§ (1) Pending the determination of the Transferred Sum by the Joint Exchequer 580 Board, the Treasury may make such payments on account of that sum into the Irish Exchequer as the Joint Exchequer Board may direct.
§ (2) The Joint Exchequer Board may authorise the Lord Lieutenant to make 581 such payments from the Irish Exchequer as may be necessary in order to provide for bringing this Act into operation, but no such authority shall be given after the expiration of a period of three months from the first meeting of the Irish Parliament.
§ Mr. FELLI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["the Treasury may"], to insert the words "with the sanction of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
The object of this Amendment is to get rid of the difficulty which will arise in regard to administration after the passing of this Bill and before the establishment of the Irish Parliament. It is clear there must be an interregnum. It is proposed that, during that time, the control of the funds required in the administration of the Irish services should be under the Parliament here and not as proposed in the Bill. The proposal in the Bill is that pending the determination of the Transferred Sum by the Joint Exchequer Board the Treasury may make such payments on account of that sum into the Irish Exchequer as the Joint Exchequer Board may direct. But you will first have to find out what the Transferred Sum is. I believe there is some doubt as to the amount of that Transferred Sum, and it will be a matter of considerable time and difficulty before the point can be solved. During the interval before the Transferred Sum is fixed some steps will have to be taken, otherwise there will be a deadlock in Ireland and almost all the services will come to a standstill. The Transferred Sum is to be settled by the Joint Exchequer Board and that Board cannot, of course, be appointed until after the Act has been passed into law and until the Irish Treasury has been established, because the Irish Treasury is going to nominate two of the members of that Joint Exchequer Board, and, until the Irish Treasury is appointed—and when it can be appointed we have no possible means of ascertaining or guessing—the Exchequer Board cannot be fully constituted. We consequently have very great difficulty in discussing this matter, particularly after the Debate that took place this afternoon on a previous Clause. No one who listened to that Debate can have failed to experience a very great feeling of doubt on the point when the Act will come into operation. The date is, of course, unknown. There are indeed many unknown factors, 582 and that adds to our difficulty in discussing this matter. The Prime Minister has held out the promise or expectation that other Amendments of great importance will be introduced which will considerably alter the question of the time at which various steps will have to be taken before the transfer of the business, at present conducted on this side, to the Irish Parliament. That is why we are in a considerable difficulty in discussing this and subsequent Clauses.
The Transferred Sum must first of all be ascertained. Then, under Clause 17, the Transferred Sum is to be paid to the Irish Exchequer at such times as the Joint Exchequer Board direct. Under this Clause, pending the determination of the Transferred Sum, the Treasury may make payments on account to the Irish Exchequer. The Treasury is supposed to be going to act under the instructions of the Joint Exchequer Board. We arrive almost at a deadlock; first, the Irish Treasury is to be established and has to appoint its two members, then the Treasury here has to appoint its members, and with the chairman they form the Joint Exchequer Board. Then they will be able to go into the question of what is the Transferred Sum, but pending that, they can ask the Treasury to advance sums to the Irish Exchequer to enable it to meet the liabilities in Ireland and carry out the services of that country. I have said enough to show that there is considerable difficulty in ascertaining what are the actual practical steps that will have to be taken to carry out this business transaction. I suggest that as the Treasury in England is controlled by the House of Commons, so, until the Treasury in Ireland is properly established and the Irish Parliament is at work and able to control that Treasury, the payments made should be under the control of this House of Commons. Otherwise there is no control at all in the matter. The second part of this Clause provides that the Joint Exchequer Board may authorise the Lord Lieutenant to make such payments from the Irish Exchequer as may be necessary, but no such authority shall be given after the expiration of the period of three months from the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. The temporary nature of this provision is quite clear.
The whole control is put into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, That is a thing we have never heard of under our present Constitution. We certainly have never given the Lord Lieutenant control over finance. We do not know how long this 583 may continue. According to the Debate this afternoon it may continue for twenty-seven months. During that time the sums that will have to be paid will amount to more than £10,000,000. It is a very serious matter to put into the hands of any one man the control of payments amounting to £10,000,000. I do not believe that this Parliament ever means to sanction such an arrangement as that. In the Bill of two years ago we took particular care that the control of finance should remain with the House of Commons. We have taken particular care in the earlier Clauses of this Bill that the control of Irish finance is to remain with the Irish House of Commons, but here we have a suggestion that for possibly two years and three months the control of Irish finance should be neither with the House of Commons here nor with the House of Commons in Ireland, but is to be put into the hands of one man. I suppose it is suggested that he would act under advice, but I do not know whether it is to be of the Imperial Treasury or of the Joint Exchequer Board or of the Irish Treasury. I can foresee that there will be very many difficulties and many grave monetary questions arising in the course of two and a half years, and it is not fair to the Lord Lieutenant or to the Joint Exchequer Board that at a time like that they should not be controlled either by the Irish House of Commons or by this House. The matter seems so serious that until we hear some explanation it is difficult to see any way out of it. I have been trying to see what way there is out of it. You must, of course, get over the transfer time in a case like this, but it seems to me that the Government have come to no decision on the subject, nor have they established any practical means by which control can be secured.
When any business is transferred as a going concern, the first thing that is done is to pitch on some date. It does not matter what that date is, whether it is a date ahead or a date past or the date the agreement is signed, but from that date the new concern takes it over. That is not the case here. The first principle of the transfer of any business is to fix the date, but that is the one thing the Government have carefully avoided doing in this Bill. They could not tell when the Bill would come into force, because that is an unknown date, but they could have said it should come into force six months, one month, or a year after a particular 584 date. If you have a fixed date, then the matter becomes a business transaction and is comparatively simple, because for all payments in and out from that date there is a line drawn. I suppose that the greater part of the money which comes in will have to be transferred, and the Joint Exchequer Board will ask for the greater bulk of these funds. I am sure they will want them. They will not be able to pay the full sums, and I think the Irish services will consequently be to some extent starved, and there will be considerable difficulties and no end of trouble through not knowing the date at which the balance is struck and the date when the full payments are to be made to the Irish Exchequer. We have the Exchequer here, and that is, of course, the Treasury. The Irish Exchequer is an unknown body, and I do not see how the Irish Exchequer can be set up until the Irish Parliament is at work. We have here an Exchequer of permanent officials who have been long at their work. The Treasury has the complete confidence of the country, but you could not start a new Treasury with new men that no one knows anything of and give it enormous financial powers straight away without taking a grave responsibility. Now there is no one to take that responsibility, because the Irish Parliament will not be established.
I cannot see how you can establish a Treasury there which would be responsible to anyone, or which would meet with any recognition until the Irish Parliament is established, and until they have got their Cabinet and their Chancellor of the Exchequer, until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed these permanent Treasury officials, and the Treasury is there as a body which people can look to, and which is under the control of the Irish Parliament. That cannot be done for certainly a year and a half, or it may be two years. I believe fifteen months would be the shortest time. So that the very way this Clause runs it is absolutely impossible to work it. I should be very glad to hear how these steps can logically be taken so as to carry the matter out. You have a body which is to be appointed by another body which is not in existence, and the first body has to take steps. Ordinary steps can, if necessary, be undone, but these are financial steps which involve the payment of huge sums of money, so that you have a body which is to be established by another body which does not exist, and which is to 585 have this enormous control of these financial responsibilities. Unless you have considerable Amendments—unless there are Amendments that we know nothing of which will establish this Treasury, and if these payments have to be made before the Joint Exchequer Board has to arrive at these sums, I do not see how the Clause can possibly work, and on these grounds I strongly urge that, pending this time, when there can be no responsible body which, at any rate, will meet with credit and be recognised, the English House of Commons is the proper body which ought to control this matter. We fix the date so that we shall have control for the longest or the shortest period, and we must accept the responsibility of all these payments, and if anything goes wrong in regard to them it is our responsibility and we shall have to take the burden of it. We shall have to bear the loss if it is a loss. If we have no responsibility, who should bear the loss I cannot say, but it is not fair to put it on bodies like this which will be created in such a manner as I have suggested. We must ourselves take the full responsibility. The House of Commons is responsible for the Irish money until the Irish House of Commons is established. On these grounds I strongly urge that some such Amendment as this ought to be inserted in the Bill.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)As the Committee is aware, when the system contemplated by the Bill comes into full operation, the method of working will be as follows: The Irish services will have been transferred to the newly-formed Irish Government, and they will be paid for out of the Irish Exchequer. The Irish Exchequer will receive the greater part of its revenue, perhaps some £6,000,000, from the Imperial Exchequer under the name of the Transferred Sum. The Imperial Exchequer receiving all the Irish revenue, which now* amounts to about £9,000,000, out of this £9,000,000 about £6,000,000 will be paid back to Ireland. The Joint Exchequer Board will have determined what the right sum is to pay to the Irish Exchequer under the provisions of the Bill, and then the Irish Parliament will, like our Parliament does, vote by an appropriation, and out of these revenues, the sums which are required for the purposes of the year. But at the outset the whole of this machinery cannot possibly be brought simultaneously into operation. In the first place, the Irish Executive must 586 be set up and the Irish services transferred. But it is only when the Irish Executive is set up that the Joint Exchequer Board can be established, because two of the members of the Joint Exchequer Board are representatives of the Irish Treasury. Therefore when there is no Irish Treasury there can be no Joint Exchequer Board. The Joint Exchequer Board when it comes into operation must take some time to consider the many questions into which it will have to go in order to determine what is the proper amount of the Transferred Sum, and therefore if we were to have no provision such as that which appears in this Clause the Irish Executive would be in this position, that they would have come into existence, and would be responsible for Irish services, but they would have no money at all, except such incidental revenue as might come from the Post Office and other minor sources of revenue. They would have no revenue at all from their main sources of revenue pending the decision by the Joint Exchequer Board of the many financial and statistical problems with which they would have to deal. Therefore it is quite obvious that some provision must be made for enabling them to carry on meantime, and the obvious course is that, immediately on its formation, the Joint Exchequer Board shall authorise payment out of the Treasury of some moderate sum as payment on account to enable the Irish Government to proceed in the meantime. Of course, the Joint Exchequer Board will be very careful not to authorise a sum so large as to be likely to overstep the total of the Transferred Sum for the year, but any limitation which it might be thought desirable to place upon them would not necessarily involve that the Irish services should be starved because the Grant on account, might only cover a period, say, of two, three, or four months, while it would be safe for the Joint Exchequer Board to authorise any sum which would be less than the whole of the Transferred Sum for the year, so that possibly they will vote something very much within the possible charge which may fall upon the Exchequer.
Then the hon. Member says that this Grant on account is to deal with the period between the Act coming into operation and the establishment of an Irish Executive, and the period when the Irish Parliament would come into existence. The first Sub-section has nothing whatever to do with the Irish Parliament, and whether the Irish Parliament comes into existence 587 simultaneously with the Irish Executive, or whether it comes into existence six months later does not in the least affect the first Sub-section. The first Sub-section simply deals with the period which will elapse while the Joint Exchequer Board is deliberating on what is the proper amount of the Transferred Sum for the year, and the existence or non-existence of the Irish Parliament has nothing whatever to do with the matter. Then the hon. Member says that the right body to have control over this question as to what should be the amount of the grant on account is not the Joint Exchequer Board, but the House of Commons. I fail to see why. The House of Commons will have nothing to say, under the provisions of the Bill, as to what shall be the total amount of the Transferred Sum for the year. That is left to the Joint Exchequer Board to determine on the precise lines which are laid down by the Bill. In the first year it will be the cost of the Irish services. They merely have to calculate what is the cost of the Irish services, and it is left to the Joint Exchequer Board to determine whether the sum which will conform to the terms of this Act is a sum of £6,000,000, or £6,250,000, or £6,300,000, or whatever it may be. It is left to them and to them alone, and the House of Commons will not be called upon to decide anything in connection with that. But now comes the hon. Member, who says that although Parliament will have decided by this Act that the House of Commons shall have nothing to say as to the whole sum, when it is merely a small portion to be granted on account this House of Commons is to intervene and say what proportion of the whole is to be granted on account. That surely is a very unreasonable proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
§ Mr. FELLIt is until the Irish Exchequer appointed by the Irish House of Commons deals with the matter.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNeither the. Irish Exchequer, nor the Irish House of Commons, nor the Imperial House of Commons, will decide the matter. It is a matter for determination by the Joint Exchequer Board, and if that Board have to say what the whole amount is to be, whether it is £6,000,000 or £6,250,000, surely they should say whether the grant on account should be £1,000,000 or £1,250,000, and there is no reason to call in this House of Commons to decide the lesser sum when 588 you do not call it in to decide the greater sum. As to Sub-section (2), the hon. Member says that until the Irish Parliament comes into existence, you ought not to leave the Lord Lieutenant to decide upon the expenditure of the money. Sub-section (2) deals with an entirely different matter. Sub-section (1) deals with the sum which the Treasury may pay on account into the Irish Exchequer pending the determination of the Transferred Sum by the Joint Exchequer Board. Sub-section (2) deals with the spending of that money in Ireland, whatever the amount may be. In normal circumstances, as I have pointed out, the spending of any money by the Irish Treasury would naturally depend upon an Act passed by the Irish Legislature, and no expenditure could be authorised unless it was authorised by an Irish Act of Parliament. What is to occur during the first few months when the Irish Parliament may not be in existence, or when the Irish Parliament has not had time to pass the initial Acts? Necessarily the initial stages of setting up the Legislature must take some time. There will be formal proceedings which will take some time, and it may be some weeks before an Appropriation Act can be passed. What is to be done, in the meantime? The Irish Exchequer cannot be left without money, and clearly ex hypothesi the Irish Parliament is not in a position to authorise it. There must be some means of bridging the intervening period, and surely it is unreasonable to ask this House of Commons to decide upon the preliminary expenditure which the Irish Parliament will have to incur—to call in the Imperial House of Commons, which will have no knowledge of the circumstances, to pass what is really an Irish Appropriation Bill dealing with a short period such as this.
In this matter we have followed precedent whenever a new Parliament has been set up in other parts of the British Dominions. As regards South Africa and Australia, you find a provision in each Act to the effect that until an Appropriation Bill can be passed by the new Parliament, and for a limited time after the meeting of that Parliament, the Governor-General shall be authorised to expend such money as may be necessary for carrying on the public services. In the Acts dealing with these Dominions there is a Clause precisely similar to that which we are asking the House to pass now. The same authority which we ask the House to give to the Lord Lieutenant has been given to 589 the Governor-General of South Africa and the Governor-General of Australia. [An HON. MEMBER: "You give it to the Joint Exchequer Board."] No, no, we are here putting in an additional check which is not included in the Constitutions of those Dominions, because there the Governor-General has absolute power. Here the Lord Lieutenant has only power to spend such money as is authorised by the Joint Exchequer Board, and so, if anything, we are imposing a limitation in the case of Ireland which is not to be found with respect to South Africa and Australia, The hon. Member's Amendment does not apply to Sub-section (2), and if it were inserted in the Clause it would not in the least have the effect of putting the determination of this matter into the hands of the House of Commons. Even if an Amendment were moved on Sub-section (2), I should resist it for the reasons I have given.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe right hon. Gentleman's arguments seem to me in many respects to confirm the necessity of my hon. Friend's Amendment. He argues that this control is not necessary in respect of the Joint Exchequer Board under this Clause, because that Board will make advances within the total sum, which will be £6,000.000. But where is it provided in the Bill that the sum which the Joint Exchequer Board might direct the Treasury to pay to the Irish Exchequer shall be within the total of £6,000,000?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI did not say it was. The hon. Member is, I am sure, aware that there are no figures in the Bill. There are calculations which have been laid before Parliament in the White Paper which indicate that the sum will probably be about £6,000,000.
§ Sir J. D. REESI am aware of that, and I am also aware that these calculations are not binding on any authority under the Bill. They might, so far as the action of the Joint Exchequer Board is concerned, not exist. Where is it provided that the Joint Exchequer Board's action should be limited to the comparatively small sum which the right hon. Gentleman stated it was intended that the Irish Exchequer should get, and where is it provided that they could not double the amount? I am not suggesting that this would happen, but surely in dealing with legislation there should be sufficient precision in dealing with a point like that. The right hon. Gentleman said in so many words, "Oh, the 590 Irish Parliament does not matter." He ignored the difficulty in regard to the Joint-Exchequer Board, which is to be brought into existence without reference to any limits. He said that the Joint Exchequer Board would be careful in its action, or used words to the effect that it was not likely to take any excessive action which might be fairly criticised from the financial point of view. The House has no assurance of that, and even if the Joint Exchequer Board had such good intentions as the right hon. Gentleman credited it with, it would for the purposes of legislation have no power whatever. The right hon. Gentleman presumes that everything will be for the best in the best of all possible Irish worlds. On this side of the House the contrary assumption prevails. I would submit to the Committee that it is absolutely necessary in matters of legislation to provide against every kind of villainy, even although you might not think such would be likely to be practised. It is the business of acute lawyers to pick holes in these Sections, and they will do it with great ease judging by our experience to-day when the Prime Minister had to throw over his colleagues to our satisfaction, although not to theirs. Our desire is to make these Sections proof against criticism before they are actually passed. The right hon. Gentleman said how unreasonable to say the House of Commons must exercise the jurisdiction provided by this Section—a veto, let us say, over part of this amount, when it does not exercise it over the whole. But that is not my hon. Friend's Amendment. He wants that the House of Commons should have a veto over the whole, and that this power should not exist without limitation in respect of the Joint Exchequer Board. That argument therefore is not pertinent to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The financial prospects of this Bill are bad enough for the United Kingdom, which will have to provide for the defence of Ireland and the deficit in the accounts, and surely that makes it all the more necessary that it should have its eyes opened during the interval to the legislative effect of the provision that the Treasury will make such payments to the Irish Exchequer as the Joint Exchequer Board may direct. There is no limitation whatever: It does not say any amount or any time.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt says "may make such payments on account of that sum."
§ Sir J. D. REESThe sum is nowhere limited in the Bill.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELWe are not debating that part of the Bill, but it is limited by the present cost of Irish services.
§ Sir J. D. REESIt is too late for the right lion. Gentleman to say that we are not discussing that part of the Bill. If there is any Section which places any limitation on the power of the Joint Exchequer Board I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would refer me to it. If there is not, is it not completely unreasonable, in respect of what is really a temporary accommodation, that this House should confer upon this body, to the appointment of which such doubt attaches and to the composition of which there is such serious objection, powers which are absolutely unlimited? Where is the limitation?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIn Clause 14, Sub-section (2a).
§ Sir J. D. REESWhere is it provided that that limitation applies to this Clause? It is not a matter of course that a limitation which may be placed in a particular Section of the Bill necessarily governs the provisions of another Section in which the words are of an unlimited character. I think I understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. He is convinced of the good intentions of the Government and the Joint Exchequer Board and the propriety with which this Bill gives expression to those intentions, but assuming that those intentions are good still, we, have to consider each particular Clause and Sub-section as giving proper expression to those intentions. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked three times and has entirely failed to show that there is any limitation to this Clause. He referred to Clause 14, Sub-section (2a). That deals with the determination of the Transferred Sum. When that Clause was under consideration the right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing in it, that permanent officials will merely supply the Joint Exchequer Board with figures which they will accept as a matter of course. Assuming that to be so there is nothing to show that it is going to be any sum whatever. The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to me to supply an argument positively in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I still hope that he will give the Committee 592 some valid answer to the very serious objections raised to this Section.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONThe question now before the Committee is whether the Treasury or this House is to retain control over the advancement of certain sums on account from the Transferred Sum pending the determination of that sum definitely. The question becomes so much the more important from the fact that this transitory condition is likely to last, with the alterations lately introduced into the Bill, for a much longer period than was at one time contemplated. It is possible that this transitory condition may last something like twenty seven months. Considering this question it is very desirable that we should know when this Joint Exchequer Board is likely to come into existence. It is quite clear that it is not likely to come into existence on the passing of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that obviously the machinery for carrying this Act into operation could not be all set up at once, that the Irish Executive would come first and the Joint Exchequer Board would follow afterwards. The question is how long afterwards? There is no provision whatever to say when this Joint Exchequer Board is to be set up. There is certainly no connection between the date of setting up the Irish Executive and setting up the Joint Exchequer Board, and, for all we know, the Exchequer Board, like so many of the other arrangements under this Bill, is going to have a birth date to itself. The question when it is to come into existence is a very important one, because otherwise you may have a considerable period elapsing between the setting up of the Irish Executive and this Joint Exchequer Board, and the question is, Who is going to authorise payment during that interval? If we are to take what appears to be the meaning of the Section, I should gather that during the interval between the appointment of the Irish Executive and the setting up of the Joint Exchequer Board it is possible that the Treasury might have to go without the advice of the Board.
Whether that is so or not, it is evidently a matter of some moment, and the question is one on which we ought to have some explanation. What is interesting in the whole of this discussion is to take this proposal in connection with the other proposal which has been made, and to note that during the first twenty-seven months, possibly, after the passing of this Act, the 593 Treasury is absolutely to have complete control of the purse, while the Executive, which is to have complete control of the spending of this money, is to be under no control whatever and subject to no questioning in either House in either country. It seems to me that is to put the whole of the power, both of supplying the money and of spending it, in a position totally unparalleled in any Government. You are setting up a body which is to be under no control of any kind by any House of Parliament, and you are taking it away from the control of this House before the other House is in existence, and, therefore, you are to have an Executive which is under no control whatever and subject to no criticism in cither Parliament in regard to its administrative or other Acts. That is a further reason why this House should keep a steady control over both the administration and the supplying of the funds which this Executive has to spend.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLAlthough the facts which are under discussion here are perhaps somewhat intricate, it appears to me that the point in issue between the two sides of the House is a very simple one. It appears to be admitted by the Government, and admitted on both sides, that there would, at all events, be a period during which payments will be required into the Irish Exchequer, whereas it will not have been determined what actual sums are due to that Exchequer under this Bill. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment says that these sums, which it is admitted on all hands must be paid on account, should be under the control of this House, whereas the Government propose in the Bill that they should be under the control of the Joint Exchequer Board. That is a comparatively simple point. In answer to the case made by my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman opposite used a rather dogmatic expression, if I may say so. He said that the obvious course is for the Joint Exchequer Board to authorise payments on account. In other words, it is obvious, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the course of the Government is a right one, and that the proposal of my hon. Friend is an absurd and unreasonable one. What does the Postmaster-General say in support of the position which he takes up? He said that the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board are to determine what the Transferred Sum will eventually be, and they are to determine that by a calculation—
594 Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present——
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI was just pointing out that the case of the Postmaster-General is that the functions of the Joint Exchequer Board are to determine what the Transferred Sum shall be by calculating, in substance, the present cost of Irish services. He says that because the Joint Exchequer Board have to make a calculation as to the total cost of the Irish services, therefore it is obvious, if the payment on account is to be made, that the proper body to determine what that sum shall be is the Joint Exchequer Board. I entirely fail to follow the reason of the right hon. Gentleman. After all, until you have a whole of some sort, you cannot have a proportion of the whole, and I do not see why the Joint Exchequer Board, until they have made the calculation and know the cost of the Irish services, should be in any better position than any other body to determine what proportion should be paid at any particular time. This House would have as good, and even better, material to go upon than the Joint Exchequer Board. The right hon. Gentleman says that the only part of the Transferred Sum which is to be taken into account for this purpose, and which is set out in Clause 14 (a)—that is to say, such a sum as may be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board—would, under this Act, represent the net cost of the Irish services to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the second item, the sum of £500,000, which is also to form part of the Transferred Sum, should not be taken into account by the Joint Exchequer Board, or by this House, in determining what sums are to be paid on account? If the right hon. Gentleman accedes to that, then I gather that he was not quite accurate in the observations he made in answer to my hon. Friend when he said it was only the first part.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI did not say "only."
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLAnyhow we have these two items to make up the sum—the cost of the Irish services and the sum of £500,000. What about the third item? I suppose the third item is the taxes imposed by the Irish Parliament in Ireland, I and that, I suppose, obviously cannot 595 come into the Transferred Sum during the first year. I would like to know on what date the first payment of the Transferred Sum due from the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Exchequer is to be made. Is the first payment of the Transferred Sum to be due as from the date of the passing of this Act or from what other date, because it appears to me to be very material from this point of view at what time the first payment is to become due? There is no reason, so far as I understand the varying Amendments which have been put down to these Clauses, making it rather difficult to follow the Bill from day to day, why the passing of the Act on the appointed date for the first meeting of the Irish Parliament, any one of these three crucial dates, should coincide with the beginning of the financial year in Ireland. Therefore it is from that point of view I think exceedingly important for us to know whether the Transferred Sum or any part of it is due, or rather I would like to ask from what date any part of the Transferred Sum is due. Still, that does not really materially affect the point as to whether this House or the Joint Exchequer Board should be the controlling power over the sums that are paid on account, whatever that period may be. I do not think that the Postmaster-General has really shown us any reason against the proposal of my hon. Friend that those sums to be paid on account ought to be under the control of this House. The right hon. Gentleman said that in this particular they were following the Colonial precedent.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELSubsection (2).
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI suppose it equally applies, as far as it goes, to Sub-section (1). I understood that the principle the right hon. Gentleman went on was because in Colonial cases we had put in powers enabling the Governor to pay sums on account during an interregnum while a Constitution was being set up. Whether that applies to Sub-section (1) or (2), surely in either case the answer to it is that this House has never had control of the finances of those Colonies and no familiarity with the circumstances, whereas in this case we are dealing with finances with which this House has had to deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House of Commons could have no knowledge of the subject, but this is 596 the body which, from year to year, has had to deal with the Irish Estimates and control the whole of the cost of Irish services and administration of Irish finance. Therefore this is the body which above all others is familiar with the circumstances, and ought to be above all others competent to deal with the arrangements of the financial situation during this interregnum. On the other hand, the Joint Exchequer Board will have no such knowledge, because ex hypothesi before they can determine anything in connection with the finances in this Bill they have to go through the calculation to arrive at the present cost of Irish services, or rather the cost at the passing of the Act. Until they have made that calculation they have no material at their disposal for saying what sums ought to be paid over. The only principle upon which anybody, whether it is this House or the Joint Exchequer Board, can go is to the actual requirements of Irish administration from time to time. I do submit that, having regard to that fact, and also to the principle, which surely ought to guide us in the absence of any other strong controlling reason, that this House is the guardian of the finances of this country, and that this country, until the Irish Constitution is in full working order, should remain not only in control, but responsible for the finances of Irish government, that then we ought to follow that principle, and that the Government should give way a little and accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend and enable this House during that comparatively short period, to maintain its control over the finances of Ireland.
§ Mr. HEWINSI think that the Postmaster-General might perhaps be better able to meet the criticisms of my hon. Friend if, before the end of this Debate, he stated quite clearly and precisely the steps by which the Irish Government will be brought into existence. He began his speech by telling us what was to take place on the full operation of the Act. What we want to know is the money arrangements and the other steps that have to be taken during the time that must elapse before the Act is in full operation. The Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I suppose that this Bill will be started by the issue of Orders in Council directing the Lord Lieutenant to take certain steps, and on the instruction of the Ministers here, I presume that preliminary steps will be taken for the setting up of the Government in Ireland. Do we pay for 597 that, and if we pay for that is that a deduction which will be made under Clause 43 from the sums afterwards paid over to the Irish Treasury. When we start a new organisation of this kind I venture to say the first and most important question we have to consider is where you are going to get the money, and how you are going to get it for taking the preliminary steps in connection with that organisation. The money is to be charged against the Transferred Sum. We do not know at present when the amount of that Transferred Sum will be ascertained. Clause 43 says "pending the determination of the Transferred Sum." By "determination" does the Postmaster-General mean the presentation of a Report from the Joint Exchequer Board, showing that this or that is the ascertained amount of the Transferred Sum, or does he mean the issue of some Report showing approximately what is the amount of the Transferred Sum, or what does he mean? If he means anything in the nature of a full and accurate determination of the Transferred Sum, then I agree with what was said by one of my hon. Friends, that the period set by this part of the Clause is absolutely indefinite, because under the Clauses we have already discussed there are a great many points, some of which will have to be referred to judicial inquiry to be determined before that can be ascertained; or does the phrase "pending determination" mean, pending the full ascertainment of the Transferred Sum, that there is no limit whatever in this Clause as to the arrangements laid down? I would be grateful to the Postmaster-General if he would say whether that interpretation is correct or not.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI do not think it arises on this Amendment at all.
§ Mr. HEWINSSurely I may be allowed to develop my argument in my own way. I ask the Postmaster-General a question which I think is very relevant. If he cannot answer it I will pass on. This is to be done by the Joint Exchequer Board, but the Joint Exchequer Board depends on the Irish Treasury. The Irish Treasury unquestionably depends on the starting of the Irish Parliament. You cannot have an Irish Treasury in the Parliamentary sense in which that phrase is always used without responsibility to Parliament, and therefore it comes to this, that you cannot proceed with this preliminary inquiry, which is to settle the question whether this 598 Amendment is a desirable Amendment or not, until you have settled this very remarkable question of what steps are to be taken to set going the Act, the very starting of which depends on the completion of these arrangements. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman means by the setting up of an Irish Treasury merely a departmental body, a bureaucratic body, without responsibility to the Irish Parliament. All those questions are relevant to the point whether we should introduce into this Amendment the phrase suggested by my hon. Friend "made with the sanction of the House of Commons," because, clearly, if my interpretation of this Clause and this Subsection is correct, then the Government are starting a system which I venture to say is without precedent. If there is any principle upon which we have existed in the course of our financial history, it is upon the responsibility of Parliament. I can assume from the silence of the Postmaster-General that he is proposing to set up some office which he calls an Irish Exchequer, but not in the Parliamentary sense an Exchequer. I suppose it is an office w here you will find officials; but who is to sign the cheques, who will be really responsible for the issue of this money?
It must be remembered in this connection that the time during which this defective arrangement may hold is absolutely indefinite. It is pending the determination by the Exchequer Board to what is the Transferred Sum. During all that time, unless there is some provision like that suggested by my hon. Friend, you may have those large payments made by the British Treasury to be debited against a sum which we have not ascertained and which is to be expended and devoted to purposes we know nothing about and that without any Parliamentary criticism, I cannot conceive anything more revolutionary from the English point of view. It is the bounden duty of the Government to tell us the terms upon which and what are the steps by which they propose to set up an Irish Parliament. Why have they not issued a memorandum; why do they throw down this confused Bill? I think we never had a more melancholy exhibition of ignorance and incapacity than we have had this afternoon; they do not know what is the meaning of a phrase in it; they cannot tell us who are to decide upon the expenditure of this vast sum of money without Parliamentary control or criticism merely on the ipse dixit of 599 Government officers. It is certainly foreign to our Parliamentary system and I entreat the Government out of mere courtesy, if nothing else, to tell us what are the precise steps the Government propose to take; what is the order and what are the relative dates, in setting up an Irish Government. Then we shall know where we are. In any case it is perfectly clear that there must be a long period during which there will be no opportunity whatever for Parliamentary criticism or control, and that shows we have a right to ask them to introduce some provision such as that suggested by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am sorry I cannot respond to the appeal which the hen. Member addresses to me. He says that out of courtesy I ought to do so. I should like to do so, but I am afraid that if I were to enter into the matters to which he has referred I would be immediately ruled out of order. The sole question before the Committee is whether or not the Vote on Account to be paid to the new authority is to be sanctioned by the Exchequer Board or by the House of Commons.
§ Mr. CASSELThe more I look at this Clause, the more I am astounded to discover how little the Government understand their own Bill. They have labelled this Clause in the margin as "temporary," but do they think it is temporary? I say it is permanent. I will deal with the first ascertainment of the Transferred Sum. I will show subsequently that the question of ascertainment in future is also covered by this Clause. With reference to ascertainment, in the first place you must know clearly what are Irish services. That is a most difficult question of law. We have inserted a provision that such questions may be referred to the Privy Council. You must, in the first place, ascertain what is the Transferred Sum, but in order to do that you have to go to the Privy Council to ascertain what are Irish services. There will be a number of points upon which the Exchequer Board will have bonâ fide doubt, and they will go to the Privy Council. How long will it take the Privy Council to decide? They have got some other business to do besides dealing with the numerous questions arising from the Clauses of this Bill, and it may be a year or two before the preliminary matters are ascertained upon which this calculation depends. That is the first year, but then there are the subsequent years. The Gov- 600 ernment seem to be of opinion that once you have ascertained the Transferred Sum you have a constant quantity. If that is their opinion, they do not understand their own Bill, because in subsequent years, whenever the Irish Parliament reduces the Imperial taxes, you have a most difficult calculation to make, depending upon legal and other considerations, as to what is the amount which is to be deducted from the original Transferred Sum in order to find the Transferred Sum for that year. And again, whenever the Irish Parliament increases the Imperial taxes, you have got a process which almost defies calculation in order to arrive at the Transferred Sum of that year. Therefore the question of determining the Transferred Sum is not a temporary provision, as it is labelled in this Bill, but is a provision lasting for ever and ever—lasting a long time after the Irish Parliament is set up and after it is in complete working order. If the Government think it is a temporary matter, they have again misunderstood, as they have from start to finish, the provisions of their own Bill. The Postmaster-General says he cannot give an explanation because it would be out of order, but it would not be out of order for him to give an explanation of why this is labelled a temporary provision; whereas I have shown that it is absolutely permanent.
These payments are to be made by the British Treasury, but they are not obligatory; they are at the discretion of the British Treasury. That discretion should not be left to the Treasury, but should be under the control of this House. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question, Is there any other matter upon which the British Treasury exercises its discretion which is not in the control of this House? If he can cite a precedent of that kind, he may be able to cite some precedent for the proposal in this Bill. The proposal here gives discretion for all time. It is not temporary: it is permanent and perpetual; and I say that either the Imperial Parliament or the Irish Parliament should exercise control. Moreover, there arises now the old question which we were discussing before, as to whether you can set up a Joint Exchequer Board before the Irish Parliament. I agree that we have already discussed that question this afternoon, but it seems to me a very difficult question of construction depending upon Clause 4, as to whether under Clause 4 you can create an Irish Department without 601 an Irish Act of Parliament. It depends upon the words "subject thereto, by the Lord Lieutenant." Whether that means that the Lord Lieutenant can set up a Treasury without Parliament is a very difficult point of construction. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is right, that the Lord Lieutenant can set up a Department without an Irish Act of Parliament. Whether that be so or not, I think my hon. Friend was justified in asking some explanation of it, and an explanation relevant to this Amendment, because we are in the Amendment asking how the provision is going to work. If you cannot set up an Exchequer Board before you set up an Irish Parliament then the whole of this provision becomes unworkable for the interim period, because it is intended to be practically for the interim period, and until you have a Parliament. It goes much further than that as a matter of fact! If during the interim period you cannot set up an Irish Treasury what becomes of the whole of this provision? I agree that it is a difficult question of the construction of Clause 4, which like so many of the provisions of this Bill is worded in unnecessarily obscure language on a point vital to the whole Bill. I must say I really think that the Government ought to have treated the House a little better than they have in introducing Clauses in undigested language difficult to understand.
10.0 P.M.
Two or three points I should like to ask an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on, or perhaps the Irish Secretary will be able to enlighten me? The first is as to whether this is really a temporary provision, or is it a permanent one? In the first place, it seems to me it may take a very long time for the ascertainment even of the first year. You have not got an end of it then, because you have to have the determination of the Transferred Sum for subsequent years. Whenever the Irish Parliament either reduces Imperial taxation or increases it, or whenever there is a transferred service, you will have the question of determination arising. In the case of the constabulary it clearly arises not less than six years after the passing of the Act or the appointed day. There, again, you will have a question of determination of the Transferred Sum within the full period after the Irish Parliament is established, and when the whole thing is in working order you will have still this extraordinary provision that the British Treasury, not 602 controlled by the British House of Commons, and not controlled by the Irish House of Commons, but by this body, will have this power. My second point is, if the British Treasury has a discretion in this matter, why on earth should not the House of Commons have a right of controlling that discretion of the Treasury? The third point I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is as to the determination of the first year that this Trans f erred Sum becomes payable. It is calculated as at the passing of the Act. From start to finish of this Bill there is not a single word or syllable which can make it clear as from what date this £6,000,000 per year starts. That is a vital and important point, because they may begin, to pay the £6,000,000 a year or fifteen months later, and that makes a very important difference from the point of view of the British Treasury. Before we put this outside the control of the House of Commons we ought to have some clear explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThree questions have been put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and perhaps it is only courteous that I should reply. This Clause is temporary in its character, and only for the first year. After the first, year Clause 17, Sub-section (1), will apply. This enables the Transferred Sum to be paid to the Irish Exchequer at such times and manner and according to such regulations as the Joint Exchequer Board may direct. It is only a necessary provision to deal with the case of the first year when no Transferred Sum has been determined at all. As regards the discretion of the Imperial Treasury, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that the word "may" in Acts of Parliament mean "shall" in the proper case. Where the Exchequer Board determines to pay over an amount the Treasury will pay that sum as a consequence, unless there should be a valid and obvious reason to the contrary. As to the third point, the date when the Transferred Sum will be payable—from what date will the cost of the Irish services begin to run? It will be from the time of the appointed day as fixed when the Irish services are transferred to the control of the Irish Parliament. The Transferred Sum will be payable from that date.
§ Mr. CASSELWith reference to the answer on the first point, Clause 17 does not seem to me to touch it at all, and 603 Clause 43 is absolutely general, in any case where you have the determination, still certain payments on account are to be made as provided by Clause 43, not as provided by Clause 17. There are no words whatever in Clause 43 which limit that Clause to ascertaining the first ascertainment of the Transferred Sum.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has discovered any limitation of the amount?
§ Question put, "That those words be-there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 286.
605| Division No. 420.] | AYES. | [10.5 p.m. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goulding Edward Alfred | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Rawson, Col. Richard H. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Barnston, Harry | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Barrie, H. T. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Bird, Alfred | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Boyton, James | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Houston, Robert Paterson | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Butcher, John George | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Cassel, Felix | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lewisham, Viscount | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Chambers, James | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Macmaster, Donald | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Malcolm, Ian | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Eyres-Monscll, Bolton M. | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Mount, William Arthur | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Younger, Sir George |
| Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Goldman, C. S. | Peel, Captain R. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Perkins, Walter F. | Fell and Sir J. D. Rees. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dickinson, W. H. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Burke, E. Haviland- | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Adamson, William | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Duffy, William J. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Byles, Sir William Pollard | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Chancellor, Henry George | Elverston, Sir Harold |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Clancy, John Joseph | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Clough, William | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Barnes, G. N. | Clynes, John R. | Falconer, James |
| Barton, William | Collins, G. P. Greenock) | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Ffrench, Peter |
| Bentham, G. J. | Cotton, William Francis | Field, William |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Crean, Eugene | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward |
| Black, Arthur W | Crooks, William | Fitzgibbon, John |
| Boland, John Pius | Crumley, Patrick | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Cullinan, John | Gilhooly, James |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Gill, A. H. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Ginnell, Laurence |
| Brace, William | Dawes, J. A. | Gladstone, W. G. C. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | De Forest, Baron | Glanville, H. J. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Delany, William | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Goldstone, Frank |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Devlin, Joseph | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) |
| Greig, Col. J. W. | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Curdy, C. A. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | M'Kean, John | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Guiney, Patrick | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Gulland, John William | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Hackett, John | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Martin, Joseph | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Hancock, J. G. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Rowlands, James |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meagher, Michael | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Hardie, J. Keir | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Millar, James Duncan | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molloy, Michael | Sheeny, David |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Shortt, Edward |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Mooney, John J. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morrell, Philip | Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Muldoon, John | Snowden, Philip |
| Hazleton, Richard | Munro, R. | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) | Nannetti, Joseph p. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Needham, Christopher T. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Nolan, Joseph | Sutton, John E. |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Norman, Sir Henry | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hinds, John | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Tennant, Harold John |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nuttall, Harry | Thomas, James Henry |
| Hodge, John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Hogge, James Myles | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Holt, Richard Durning | ||
| Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | O'Doherty, Philip | Trevelyan, Charles philips |
| Hughes, S. L. | O'Donnell, Thomas | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Dowd, John | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Ogden, Fred | Wadsworth, J. |
| Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | O'Grady, James | Walsh, J. (Cork, South) |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Malley, William | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Shee, James John | Waring, Walter |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Outhwaite, R. L. | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Jowett, F. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Joyce, Michael | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Keating, Matthew | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Pointer, Joseph | Wiles, Thomas |
| King, J. (Somerset, North) | Pollard, Sir George H. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Power, Patrick Joseph | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Leach, Charles | Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Pringle, William M. R. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Radford, G. H. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Lundon, Thomas | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Younfl, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Lynch, A. A. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Redmond, Wlillam (Clare, E.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| McGhee, Richard | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Rendall, Athelstan | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Richards, Thomas | Geoffrey Howard and Mr. Webb. |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "payments" ["the Treasury may make such payments on account"], to insert the words "not exceeding the sum of £1,000,000." The Clause would then read:
Pending the determination of the Transferred Sums by the Joint Exchequer Board, the Treasury may make such payments 'not exceeding the sum of 606 one million pounds' on account of that sum into the Irish Exchequer as the-Joint Exchequer Board may direct.From the speech the Postmaster-General made a while ago I am rather inclined to think he will accept this Amendment, because he said that the amount which will be paid on account by the Treasury to the Irish Exchequer will be a moderate sum, and I think he said that it would be two, 607 three, or four months' amount on account. If that is so, the sum of £1,000,000 is a very substantial provision to make, and I hope it will not exceed it. The amount of the Transferred Sum, of course, will not then be ascertained, but I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the estimate, according to the White Paper of the Government, is £6,100,000 a year. But certain deductions are to be made from that, and when these deductions are made I fear the Irish Exchequer will find that, instead of £6,100,000, the amount will be a good deal less. There are certain contingent liabilities to come off that sum. For instance, there is £25,000 a year towards the salary of the Lord Lieutenant; there are the salaries and pensions of all existing judges and Civil servants under Clause 32, and then there is the superannuation for existing Irish unestablisbed Civil servants under Clause 33. These two sums alone will come to £400,000. Therefore that is a substantial sum which ought to be taken into account when we have to calculate upon what is a reasonable sum to be paid on account. The sum I take in my Amendment is £1,000,000. The date when the Transferred Sum will be ascertained and paid, as we have heard this afternoon, is an uncertain one. The Postmaster-General said this is a temporary provision only applicable to the first year. Yes, but the Government have no guarantee, and we heard this afternoon that it is quite possible under the Government Amendment to postpone it to twenty-seven months after the passing of the Act. If that is so, this temporary provision for payment on account to the Irish Treasury would have to be extended to that period. I hope, therefore, the Postmaster-General will see his way to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELRemembering our experience when the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) proposed a limitation upon the amount of money which may be spent under this Bill, I am disposed to treat this Amendment with some respect. The result, however, of the last Division gives me a confidence which in other circumstances I should not feel. I am afraid I must disappoint hon. Members who expect me to accept this Amendment by saying that the Government do not see their way to do so. It is not anticipated that there is any very great probability of a large sum of money being required on account, 608 but embarrassment might be caused in the initiation of the new scheme if any rigid limit were introduced which might not meet the circumstances of the case. The Transferred Sum is expected to be about £6,000,000, and although there are certain deductions they are not expected to amount to more in all than £380,000 at the outside, and as the Transferred Sum previous to the deductions will be rather more than £6,000,000 it would only be a little less than £6,000,000 after the deductions have been made. If the Executive has to be set up before the legislature, and if it has control over Irish services for which the money has to be found, it might be a month or two before the Irish Parliament could meet and deal with the matter, and after the Irish Parliament did meet it might be some weeks further before the Appropriation Act could be passed. It is desirable, therefore, to allow some little latitude in this respect. The sum of £1,000,000, which is all the hon. Member would allow by his Amendment, is an amount which would carry on the Irish Government for a period of two months only.
§ Mr. S. ROBERTSThat was the period which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned himself in his speech.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member quoted me as saying two, three, or four months. This Amendment would tie me down to the lowest possible period, and the result might be grave inconvenience and indeed financial deadlock might arise if such an Amendment as this were inserted in the Bill. There can be no danger in leaving the matter without this limitation, because a sum is taken on account of the Transferred Sum, and it will not be more than the Transferred Sum authorised by the Act. As the Act distinctly lays down what the Transferred Sum is to be, the Joint Exchequer Board could not possibly overstep the limit laid down by the Act. For these reasons I trust the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. FELLThe right hon. Gentleman has overlooked one or two considerations when he says that the £1,000,000 would not be sufficient. He has forgotten that the Post Office revenue comes in practically from the first day, and that would be received by the Irish Executive in addition to this £1,000,000. Then, again, there will be stamp receipts in Ireland from the very first, and under those circumstances it is 609 clear that the £1,000,000 will not be the only sum which the Joint Exchequer Board will have power to deal with. In view of these considerations I say that this Amendment is a reasonable proposal.
§ Sir J. D. REESWhen speaking on the last Amendment, I asked the right hon. Gentleman to indicate what limit there was to the payments which the Joint Exchequer Board might direct the Treasury to pay into the Irish Exchequer. He said he could not indicate any such amount, but he seemed to argue there was some understanding they would be small. Now a specific Amendment is put to him, limiting the amount to £1,000,000, he says he cannot accept it. It is perfectly obvious the right hon. Gentleman will not have any limitation whatever imposed on the amount. He himself said the word "may" in certain circumstances means "shall." He says a word that is permissive may in certain circumstances be interpreted to be imperative. I have always understood those words in Statutes were certainly not exchangeable, and that the word "may" was permissive, and could not be construed in the sense of "shall." One thing, at any rate, is perfectly clear. The Government mean that there shall be no limit to the amount which the Joint Exchequer Board may direct the British Treasury to pay into the Irish Exchequer. I pressed him upon this point on the last Amendment. I think he evaded it, but now he is brought to book
§ it is perfectly clear the Government object to any safeguard whatsoever being imposed upon the expenditure during what he calls the transitional period. This is quite in accordance with the whole conduct of the Government in dealing with public money. The right hon. Gentleman says this is a transitional period. I dispute that. Nothing is so permanent as a temporary arrangement. That is the invariable experience of every official arrangement. When an arrangement is temporary it hardens into something that is the reverse of temporary, and it becomes permanent. He showed by referring to a previous Section that this could never last for one year. That is by no means clear. It seems to me perfectly clear it might last for some months in excess of one year. What can be the objection to accepting such a limitation? I see nothing to prevent the demands under this Sub-section amounting to the whole £6,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman said only a small proportion of that amount would be demanded. If the arrangement is really a temporary and transitory one, I submit the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept this arrangement. It is because he knows it is not so, he is determined not to accept it.
§ Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes,177; Noes, 316.
613| Division No. 421.] | AYES. | [10.25 p.m. |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Fletcher, John Samuel |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Cassel, Felix | Gardner, Ernest |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Castlereagh, Viscount | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cator, John | Gibbs, George Abraham |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cautley, Henry Strother | Gilmour, Captain J. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cave, George | Goldman, Charles Sydney |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
| Barnston, H. | Chambers, James | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Barrie, H. T. | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Gretton, John |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.) | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) |
| Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Courthope, George Loyd | Hambro, Angus Valdemar |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hamersley, Alfred St. George |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Craik, Sir Henry | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) |
| Bird, Alfred | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence |
| Blair, Reginald | Doughty, Sir George | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Duke, Henry Edward | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Faber, George Denison (Clapham) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel |
| Boyton, James | Falle, Bertram Godfray | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Fell, Arthur | Hill, Sir Clement L. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Hills, John Waller (Durham) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Hill-Wood, Samuel |
| Butcher, John George | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Terrell, George (Wilts., N. W.) |
| Horner, Andrew Long | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Peel, Captain R. F. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Pole-Carew, Sir R. | Tobis, Alfred Aspinall |
| Kerry, Earl of | Pollock, E. M. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Randles, Sir John S. | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Rees, Sir J. D. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Remnant, James Farquharson | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rolleston, sir J. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Rothschild, Lionel de | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Winterton, Earl |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Sanderson, Lancelot | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Macmastcr, Donald | Sassoon, Sir Philip | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| M'Neiil, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, w.) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Malcolm, Ian | Spear, Sir John Ward | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Stanier, Beville | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Younger, Sir George |
| Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Staveley-Hill, Henry | |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Stewart, Gershom | |
| Mount, William Arthur | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Swift, Rigby | John Gordon (Londonderry) and Mr. S. Roberts. |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) | |
| Newton, Harry Kottingham | Talbot, Lord Edmund | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.) |
| Adamson, William | Cotton, William Francis | Guiney, Patrick |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Crean, Eugene | Gulland, John William |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Crooks, William | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Crumley, Patrick | Hackett, John |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Cullinan, John | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud) | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hancock, J. G. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hardie, J. Keir |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Dawes, James Arthur | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | De Forest, Baron | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Delany, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Devlin, Joseph | Harvey, T E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Barton, William | Dickinson, W. H. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Donelan, Captain A. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Doris, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Duffy, William | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Bentham, G. J | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Hayward, Evan |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Hazleton, Richard |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Elverston, Sir Harold | Helme, Sir Norval Watson |
| Boland, John Pius | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S) |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Falconer, James | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brace, William | Farrell, James Patrick | Hinds, John |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. C. E. H. |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Hodge, John |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Ffrench, Peter | Hogge, James Myles |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Field, William | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Fitzgibbon, John | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | France, G. A. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Gilhooly, James | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gill, Alfred Henry | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Ginnell, Laurence | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Gladstone, W. G. C. | John, Edward Thomas |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Glanville, Harold James | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Clough, William | Goldstone, Frank | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Clynes, John R. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Greig, Colonel James William | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B. |
| Keating, Matthew | O'Doherly, Philip | Sheehy, David |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Donnell, Thomas | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Dowd, John | Shortt, Edward |
| Kilbride, Denis | Ogden, Fred | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| King, Joseph | O'Grady, James | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Smyth, Thomas F. |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Malley, William | Snowden, Philip |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | O'Shee, James John | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.) |
| Leach, Charles | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Sutherland, John E. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Outhwaite, R. L. | Sutton, John E. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lundon, Thomas | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham) | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| McGhee, Richard | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Pointer, Joseph | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Pollard, Sir George H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| M'Callum, Sir John M. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Verney, Sir Harry |
| M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wadsworth, J. |
| M'Kean, John | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Walsh, J. (Cork, South) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Pringle, William M. R. | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Radford, George Heynes | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Manfield, Harry | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Wardle, George J. |
| Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Waring, Walter |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Reddy, Michael | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Martin, Joseph | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Meagher, Michael | Rendall, Athelstan | White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) |
| Meehan, Francis E (Leitrim, N.) | Richards, Thomas | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Millar, James Duncan | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Whyte, Alexander F. |
| Molloy, Michael | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Mooney, John J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Morrell, Philip | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Morten, Alpheus Cleophas | Robinson, Sidney | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Muldoon, John | Roch, Walter F. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Munro, Robert | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Winfrey, Richard |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Rowlands, James | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rowntree, Arnold | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | |
| Nuttall, Harry | Samuel, J. (Stockton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scanlan, Thomas | Geoffrey Howard and Mr. Webb. |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
§ 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 Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the
614§ business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided; Ayes, 319; Noes, 191.