the Territorials. [HON. MEMBERS: "No attack."] Hon. Members perhaps would not call it an attack to make these charges of inefficiency and inadequacy, or to say that the money spent on them is wasted. I will not argue that matter. I look upon the speech which has been delivered as a direct attack upon the Territorials. [Hoy. MEMBERS: "No."] I agree with one thing which the hon. Gentleman said, that it is the duty of every man to defend his country. It is quite a different thing from compelling every man to do his duty. It is easy to say that every man ought to do a thing, but it is quite a different thing

  2447
  to bring in a law to make every man do that duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the country thinks it an oppressive law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should they?" and "Not a bit."] I would like to refer to another statement that has been made—that conscription and compulsory military service are not the same thing. They are not. It is quite true that compulsory service means that everybody must undergo military service, and conscription only takes a certain number of the population. As to foreign armies, they are exactly as I suggested—they are for home defence. No country in the world has conscription or any sort of compulsory service for foreign service, so that we have exactly the same thing here. All the Colonial expeditions, both under France and Germany, are manned by volunteers. No men are ordered to go on foreign or Colonial service in those armies. [HON. MEMBERS: "In time of war?"] Yes, I believe in time of war. The Colonial army is not ordered abroad in those countries.
  Another question is that of musketry. The hon. Gentleman accuses the Territorials of being inefficient in musketry. It is quite possible that in many cases they are not as efficient as we should like to see them. They are not as efficient as our Regular Army and are not as efficient as our Special Reserve. But I believe they undergo as much training in musketry as many of the foreign armies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, they do. If hon. Gentlemen who laugh would go into the statistics they would find that it is so, and that I am not wrong in my statement that the Territorials do undergo, I think, very nearly as much training as the German Army undergo in musketry. But another accusation is that the Territorials are only boys, that they are not old enough, because a large proportion of them are under twenty years of age. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite what proportion of boys he thinks there was in the Bulgarian Army, which has done the most brilliant work in the world lately. How many does he think there were under twenty years of age? I am sure there was a larger proportion of boys in the Bulgarian Army than in the Territorials. Every Bulgarian boy turned out. It is absurd to say that a boy under twenty is not good enough for home defence. Many boys under twenty years of age are better than men at forty.
  Mr. HUNT: I did not say under twenty years of age; I said under nineteen years.
  Sir T. COURTENAY WARNER: The Bulgarian Army have quite as large a proportion of soldiers under nineteen years of age as the Territorial Force have. I think the real point of efficiency in the Territorials is not meant for a sudden emergency. We have 200,000 men of the Regular troops, and the Territorials will not be called upon to defend the country until the Regular troops have been sent abroad.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me when the Regular troops could be sent abroad?
  Sir T. COURTENAY WARNER: I believe the Regular troops can be mobilised and sent abroad in about three weeks in certain cases; but that is not all. At the time of the South African war, when we were using every possible effort, and were under a great strain, offering every possible inducement to troops to go abroad, there never was a time when we had less than 200,000 troops in England. It. is true at one time they were replaced by the Militia, and so on, but they were men who had been embodied for a long time. What makes the difference between the Territorial Army and the old Volunteer force is that the former can be embodied as soon as required; they can be embodied for six months, and the country would not be denuded of troops. It is not a question of the Territorials turning out to repel invasion after a few days' notice, because the Regular troops are there. Therefore I am quite sure that the Territorials, after they have had their month of training, would be quite equal to the ordinary Continental troops that have been called up from the Reserves and so on. They have not had the year's training of the old soldiers in the sense in which we used to look on them in this country, but they are very much the same as the recruits who have been three months in the Army. I do not think that the Territorials would fail in their duty of supplying the place of the Regular Army when it is sent abroad. But the great point is, is it a good plan to discourage the Territorials and to tell them that they are no good, and to say that we are wasting money on them, and thus prevent, this movement holding the field as long as we can?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The hon. Gentleman opposite raised two points, with which in

  2449
  the short time that is left to us I hope—though we shall have longer opportunities, and no doubt we shall have many within the next few months—to direct my attention, and, first of all, to what he said with regard to the Territorial Force being deficient in numbers. That we fully admit. It is not up to the full numbers required. He said also that it does not fire sufficiently a large proportion of its men on the ranges. That is perfectly true. The reason is that in this crowded country it is difficult to get enough ranges to enable the men to fire. There is no dispute between the two sides as to those two points. I do not wish now to make a controversial speech, and I honestly hope we may arrive at some definite conclusion. We admit those two points. When he says that the money is wasted, I frankly say that I regret he made any such assertion. I do believe that it is wide of the truth, and I will tell you why. He says that the Territorial Force are Volunteers under a new name. That may be true, but no one will deny that they are an enormous improvement on the Volunteers in efficiency, in the number of days they spend in camp, in the amount of shooting that they do, on what von may call the hours of military service. They are an enormous advance, and certainly in zeal they do not lack as every general officer and all regular officers in command of Divisions are the first to admit, and I think that is admitted on all hands. Such a fine body of men are the successors of the Volunteers, and while those same Volunteers were inferior, they undoubtedly did receive almost flamboyant praise from Sir Redvers Buller, and also from Lord Methuen, and, above all, from Lord Roberts, whose speeches in this matter I shall often have to quote, for I know that he seeks the same thing as we do, and there can be no doubt that his praise of the Volunteer principle is a very striking fact that must not be forgotten. When we remember that those Volunteers so loudly and so justly praised by Lord Roberts, were inferior to the force we now have, I observe that to say that we have wasted our money is a misuse of words, which is calculated to depreciate the public spirit and patriotism of the people. I hope we may hear no more of such violent language as that. Now let us take the other side. I have admitted that the training is not as complete as we could wish. We wish it were more. But now
  2450
  comes the point. The hon. Gentleman opposite says—as he has often said—he most courageously sticks to his principles, that on that account the Force as a voluntary principle has broken down, and that the only way to get numbers and efficiency is by a system of compulsory enlistment. I say, on that, that I entirely agree that it is most desirable that everyone in this country should know how to defend himself and so to make himself a more self-respecting citizen, but I demur on military grounds to the assertion that it is wise ever to attempt in this country to get your various forces by compulsory service. I have never said so. I have repeatedly said the contrary, and I repeat it to-night. But let that pass. The question is what are we to do to-day? Is it conceivably possible that we can take the hon. Member's short-cut out of our difficulties, which I admit? I beg the House to assert tonight that it is not.
  Mr. HUNT: All I ask is that the right hon. Gentleman's party should make if a non-party question.
  Colonel SEELY: It is not a party question now, as I am going to show. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House, and especially on that side, to abandon this will-o-the-wisp, at any rate for the time being, and to back up what we have got, namely, the voluntary system, by every means in their power. Why do I say that it is impossible? I do not only refer to the very brilliant article in to-day's "Daily Mail," by my horn Friend the Member for Blackburn, showing that there is not one single organisation composed of labouring men that is not bitterly opposed to it. I say nothing on the merits, but there can be no doubt that a system of compulsory service for our fighting forces is bitterly opposed by the mass of the working men of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Hear, hear."] I thought that would be admitted.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: They do not know the working classes.
  Colonel SEELY: If it is disputed, I am very much surprised. As regards leaders of opinion, nobody denies that the Prime Minister of to-day is opposed to compulsory service. Nobody will deny that the Leader of the Unionist party is even more strongly opposed to compulsory service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will read what he said. This was in the

  2451
  Debate on Lord Roberts' Bill introducing compulsory service, a very moderate and modest form of compulsory service for home defence. Lord Lansdowne, on the last occasion when this was debated in the House of Lords in 1908, said:—
  "If I am asked what I think of this Bill, I have to say frankly to your Lordships that I doubt very much whether it would increase the military efficiency of this country, and I am very much afraid that if it were passed into law, it might produce a very dangerous reaction. I am also very much afraid that by passing it your Lordships will not greatly add to the reputation of this House."
  That is a complete, and one may say, a bitter denunciation of the whole compulsory principle by the Leader of the Unionist party.
  Mr. HUNT: In the Lords.
  Colonel SEELY: I ask the House to say that when we have the Leader of the Liberal party opposed to this system, the Leader of the Conservative party strongly opposed to the principle, and admittedly the Labour party as a whole opposed to it—[An HON. MEMBER: "To a man"]—that it is folly to attempt to get a short cut to efficiency by the hon. Gentleman's method. I frankly appeal, if I may, to hon. Members to look facts in the face, and to say if they cannot get their own ideal, then they will back up the system that we have, the only system which has the support of the Leader of any responsible party in this House, and the only system which you can possibly hope to give you an Army for many a long year to come. Personally, for reasons I have often given, I do not
  2452
  believe that a fighting force founded on compulsion would be as good as a voluntary force; nor do I believe in the particular position in which we stand that to concentrate our efforts on a greater Army for home defence would be wise. I think it would be great folly. But quite apart from that, presuming that the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite are right, if he cannot get what he wants then let him, for the sake of this country that he loves, support the only possible method of making a strong nation.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: How many men does the right hon. Gentleman want for home defence?
  Colonel SEELY: It is rather difficult to reply to a great question of that kind in a moment. I am glad that the question has been asked, if I have only time to answer it. The question was considered very carefully by the Imperial Defence Committee, as the Prime Minister has explained, less than four years ago. That Committee were all acknowledged experts on naval and military affairs. It was they who decided that giving every possible advantage to the other side, and taking everything at its worst, that we could not possibly assume that more than 70,000 men—that is the number—
  And it being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before Twelve o'clock