§ (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.
§ (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.2391
§ 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—
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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—
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) 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."
"(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—
§ 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.
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?
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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-THOMSON
There 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.
§ 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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, 101.2423
|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|
|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.)|
|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. 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, 175.2433
|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.|
|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|
|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 the2434
§ 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, 178.2437
|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.)|
|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.|
|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|